Have you ever worked with a supervisor that always had an answer before looking into an issue? If yes, take a few minutes to discuss what type of thinking was the supervisor using (Divergent or Convergent)?

[Anonymous]

[Wayne Griffin]

I have worked with several supervisors that have come up with answers prior to looking into an issue or gathering all of the facts. I believe this type of thinking would likely be labeled as convergent thinking. I believe there is a time and place for this type of thinking, but I have seen the divergent thinking model used more often with better results.

[Anthony Kies]

Absolutely, but I am sure we have all had that type of supervisor. Depending on the situation, but I would say that it was more of a convergent type of thinking which caused that type of a response. However, I wouldn’t say that looking into the issue was needed in every situation. I also would recommend as we have learned that you really need both divergent and convergent thinking to be able to succeed in this profession, especially when supervising in Law Enforcement. Even though we look at this as being convergent thinking, it still goes to show that at that particular time it was the best option with what that supervisor had, however when time allows to be able to utilize both thinking methods will put you further ahead in the end.

[Jeffrey Brown]

I have had a supervisor that always had the answer without looking at the issue. In fact, I may have been guilty of this myself when I had some experience, but lacked the formal training I have been exposed to over the years. The supervisor in question was certainly using convergent methods of decision making. Instead of looking at all the possibilities he usually may make a snap decision on instinct alone without taking into consideration personal bias or past experience that may have clouded his judgement.

[Jacob Taylor]

I recently transferred out of a unit with a supervisor who always had an answer before the problem was explained. He tends to be convergent in every decision he makes. The benefit of this is that I also noticed myself doing it sometimes. There is a time and place, but I believe divergent thinking and decision making is usually more beneficial overall.

[Jon Thompson]

Absolutely. This particular sergeant always had an answer before the entire problem was presented and quite often, the initial solution was incorrect because he didn’t have all of the facts. A prime example of divergent thinking, he is a self-described “dinosaur” and admits that change is difficult for him.

[Chris Eklund]

On numerous occasions supervisors tend to solve a problem but do not address any underlying issues. This is convergent thinking. The issue has potential to allow the problem to be reintroduced.

[Thomas Carroll]

Unfortunately, I have encountered that supervisor often throughout my career. Their convergent thought history often led officers to avoid that supervisor and caused them to shop around for another who would assist them in problem solving.

[Jesse Laintz]

Have you ever worked with a supervisor that always had an answer before looking into an issue? If yes, take a few minutes to discuss what type of thinking was the supervisor using (Divergent or Convergent)?

Along with the majority of responses, I too have worked for a supervisor that always had an answer before looking into an issue. This can be argued as a good thing and as a bad thing depending on the circumstances. When looking at this in a broad aspect I would lean toward this as more of a convergent type of thinking. There are times when more information and farther investigation is valid, ie a complaint that an operator has been using excessive force during call-outs. So both divergent and convergent thinking can be used in a law enforcement profession.

[Author]

Posts