Critical Thinking for Talent Retention says Forbes

Is your organization properly equipped with the critical thinking tools it needs in order to retain your top talent? If you haven't intentionally empowered your employees with these specific skills, the answer is no, and you run the risk of losing your most valuable resource to your competitors.

Recently, Forbes published an article entitled, “10 Reasons Your Top Talent Will Leave You”. In this article, Forbes argues that leaders can stop the revolving door of talent by challenging, engaging, valuing, and rewarding their employees. So far, this isn't news; most organizations are aware of the need to invest in talent retention. Why, therefore, do 70% of employees still feel unappreciated and not valued by their employers?

To prevent your top talent from packing up their cubicles, Forbes says you need to actively unleash their passions, challenge their intellect, engage their creativity, develop their skills, give them a voice, care about them, provide leadership, recognize their contributions, increase their responsibility, and keep your commitments.

Providing your employees with critical thinking training does all these things. You provide the leadership your employees need to perform at high levels and convey that you care about their ideas. Their intellect is challenged and their skills are developed through training that targets specific cognitive processes and an organizational culture that implements argument analysis. Through this training, employees learn they are expected to challenge ideas, unpack rhetoric, evaluate analogies, identify common fallacies, and question biases and assumptions. They, then, become critically engaged in projects that you've entrusted to them. Creativity is unleashed as change and innovation are fostered through problem-solving processes that require the consideration of multiple perspectives and a range of alternatives. Employees are given a voice and have increased responsibility, perhaps for the first time in their careers; they are asked to think for themselves and more competently and confidently convey their thoughts, ideas, insights and observations, with strong supporting evidence. Furthermore, when you invest in critical skills training, your staff uncover passion when they are personally invested in their work. They have a sense of ownership and pride, and develop deeper connections in their well-constructed positions, proposals, sales pitches, and strategic plans. This is why Critical Thinking training is immensely import for talent retention.

How not to reason by analogy

Last week’s Globe and Mail contained an article with some of the worst examples of poor reasoning I’ve seen in some time.  Not that poor reasoning is a rarity for the Globe and Mail.  For Critical Thinking professors, some of the Globe’s regular contributors (particularly Margaret Wente) have provided a treasure trove of examples of poor reasoning for us to discuss in our classes.  But this contribution, entitled “Absolutism in the Church of Green,” was particularly bad. It was written by Gordon Gibson.  He’s a former BC MLA and current senior fellow at the Frasier Institute. 

Gibson argues that opposition to hydraulic fracturing or “fracking” in Quebec (as well as opposition to pipelines in BC) is merely a “knee jerk reaction” based on the “absolutist” dogma of the new “green religion.”  In order to establish this claim, Gibson attempts to establish that environmentalism is akin to religion.  Here is his argument for this latter claim:  

“Religions have certain characteristics. They consist of a body of belief based on faith (as, for example, in God). This faith is not to be challenged, distinguishing religions from other belief sets. Scientific theories, for a counterexample, must always be questioned. Not so with religion. Unwavering faith is the hallmark. Religions… have high priests who can speak ex cathedra and gain immediate belief. David Suzuki, Al Gore and Amory Lovins, among others, have this otherworldly gravitas. They have their religious orders. Just as there are Jesuits and Benedictines, there are Greenpeace and the Sierra Club.”

What Gibson is presenting here is a type of argument by analogy.  Analogical reasoning is a fundamental mode of reasoning.  It is often used in reasoning about ethical and legal matters.  Indeed, it forms the basis of our precedent system of law. In an analogical argument one draws a conclusion concerning a difficult, unclear case (the primary subject) by comparing it closely with a more straightforward or agreed upon case (the analogue). The basis for drawing the conclusion in an analogical argument is the relevant similarity between the primary subject and the analogue.

The type of analogical argument that Gibson presents is one where an analogy is used for the purpose of classification.  A cogent argument of this type has a structure that looks something like this:

1. The analogue has features a, b, and c.
2. The primary subject has features a, b, and c.
3. It is by virtue of features a, b, and c that the analogue is properly classified as a W.

Therefore,

     4.  The primary subject ought to be classified as a W.

Gibson is using this type to analogical argument for the purpose of classifying environmentalism as a religion.  He argues:

1. Religions have (a) a body of beliefs based on faith, (b) high priests who can speak ex cathedra and gain immediate belief, and (c) religious orders (Jesuits and Benedictines).
2. Environmentalism has David Suzuki, Al Gore and Amory Lovins (who have this otherworldly gravitas). Environmentalism has Greenpeace and the Sierra Club.

So,

     3.       Environmentalism ought to be classified as a religion.

As it stands, Gibson argument is not cogent.  He’s failed to include premises required to provide sufficient grounds for his conclusion.  This is easily seen when we compare it to the structure given above.  He’s missing the premise that the primary subject (Environmentalism) has feature (a) a body of beliefs based on faith, and he’s missing premise 3.

However, as we’ve discussed previously in this blog, the Grove Critical Thinking method of Argument Analysis involves reconstructing arguments by adding implicit premises as necessary in an attempt to make the argument cogent.  Our reason for doing so is to use argument analysis not merely for the purpose of seeing who we can refute, but to discover what we should believe. In addition, as we shall see, reconstruction can help pinpoint an argument’s flaws by uncovering hidden assumptions.  After reconstruction, Gibson’s argument looks like this:

1. Religions have (a) a body of beliefs based on faith, (b) high priests who can speak ex cathedra and gain immediate belief, and (c) religious orders (Jesuits and Benedictines).
2. Environmentalism has (a) a body of beliefs based on faith, (b) David Suzuki, Al Gore and Amory Lovins (who have this otherworldly gravitas) and (c) Greenpeace and the Sierra Club (religious orders?).
3. It is by virtue of features a, b, and c that a religion is properly classified as a religion.

So,

     4.       Environmentalism ought to be classified as a religion.

At this point, one might quite reasonably think that Gibson’s argument should be rejected on the grounds that Environmentalism does not have a body of beliefs based on faith.   I’m not going to reject the argument on that basis.  Certainly, not all the beliefs of environmentalism are based on faith, but let’s be charitable and presume that Gibson merely intends that some beliefs of environmentalists are based on faith.  I won’t take a stance either way on whether this is reasonable to believe, but we should note that this interpretation requires us to interpret premise 1a as likewise claiming that some religious beliefs are based on faith. Nor will I reject the argument on the basis that Premise 2b is unreasonable.  Perhaps some people do believe the claims of Suzuki, Gore and Lovins merely due to their authoritative position.  But again, interpreting this premise as such requires us to interpret 1b as claiming that some followers believe the claims of high priests simply because they are high priests.  Nor will I reject the argument on the basis that Greenpeace and the Sierra Club are not akin to religious orders.  To establish that they are, Gibson would need to provide a cogent analogical sub argument.  Let’s just suppose that he could do this. No, the real problem with Gibson’s argument is Premise 3. 

Before discussing what’s wrong with Premise 3, we need to address why premise 3 is necessary. After all, Gibson’s original argument didn’t include it.  So why did we need to add it as an implicit premise? The reason is that when we think critically about analogical arguments, we need to first ask ourselves whether the features of the primary subject that are highlighted by the analogy are relevant to the point asserted in the conclusion.  Do those features give us reasons to suppose that the conclusion is true of the primary subject?  But perhaps more importantly, we also need to ask ourselves whether there are any relevant differences and whether these differences outweigh the similarities.  The reason is that there are always similarities between any two things.  It is only if the two things are relevantly similar and not relevantly dissimilar that one would be justified in concluding they are of the same class.  Premise 3 amounts to the assertion that the similarities are relevant and that there are no relevant dissimilarities between environmentalism and religion.  This is why it is needed to make Gibson’s argument cogent. 

But of course there are relevant dissimilarities between environmentalism and religion.  The relevant dissimilarity is in fact what distinguishes religion from science.  Environmentalists support their beliefs with evidence.  In particular those opposed to fracking provide evidence that fracking should be opposed:  They claim fracking contaminates both the air and the ground water (and provide evidence for this).

I’m not claiming that this does or does not provide good reason to oppose fracking, but if it doesn’t then Gibson should provide an argument for why it doesn’t.  He should engage the arguments of the environmentalist.  Show either that their premises are unreasonable (show that fracking does not contaminate both the air and the ground water) or that their premises do not support their conclusion (show that even if it did, we should nonetheless do it).  In other words, he should think critically. But rather than think critically, by engaging the arguments of environmentalists, considering their evidence, examining whether their conclusions follow from the evidence, Gibson ignores their argument and instead presents an incredibly weak argument for his doing so.  This is the hallmark of uncritical thought.

Why Critical Thinking Matters to Business

People often do not reason well. Perhaps this is down to our evolutionary history, or perhaps it is simply an outcome of an undisciplined or untrained mind but it is clear that how human beings actually reason often differs from how we ought to reason.  We’ve evolved to follow certain heuristics (shorts cuts in reasoning) and these can lead to cognitive biases which negatively impact our reasoning and decision making. Simply being made aware of these cognitive biases and heuristics can mitigate their effects which will result in improved reasoning and decision making, but formal training and practice in Critical Thinking guarantees this.

Today’s business leaders recognize this. The American Management Association recently surveyed a large cohort of business leaders regarding the importance of Critical Thinking, Creativity, Collaboration, and Communication skills to their organization today and in the future and the overwhelming majority of them indicated that Critical Thinking skills were most important when considering growth in the coming years. Critical Thinking skills are that important because in the competitive business environment organizations  are constantly challenged to stay ahead of the curve and quickly make important decisions with no “do overs.” When there is little time and appetite to stop and think (or overthink) in a hurried and changing environment the ability to quickly and concisely distinguish the coherent from incoherent, the well-grounded from the weak and the cogent from the ineffective is crucial to in ensuring our decisions do not become ones we regret.

Successful business leaders recognize that high performing businesses succeed when their people are persuasive, credible and trained Critical Thinkers.

Critical Thinking about Rob Ford

Toronto’s Mayor Rob Ford was given 14 days to vacate his office on Monday November 26^th 2012 after Ontario Superior Court Justice Charles Hackland ruled he violated the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act by speaking about and participating in a council vote regarding a financial penalty he was ordered to pay in relation to donations he solicited for his football charity.   In Tuesday’s National Post, (November 27^th 2012) Christie Blatchford argues against Hackland’s ruling.  Her main point is that in the last municipal election 383,501 Torontonians voted for Rob Ford but “not a one of them voted for Mr. Magder, Mr. Ruby or Judge Hackland."

One might question the relevance of these statistics to this issue of whether or not Ford should have been removed from office.  Indeed, judging by the comments posted on the Post’s website, many are questioning this. An initial reconstruction of Blatchford’s argument bears this out:

1. Ford was elected.
2. Madger, Ruby and Hackland were not elected.
3. Ford should not been removed from office.

It seems obvious that premises (1) and (2) are irrelevant to (3).  What is relevant for (3) is that Ford violated the MCIA. 

At Grove Critical Thinking, we aim to help people become better critical thinkers.  The central skill involved in critical thinking is the ability to analyze arguments.  Argument analysis involves reconstructing an argument to make the argument as strong possible. The reason we do this is to use argument analysis not merely for the purpose of seeing who we can refute, but to discover what we should believe.  At times this can involve adding implicit premises to make what once seemed irrelevant premises relevant. 

In the case of Blatchford’s argument, we need to add the implicit premise that unelected individuals should be not allowed to remove an elected individual.  This results in the following second reconstruction:

1.  Unelected individuals should not be allowed to remove an elected individual.
2. Ford was elected.
3. Madger, Ruby, and Hackland were not elected.
4. Ford should not have been removed from office.

By adding the implicit premise (1), we make what were once irrelevant premises (initially 2 & 3, now 3 & 4) relevant.

The problem with this argument now, however, is that premise (1) is not reasonable. Clearly, there are counter examples (situations where an unelected individual should be allowed to remove an elected official).   The corruption of Laval’s Gilles Vaillancourt, which Blatchford herself raises to contrast with Ford’s offence, is such a case.

One way to improve the argument, then, would be to narrow the scope of the generalization in (1) so as to only involve cases where the offence is minor.  Even though it seems that Blatchford intended her argument to be based on the wider generalization as is evidenced by her dismissive remarks on the Canadian Charter of Rights which allows for unelected judges to overturn unconstitutional laws made by the federal government, let us reconstruct her argument using a narrower, more reasonable, generalization.  Again, the purpose of argument analysis is not to see who we can refute, but what we should believe.  The resulting reconstruction follows:

1. Unelected individuals should not be allowed to remove an elected individual for a minor offence.
2. Ford was elected.
3. Madger, Ruby and Hackland were not elected.
4. Ford's offence was a minor offence.
5. Ford should not have been removed from office.

Let’s evaluate this final reconstruction.  The questionable premises are (1) and (4).  I’ll leave it to the reader to evaluate (4).  With respect to (1), one could question whether this is reasonable.  But even if one was to believe that it is reasonable, presumably its reasonableness is due merely to the fact that elected officials should not be removed from office for a minor offence. It has nothing to do with their removal being initiated or carried out by an unelected individual.  In other words, Blatchford’s statistics that 383,501 Torontonians voted for Rob Ford but “not a one of them voted for Mr. Magder, Mr. Ruby or Judge Hackland” are irrelevant.  And so, one should not believe that Ford should not have been removed from office at least on the basis of Blatchford's argument.

Is Using Your Gut Thinking Critically?

Last week the Huffington Post published an article titled "It's a Matter of Mindset: Ten Principles for Unleashing Critical Thinking," written by Christine Riordan, the Dean of Daniels College of Business at the University of Denver. I am always pleased to find media articles on Critical Thinking, and when I noticed that this article was written by the Dean of a business school, I was even more intrigued.  Unfortunately, much of the article has little to do with Critical Thinking with Riordan even promoting principles which involve uncritical thought.

The article starts off well with Riordan stressing the need for critical thinking skills in a business world that is "changing at an astonishing and complex pace."  Businesses need employees with strong critical thinking skills to "capture opportunities, make sound decisions, create new revenue streams, expand their customer base, and create strength for the future." However, she argues, critical thinking skills are not enough.  She distinguishes between critical thinking skills and a critical thinking mindset, claiming that organizational success requires both.

There is some truth to this last point, having critical thinking skills is not enough.  But I would argue that if you don't have a critical thinking mindset, then you don't really have the skills.  The reason being that to be a critical thinker takes practice.  You first learn some basic critical thinking skills, and then develop the ability to think critically by applying these skills.  In this sense, critical thinking is like any other skill, such as riding a bike or playing the piano.  One can be given instruction on how to ride a bike, but one doesn't learn how to ride a bike without actually riding a bike.   Similarly one can be given instruction on how to think critically, but one does not become skilled at thinking critically without developing a critical thinking mindset that one gets from practice.

Riordan, however, seems to mean something quite different when she speaks of a critical thinking mindset.  She claims, "individuals with a critical thinking mindset believe they can solve any problem and no challenge is too great. They approach problems with the attitude of optimism, persistence, confidence, and resolution to improve the situation." Again, there is some truth to what she says.  It is true that employing critical thinking will make one more confident and optimistic that a particular challenge can be met.  Using critical thinking basically means having good reasons. By gathering sufficient evidence, uncovering hidden assumptions, drawing only justified conclusions, you will have reason to be confident and optimistic in the outcome.  But it is entirely unreasonable to think that any problem can be solved or that no challenge is too great. Nor is it wise to be blindly optimistic.  Blind optimism, being optimistic when one  has no reason to be optimistic, can be extremely harmful.  To claim that one should merely adopt an attitude of confidence and optimism without reason is, in fact, to promote uncritical thinking.

As the title of her article suggests, Riordan also offers "Ten Principles underlying a Critical Thinking Mindset."  Some are indeed valuable, particularly the last, which prescribes fostering a critical thinking environment.  It is certainly true that executives should create an environment conducive to critical thinking. One way to do this is to provide critical thinking training workshops for their employees.

Some of Riordan's principles, however, have little to do with critical thinking.  Indeed, some again promote uncritical thinking.  In particular, is her suggestion to "blink" following the advice given by Malcolm Gladwell in his book with that title.  According to Riordan, in times where information is incomplete executives must "use their hunches, gut reactions, and intuition because they don't have access to complete information."

The problem is that we rarely, if ever, have access to complete information when making a decision or solving problems.  To have complete information when deciding to do x would mean that we have a deductively valid argument to that effect.  A deductively valid argument is one which has the following property: If the premises (the reasons offered in support of the conclusion) are true, the conclusion must be true.  So a valid deductive argument for deciding to do x, would be an argument, such that, if the premises of the argument (our reasons for doing x) were true, the conclusion (that we should do x) must be true. But when do we have reasons as good as that?

This is why part of being able to think critically is to be familiar with non-deductive forms of argument, to know when non-deductive arguments are nonetheless good arguments.  That is, to know when it is the case that if the premises of an argument of true, the conclusion is most likely true.

What this does not mean is that we should use our hunches, gut reactions, and intuition.  Why? Because these are often wrong. Over the past 30 years, research in cognitive science and social psychology has shown how cognitive biases (psychological tendencies that cause the human brain to draw incorrect conclusions) can lead us astray in a wide variety of ways.  Quite simply, human beings are not good at reasoning intuitively. To go with one's intuitions is, therefore, not to operate with a critical thinking mindset.  Rather, to engage in critical thinking is to be aware that one's intuitions are often misleading and to overcome these biases by properly analyzing arguments.

David Laverty, Ph.D.