As suggested by the scenario above, rational emotive behavior therapy (REBT) differed from the other mainstream therapies of its day, mainly in the importance it placed on discussing and adapting how clients think (Ellis & Dryden, 1987).
the new rational manager pdf 31
REBT also differs from other early forms of therapy in its focus on the present; in fact, according to Ellis, a common irrational belief is that our past has a significant influence on our present life (McLeod, 2015)! While our past does, of course, shape who we are today, it is an irrational belief if you feel you cannot escape your past.
While it is (as far as we know) impossible to be entirely rational, Ellis believed that approaching our problems in a more rational way could have a significant impact on our negative emotions and dysfunctional behaviors (Albert Ellis Institute, 2014). The most important challenge to tackle on the road to rationality is our dysfunctional or illogical thinking.
Ellis theorized that many of our emotional and behavioral problems spring from basic irrational assumptions or assumptions that are not totally grounded in reality and influence people to act in ways that are inappropriate, unhelpful, or even destructive (McLeod, 2015).
An activating event or adversity is something that triggers you to form an irrational belief, such as being turned down for the position. It is the first step in developing an irrational thought because the irrational thought is formed to help you deal with the event.
The third component is the consequences of this irrational belief. Irrational beliefs always have consequences, sometimes emotional, sometimes behavior, and sometimes both. In this case, the consequences may be that you lose your self-confidence or frequently feel sad (emotional) and stop applying to any jobs (behavioral).
This exercise will facilitate the identification of negative, irrational beliefs and the development of effective arguments against these beliefs. Keeping a record of these thoughts can help anyone to organize their thoughts, connect their beliefs to their reactions, and discover potential patterns of irrational beliefs.
This fundamental exercise helps clients confront negative and irrational automatic thoughts or beliefs. It encourages the use of reason and rationality to replace old, self-critical beliefs with new, more positive and more functional beliefs.
While Rational Emotive Behavior Therapy was developed long before positive psychology arrived on the psychology scene (around 1998-99), they share many of the same goals and areas of focus. Of course, there are some areas of disagreement between the two, such as the strict focus on rationality in REBT versus the importance many positive psychologists place on feelings or even intuition, but in general, they fit together quite well.
Understanding and evaluating the implementation of complex interventions in practice is an important problem for healthcare managers and policy makers, and for patients and others who must operationalize them beyond formal clinical settings. It has been argued that this work should be founded on theory that provides a foundation for understanding, designing, predicting, and evaluating dynamic implementation processes. This paper sets out core constituents of a general theory of implementation, building on Normalization Process Theory and linking it to key constructs from recent work in sociology and psychology. These are informed by ideas about agency and its expression within social systems and fields, social and cognitive mechanisms, and collective action. This approach unites a number of contending perspectives in a way that makes possible a more comprehensive explanation of the implementation and embedding of new ways of thinking, enacting and organizing practice.
Workability: the social practices that agents perform when they operationalize a complex intervention within a social system, and characterizes interactions between users and components of a complex intervention;
Weiner sets out a highly interactive model in which important features of context, such as organizational culture and operational environment, are expressed through change valence and change efficacy. It is highly interactive, too, in the sense that it emphasizes the accomplishments, shared values and commitments of groups. No matter how much individual potential and commitments are valued socially, implementation processes are largely collective and collaborative in their form and direction. We can clearly define two translational mechanisms at work here, and these form the key dimensions of the construct.
Finally, while sensitivity to theory and awareness of its diverse forms and purposes is a normal part of the training of social scientists, the integration of constructs belonging to different theories is an under-explored problem of method [88]. There is no universally accepted technique for accomplishing this task. These limits aside, the strength of the analysis offered here lies in its middle-range operationalization and the modest claims that are consequent to this.
Though most decision makers will recognize much that is commendable in the rational decision-making process, there are also reasons to consider complementary or even contrasting ideas. Taken to its extreme, the rational method might entirely discount factors that are of known and obvious value, such as emotions and feelings, experience, or even ethical principles. This danger, along with other limitations of the rational method, has led to the development of the following concepts to provide a more balanced and holistic approach to decision making:
An epoch-making idea in the field of behavioral economics, prospect theory is a complex analysis of how individuals make decisions when there is risk involved. Most strictly rational approaches to questions of financial risk rely on the principle of expected value, where the probability of an event is multiplied by the resulting value should the event occur. Notice the numerical and logical approach to that analysis.
However, Daniel Kahneman and Amos Tversky, the developers of prospect theory, demonstrated through various experiments that most people alter that approach based on their subjective judgments in any given situation. One of the common examples of this is that many individuals think differently about the risk of financial loss than they do when considering situations where different levels of financial gain are concerned. In a purely rational approach, the numbers and calculations involved work the same way regardless of whether the situation is one involving potential gain or potential loss.
Another theory that suggests a modification of pure rationality is known as bounded rationality. This concept revolves on a recognition that human knowledge and capabilities are limited and imperfect. Three specific limitations are generally enumerated:
In light of these limitations, the theory of bounded rationality suggests that decision makers must be willing to adapt their rational approach. For example, they must determine how much information is reasonable to pursue during the information-gathering stage; they cannot reasonably expect to gather and analyze all possible information.
One of the approaches that might stem from a recognition of bounded rationality is the use of heuristics. These are analytical and decision-making tools that help simplify the analysis process by relying on tried and tested rules of thumb. A heuristic simplifies a complex situation and allows the decision maker to focus only on the most important pieces of information.
For example, a business might use their proven experiences and that of many other companies to conclude that a new product line requires a certain amount of time to gain market share and become profitable. Though there are many complex factors involved in market analysis, the business might use this proven rule to guide its decision making. When a proposed decision contradicts this rule, the company might discard it even if a complex and seemingly rational analysis might seem to support it. 2ff7e9595c
Commentaires