Nature of Thought Paper

Nature of Thought Paper

Nature of Thought Paper Robert D. Morris II University of Phoenix Online PHL 251 Devon Smith * * Nature of Thought Paper * * The idea of thought in and of itself requires critical thinking to define. Thinking is an abstract concept that could take on virtually any definition provided to it. In fact, I quote something I once stated which was “Critical Thinking is our personal way of receiving information (whether it be verbal, written, visual, or received by one of our other senses), evaluating the information against our beliefs, experiences, situation, external factors and ultimately coming to a decision. (Morris, 2012). * Having stated and quoted that, there are many times when my perception of a situation does not represent the reality of the situation. One’s personal influence on how they interpret facts and information through their cultural beliefs and emotions can have drastic impacts on the output and their view of the situation. I can remember back to a recent job I applied for. I was very interested in working for SAP America. I had been supporting SAP solutions at a public utility I had been working for, but I felt like at SAP I could make a larger impact. Although SAP is a large company with many careers paths, there were two career paths I considered. The first was position as a consultant which is a position where I would help utility companies who have purchased the SAP software implement them. This was a position much closer to what I was already doing with my current company. The second and the one in which I applied for was a position where I develop solution suites and then demo the solutions to the utilities considering purchasing software to meet their business needs. Upon researching the position, I had come to a specific understanding of what the role was and it turned out the role was much different than I thought. Why? It was most likely perceptual blocks that caused the disconnection. * Before I discuss the process I used to arrive at my perception of the position, I’d like to describe what I thought the position was as opposed to what the position actually was.

First, I believed the position was a technical position that required technical skills in which the primary role is to configure the demo system, be present during demos to demonstrate the system and assist the sales team during technical discussions. * The reality of the role is that this position actually is a sales position. Technical skills are not required but can be helpful, and the individual fulfilling this role in the sales process is there to articulate the value of the software, actively participate in sales discussions, and focus more on selling than on advising, including cross-selling and up-selling. The primary disconnect is that I believed the role to be more technical where the individual supported the sales team, but the role is directly on the sales team. * The perceptual process that was used when arriving at my view of the position looked like the following: * Do I have any personal experience to draw from? * Do I have any information or documentation to review? * Can I find new or more information to review? * Is there anyone I can talk to that can provide information? * Once I gather enough information, I then evaluate the information.

I determine the source for credibility and begin to derive a position. In some cases, no matter how much information is available and how credible the source of that information, personal barriers can get in the way of honestly interpreting the information. * One of the reasons there may have been a difference in my perception of the position and the reality of the position could be that in addition to the logical components of my perceptual process, there were also components at a subconscious level influencing my perception as well.

In my psyche, I had a picture of the position and I believe I wanted that picture to hold true. Therefore, even as I obtained more knowledge and facts, I may have subconsciously readjusted the way I consumed the information in order for my perception to hold true which as a perceptual block. * When I think back as to how I came to a perceived reality of the position I was applying for, I think the personal barriers that came into play during this process were: denial and rationalization.

Personal barriers are personal beliefs or subconscious thoughts that hinder our ability to honestly and accurate assess a situation. In my case and in this situation, I attempted to rationalize what I heard and what I read into logical thoughts that met my expectations. I denied taking what I heard at face value and opted to put my own perceptive spin on the information. * Personal barriers can play a major role in thought and how one perceives reality.

In my case I suffered from rationalization and denial, but there are other barriers such as religious barriers, enculturation, projection, and anger (Thinking 2007) to name a few. It is important to recognize these barriers in advance when possible; otherwise resulting decisions can have lasting impacts. In my case I accepted a position that is not exactly what I was looking for. I have a great job, work with great people and for a great company, but the work is not what I was expecting. Some days I really enjoy it where as others not so much.

If I had a firm grasp on the role exactly as it is I may not have applied for the position, but I’m not sorry I did and I cannot complain. * REFERENCES Kirby, G. R. , & Goodpaster, J. R. , (2007) Thinking: An interdisciplinary approach to critical thinking (4th ed) Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall Morris, R. (2012, October 17). Re: Wk 1 DQ-1 “What is Critical Thinking? ” [Online forum Comment]. Retrieved from https://classroom. phoenix. edu/afm215/secure/view-thread. jspa? threadID=47848193