Leadership and Critical Thinking

I recently attended a one-day workshop sponsored by AACSB International and facilitated by Dr. Jackson Nickerson of Olin Business School, Washington University-St. Louis.¹ This was an excellent conference and it resonated with me on two fronts: (1) In my corporate career the number one challenge I faced as a leader was getting my team to think critically about business issues; and (2) I have also been equally challenged to find a useful method of helping my students learn this important skill. In this publication, I will share some of what I took away from the session.

Critical thinking is directly related to making decisions and problem solving in organizations. When leaders are confronted with a problem, it is essential that an appropriate method be used to reach a suitable solution. Herein begins the challenge leaders face. Critical thinking is a "360-degree approach" of learning about and investigating the different perspectives to apply to a decision or problem. Unfortunately, most of us are taught to jump right in and solve without stepping back and reflecting on the causes of the issue.

According to Dr. Nickerson and AACSB, there are hurdles we must overcome called "thinking traps”¹ that naturally encumber our cognitive functions and reduce critical thinking.¹ One dominant tendency is to “leap to the conclusions.”¹ For example, a leader observes a decline in sales and automatically – perhaps based on past experience – draws conclusions about the cause and acts on it. For example, Ron Johnson, JCPenney’s CEO, reported dismal 4^th-quarter and year-end results this past Wednesday. From the outside looking in, it appears that last year he quickly jumped to conclusions about JCP's problems; after being on the job for just a few months, he installed a new strategic direction and sales have plummeted since. In addition, it was also reported in the Wall Street Journal this past Wednesday that Marissa Mayer, Yahoo’s new CEO, decided to recall remote workers to the office in an effort to improve agility and innovative outcomes. It sounds logical, but I am more interested in how the conclusion was reached; did she think critically or fully before deciding that the answer to Yahoo’s stale results requires the knowledge workers to be in the same room to solve the business’ problems? I also wonder if she thought about morale and the other human resource implications of forcing people back into the office. Nevertheless it is consistent given that Ms. Mayer had a nursery built onto her office at her own expense to care for her newborn.

One interesting thing that Dr. Nickerson pointed out is that once we make a decision or find a solution, we become vested and attached to it; once we anchor on an idea, it is hard to reconsider. Leaders may also succumb to other biases such as seeking evidence to support a decision already made and discounting information that might suggest something different should happen.¹

A starting place to solve these difficulties begins with the recognition that everyone is subject to biases in decisions and solving problems. Unfortunately, awareness of the problem is not sufficient – just because we know we are biased in something does not suggest we have the means to overcome the issue.¹

The antidote includes a procedure, part of which is a 360-degree approach that assists in overpowering the most common cognitive problem of “jumping to a solution.”¹ The remedy is frequently used in practice. During my corporate career, I have held many positions where I needed to solve a unit’s problem. One answer often has been to replace the unstructured messy things that were occurring and overlay a process. I recall taking over a troubled IT development area and installing a process to enable tracking, categorization, prioritization and pricing. The new procedures added needed structure, along with an element of control over the IT development environment.

Problem solving and decision making fluctuate in their effectiveness when left without a path in order to ensure all the issues are considered. Dr. Nickerson proposed an eight-step process to assist in critical thinking (see his published work).¹  I will focus on the beginning steps because I believe they are the most critical.

The first step in the process suggests that the leader follow a “Points of View”¹ perspective, and essentially this means identifying all the stakeholders in an issue and thinking through what they care about. For example, consider a scenario where there are two feuding service departments in an organization.  A viewpoint perspective begins by identifying all the different interested actors or stakeholders in the situation. Examples include: (1) Leader of unit A, (2) leader of unit B, (3) staff of unit A, (4) staff of unit B, (5) leaders above the managers of these units, (6) senior managers, (7) sales, (8) customers, (9) finance, etc. Each individual has a different idea about how things should be.

Dr. Nickerson then recommends that for each stakeholder one attempts to see things through their eyes by identifying their unique concerns; a 360-degree approach enables the capturing of all the concerns of the actors surrounding an issue. Once each person’s perspectives, objectives, goals and ideas are identified, the leader is able to take the next step of formulating the problem to be addressed.¹ 

In fact, the biggest challenge resides in problem formulation.¹ Formulation integrates and considers the different viewpoints. Eventually, after examining the evidence (data), including assumptions and issues, the problem to be addressed is identified. Dr. Nickerson says that at least 50% of the time should be spent getting to this point. This is required because there are countless examples of organizations working on problems only to discover after the fact that the efforts were focused on the wrong problem.

The real problem is the one that “moves the needle” toward the desired outcome if a solution is implemented. However, trying to figure out what that is, is not as easy as it sounds. In fact, it presents significant challenges. What I really like about Dr. Nickerson's ideas is that it provides a procedural solution. 

Leaders must think critically when solving problems or making decisions. It is common to lurch into a decision by jumping rapidly to conclusion about what the real problem is; unfortunately, it is all too common for leaders to end up addressing the wrong issue. Using a viewpoint approach, as recommended by Dr. Nickerson, offers a solution to that problem.

If you have questions, please feel free to post a comment.

 References

¹ Ideas from Critical Development Series: Critical Thinking, AACSB International, PowerPoint™ presentation and presented by Dr. Jackson Nickerson, Olin Business School, Washington University at St. Louis. This short discussion addressed only a few components of the seminar presented.

Dr. Nickerson has won many awards and published many articles. Please consult his extensive writings and websites to understand more about this important topic.