Connected thinking

Networked thinking is a Dimension of cognitive ability. It describes a person's tendency to find unexpected and more difficult to understand solutions instead of solutions that are more obvious and easier to understand.

New problems can often be solved by working on similar experiences oriented and transfers this to the new problem (English, 1997). The more complex problems become, the more interconnected thinking requires comprehensive rather than pragmatic comparisons in order to to find successful solution strategies.

A person's ability to think interconnected can therefore be based on a continuum between the two poles pragmatic comparisons and comprehensive comparisons Classify. The value of each person can therefore be located at one point on the following scale:

Pragmatic comparisons

People who Good solutions to problems rather with pragmatic comparisons find, prefer working environments in which they are usually confronted with manageable or recurring problems.

This applies to jobs that are looking for obvious and pragmatic solutions, such as in Administrationor industrial production.

Comprehensive comparisons

People who good solutions to problems rather with comprehensive comparisons find, prefer working environments in which they are usually confronted with very complex and complex problems for which there are rarely obvious solutions.

This applies to jobs that seek unexpected and creative solutions, such as in science or business consulting.

Benefits in a professional context

In many places, drawing comprehensive comparisons is not part of daily work — instead, pragmatic comparisons are required to solve problems. That is why the ability to think in a networked way is Different occupational groups have different degrees of importance.

It is therefore less important to express an applicant's networked thinking than the A fit between this version and the requirement the spot.

How do you capture networked thinking?

Heard networked thinking about the strengths of your applicants?

With our Game-based assessment “Jacket like pants” Find out in the blink of an eye. Users only have a few seconds to recognize similarities between different terms.

Sources

• Betsch, T., & Haberstroh, S. (2005). Current Research on Routine Decision Making: Advances and Prospects. The routines of decision making, 359-376.
• Duncker, K. (1935). On the psychology of productive thinking. [The psychology of productive thought]. Jumper.
• English, L.D. (1997). The development of fifth-grade children's problem-posing abilities. Educational studies in mathematics, 34 (3), 183-217.
• Fernandez-Duque, D., Baird, J.A., & Posner, M.I. (2000). Executive attention and metacognitive regulation. Consciousness and Cognition, 9 (2), 288-307.
• Funke, J., & Fritz, A. (1995). About planning, problem solving and action.
• Greiff, S., Fischer, A., Wüstenberg, S., Sonnleitner, P., Brunner, M., & Martin, R. (2013). A multitrait—multimethod study of assessment instruments for complex problem solving. Intelligence, 41 (5), 579-596.
• Mainert, J., Niepel, C., Murphy, K.R., & Greiff, S. (2019). The incremental contribution of complex problem-solving skills to the prediction of job level, job complexity, and salary. Journal of Business and Psychology, 34 (6), 825-845.
• Salovey, P., & Mayer, J.D. (1990). Emotional intelligence. Imagination, Cognition and Personality, 9 (3), 185-211.
• Tulving, E. (1972). Episodic and semantic memory. Organization of Memory, 1, 381-403.
• Zeidner, Moshe, Gerald Matthews, and Richard D. Roberts. “Emotional Intelligence in the Workplace: A Critical Review.” Applied Psychology 53.3 (2004): 371-399.