Introduction
Rational model is a management approach requiring managers to adopt systematic procedure to settle on a decision. This model operates on the assumption that personal decisions are made from definite process with the chosen alternative being the most ideal among other alternatives. When the above assumption is followed, then the decision is declared rational. Thus, this reflective treatise attempts to explicitly explore how the mental models may limit and assist perceptions when meeting a person for the first time.
How Mental Models May Assist Perception
Rationality as part of the mental models comprises of aspects that may merit proactive perception development when interacting with a person for the first time. During such an event, rationality is instrumental in decision environment monitoring to review external and internal decision environment of the other party (Hannan & Freeman 2004 p. 151). Thus, I will be proactively involved in decision problem definition without misjudging the other party since rationality facilitates critical and creative thinking. When interacting with another party for the first time, personal rationality may be instrumental towards drawing achievable target objectives for pending decision and diagnosis through critical reviewing the cause and the reason for such a meeting.
This aspect is necessary in micro managing alternative solutions that are in line with the targeted solutions as expected by the other party (Weick & Quinn 1999, p. 381). Nevertheless, rationality as part of personal mental model will provide alternative evaluation through applying relevant experience to quantify the prospect of the other party during the first intra personal communication. Through proactive utilization of this critical mental model, I will be in a position to select the best among other alternatives in viewing the other party. Reflectively, the process depends on managerial abilities and persuasiveness of an individual as informed by the mental model since rationality influences proactive thinking (Senge 2006, p. 171).
Personal expectancy as an element of mental models is important and functions between individual interaction and internal attributes of the involved party. As a component of motivational functionality, personal expectancy during an interaction with another party will motivate the aspect of perception that an individual holds towards the environment of leadership and influence (Kotter 1995, p. 57). Upon internalizing this mental model, I will be in a position to expound on implementation mechanism of leadership in broad environmental spectra of the other party through transitional approach in interaction. As proposed by Senge (2006), my perception in leadership functionality influences personal behavior when communicating change or a message to the other party away from personal prejudice, stereotype, or emotions (Senge 2006, p. 176).
As opined by Senge (2006), perception reviews and offers the most ethically viable option for “proactive leadership management of behavior” (Senge 2006, p.173). This identifies the aspects of effort-performance expectancy, valence expectancy, and performance-outcome expectancy. Thus, my positive mental perception will boost effort-performance expectancy to apprehend the perception of the individual that I am meeting for the first time. This reaction is likely to be supported by personal experience of interaction with the stranger in question since perception and ethical decision making process is skewed towards experience with a situation (Sockeley-Zalabak 2011, p. 39). Thus, positive perception as part of mental model will enable me to predict better judgment for the other party since I will display higher judgment magnitude, irrespective of the field of personal reservations and attitude. As a result, I will easily balance perception and reality when interacting with another party for the first time.
High motivational expectation attracts better perception of an individual when communicating for the first time. For instance, a quantifiable paradigm shift in perception of a person towards another person can be linked to correlation between the micro and macro environment of the individual mirrored from previous interactions. The valence expectancy will then determine the weight an individual allocates to perception of the other party (Prosci 2007, p. 44). Thus, having a higher the weight allocated to the expected reward will lead to higher motivation of better interaction when all other factors are held constant. It is acceptable to state that mental models that are aligned to proactive thinking will ensure creation of a good rapport with the other party upon meeting (Hannan & Freeman 2004, p. 152). From this argument, it is apparent that if I have a low self esteemed person, I may show higher valence than a person with high self esteem, nurtured by having valence expectancy, when interacting with another party for the first time.
As a result of properly structured communication ethics which is an aspect of mental models, the interaction environment becomes holistic, soft and socially friendly to when valence is applied by the person who initiates the first channel of communication. When I have internalized healthy ethical communication culture, my mental perception will create structural goals which develop norms, expectations of specific behavior display, and appropriate guideline controlling interaction with one another. This model includes written rules of engagement, expected behavior, and repercussions for deviation (Kotter 1995, p. 97). Therefore, for such an individual to accomplish the balance, he or she has the sole responsibility of acting as an exact opposite of a frugal person. These action oriented motives must be aligned to the right individual, extent, time, and reason to make the first time interaction beneficial to both parties.
Mental models create strongly belief that highest morals rest on ‘good will’ which allows mankind to undertake actions in the backdrop of peak morality or moral worth often based on origin priority. For instance, when the underlying command plans originate from the opinionated inclination of such an individual, the results would basically be aligned towards self contempt. As a matter of fact, behavior leadership model involving actual and observed experiences of individuals within a similar environment and under same situation can be transformed into a continuous communication strategy (Sockeley-Zalabak 2011, p. 21). This will influence an individual to treat the other person as an equal when communicating for the first time.
How Mental Models May Limit Perception
Some mental models may limit my perception of the visual representational meaning of the memory stages. These stages convey the relationship between the participants and the depicted structuring. For instance, the creation of a visual representational in the subconscious mind proposes the space-based model for analysis centered in the placement of objects within the semiotic space of memory. The conceptual processes define, analyze and classify places, people or things including abstract ones in the encoding process. These processes can be classified into classificational, symbolic, and analytical (Hannan & Freeman 2004, p. 157). The classificational categorizes people, things or places in a tree structure in which things are represented as belonging to a particular class or order in the memory. Thus, having an immature visual representational perception may compromise the universal conformity to shared values of the other party when interacting for the first time.
Reference List
Hannan, T & Freeman, J 2004, Structural Inertia and Organizational-Change. American Sociological Review, vol. 49, no. 2, pp. 149-164.
Kotter, J P 1995, Leading Change: Why Transformation Efforts Fail. Harvard Business School Publication, Boston.
Prosci, M 2007, Change Management Best Practices Benchmarking Report. Harvard Business School Publication, Boston.
Senge, P 2006, The fifth discipline: the art and practice of learning organizations, Doubleday/Currency, New York.
Sockeley-Zalabak, P 2011, Fundamentals of Organizational Communication: Knowledge, Sensitivity, Skills, Values, Allyn & Bacon, New York.
Weick, K & Quinn, R 1999, Organizational Change and Development. Annual Review Psychology, vol. 50, pp. 361-386.