Strategic and Critical Thinking

Strategic and Critical Thinking “Critical thinking” involves being able to build and/or understand a reasoned argument, apply critical analysis and synthesis to communications (our own and those of others), respond to alternative points of view, and develop a solid foundation for making personal choices about what to accept and what to reject. “Strategic thinking,” as used here, requires critical thinking but broadens the context and involves a greater than usual degree of: (a) thinking more deeply to distinguish underlying causes and issues from more obvious symptoms; (b) thinking more broadly to recognize systemic linkages, interactions, and patterns; and (c) thinking with a longer time horizon to consider both long-term and short-term implications and consequences. CRITICAL THINKING1 Williams (2002, p.92) says “critical thinking involves confirming the ‘facts’ as we understand them, eliciting knowledgeable debate regarding the evidence, verifying the source of authority for what we hear, generating alternative explanations, and testing what we believe.” He stresses (in ch.6): * Distinguishing causation from correlation * Uncovering truthfulness of evidence presented * Inquiring to seek out information * Testing facts and assessing credibility of information, including looking for both supportive and disconfirming evidence * Minimizing effects of our beliefs and expectations * Monitoring thinking processes * Ensuring thoroughness & accuracy Browne & Keeley (2007) recommend a strategic thinking process that involves answering the following 11 questions at appropriate times and using the results to evaluate critically a communication (ours or of others): 1. What are the issues and the conclusions? 2. What are the reasons supporting the conclusions? 3. Which words or phrases are ambiguous? 4. What are the value conflicts and assumptions about value priorities? 5. What are the descriptive assumptions? 6. How good is the evidence? 7. What significant information is omitted? 8. Are the statistics deceptive or misleading? 9. Are there any fallacies in the reasoning (see Appendix for common types)? 10. Are there rival causes, i.e., other explanations or interpretations of the evidence or these findings? 11. What reasonable conclusions are possible (there may be multiple, competing possibilities and/or need for qualifiers)? “Your best strategy is to present yourself as someone who, like the person who made the argument in the first place, is stumbling around but always watchful for better conclusions. Openness is a central value of a critical thinking, and you show that openness by your eagerness to listen and discover. Whoever finds the better conclusion first is not relevant; what is important is the search for better conclusions. If you give signals to those trying to persuade you that you are their partner in a discovery process intended to enrich you both, they may see your critical questions as a tool that is indispensable to both of you.” (Browne & Keeley 2007, p.205) Elder & Paul (2008) identify nine key intellectual standards that should be applied to thinking whenever one is interested in checking the quality of reasoning. Critical thinking requires having command of these standards and skill in inquiring. Clarity: Could you elaborate further on that point? Could you express that point in another way? Could you give me an illustration? Could you give me an example? Clarity is the gateway standard. If a statement is unclear, we cannot determine whether it is accurate or relevant. In fact, we cannot tell anything about it because we don't yet know what it is saying. For example, the question, "What can be done about the education system in America?" is unclear. In order to address the question adequately, we would need to have a clearer understanding of what the person asking the question is considering the "problem" to be. A clearer question might be "What can educators do to ensure that students learn the skills and abilities which help them function successfully on the job and in their daily decision-making?" Accuracy: Is that really true? How could we check that? How could we find out if that is true? A statement can be clear but not accurate, as in "Most dogs are over 300 pounds in weight." Precision: Could you give more details? Could you be more specific? A statement can be both clear and accurate, but not precise, as in "Jack is overweight." (We don’t know how overweight Jack is, one pound or 500 pounds.) Relevance: How is that connected to the question? How does that bear on the issue? A statement can be clear, accurate, and precise, but not relevant to the question at issue. For example, students often think that the amount of effort they put into a course should be used in raising their grade in a course. Often, however, the "effort" does not measure the quality of student learning; and when this is so, effort is irrelevant to their appropriate grade. Depth: How does your answer address the complexities in the question? How are you taking into account the problems in the question? Is that dealing with the most significant factors? A statement can be clear, accurate, precise, and relevant, but superficial (that is, lack depth). For example, the statement, "Just say No!" which is often used to discourage children and teens from using drugs, is clear, accurate, precise, and relevant. Nevertheless, it lacks depth because it treats an extremely complex issue, the pervasive problem of drug use among young people, superficially. It fails to deal with the complexities of the issue. Breadth: Do we need to consider another point of view? Is there another way to look at this question? What would this look like from a conservative standpoint? What would this look like from the point of view of . . .? A line of reasoning may be clear accurate, precise, relevant, and deep, but lack breadth (as in an argument from either the conservative or liberal standpoint which gets deeply into an issue, but only recognizes the insights of one side of the question.) Logic: Does this really make sense? Does that follow from what you said? How does that follow? But before you implied this, and now you are saying that; how can both be true? When we think, we bring a variety of thoughts together into some order. When the combination of thoughts are mutually supporting and make sense in combination, the thinking is "logical." When the combination is not mutually supporting, is contradictory in some sense or does not "make sense," the combination is not logical. Fairness: Do I have a vested interest in this issue? Am I sympathetically representing the viewpoints of others? Human think is often biased in the direction of the thinker - in what are the perceived interests of the thinker. Humans do not naturally consider the rights and needs of others on the same plane with their own rights and needs. We therefore must actively work to make sure we are applying the intellectual standard of fairness to our thinking. Since we naturally see ourselves as fair even when we are unfair, this can be very difficult. A commitment to fairmindedness is a starting place. (from Elder, Linda & Paul, Richard (2008). Thinker’s Guide to Intellectual standards. Published by The Foundation for Critical Thinking. A shorter version is online at http://www.criticalthinking.org/pages/universal-intellectual-standards/527) Halpern (1998) offers the following examples of critical thinking tasks and questions. Task/Question Meaning/Usefulness Draw a diagram or other graphic display that Makes the structure of the problem clear organizes the information What additional information would you want Requires thinking about what is missing from the before answering the question? information presented Explain why you selected a particular multiple- Focuses on the thinking that went into an answer choice alternative and why another alternative is rather than the answer itself second best List two solutions for the problem Encourages creativity Solve the problem in at least two ways Helps unfreeze from a pre-determined solution. May help determine if a problem is actually many problems with separate solutions Categorize the finding in a meaningful way Grouping and labeling may result in the emergence of a previously unrecognized structure What is wrong with an assertion that was made in Reminds us that problems often contain the question? misleading information Present two reasons that support the conclusion Eliminates “black and white” reasoning and two reasons that do not support the conclusion Identify the type of persuasive technique that is Considers motives and credibility of information used in the question and whether it is valid or source misleading What two actions would you take to improve the Illustrates possible types of evidence that might design of a study that was described? produce different results STRATEGIC THINKING Strategic thinking is a process in which significant issues and decisions are considered in a special way. Strategic thinking is applicable and useful in a wide range of situations, including developing strategies for a company, making a business or personal decision, or just understanding a situation. Examples could include (a) the CEO of a Fortune 100 company using a strategic management process to establish future strategies for the firm, (b) an R&D director deciding on funding levels for a research project, (c) an individual staff member making decisions about priorities and time to be devoted to various tasks, or (d) a university student deciding what courses to take next semester. Some of the special characteristics of strategic thinking are: 1. Identifying & focusing on important issues 2. Selecting key, relevant information 3. Recognizing systemic properties (linkages, interactions, and patterns) 4. Understanding through: a. Distinguishing causes from effects or symptoms b. Clarifying (often tacit) underlying assumptions. c. Considering the issue or situation in its larger context d. Maintaining a long-term view 5. Appreciating implications & consequences 6. Generating alternatives & evaluating objectively (where applicable) 7. Integrating logical, rational thinking with creative, generative, divergent thinking 8. Remaining flexible 9. Acting on the resulting conclusions, even in the face of emotional discomfort Six Key Skills in Strategic Thinking Effective leaders have learned to apply all of these, in concert: * Anticipate ambiguous threats and opportunities in the environment of the organization. Scan the environment for signals of possible change. Seek input from varied stakeholders. * Challenge their own and others’ assumptions. Question the status quo. Seek out and encourage divergent points of view. * Interpret complex and conflicting information to recognize patterns and seek new insights. Look for missing information and evidence that disconfirms their conclusions. * Decide even with incomplete information, when necessary. Identify multiple options. Consider both short- and long-term effects. * Align strategies with the often disparate interests of stakeholders. This requires proactive engagement and creativity to find common ground and build commitment among various stakeholders * Learn from both successful and unsuccessful outcomes. Promote a culture of inquiry and reflection in which honest mistakes are viewed as learning opportunities. A Simple Example of Strategic Thinking Contrast two university students (C and D) with comparable backgrounds, abilities, and situations. Each has decided on a career field and related major and is thinking about the future at the end of the sophomore year. Both recognize the need to work part-time to cover some expenses. Both want to have a reasonable social life, including relationships with members of the opposite sex. Both C and D did some planning for the coming academic year, but there were differences in their thinking. C took a part-time job solely because it paid more than any of the alternatives, and allowed working at least 24 hours/week (which C figured was necessary to balance the expected spending). C picked classes for the fall semester with only cursory consideration of overall requirements for graduation and a brief look at options for the subsequent spring semester; a primary criterion was having classes at times that didn't interfere with the job (and also left convenient open times for recreation and dating). D thought about and made decisions on classes and a job simultaneously. D also considered all of the academic requirements (including prerequisites, when courses were to be offered, and issues about getting into needed courses) for the next four semesters before anticipated graduation, in picking classes to take in the fall semester. D took a part-time job that paid somewhat less than some alternatives, but one in which both the company and the job were relevant to D's chosen career field. D also decided it was feasible, by watching spending, to work only 16 hours/week during the school year. With more flexibility in times for taking classes, D was able to register for everything needed during TTR, while C had to struggle to add two classes after the semester began. There were other differences between C and D in thinking and actions as the next year progressed. For example, D made contact and had discussions with a number of individuals at work, professors, and professionals in D's chosen career field -- and established ongoing relationships with several of these individuals. These discussions and relationships were helpful, not only in providing information and perspectives as D worked, studied, and made choices, but were the beginning of a network D realized would be important in getting that first postgraduation job and subsequent career development. C concentrated mostly on the present and thought of networking as something to be done after graduation... This incomplete example is admittedly simple, but intended to stimulate your thinking about your thinking. Some of the questions you might consider as you examine your thinking are: What issues and events are you choosing to concentrate on and how important are they? How well do you understand the situation, its broader context and interconnections, and the consequences and implications of potential choices? Are you taking a long-term perspective? How skillfully are you using both logical and creative thinking? Some Additional Points & Discussion First, what is "strategy?" Among the dictionary definitions is "the science and art of employing the political, economic, psychological, and military forces of a nation to afford the maximum support to adopted policies." The military theorist, von Clausewitz (1832), said strategy is "the use of the engagement (a set of actions) for the purpose of the war." He also recognized the need for the strategist to complement good advance planning with being engaged directly in the campaign, allowing the general plan to be "adjusted to the modifications that are continuously required." The word strategy is derived from the Greek strategia, which referred to that which is "general." Strategies are the "means" of accomplishing the "ends" (i.e., objectives). In organizations, we are especially interested in strategies dealing with major, comprehensive, vital issues and achieving objectives related to them. There are fuzzy boundaries between what might be considered "strategic," "tactical," and "operational." Strategic issues and matters tend to be: broader, of higher importance and centrality, of greater impact on the organization, more unique, less well-defined, with longer time horizons and greater uncertainty, more comprehensive, and higher in demands on resources. "Strategic thinking" is not merely thinking about strategy. It is a process in which key, significant issues are considered in a comprehensive, special way. It involves recognizing and concentrating on issues and events that are of core importance. It embodies awareness of the interconnections and systemic properties of the situation. It requires a thorough understanding of both the situation (possibly, the organization) and its larger context. It includes an appreciation of the consequences and implications of actions, plus the moral courage to acknowledge problems with a favored alternative, as well as its advantages. It involves an understanding of how the situation will change over time and the importance of maneuvering for superior position and flexibility to deal with turbulence and to keep ahead of the competition. It exhibits an integration of both logical, rational thinking and creative, generative thinking. Morrison & Less (1989) say "the successful strategic thinker is guided by a clear business concept based on a thorough understanding of the economics of the business and of the success factors in the industry." The ancient Athenian theorist, Xenophon (c. 400 B.C.) described the most important attribute for a strategist as "knowing the business which you propose to carry out." Porter (1987) states, "There are no substitutes for strategic thinking. Improving quality is meaningless without knowing what kind of quality is relevant in competitive terms. Nurturing corporate culture is useless unless the culture is aligned with the company's approach to competing. Entrepreneurship, unguided by strategic perspective, is much more likely to fail than succeed." Higgins (1993) argues that the actual strategic thinking is more important than the resulting strategies themselves, because the situation and strategies to face it will change. "What is critical is awareness of what's important and what's not." A number of writers have talked about the limitations of merely "planning" strategy. De Wit and Meyer (1999) write of the paradox of logic and creativity, of the debate among strategists about the relative importance of logical/rational and creative/divergent/lateral/generative thinking. There are advantages and disadvantages of each type of thinking. Obviously, it is desirable to develop a high order of skill in each and the ability to operate with a flexible, contingent integration that combines both types of thinking. Rothenberg (1979) coined the term "Janusian thinking" (after Janus, the Roman god with two faces: one looking back and one looking forward) to refer to thinking contradictory thoughts at the same time; i.e., conceiving two opposing ideas to be true concurrently. Rothenberg claimed, after studying 54 Nobel Prize winners, that most major scientific breakthroughs and artistic masterpieces are products of Janusian thinking. He concluded that creative people who actively formulate antithetical ideas and then resolve them produce outstanding results. He cites the example of Einstein's account of "the happiest thought of my life." Einstein recalled his first thinking of the concept that "for an observer in free fall from the roof of a house, there exists, during his fall, no gravitational field... in his immediate vicinity. If the observer releases any objects, they will remain, relative to him, in a state of rest." This antithetical idea led to his general theory of relativity. Rothenberg's point is to advocate reversing or contradicting currently accepted ideas to expand the range of perspectives considered. I like Mintzberg's (1987) way of talking about "crafting" strategy, involving both logic and planning but more. He speaks of how strategies can form as well as be formulated, of how actions may converge into patterns -- some of which may be recognized and legimated by authorities, and that some strategies may emerge rather than be designed through deliberate, advance formulation. He argues that all strategy making needs to combine both deliberate and emergent processes -- that no one knows enough to work out everything in advance and, conversely, no one can count on leaving everything up to impromptu responses. He plays off Kierkegaard's observations that life is lived forward but understood backward to conclude that crafting strategy "requires a natural synthesis of the future, present, and past." Note 1: Many of the comments about critical thinking are adapted from: Browne, M. Neil & Keeley, Stuart M. (2007), Asking the right questions: A guide to critical thinking (8th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson, and also from chapter 6 in Williams, Steve W. (2002), Making better business decisions. Thousand Oaks: Sage. Appendix: some common fallacies in thinking and advocating 1. Slippery Slope: making the assumption that a proposed step will set off an uncontrollable chain of undesirable events, when procedures exist to prevent such a chain of events 2. Searching for Perfect Solution: falsely assuming that because part of a problem would remain, the solution should not be adopted 3. Equivocation: a key word is used with two or more meanings in an argument such that the argument fails to make sense once the shifts in meaning are recognized 4. Appeal to Popularity (Ad populum): falsely assumes that something favored by a large group is desirable 5. Appeal to Questionable Authority: citing an authority who lacks special expertise on the issue at hand 6. Appeals to Emotions: using emotionally charged language to distract from relevant reasons and evidence 7. Straw Person: Distorting one’s opponent’s point of view so that is it easy to attack 8. Attacks: Attacks a person or a person’s background, instead of the person’s ideas 9. Either-Or: assuming only two alternatives 10. Wishful Thinking: making the faulty assumption that, because we wish X were true or false, then X is indeed true or false 11. Explaining by Naming: Falsely assuming that because you have provided a name for some event or behavior that you have also adequately explained the event 12. Glittering Generality: Use of vague emotionally appealing virtue words that dispose us to approve something without closely examining the reasons 13. Red Herring: An irrelevant topic is presented to divert attention from the original issue 14. Begging the Question: an argument in which the conclusion is assumed in the reasoning. 15. Hasty Generalization: drawing a conclusion about a large group based on experiences with only a few members 16. Faulty Analogy: using an analogy in which there are important relevant dissimilarities 17. Causal Oversimplification: explaining an event by relying on causal factors that are insufficient to account for the event or by overemphasizing the role of one or most of these factors 18. Confusion of Cause and Effect: confusing the cause with the effect of an event or failing to recognize that the two events may be influencing each other 19. Neglect of a Common Cause: failure to recognize that two events may be related because of the effects of a common third factor 20. Post Hoc: assuming that a particular event, B, is caused by another event, A, simply because B follows A in time.