Rubicon Of Action Phases
The Rubicon Model of Action Phases
The Rubicon is a mindset theory of action phases in decision-making proposing that care should be taken first in making the decision, then commitment sustained once the decision is made. The model suggests that there is an activation of different cognitive procedures in the process of task tackling by persons. Particularly, the mindset theory of action phases forms the foundation of research in the planning process (Brandstätter, Heimbeck, Malzacher, & Frese, 37-59), which envelopes the formation of goals, initiation of the project, scheduling and change intervention. The word “Rubicon” originates from the name of a river in ancient civilizations that separated the Roman Empire from the Gauls. When Julius Caesar was expanding Rome he reached the Rubicon River knowing that if they crossed it they would initiate a battle ‘til death with the fearless Gauls and there would be no retreating. Caesar had to carefully examine his potential decisions and then commit to the one he had made, thus incepting a term in decision-making called “crossing the Rubicon” when there is a single, irreversible decision to be made. This research paper summarizes the foundations of the Rubicon model, analyzes the distinction between deliberative and implemental mindsets and evaluates how the model applies to management techniques in the North American workforce.
The Rubicon mindset theory asserts that there is a possibility of segmenting a particular course of action into four phases that are consecutively distinct from one another. The segmenting occurs based on the tasks that an individual executes successfully. The first segment is the pre-decision phase. In this phase, individuals establish different preferences among their wishes and desires on the basis of feasibility and desirability of each of their motives. The individual only chooses feasible desires, which lead to “crossing of the Rubicon” since setting goals marks the completion of the
The Rubicon is a mindset theory of action phases in decision-making proposing that care should be taken first in making the decision, then commitment sustained once the decision is made. The model suggests that there is an activation of different cognitive procedures in the process of task tackling by persons. Particularly, the mindset theory of action phases forms the foundation of research in the planning process (Brandstätter, Heimbeck, Malzacher, & Frese, 37-59), which envelopes the formation of goals, initiation of the project, scheduling and change intervention. The word “Rubicon” originates from the name of a river in ancient civilizations that separated the Roman Empire from the Gauls. When Julius Caesar was expanding Rome he reached the Rubicon River knowing that if they crossed it they would initiate a battle ‘til death with the fearless Gauls and there would be no retreating. Caesar had to carefully examine his potential decisions and then commit to the one he had made, thus incepting a term in decision-making called “crossing the Rubicon” when there is a single, irreversible decision to be made. This research paper summarizes the foundations of the Rubicon model, analyzes the distinction between deliberative and implemental mindsets and evaluates how the model applies to management techniques in the North American workforce.
The Rubicon mindset theory asserts that there is a possibility of segmenting a particular course of action into four phases that are consecutively distinct from one another. The segmenting occurs based on the tasks that an individual executes successfully. The first segment is the pre-decision phase. In this phase, individuals establish different preferences among their wishes and desires on the basis of feasibility and desirability of each of their motives. The individual only chooses feasible desires, which lead to “crossing of the Rubicon” since setting goals marks the completion of the
Cited: List Anastasio, Thomas J. "Probability rather than logic as the basis of perception." Behavioral and Brain Sciences 26.03 (2003): 283-284. Armor, David A., and Shelley E. Taylor. "The effects of mindset on behavior: Self-regulation in deliberative and implemental frames of mind." Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 29.1 (2003): 86-95. Brandstätter, V., Heimbeck, D., Malzacher, J., Frese, M. "Goals need implementation intentions: The model of action phases tested in the applied setting of continuing education." European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology (2003):37- 59. Gollwitzer, Peter M. "Why we thought that action mind-sets affect illusions of control." Psychological Inquiry 14.3-4 (2003): 261-269. Gollwitzer, Peter M., and Ute Bayer. "Deliberative versus implemental mindsets in the control of action." Dual-process theories in social psychology (1999): 403-422. Gollwitzer, Peter M., and Paschal Sheeran. "Implementation intentions and goal achievement: A meta‐analysis of effects and processes." Advances in experimental social psychology 38 (2006): 69-119. Kuhl, Julius, and Sander L. Koole. "It is often said that people like being in control of things (Alloy & Abramson, 1979; Vohs & Baumeister, Chapter 25, this volume; Langer, 1975). Viewed from this perspective, having willful control over one’s own actions is highly desirable. However, willfulness also has some deeply unsettling existential implications. When someone has the power to will-fully decide what he or she does, this person is fully responsible for his or her own actions. Willfulness thus eliminates any excuses or mitigating ...." Handbook of experimental existential psychology (2013): 411. McEvily, Bill, Vincenzo Perrone, and Akbar Zaheer. "Trust as an organizing principle." Organization science 14.1 (2003): 91-103. Mohammed, Susan, and Alexander Schwall. "Individual differences and decision making: What we know and where we go from here." International review of industrial and organizational psychology 24 (2009): 249-312.