Category: Unit 3

Hello Monica

As we age, it seems that these “processes” of development throughout our lives often manifest in usual and familiar patterns. Your well-articulated post revealed a few important things relating to these patterns, especially as it relates to this “practical wisdom” you had mentioned. These stages of development seem to comfortably align with Psychologist Bruce Tuckman’s stages of group development – forming, storming, norming and performing. Like Cahalan’s (2017) “practical wisdom” for individuals, groups of people walk through a similar process:

In the Beginning – Forming

Advancing in Practice – Storming

Competence in Practice – Norming

Expertise or Unknowing – Performing

Your query at the end of your post asks what natural skills or environmental influences impact or impede the development of those beyond Stage 1 or 2? I suppose it could be a broad range integrating a mixture of all those elements; however, in the context of leadership, critical thinking and individual development, I would consider approaching those stuck with a wide array of communication techniques, placing focus on behavior, not personality and lastly, let them be themselves. Ultimately, as you mentioned, any development in life or with others may just be about one’s choice.

Matt

Hello Norm.

Not only was your post relevant to my own walk in terms of creating an environment of safety for those who wish to test theory and self-discovery, but you prompted some thoughts as it relates to process delivered and the autonomy in process created.

That transfer of knowledge is key for any leader/follower relationship, especially when characteristically revealed with the obvious humility and selflessness; however, I like how you framed the contrast between having the employee adapt to an employer changing the process with redesigning the job as a means for the employee to develop the conditioning to anticipate and response to their own desired outcomes. The fear, as demonstrated in my life sometimes, is whether your team, employees or followers are equipped with the right tools, techniques and experience to think critically for themselves. Trust must be visible and present in order for an employee to feel safe to approach the leader/manager in times of doubt and challenge in order to dive deeper into greater analytical and critical thinking approaches.

Matt

Being fully-equipped to meet the needs and demands of today’s leadership environment can often require a methodical approach in the decision-making process. As an effective means of building consensus within the groups in which I lead, we collectively make every attempt to channel our discussions through an inquiry type process. This enables equality of voice and affords everyone the opportunity to engage alternate solutions through a structured format. In their book titled, The Thinker’s Guide to Analytic Thinking, Linda Elder and Richard Paul (2012) discuss the inherent value when “reasonable people judge reasoning by intellectual standards” (p. 8). In the context of my own workplace, when we underpin the value of reasoning within our decision-making via a standardized process, we give ourselves a clear and consistent model to evaluate anything we encounter. As a team, we make every effort to be concise and thorough in this process especially when evaluating risks, but alas, time is not always on our side; therefore, as a means to efficiently evaluate our thinking, we often deploy a small selection of typical standard/key points (Elder & Paul, 2012) listed below in rank of importance.

1. SIGNIFICANCE – this standard focuses our attention on what is important, not the trivial. A question can be framed asking if the facts are important, or if this is the central problem or idea to focus on?
2. CLARITY – the meaning can be grasped and is understandable. A question asks for an example or illustration to help define the meaning or issue at hand.
3. ACCURACY – free from errors or distortions. Is it true? Discussion asks for verification from other sources in order to test the results.
4. DEPTH – the complexities and multiple interrelationships that is prompting the query – what factors are making this a difficult problem?
5. BREADTH – encompassing multiple viewpoints asking – do we need to look at this from another perspective?
6. FAIRNESS – as a leader, monitoring any personal bias influencing others. Do I have any vested interest in this issue? Am I being sympathetic to other viewpoints?

As exhausted by Elder and Paul (2012), there are other intellectual standards in which one can deploy when evaluating ideas, thoughts or actions; however, rest assured, critical thinking usually invites some form of conflict. Ultimately, the benefit of following a process of analytical or critical thinking is that although the process invariably invites tension, it helps us develop greater impartiality, rationality and perspective.

Matt

Elder, L., & Paul, R. (2012). The thinker’s guide to analytic thinking: How to take thinking apart and what to look for when you do. Tomales, California: The Foundation for Critical Thinking.