PICTS Proactive And Reactive Scores, Thinking Styles, And BATNA Analysis

Thinking Styles

Discuss about the PICTS Proactive and Reactive Scores.

Just like the same way as the styles of governments the style through which the people indulge in self mental government have are also different (Cheek and Norem 2017). There are primarily four form of thinking styles primarily the monarchic, the hierarchic, the oligarchic, and the anarchic (Monga and Hsu 2018). Those people who have the monarchic style of thinking in relation to mental governance are single minded and are often motivated by a sole goal (Yuan,  Zhang and Fu 2017). They tend to solve the problems by observing total commitment and do not care about the obstacles. These people do not set more than one goal at a time and until one goal is not completed they do not shift to the other goals (Low  and Day 2017). These people have the tendency of working alone (Hsu et al. 2017). On the other hand those people who have a hierarchic style want to work for the purpose of achieving various goals within a specific time period (Mitchell et al., 2017). They engage in work activities in a way through which they can prioritize which goal to pursue first (Ji et al. 2018). These people are organized and systematic with respect to solving the problems and making decisions (Duffy et al 2017). The people who have the anarchic style of thinking work for those goals which are often difficult for other peoples to achieve along with themselves (Gu, Wang and Mason 2017). They have random approaches in relation to the problems and are gifted with a potential of creativity which is not present in others (Walters and Yurvati 2017). The final form of thinking style is that of oligarchic (Jaworski and Kohli 2017). Those people who have such style of thinking want to work for multiple goals at the same time and have difficulties in deciding that which goal they want to pursue (Putnam, Lamm and Lundy 2017). These people are sometimes very organized and are not sure what they and how they want to do (Uygun and Kunt 2017).  In addition to the form of styles there are also thinking scopes which is different in relation to different people. These are basically internal scope and external scope (Islamo?lu,  Atan and Ünver 2017). The internal scope of thinking is that where the people are introvert, less sensitive socially to other people and are task oriented. They do not gave interpersonal awareness as no emphasis is placed on it by them. These people want to work individually are not team players. On the other hand those people who have the external scope of thinking style are usually people oriented, more sensitive socially and are aware interpersonally (Lamia and Mohamed 2018).  They tend to work with other people to achieve their goals. These people can work very effectively within a team. When it comes to the form of thinking I prefer hierarchic style of thinking. This is because I am able to set multiple goals at a time and select the goals which are more important to achieve first. The style of thinking helps me to address the problems in a logical manner and ensure that I am able to effectively deal with them. As I am an extrovert and I prefer to work in a team I have prefer the external scope of thinking. Through this scope I am able to achieve may goals together while seeking and providing help at the same time.

Hierarchic Style of Thinking

I have been provided the role of purchasing a property for Farnsworth Property Trust which belongs to Pashendale Holdings Ltd.  This means that I have to negotiate a purchase. While negotiating a purchase it has to be ensured that all strengths and weaknesses of the seller have to be considered. Several goals have to be set in order to carry out the purchase including investigation and valuation. Thus in this situation my style of thinking which is the hierarchic style of thinking will help me to set many goals and prioritize the goals which I need to resolve first. The external thinking scope will also allow me to work in teams to get the set goals management.

Yes there are certain modifications which have to be carried out by me in relation to my form of thinking as well as the scope of thinking. In relation to the scope I would sometimes require modifications were I need to work alone and too many opinions are not feasible to appropriate decision makings. Thus I need to incorporate internal scope of thinking in such situations. In the same way also require to modify my thinking form which is hierarchic style. This is because at times I may be required to focus of one major goal alone and thus monarchic thinking may be required.

The BATNA as the name suggests are the alternatives which parties to the negotiation have when that are not been able to reach an agreement and which helps them not to go below their reservation price. In the given situation that BATNA of Farnsworth Property Trust are as follows:

1. There is an alternative property which is present in relation to Mitchell Investments at a price of $45 million and the price of this can be reduced by 10% with negotiation.
2. The reservation price in relation to the client is about 17.5 millions in this case.

The primary BATNA  which the other party may have in this situation is that they may already have a prospective buyer and they must not be willing to get a little more price in this negotiation.

The zone of possible agreement in the given situation will initiate at a price of around $17.5 million. This is because the there may be various prospective buyers for the property. The ways of enhancing the ZOPA include understanding the position of the other party so that it can be found out that they actually have any prospective buyers who are willing to pay a higher price that what has been offered by the client (Whited et al 2017).

References

Cheek, N.N. and Norem, J.K., 2017. Holistic thinkers anchor less: Exploring the roles of self-construal and thinking styles in anchoring susceptibility. Personality and Individual Differences, 115, pp.174-176.

BATNA Analysis

Duffy, A., Dawson, D.L., Moghaddam, N.G. and das Nair, R., 2017. Do thinking styles play a role in whether people pathologise their pornography use?. Sexual and Relationship Therapy, pp.1-22.

Gu, X., Wang, H. and Mason, J., 2017. Are they thinking differently: a cross-cultural study on the relationship of thinking styles and emerging roles in computer-supported collaborative learning. Journal of Educational Technology & Society management, 20(1), p.13.

Hsu, Y., Liou, B.Y., Ho, C.W. and Huang, Y.H., 2017. The influence of thinking styles and self-adjustment strategies applied to a digital table game. International Journal of Mobile Learning and Organisation, 11(3), pp.242-255.

Islamo?lu, I., Atan, T. and Ünver, ?., 2017. ANALYSIS OF WRESTLERS’THINKING STYLES. European Journal of Physical Education and Sport Science.

Jaworski, B.J. and Kohli, A.K., 2017. Conducting field-based, discovery-oriented research: lessons from our market orientation research experience. AMS Review, 7(1-2), pp.4-12.

Jia, X., Li, W., Cao, L., Li, P., Shi, M., Wang, J., Cao, W. and Li, X., 2018. Effect of individual thinking styles on item selection during study time allocation. International Journal of Psychology, 53(2), pp.83-91.

Lamia, M. and Mohamed, H., 2018. Development of Adaptive Social Network Based on Learners’ Thinking and Learning Styles. In Handbook of Research on Contemporary Perspectives on Web-Based Systems (pp. 90-107). IGI Global.

Low, K. and Day, A., 2017. Toward a clinically meaningful taxonomy of violent offenders: the role of anger and thinking styles. Journal of interpersonal violence, 32(4), pp.489-514.

Mitchell, S.M., Bartholomew, N.R., Morgan, R.D. and Cukrowicz, K.C., 2017. A Preliminary Investigation of the Psychological Inventory of Criminal Thinking Styles–Layperson Edition–Short Form. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 44(5), pp.756-769.

Monga, A.B. and Hsu, L., 2018. How Consumers’ Styles of Thinking Can Control Brand Dilution. GfK Marketing Intelligence Review, 10(1), pp.40-45.

Putnam, B.B., Lamm, A.J. and Lundy, L.K., 2017. Using Critical Thinking Styles of Opinion Leaders to Drive Extension Communication. Journal of Agricultural Education, 58(3).

Uygun, M. and Kunt, H., 2017. An analysis of the relationship between prospective teachers’ thinking styles and their attitudes to teaching profession according to various variables. International Electronic Journal of Elementary Education, 6(2), pp.357-370.

Walters, G.D. and Yurvati, E., 2017. Testing the construct validity of the PICTS proactive and reactive scores against six putative measures of proactive and reactive criminal thinking. Psychology, Crime & Law, 23(1), pp.1-14.

Whited, W.H., Wagar, L., Mandracchia, J.T. and Morgan, R.D., 2017. Partners or partners in crime? The relationship between criminal associates and criminogenic thinking. International journal of offender therapy and comparative criminology, 61(5), pp.491-507.

Yuan, W., Zhang, L.F. and Fu, M., 2017. Thinking styles and academic stress coping among Chinese secondary school students. Educational Psychology, 37(8), pp.1015-1025.