Z Score,T Score, Percential Rank and Box Plot Graph
ABSTRACT. Many writers argue that it is necessary to devel.docx
1. ABSTRACT. Many writers argue that
it is necessary to develop critical thinking
skills in business students because these
skills are needed to deal with the increas-
ing complexities of real-life problems.
Although the goal appears to be laudable, it
is not always clear how to go about achiev-
ing it. In this article, the authors describe
active learning experiences in a course on
business negotiations that serve the dual
purpose of teaching students to negotiate
and sharpen their critical-thinking skills.
In the current atmosphere of resource con-
straints, it is unlikely that separate courses
can be set up for improving critical-thinking
skills. A course on business negotiations,
3. observation that although the existing
courses meet needs for content, they
generally lack the environment to opti-
mize the development of critical-think-
ing skills.
Emphasis on Critical Thinking
This discussion about critical think-
ing is not new. The debate has continued
for many years. However, the debate has
taken on urgency because of the promi-
nence given to it recently by the Asso-
ciation to Advance Collegiate Schools
of Business (AACSB; 2003), the global
accreditation agency for business educa-
tion. In 2003, AACSB adopted a new set
of standards for accreditation and main-
tenance of accreditation. Under Stan-
dard 15 (management of curriculum),
AACSB is prescriptive and suggests
that reflective thinking skills should be
an important outcome of undergraduate
business programs. Some authors have
referred to this kind of thinking ability
as higher order thinking.
The business accreditation agency
is quite prescriptive about the need to
develop higher order thinking skills in
business students. Thus the goal is quite
clear. What is not clear (and the research-
ers are silent on this important aspect) is
how to achieve this goal. One option
may be to set up a new course to help
4. students learn this complex skill. How-
ever, for most universities, this is not
a practical option because of resource
constraints. The technological and sub-
ject knowledge required for business
managers has greatly increased in the
past 20 years. Thus, there is little room
in business curricula for such an extra
course. The only practical option appears
to be to incorporate learning experiences
in existing courses that simultaneously
promote higher-order thinking.
Critical Thinking Defined
What is critical thinking or reflec-
tive thinking or higher order thinking?
Many authors have attempted to answer
this question. For extensive coverage of
this topic, see Bloom (1956), Jenkins
Promoting Critical-Thinking Skills By
Using Negotiation Exercises
DIANA PAGE
ARUP MUKHERJEE
UNIVERSITY OF WEST FLORIDA
PENSACOLA, FLORIDA
S
May/June 2007 251
(1998), Dalal (1994), and Guillemette
(1991). Bloom’s taxonomy has with-
5. stood the test of time for over 50 years
and is quite useful for discussions about
higher order thinking. In this article, we
use the phrases higher order thinking,
critical thinking, and reflective thinking
interchangeably.
Bloom (1956) identified a category
of objectives called cognitive objec-
tives. This set of objectives deal with
whether a student is able to perform
in certain educationally desirable ways
after instruction. There are six major
subcategories of cognitive objectives
that we will summarize later on the
basis of the work of Guillemette (1991).
The subcategories in increasing order
of complexity include (a) knowledge,
(b) comprehension, (c) application, (d)
analysis, (e) synthesis, and (f) evalu-
ation. Knowledge involves recall of
information. Comprehension involves
the lowest level of understanding where
the reader knows what is being commu-
nicated and can use it in its immediate
context. Application consists of the use
of ideas, principles, and theories in a
particular context.
The activities of analysis, synthesis,
and evaluation are generally treated as
higher order thinking skills. Analysis
involves the separation of parts of a
communication or problem into distinct
elements. Some examples of analy-
sis include (a) categorizing items, (b)
6. comparing items, (c) disassembling a
product, (d) examining a specimen, (e)
distinguishing patterns, and (f) recog-
nizing patterns. Synthesis is a process
that puts parts together to form a new
structure. Some examples of synthesis
include (a) writing a new communica-
tion, (b) developing a plan, (c) design-
ing a product, (d) proposing a strategy,
and assembling a product. Evaluation
means making a judgment on the basis
of explicit and relatively complex cri-
teria as opposed to making a judgment
on the basis of inherent likes and dis-
likes. Judgments may be quantitative or
qualitative. Some examples of evalua-
tion include (a) comparing proposals,
(b) ranking projects, (c) recommending
candidates, and (d) appraising market
values of homes.
In this article, we describe negoti-
ation role plays employed in a busi-
ness negotiation course that not only
help students learn negotiation tactics
and strategies, but also provide them
with multiple classroom experiences to
enhance critical thinking.
First, we describe the nature of the
course; then we discuss active learning
negotiating experiences and how spe-
cific experiences helped students prac-
tice their higher order thinking skills.
Finally, we discuss the general applica-
7. bility of the approach, limitations of the
approach, and ideas for future research.
Course Details
The college of business at the Uni-
versity of West Florida at Pensaco-
la, Florida is AACSB accredited and
enrolls about 1,700 students in its
undergraduate, MBA, and account-
ing degree programs. The instructors
at this school have taught a course
on business negotiations since 2004
as an elective course to management
majors. The course developers recog-
nize that future managers will have
to use many different kinds of nego-
tiation skills. In addition, managers
will also have to recognize and select
appropriate strategies and tactics to use
during negotiations and as necessary
recognize and deal with competitive
strategies used by other negotiators. To
provide students with adequate learn-
ing experiences of these complex tasks,
the course includes a large number of
active learning experiences.
Instructors ask students to read and
they test students on relevant nego-
tiation materials. The instructors also
ask students to (a) complete homework
assignments, (b) participate in class-
room negotiation role play exercises,
and (c) successfully demonstrate that
they have completed a one-on-one
8. negotiation that is significant to them.
For the course, the instructors use a
textbook by Lewicki, Saunders, Barry,
and Minton (2004a). From spring 2004
to fall 2006, the course was taught
nine times. A total of 149 students
were taught in the nine sections. About
46% were male students and 54% were
female students. The course was dual
listed as a senior and graduate course.
About 9% were graduate students (n =
149). The maximum number of students
in a particular offering was 28. In other
words, the approach works with about
25–30 students, but not more. The first
author can provide a copy of the sylla-
bus of this course upon request.
Negotiation Role Play (NRP)
The instructors of the management
negotiations course require each stu-
dent to participate in 13 negotiation
role plays (NRP). They grade three
of the NRPs, which account for 30%
of the total grade (i.e., 10% for each
NRP). For the other 10 role plays, 7
are performed in pairs and 3 are per-
formed in small groups. The instruc-
tor’s resource CD-ROM from Lewicki,
Saunders, Barry, and Minton (2004b)
provided most of the negotiation role
plays for the participants.
The process for NRPs during class
9. session follows a structured format
where students (a) plan the negotia-
tion, (b) execute the negotiation, and
(c) debrief the negotiation. For the first
step of this exercise, students plan the
negotiation. One week before the NRP,
students receive their specific role; they
read and analyze their role using a spe-
cific planning form that is provided by
the instructor (see Appendix A). Nego-
tiation experts (Fisher & Ury, 1986;
Lewicki et al., 2004a) have suggested
that the specific elements outlined in the
appendix are key to planning and imple-
mentation of a successful negotiation.
The planning process requires students
to distinguish specific negotiation ele-
ments such as issues, goals, interests,
bargaining mix, frames, and strategies
for their role in a given negotiation. A
description of each of these negotiation
elements is presented in Appendix B.
In the second step of this exercise,
students engage in the actual NRP
face to face. During the third and final
step of the NRP, students complete an
observation form during class time (see
Appendix C). On the observation form,
students answer several questions about
issues dealing with the final outcome,
and it provides a structured approach
to evaluating the negotiation. Thus,
although the instructor cannot hear
everything that is said among each pair,
the instructor reads and evaluates each
10. student’s plan and self-evaluation along
252 Journal of Education for Business
May/June 2007 253
with the other party’s observation of
that student.
Higher Order Thinking Skills
Used in Negotiation Role Plays
Students experience a total of 13
NRPs during the course. Three of the
NRPs are graded. In this section, we
describe how the preparation, execu-
tion, and debriefing of the negotiation
role plays help students practice the
higher order thinking skills of analysis,
synthesis, and evaluation.
Higher Order Thinking Skills Used in
the Planning Process
Appendix D presents a simple case
that describes a young couple who
negotiate the purchase of a car.
Table 1 shows the various higher
order thinking activities that are used
to complete the planning process. We
have included the simplified illustrations
applicable to the car-buying case in Table
1 to make it easier for the reader to
11. understand the technical terms involved.
A study of Table 1 indicates that
identification of issues, goals, interests,
opening, target, and resistance point pri-
marily involves analysis. Synthesis is the
dominant higher order thinking involved
in development of the best alternative
to negotiated agreement (BATNA) and
frames. Strategy identification makes
intense use of evaluation.
Higher Order Thinking Skills Used
During the Negotiation
During the planning process, negotia-
tors have time to investigate facts and
information and reflect upon ideas and
concepts relative to the negotiation. In
contrast, during the negotiation, nego-
tiators must respond on the go. Nego-
tiation partners must actively listen to
each other and must respond in a way
that lets their partner know they have
been heard. Negotiators must respond to
words and concepts they hear from the
other party; they must understand the
issue(s) from the other party’s perspec-
tive. Even though this thought process
was part of the planning process, the
exchange of words and thoughts may
not be exactly as the negotiator planned.
Therefore, the negotiation is like a game
of chess; each party must try to (a) see
several steps ahead, (b) remain flexible,
12. and (c) think on the go. The negotiation
is not only a test of the negotiator’s skill
in planning, but also a test of the nego-
tiator’s skill in creating new outcomes
that result in win-win solutions.
The bargaining mix (opening, target,
interests, BATNA) typically evolves
over the course of the negotiation.
This engages each party in discerning
and responding to opening statements,
developing and asking questions to
determine reasons for the other party’s
opening statement, figuring out how the
other side is thinking, and comparing
and contrasting the needs of the two
parties. These activities engage each
side in analysis.
During the negotiation, each party
constructs and proposes alternative
solutions in an attempt to achieve an
outcome to satisfy both parties. Thus,
the role play is a dynamic interaction
of continuous changes in plans and
strategies. The parties have to use pre-
defined frames or construct new ones
on a dynamic basis thus engaging in
synthesis. While developing frames,
students engage in synthesis. However,
when choosing which frame to use at a
particular point in the negotiation, they
engage in evaluation.
Higher Order Thinking Skills Used in
the Debriefing Process
13. During the third step of the exercise,
students complete a formal evaluation
of the role play. Student pairs evaluate
TABLE 1. Higher Order Thinking Activities Used in the
Planning Process
Example of application of negotiation Category of
Negotiation elements (see elements from car buying case for
Actions needed to be higher order
Appendix B for details) newly married couple taken by students
thinking
Identify issues Buy the first car as a couple Disassemble
statements to determine Analysis
the issue
Identify goals and interests Goal: Kathy wants to buy a van with
a Compare and differentiate the Analysis
good safety record. Interest: Kathy different statements
of the parties
wants a car that will hold a child seat, to distinguish
goals from interests
groceries, and family members
Identify bargaining mix
Identify opening Buy a new safe van by April Students
prioritize needs of parties Analysis
in case.
Identify target Purchase a safe van
Identify resistance point Purchase a safe new car
Identify BATNA Return to work 6 months after the baby To
formulate BATNA, negotiators Synthesis
is born need to rearrange facts and issues
to produce something new.
Develop frames Bill says, “Let’s go look at trucks.” (Bill
Students create multiple frames to Synthesis
14. (e.g., outcome frame) has a predisposition to buy a truck.)
draw upon during the negotiation.
Identify strategy Bill and Kathy agree on principles Rate
strength of desires and level Evaluation
(e.g., principled collaboration) that will guide the
negotiation of concerns to develop strategy.
Note. BATNA = Best alternative to a negotiated agreement.
themselves and their partners using the
negotiation role play observation form
shown in Appendix C. Table 2 shows an
analysis of the activities performed to
complete the distinct tasks. Analysis is
the predominant higher order thinking
skill used in identifying the party that
was more dependent on the deal and in
identifying the target point of the other
party. Identifying the party with better
BATNA involves synthesis and evalua-
tion. It requires evaluation to identify and
describe strategies that worked well or
did not work well for both the parties.
DISCUSSION
When students engage in negotiation
role plays, they learn contextual and
practical aspects of negotiation along
with three aspects of critical think-
ing: (a) analysis, (b) synthesis, and
(c) evaluation. In preparation for each
negotiation, students have to articulate
their goals, strategy, and expectations.
15. To do this, they need to understand
the scenario and their own interests. In
addition, they must examine the sce-
nario from the other party’s perspective.
Doing so gives them a good opportunity
to practice analysis.
In addition, students have to develop
a strategy. This process encourages stu-
dents to blend their personal negotiation
styles with approaches that have worked
in other scenarios. This gives them a
good opportunity to practice synthesis.
In addition, the students have to evalu-
ate strategies to determine their appro-
priateness for this scenario. This gives
them practice in evaluation.
After the negotiation is complete,
students answer several questions. By
answering these questions, students
describe the negotiation and provide
a discussion of the results. This step
requires students to analyze the nego-
tiation to understand the reasons for the
outcome. Their explanation includes a
discussion about interdependencies and
an evaluation of strategies that the stu-
dent used that worked or did not work,
and strategies used by the other party
that worked or did not work. Therefore,
these exercises give students multiple
opportunities to practice higher order
thinking skills.
16. General Applicability of
Approach
Can students of other majors also
use this approach in their courses? The
answer appears to be a qualified “yes.”
For example, in a business ethics course
(typically taken by all business majors),
student pairs may debate both sides of
an ethical issue (e.g., firing workers at
will). In a business law course (typically
taken by all business majors), instruc-
tors may ask student pairs to debate the
legal ramifications of university poli-
cies (e.g., affirmative action policies
pertaining to student admissions). In a
course on corporate finance (for finance
majors), instructors may ask student
pairs to debate the best financial course
to follow (e.g., best debt or equity
option to follow in a specific company).
In a corporate tax class for accounting
majors, student pairs may be asked to
debate best ways to treat specific busi-
ness expenses (e.g., stock option grants
to employees). In a systems analysis
and design class for management infor-
mation systems (MIS) majors, student
pairs may be asked to debate differ-
ent options for meeting customer needs
(e.g., best user interface design in a par-
ticular context). This list is not exhaus-
tive. We can present similar examples
for other disciplines in business.
17. The biggest weakness of the approach
is that such exercises may take too much
of the classroom time. It may also need
careful planning by the instructor. One
of the options to consider may be to have
groups debate the issues with a require-
ment that each member of the group has
to make a meaningful contribution to the
debate. Another weakness is that it may
be difficult to incorporate such exercises
in courses that have a large number of
students. One option may be to use such
approaches in advanced courses of a dis-
cipline that are typically taken by majors
of that discipline. Such courses are likely
to have fewer students.
Critical-thinking ability is an impor-
tant outcome for business students.
Therefore, it is necessary to figure out
cost-effective approaches to achieve
this outcome. It appears reasonable to
incorporate active learning experiences
254 Journal of Education for Business
TABLE 2. Higher Order Thinking Used in the Debriefing
Process
Category of
higher order
Task (from negotiation role play observation form) Actions
needed to be taken by students thinking
Identify party more dependent on deal; state reasons. Compare
what they said with what the other party Analysis
18. said and critique these statements.
Identify other party's target point. Use other party's statements
to infer target point. Analysis
Identify party who had the better BATNA; identify Extrapolate
from information not stated by other party; Synthesis and
what it was. compare two BATNAs. evaluation
Describe new frame if you changed it during Explain why own
frame was effective; requires Evaluation
negotiation; if you did not change it, explain judgment
about effectiveness of frames.
reasons for its effectiveness.
Identify strategies used by you that worked well or Select and
decide which negotiation elements student Evaluation
did not work well. performed well.
Identify strategies used by other party that worked Select and
decide which negotiation element the other Evaluation
well or did not work well. party performed well.
Note. BATNA = Best alternative to a negotiated agreement.
May/June 2007 255
in multiple courses with the goal of
helping students develop and improve
this skill.
Limitations and Future Research
This article has some limitations.
First, we made no attempt to measure
the level or extent to which higher
order thinking skills were used during
the negotiation role plays. Second, we
made no attempt to provide evidence
19. of improvements in these skills on the
basis of pre- and posttests.
At the same time, the authors believe
that higher order thinking skills are not
easy to measure. These skills appear to
be among those skills that improve with
experience and appear to be hard to
teach. Therefore, the focus of this work
was to provide students with multiple
opportunities to practice these skills
using real-life negotiation exercises. In
the future, researchers should measure
improvements in critical thinking that
may be attributed to participating in
these negotiation exercises.
Conclusion
Students majoring in business are
likely to face complex problems in their
careers. To develop appropriate solu-
tions for these problems, it will be nec-
essary to use critical-thinking skills. As
the total amount of content has increased
in required courses, instructors have to
focus more on content than on devel-
opment of critical-thinking skills. This
is unsatisfactory because students are
less likely to be able to rise to the chal-
lenges of the complexities that they will
encounter in the real world. In addi-
tion, AACSB authorities have instituted
new standards that require the business
graduates to think critically.
20. Institutions are required to rise to this
challenge while they are under great
financial pressures. In other words,
developing and teaching new courses
that enhance critical thinking skills is
unlikely to be a viable alternative for
many institutions.
We believe a better alternative is
available and has been used success-
fully. This approach requires instruc-
tors to employ integrative active learn-
ing experiences in suitable courses. For
management majors, a course on busi-
ness negotiations is a prime area for this
purpose. This course requires students
to engage in several negotiation exercis-
es. Such exercises have the advantage of
teaching negotiation skills and engaging
students in analysis, synthesis, and eval-
uation (the three pillars of higher-order
thinking). Therefore, students can prac-
tice critical-thinking skills while engag-
ing in negotiation exercises. We believe
that this approach is the most viable for
many institutions.
NOTE
Dr. Diana Page teaches courses in the areas of
organization behavior, management of diversity,
and business negotiations. Dr. Arup Mukherjee
teaches courses in the areas of project management,
operations management, and management science.
21. The authors’ research interests are effectiveness of
teaching strategies and critical thinking.
Correspondence concerning this article should
be addressed to Dr. Diana Page, University of
West Florida, 11000 University Parkway, Pen-
sacola, FL 32515.
E-mail: [email protected]
REFERENCES
Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of
Business (AACSB) International. (2003). Eli-
gibility procedures and standards for business
accreditation. St. Louis, MO: Author.
Bloom, B. S. (Ed.). (1956). Taxonomy of educa-
tional objectives: The classification of educa-
tion goals—Handbook 1. Cognitive domain.
New York: McKay.
Dalal, N. P. (1994). Higher order thinking in
MIS. Journal of Computer Information Sys-
tems, 34(4), 26–30.
Fisher, R., & Ury, W. (1986). Getting to yes:
Negotiating agreement without giving in. Mid-
dlesex, England: Penguin Books.
Guillemette, R. A. (1991). Domains of education-
al objectives: An information systems perspec-
tive. Journal of Computer Information Systems,
31(4), 18–25.
Jenkins, E. K. (1998). The significant role of
critical thinking in predicting auditing students’
22. performance. Journal of Education for Busi-
ness, 73, 274–279.
Lewicki, R. J., Saunders, D. M., Barry, B., &
Minton, J. W. (2004a). Essentials of negotiation
(3rd ed.). Boston: McGraw-Hill/Irwin.
Lewicki, R. J., Saunders, D. M., Barry, B., &
Minton, J. W. (2004b). Instructor’s resource
CD-ROM: Essentials of negotiation (3rd ed.).
Boston: McGraw-Hill/Irwin.
Savage, G. T., Blair, J. D., & Sorenson, R. L.
(2003). Consider both relationships and sub-
stance when negotiating strategically. In R.
J. Lewicki, D. M. Saunders, J. W. Minton, &
B. Barry (Eds.), Negotiation readings, exer-
cises, and cases (4th ed., pp. 23–40). Boston:
McGraw-Hill Irwin.
APPENDIX A
Planning Form for Negotiation Role Playing
Negotiation title __________________________ Your name
_________________
Your role _______________________________ Date
______________________
Instructions: Place your response next to or immediately below
the question. Single
space responses and double space between questions. For credit,
do type.
1. Briefly state the issue.
2. What is your goal? The other party’s goal?
3. What are your needs or interests (in priority order)? The
23. other party’s interests?
4. What is your bargaining range or mix? The other party’s?
a. Opening or target?
b. Interests? (List in priority order)
c. Resistance point?
d. Best alternative to a negotiated agreement (BATNA)?
5. What type of frame will you use?
a. Briefly describe the frame.
6. What strategy will you use?
a. Briefly describe your strategy.
b. Why did you choose this strategy?
256 Journal of Education for Business
APPENDIX B
A Description of the Negotiation Elements
A. Issues describe the major problem, or reason for the
negotiation.
B. Goals are statements that state specific, measurable
outcomes, with time require-
ments as appropriate. Interests describe the underlying needs, or
why the negotiator
wants certain outcomes.
C. Bargaining mix is an explanation of negotiator priorities. It
includes the opening,
target, resistance point, and the best alternative to a negotiated
agreement (BATNA).
a. The opening includes the maximum outcome the negotiator
wants.
b. The target is what the negotiator would like to get or what
they would be satisfied
24. with.
c. The resistance point is minimum acceptable outcome the
negotiator will accept.
d. BATNA. A description of what the negotiators will do if
they do not achieve their
resistance point.
D. Frames are specific ways of focusing, shaping, and
describing the issue. Frames guide
the dialogue by helping negotiator focus on what is most
important to her or him. Some
frames include: substantive (what the negotiation is about),
outcome (predisposition to
achieving a specific result), aspiration (predisposition toward
satisfying a broader set of
interests), conflict management process (how the parties will
resolve the issue), identity
(how the parties define who they are), characterization (how the
parties define the other
party), loss-gain (how the parties view the risk associated with
particular outcomes).
E. Strategy is an overall approach that considers the importance
of the substance of the
negotiation to the negotiator, the importance of the other party's
relationship to the negoti-
ator, the importance of substance to the other party and the
importance of the relationship
to the other party. Some strategies include principled
collaboration, focused subordina-
tion, soft competition, and passive avoidance (see Savage,
Blair, & Sorenson, 2003).
APPENDIX C
Negotiation Role Play Observation Form
25. Negotiation title __________________________ Your name
_________________
Your role _______________________________ Date
______________________
Part I: With your partner
Develop a statement of the outcome of the negotiation.
Part II: Individually
1. Who was more dependent on the deal? Who was in a more
reactive or defensive
position? Why?
2. What was the other party’s target point?
a. Specifically, what did you do that influenced the other
party’s target point?
3. Who had the better BATNA (best alternative to a negotiated
agreement) and what
was it?
4. Did you change your frame? r Yes r No (check one)
a. If YES, what was the new frame?
b. If YES, what type of frame was it?
c. If NO, why was your frame effective?
5. What strategies did you use that worked well?
6. What strategies did you use that did not work well?
7. What strategies did your partner use that worked well?
8. What strategies did your partner use that did not work well?
May/June 2007 257 May/June 2007 257
APPENDIX D
A Case of a Newly Married Couple Negotiating the Purchase of
a Car
A young married couple is buying their first car together. They
26. can only afford to
buy one new or reasonably new car at this time. Kathy is
pregnant and she and her hus-
band agreed that she will stay at home until the baby is 4 or 5
years of age. Kathy drives
a 1997 Ford Taurus that has some major engine problems. She
wants to buy a van with a
good safety record by the time the baby is born in April so she
can easily accommodate
a child’s carseat, groceries, and other family-type things.
Kathy’s husband, Bill, drives a 2003 Ford Thunderbird he
purchased when he gradu-
ated from college. He plans to do some light carpentry work on
their home and wants to
buy a pickup truck so he can easily transport building materials.
He suggests that there
is even a possibility he can earn extra money by doing light
construction for a couple
of his friends.
CRITICAL THINKING
THE BUSINESS CASE FOR CRITICAL THINKING
BY ANNE PAUKER KREITZBERG AND CHARLES B.
KREITZBERG, Ph.D.
Every day, business people make countless decisions. Some are
good decisions that move the business forward and
27. increase profit. Others are poor decisions that hurt the
business and reduce profit.
The big decisions—both good and bad—often end up on the
nightly news. On the down side
we’ve recently seen the subprime mortgage meltdown, the
Lehman Brothers bankruptcy, and
the Gulf oil spill. On the up side we’ve seen heroic and
competent activities like pilot “Sully”
Sullenberger who saved 150 passengers by skillfully landing US
Airways Flight 1549 in the
Hudson River after losing both engines.
While the big stories make the headlines, similar issues on a
smaller scale play out in every
business many times a day. Everyone in business, no matter
what their position, makes many
decisions every day and each is an opportunity for a win or a
mistake.
Teaching people to think more deeply, solve problems better,
communicate, collaborate, and
innovate more effectively makes companies run a lot better.
That bottom line result is the goal
of critical thinking.
You can see that interest in critical thinking started growing
around 1900 and really took off
about 1980.
The interest in critical thinking that we see in the Google
database is reinforced by recent research.
American Management Association surveyed 2,100 executives
28. and managers for its 2010
Critical Skills Survey. Sixty-eight percent of the respondents
identified critical thinking as the
most important skill needed for their company’s success in the
21st century (68%).
Critical thinking was not only the first among the 21st century
skills but is the foundation for
three other essential 21st century skills: communication,
collaboration, and creative thinking.
These skills have been called “the four C’s.”
C O M M U N I C A T I O N • C R I T I C A L T H I N K I N
G • C R E A T I V I T Y • C O L L A B O R A T I O N
THE 4Cs
23
24
Three quarters of those surveyed expect these skills to become
even more important in the
next three to five years. Their reasons: the pace of change in
business today (91%), global
competitiveness (87%), the nature of how work is accomplished
today (78%), and the way
organizations are structured today (66%).
It’s reassuring that executives see the importance of critical
thinking skills because the
challenges companies face today are enormous: increasing
global competition, emerging
markets, rising energy costs, burgeoning health-care costs,
29. technology, and a shifting political
and economic landscape. Employees need to be able to think
fast and act smart—often in
situations that are complex, uncertain, and where no effective
policy or procedure exists. That
makes critical thinking a real necessity.
WHEN PROCESS FAILS
At about the same time that critical thinking was becoming a
major concern of business,
management thinkers like Michael Hammer, Peter Drucker, and
Tom Peters were arguing for
the importance of business process reengineering (BPR).
Business process is a powerful tool
when it is flexible and relevant. However, in a time of change
and flux, poorly thought-out
process, over-reliance on generic best practices, and the
complexities of adapting processes to
accommodate rapidly changing environments can work against
the ability of business to adapt.
Business process development paired with critical thinking is
powerful. It leads to efficient
processes that also have the flexibility to address problems that
were not anticipated. It helps
people ask the right questions, like:
� Is there a policy or precedent for handling this situation?
� If I don’t know an answer, who can I consult or how can I
find out?
� What is the best course of action if existing policy or
procedures are incomplete, vague,
outdated, or just don’t make sense in this situation?
IT’S NOT YOUR FATHER’S CRITICAL THINKING
30. In the past, critical thinking has been thought of as an academic
skill, tied to such subjects as
logic and rhetoric. While there is a lot of value in this approach,
it doesn’t directly address the
types of business decisions that need to be addressed every day:
C O M M U N I C A T I O N • C R I T I C A L T H I N K I N
G • C R E A T I V I T Y • C O L L A B O R A T I O N
THE 4Cs
How do you believe your organization will view these skills and
competencies (critical thinking,
communication skills, collaboration, and creativity) in the next
three to five years?
They will become less important 0.6%
They will remain the same 22.5%
They will become more important 75.7%
No opinion 1.1%
� How should I deal with an irate customer?
� Which vendor will be the best for our needs?
� How much of what I am being told is a “sales pitch” and how
much is accurate?
� Is the snow severe enough so we should close our offices?
� Are the consultant’s recommendations good ones?
� Which software product should we buy?
The number of possible decisions is endless and that’s why it’s
impossible to create processes
31. and policies that address them all.
In addition, relying only on logic ignores the reality that
making decisions inside an
organization involves more than logic. When you are working
with others, politics, competing
agendas, limited resources, and time pressure all affect the
decision-making process. Within a
team, each member brings different experience, perspective,
goals, and communications skills.
Business decisions are also based on experience and domain
knowledge. It’s not only a matter
of logic but of applying logic to a domain that you understand
well. Sully Sullenberger, the
pilot we mentioned earlier, told CBS News Anchor Katy Couric,
“One way of looking at this
might be that for 42 years, I’ve been making small, regular
deposits in this bank of experience:
education and training. And on January 15 the balance was
sufficient so that I could make a
very large withdrawal.”
Because of the importance of domain knowledge, experience,
and the social nature of business,
teaching critical thinking in a business setting requires a new
approach.
HOW DO YOU TEACH CRITICAL THINKING?
Closing the critical thinking skills gap is not easy. The ideal
way to improve critical thinking
skills is through long-term one-on-one coaching and mentoring.
This is time-consuming and
far too expensive to be practical. However, some recent
developments have made critical
thinking instruction much more accessible.
32. One useful approach is to start with frameworks and best
practices. The framework that we have
developed is the Agile Critical Thinking (ACT) framework
(www.agilecriticalthinking.com). It
is easy to learn and very flexible.
Another framework that we use in conjunction with Agile
Critical Thinking is the RED model
developed by psychometricians at Pearson
(http://thinkwatson.com/learn-introduction-to-
the-red-model.php). Based on the work of Goodwin Watson and
E.M. Glaser at Columbia
University, this model offers a quick and effective way to focus
on key factors in critical
thinking.
Frameworks and best practices, of course, are not enough. They
are simply a way to help
people think about how to approach problems critically.
Becoming an effective critical thinker
requires a great deal of practice and thoughtful feedback.
While one-on-one mentoring is expensive, social computing has
opened new and far more
cost effective possibilities. Through social media it is possible
to support peer-to-peer
C O M M U N I C A T I O N • C R I T I C A L T H I N K I N
G • C R E A T I V I T Y • C O L L A B O R A T I O N
THE 4Cs
25
33. 26
mentoring and to connect with coaches and mentors via the
Internet. Social computing is
revolutionizing the way we teach critical thinking, leadership,
and other “soft” skills.
CREATING A CRITICAL THINKING CULTURE IN YOUR
ORGANIZATION
Whether you are the CEO or manage a small group, the time is
right to foster a culture in your
organization that encourages and rewards critical thinking.
Managers who are secure that their
people will consistently make responsible and effective
decisions get the most from their
workforce and increase their effectiveness as leaders.
Realize that it will take some time—critical thinking is not a
“quick fix” but a deep cultural change.
Start by getting a very clear picture of why critical thinking is
of key importance to your
organization. Be as specific as possible rather than relying on
general statements that would
apply to any company. Ask yourself questions like these:
� What’s not happening in my organization that would be
improved if people were better
critical thinkers?
� How would better critical thinking improve our efficiency,
effectiveness, and ability to compete?
� If we don’t change the way we approach problem-solving and
decision-making, what risks
34. do we face?
� How would I know if people were doing a better job of
thinking critically?
� Who, currently, in my organization is doing a good job of
critical thinking and problem
solving? What enables this person to do it well and how can I
replicate it?
� Who might be threatened by better critical thinking? How can
we respond?
When you have developed a clear picture, clearly articulate the
vision to your staff. Describe
what a robust critical thinking organization looks like and what
critical thinkers do.
Communicate the benefits and why it is essential to your
organization’s survival and growth. If
you can’t make a compelling case for boosting your critical
thinking capability, it will be very
difficult to get the support and commitment you need to make it
a reality.
Give people the tools they need to be successful.
Teach critical thinking skills and techniques and reinforce them
with “mentoring moments.”
Critical thinkers like to think. They know they don’t know
everything and always want to know
more. They realize that they get better at it by thinking through
the problems and situations
they face every day. A good mentor—manager or coworkers—
can really help.
Closing the critical thinking gap is the one of the most
important steps you can take to help
your organization thrive in the 21st century. MW
35. Anne P. Kreitzberg and Charles B. Kreitzberg, Ph.D. are experts
in critical thinking and 21st century business skills.
They run Cognetics Interactive (www.cognetics.com). They are
also the thought leaders and designers for Critical
Thinking University, an online social learning community. They
provide critical thinking resources and discussion
at the Agile Critical Thinking Community
(www.agilecriticalthinking.com).
C O M M U N I C A T I O N • C R I T I C A L T H I N K I N
G • C R E A T I V I T Y • C O L L A B O R A T I O N
THE 4Cs
Copyright of MWorld is the property of American Management
Association International and its content may
not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv
without the copyright holder's express written
permission. However, users may print, download, or email
articles for individual use.
Please read all attachments. Need discussions/talk about the
two articles, what was interesting, explain and questions of
articles if any. I need a minimum of 3 discussions/talks
from each article, so 6 or more discussions/talks. No less
than 100 words for each for each
discussions/talks. Noplagiarism due in 18 hours or less. Please
36. do not reply, unless you read all attachments, understand due
date and price I am willing to pay no exceptions so do not ask
for more. If you want more money do not waste my time or
your time!
