Critical Thinking in the Workforce:

Critical Thinking in the Workforce: An Overview

Contrary to what some might believe, being a critical thinker does not mean being a negative thinker, or aggressively looking for flaws. Rather it is trying to see the world as it really is and striving to arrive at creative solutions when there are real problems that need to be fixed. Being a critical thinker does not necessitate being like a movie critic and giving a 'thumbs up' or 'thumbs down' to every issue. Critical thinkers are able to perceive both strengths and weaknesses in their opponent's arguments. Critical thinking means scratching the surface and probing deeper: it is the antithesis of following a rulebook.

There is a certain morality to critical thinking. A critical thinker tries to perceive others on their own terms. Being cool, balanced -- and compassionate -- is required of critical thinkers in the workforce. "Critical thinking means correct thinking in the pursuit of relevant and reliable knowledge about the world. Another way to describe it is reasonable, reflective, responsible, and skillful thinking that is focused on deciding what to believe or do. A person who thinks critically can ask appropriate questions, gather relevant information, efficiently and creatively sort through this information, reason logically from this information, and come to reliable and trustworthy conclusions about the world that enable one to live and act successfully in it" (Schafersman 1991). Fact-finding is part of the critical thinking process: critical thinking is hard work, but worth the extra effort.

Critical thinking is especially important in the workplace because it prioritizes facts, rather than personalities. This minimizes divisiveness, as even legitimate conflicts can often spiral into polarized debates that lose sight of the initial issues that spawned the anger. At one place where I worked, for example, there was a high rate of turnover amongst the workers who staffed the customer service line. Many of the workers complained about the rudeness of the customers, while many customers complained about the attitude of the employees. This was problematic for two reasons: firstly, any workplace with high turnover spends needless amounts of money retraining new staff members. Longtime service tends to make for better-quality service. Secondly, customer service is often the main point of human contact individuals have with a company, and in this case it was clearly not satisfactory. The criticism of the customer service was beginning to create friction between this division of the company and their supervisors.

Previously, the company had tried disciplining staff members and trying to motivate employees through meeting with them as a group and striving to inspire them verbally to do a better job. This strategy proved ineffective. Financial bonuses for employees were not feasible, given the company budget, so a more creative approach was required. The company set a goal of reducing workplace turnover over the next six months and keeping attrition to a minimum, as well as reducing the number of customer complaints. Radical retraining of staff was clearly necessary, but there was a need to avoid the mistakes of the past in the way training sessions were structured.

Several approaches were considered. One solution was that management could improve 'quality control' of the worker's performance with customers. Management would inform the workers their phone conversations would be recorded and screened so this would not seem like a 'gotcha' method of enforcement. Screening would theoretically act as an incentive to improve performance, and problem employees would have personal meetings with supervisor to improve their demeanor with customers. However, there was concern that this would merely result in even lower morale amongst the workers. I pointed out that it was necessary, in customer service, to seem enthusiastic and caring, and the sense of being watched in a punitive way might prevent egregious errors from happening, but would not result in the type of responsive customer service we were seeking.

Instead, the company reviewed its training procedures, which were deemed insufficiently interactive. The training had been fairly stilted and limited, it was decided, as employees were taught from a company handbook. They were instructed to follow a script, which resulted in them seeming brusque rather than caring. Greater flexibility on the part of the representatives was necessary. Employees needed to learn to trouble-shoot possible problems in a more individualized fashion. A new program was instated, including role playing and discussing a wider variety of customer complaints and types of customers. This program was successful because the company accepted responsibility for some of the errors it had previously committed in training employees. The focus of the retraining was not on apportioning blame for past mistakes. It was future-focused, and stressed improving the workplace for everyone, and reducing stress for both customers and service representatives alike.