Applying Critical Thinking - An Important Survival Skill For Companies

Critical thinking is interesting, because the ability to think critically lies within employees as individuals, and is part aptitude, and part learned skills and experience. But it's also affected by the working environment such that managers and organizations can encourage critical thinking, or prevent it. Does it matter? Is critical thinking important for companies? Should we encourage it throughout the organization. Robert Bacal tackles this important, but oft neglected topic.

Every day we make decisions. In the workplace and in our private lives we act on  information (incoming and what we already know), to determine our actions, and by  extension, affect those around us. Should we revise a certain policy? Should we begin a formal approach to managing poor performance? Who should do what  work?       

Those that subscribe to a "rationalist" approach to decision-making (and who often  teach others rational problem-solving methods), would lead us to believe that the  best decisions are those that are made by weighing the information -- the pro's and  con's, for each alternative in a formal, systematic way. While this is sensible, people  who have taken rational problem-solving seminars point out that it just isn't that  simple, and have suggested the following:   

Many situations are so complicated that to consider all of the relevant factors results  in "analysis paralysis".   

There are usually so many unknowns, particularly with respect to the people side of  problems that it is often impossible to include those unknowns into one's problem- solving, rendering the process virtually useless. For example, if one is designing a  computer chip, one can usually evaluate one design against another, on factors such  as cost, efficiency, etc. What is problematic is whether one design or another will be  more "attractive" to potential purchasers.     

The rational approach to problem-solving is stultifying, boring and time consuming.  Life is largely unpredictable and somewhat uncontrollable, so attempting to predict  and control everything logically simply is not realistic.       

These are valid objections. However, rational, systematic approaches to decision- making are useful tools, to be applied, within reason, to situations where they can be  effective. But not everywhere.   

So, is the choice between being overly committed to long, logical analysis, vs.  decision-making based on intuition (whatever that means), and emotions? No. What  we can do is to use a more flexible approach to decision-making that does not  require a long, drawn out process, but incorporates critical thinking so that we are not overly swayed by non-rational ways of thinking.       

What Is Critical Thinking?

Craig Hassel, of the University of Minnesota defines critical thinking as follows:   

It is the process of thinking about one's thinking, a conscious evaluation of one's  thoughts.  Critical thinking can be understood as a way of becoming aware of and  taking control of one's own thinking processes in order to think more effectively.  It  is consciously directing one's thinking to make it more rational, clear, accurate, and  consistent.   

Critical thinking helps us ask relevant questions, weigh evidence offered in support  of arguments, interpret complex problems, and make wise decisions.   This is  especially important when you realize that many problems do not lend themselves to  clear-cut solutions.   

Yes, But What Does That Mean?   

To understand critical thinking, one has to have some sense of how human beings  process information. We are biologically set up to make sense out of information  and experience by summarizing it, or more technically, to reduce the amount of  detail through the use of concepts. For example, we can "decide" that an unknown  animal is a cat using some very few bits of information...we don't need to count the  whiskers, for example. Simply knowing that an animal possesses whiskers helps us decide, regardless of number.       

The upside to this is that we can survive in a complex world, by virtue of our  intelligence, rather than our physical ability. The downside is that our summarizing  of information about problems may cause us to make the wrong decision,  particularly when we act upon uncritically accepted assumptions or "experience  summaries".   

For example, let's take the situation of a staff member working for you. John is a  person who clearly differs from you in terms of his values, work ethic and so on.  Over time, there will be a tendency for you to apply some summarizing label to John  -- perhaps, difficult, or lazy, or even incompetent.   

After a time, you note that John has become less productive than other staff  members, when previously his production has been above average.  If you allow  your summarizing labels to influence your decision regarding the situation, you  might decide to reprimand, or move to more formal disciplinary processes. If you  view John as lazy, you would be more likely to attribute his change in output to this  "characteristic". This would be a good example of non-critical thinking, since you  would not be examining your own thought processes to determine whether your  underlying assumptions were accurate or adequate. The result could well be that  your choice of action would be incorrect, and that the situation might be rectified via  other, more simple measures.   

A critical thinking approach to the issue might yield much different, more  constructive actions.   

Towards Thinking More Critically   

In order to think more critically, we must be willing to identify and explore our own  emotional positions on issues, and our biases and "perceptual goggles". Interestingly  enough increasing our own awareness of these factors with respect to particular  problems helps us avoid ineffective decisions, while at the same time, helping us  learn about ourselves.   

Professor Hassel, in his paper "Why Critical Thinking", suggests the following:  

• Treat your first reaction to a situation, issue or person as temporary. Resist the urge  to pass judgment based only upon initial reactions. Have you observed carefully?       
• Examine your reaction. Try to understand why you reacted the way you did. What  assumptions were you making? Is your reaction a conditioned response? What  previous experiences contributed to your reaction?   
• Is the issue clear? If not, can it be broken down into manageable questions? Many  problems are vague and require effort to identify. Do not assume that your  perception of the problem is shared by all.   
• Think of alternative responses to the person, situation or issue. Try and put yourself  within the perspective of someone else. Try to reason empathetically within  opposing viewpoints. Be as open-minded and fair-minded as possible when  considering alternative responses.   
• Do you know enough to decide among alternatives? Must more evidence be  gathered? What kind of information is needed? Often it is not immediately apparent  what additional information is needed or where to find it. How much evidence is  enough? Remember that no evidence is beyond question.   
• Which interpretations or alternatives are best supported by the evidence?  
• Distinguish between the person and the idea. Distinguish between personalities and  what people think. Remember that interpretation of evidence is a subjective process.   
• Understand and articulate as clearly as possible the criteria upon which your  judgments are based.   
• Qualify your judgments appropriately and without exaggeration. Seldom are  solutions unequivocally correct; problems often have multiple solutions that may  depend upon context.   

Conclusion:   

Applying critical thinking can help you learn about your own thinking processes,  biases, assumptions and blinkers, while at the same time yielding more effective  decisions. A critical thinking approach is a good middle ground, between formal and  lengthy "rational problem-solving", and completely off the cuff, unanalytical  decision-making.    So, what about the example of John, the "lazy" employee mentioned earlier? We  will leave you with an exercise. If the manager was applying a more critical thinking  approach, what would s/he have done?