Critical

Thinking Skills for

Leadership Development
R. Steve
Purdue

Executive

McVey
University

Summary

What is Leadership? What is Critical Thinking? Must effective leaders

possess critical thinking skills? How do leaders acquire critical thinking
skills? How do educators teach leaders critical thinking skills?

Leadership

...

~.

,~I&dquo;. (i

!.

.. - &dquo;

&dquo;....~..
-

universal definition of leadership. It may be as simple as &dquo;the power

to persuade&dquo;. In an organizational context, this definition takes into account both
formal and informal leadership. Formal leadership is derived from the assigned
occupation of a position of power. Subordinates may permit their formal leader
to direct their behaviors simply as a function of their own job security. Informal,
or legitimate leaders, however, are created and validated by their followers
willingness to be persuaded by them. To be persuaded by another is to permit
the other persons thinking, logic or reason to prevail. What traits, knowledge,
skills and behaviors must a leader possess, therefore, in order to persuade
followers to voluntarily entrust their own attitudes and behaviors to the judgment
of their leader? That is the question.
There is

&dquo;

no

About the Author: R. Steve McVey spent thirty years in the Department of Justice before
retiring in 1988 and forming Personnel Services, Inc., a consulting firm to business, industry and
government. He joined the faculty of Purdue University, Kokomo, IN, in 1989 as an Assistant
Professor of Organizational Leadership. 4&dquo;: .~.e&dquo; &dquo;
.

..

,.

~.

, .. ,.. : .

., ;t.r

..-...

-.

...

87

In the organizational context, leadership is a process of persuading others to

commit to organizational objectives and to achieve them effectively and
efficiently. The critical function of leadership in organizational vitality has been
recognized for centuries. In order to prepare managers for their roles as leaders
and to maximize their effectiveness, the content and processes of leadership
development have been the subject of significant research for several decades.
Research results have been too inconsistent to permit conclusive answers,
however. Early research was oriented toward leadership traits, such as honesty
and confidence, but it failed to establish that a common set of traits would
produce effective leaders consistently. Later research focused upon critical
leadership skills and behaviors. It was determined that leaders function in a
variety of environments, each demanding a different combination of skills and
behaviors for effectiveness. Thus, no set of skills and behaviors were found to
be common to all effective leaders.

Another

of research focused upon the cognitive preparation of leaders,

combination
of education, training and experience. Those results
through
also were too imprecise to draw conclusions, other than to state that all three
sources generally appeared to contribute to leadership effectiveness in varying
degrees in varying environments. In the absence of precise, scientific data to
prescribe specific, cognitive preparation, both educators and practitioners are
left at present to be guided by their own assessments and conclusions. The
most significant factor, it seems, is experience. Much current research is
directed toward determining exactly what kind of experience and how much is
required to produce effective leaders. It is unlikely, however, that this research
will prove to be any more conclusive that its predecessors.
area

some

In the absence of a proven leadership model then, we must speculatively

theorize leadership modeling. This dissertation speculates that critical thinking
is a critical skill and behavior common in all effective leaders.

Although human behavior is consequential to thought, not all thought

necessarily results in behavior. Accordingly, thought has no practical outcome
until it contributes either to more complex thought or ultimately, to behavior.
Since leadership is goal-oriented, thinking critical to the leadership role is that
which designs behavior most appropriate, effective and efficient in achieving
identified goals.
Thought is a process of information reprocessing within the human brain
accomplished with close interrelation of various levels of the conscious and the
subconscious, thus occurring according to general principles of hierarchical
programming(Amosov, 1967). It is a logical process with numerous forms. Each
form is employed in a specific manner the same way a tool, such as a wrench,
is utilized for a specific purpose. Metaphorically, the more &dquo;tools&dquo; of thought a
thinker has, the more specific purposes to which s/he can apply thought. It is
comparable to the tools of a professional electrician. S/he has a variety of them
for many, specific, definable tasks, such as checking a circuit, checking a
ground, installing a ground, designing circuits, figuring circuit loads, checking
....

&dquo;

88

peak loads, installing wire, fixtures, et cetera. S/he also has learned several
different processes by which to use each tool in order to accomplish each task.
The processes of thought are task-specific, similar to tools. Leaders must
possess a variety of task-specific thinking processes, knowing what needs to be
done next in order to achieve the task. Leaders must be able to create visions,
convert them into specific objectives and achieve those objectives through the
effective and efficient efforts of their followers. Followers validate their leaders
on the basis of their trust that the leader has superior thinking skills with which
to

guide them

all to

success.

We arrive at conclusions on the basis of logical argumentation. In turn,

argumentation is stimulated by the perceptions of our senses and/or through
abstract reasoning. Should we have been born devoid of any of the senses, our
minds could have had no contact with the outside world. Whatever was in our
minds at birth, as is the Read Only Memory (ROM) of a computer, is all that what
would remain with us for the rest of life, leaving us able to act, but certainly
unable to react to the external world. Only when data from outside the computer
is entered into it does the ROM, the computers brain, have any way of reacting.
To give ROM a protocol of operational criteria and a decision-making capability,
we must input an operating system, such as the Disk Operating System (DOS).
Otherwise, even with the capability to act and react with incoming data, the
computer would have no logical means of doing so.

comparison with the human mind is that the senses are the keyboard,
mouse or other input device that links the mind with the outside world. In the
computer, the receipt is accepted or rejected and given value and meaning
according to how we have programmed the ROM to make such evaluations. As
in the computer, humans build into their minds an &dquo;operating system&dquo;, a means
by which to arrange, order, store and retrieve data. To the system we add
&dquo;application programs&dquo; for specific tasks. These programs contain the
necessary criteria by which we convert the data into information, or meaning,
thereby producing &dquo;relevancies&dquo; as guidelines for reactions to the external

The

stimuli.
&dquo;Information is formed by a complex system possessing its own structure and
its own program (in this case, a person). This means that a system can change
in a specific manner as a function of its inherent mechanisms (programs), which
are activated or are changed under the influence of internal influences
Thus, all behavior of a system, that part which participates in the analysis of the
surrounding world and that part which influences the surrounding world, is
determined by the program&dquo; (Amosov, 1967).
.......

relevancy of this explanation is that many humans fail either to create a

sophisticated operating system or sophisticated application programs necessary
for critical thought. The result is that the relevancies created in their minds are
too vague and general for utility. The criteria necessary to make relevancies
specific and meaningful to them are inadequate, leaving them with limited
The

89

,.:,

response abilities. Critical thinking requires the opposite. Equipped with a

sophisticated operating program, i.e., a sophisticated set of thinking processes
with which to arrange, order, store and retrieve data, and a variety of
sophisticated application programs with which to determine relevancies and to
create model behavioral responses, leaders enhance their response ability--the
ability to know what to do next.

:. ..

,, ,
&dquo;

&dquo;/.,:&dquo;I ;
v

,,

...
:;,

,,.,

&dquo;

Critical

Thinking
As researchers have failed to agree upon a specific definition for leadership, so
has there been difficulty in defining &dquo;critical thinking&dquo;. &dquo;....there are several
widespread misconceptions - widely accepted but mistaken ideas about the
nature and function of critical thinking .&dquo;(Barry and Rudinow, 1994).

,,~. &dquo;
; ... , .
.;. > ... ...,
.

&dquo;

; . ,~

Critical

thinking is a process of thought based upon personal preparation;

education, training, experience, acquisition of the thinking tools and skills in their
use. Critical thinking, therefore, is a matter of learning the underlying theories
of the various processes of thought and practicing them in a variety of

. .. ,= .:
~,

,
.

&dquo;

I.

&dquo;-. ,

circumstances to attain skill in their uses. Skill in the use of these tools is
developed in the same way we build skills in any other physical or mental effort.
That is, learning the underlying theory and converting that knowledge into
practical skills through trial and error, or experience(Bartlett, 1958).

. &dquo;

,) /..;lf:

&dquo;,

. )&dquo; .</%

..) .= ,.&dquo;
...;9. ;/.
&dquo;

;-, : ,: ;, :&dquo;:, ,

&dquo;

&dquo;, .

Another enigmatic concept pertinent to this exploration is &dquo;common sense&dquo;. The

American College Dictionary defines &dquo;common sense&dquo; as: &dquo;sound, practical
sense; normal intelligence&dquo;. Obviously, this definition is too generic, leaving one
without a specific and meaningful understanding of the concept. As the ultimate
functional objective of internal thought appears to be the design of appropriate,
effective and efficient responses to external stimuli, knowing &dquo;what to do next&dquo;
always would seem to be the terminal objective. &dquo;Common sense&dquo; would be,
then, accurately knowing what to do next.

. &dquo;..&dquo; &dquo;. Since leadership is goal-oriented, then knowing what to do next at each point in
&dquo;&dquo; &dquo;. &dquo;&dquo; ... the progression in an event, or series of events, toward the achievement of
,~ . :,, &dquo; tasks/goals is the desired product of a leaders critical thought. Critical thinking,
.

&dquo;

~.. ~:&dquo;&dquo; !, then,

~.. ~~.

, &dquo; / ,
&dquo;&dquo;.-

&dquo;

&dquo;-:.&dquo;/. &dquo;

. .&dquo; &dquo; I=-

..&dquo;..r
.&dquo; &d&dquo;quo; &dquo; .

..

-.

is

accurately knowing what to do next,

or

simply,

&dquo;common sense&dquo;.

...

The history of Western thought reflects different eras of approaches to thinking.

This century began with a revolution in thought with the existentialists
discounting the finiteness of the logical positivists. By mid-century, after 75
years of product of the infant science of psychology with its revelations of the
nature of man, we had come to believe that man was &dquo;programmable.&dquo;
Scientism and behaviorism alleged that man functioned in scientifically
predictable manners, given the proper set of stimuli. Management became a
science, spending the next few generations attempting to segregate and identify
those critical stimuli. More recently, the humanism movement has attempted to
reassert that man must be granted subjective expression beyond the
mechanistic robotism of the behaviorists. Should the truth ever be determined.

90

it

...

..,: &horbar;
..
.. :

probably will be a synthesis of these schools of thought--that human behavior

be programmed, but s/he also is capable of subjective reflection with the
power to override such &dquo;programming&dquo;. It is this power of willful selfdetermination that sets man apart and that which sets leaders apart.
can

<

..

~,

..

One must progress in thought after all from the known into the unknown. The
known must be based upon either empirical and/or abstract evidence. The first
order of thought is to confirm what we think we already know to be true and
accurate. Before proceeding, some definitions are required. Data is/are
measured events. Data confirmed as accurate and true qualify as facts. Facts
plus criteria create information. Facts plus relationships confirmed and
explained produce a greater fact. Information confirmed and retained
constitutes knowledge.

According to Bloom (Bloom, 1956), knowledge is the lowest level of cognition.

Knowledge explained equals comprehension. Comprehension as related to
external stimuli results in the capability of application, or knowing what to do
now. From application, an objective practicality, the upper level of cognition
progresses to analysis, the objective determination of underlying principles.
Newly identified principles, in the context of the known, result in synthesis, the
creation of new meaning. Evaluation is the identification of the potential
implications and applications of the synthesis, or new thesis. Synthesis and
evaluation move into the realm of subjective abstraction, the realm of creativity.
For a leader, evaluation is an abstract extension of perspective and a subjective
determination of what to anticipate and what to do in proactive response.

..=

..-.

.:

,:

...

._

&dquo;

..&dquo;
..

..

,,;;,,:

~ ~ .~ .v ~ is
.,~,
<
:, ~ I,
I.
.

&dquo;

..
&dquo;
...

&dquo;

,&dquo; .. ,
, , .

~~Tv~.

..: .

--.

&dquo;

_s

;.

Before proceeding, it is appropriate to remember that all abstract thought does

not lead directly to behavior. For the leadership role, abstract thought has an
ultimate objective of utilitarian application. Unfortunately, too many humans are
programmed to accord value and meaning only on the basis of the realization
of which external stimuli produce pleasure. In those instances, reasoning
seldom extends beyond the recognition of simple sensuality. Sensual pleasure
then becomes the universe of truth to the illogical mind. The ultimate objective
of thought, then, is not just cognitive awareness, but cognitive reflection. The
process of reflection occurs on Blooms upper level of cognition in the processes
of analysis, synthesis and evaluation. For leaders, the products of their
reflections are more thorough explanations and understanding, and the ability
to act and react more appropriately, effectively and efficiently to a greater variety
of external stimuli or, a greater capacity to know what to do next. The grandest
product of all is ideas, contemplative approximations of the unknown, and the
increased capability of asking even more complex and significant questions.
Thus the entire processes of thought begin again.

Truth Verification

.&dquo; ,~:
&dquo;. &dquo; .. ,:
~ -&dquo;...&dquo; .

Critical thought begins with the verification of what we think we already know of
the past and present, and progresses to preparation for how to act and react to
the future. Since thought can be a logical, progressive process, each level of

91

must be verified before progressing to the next. There are many

influences which provoke us to accept without challenge what we think we
already know. We begin to learn from parents, the embodiments of authority.
When we receive alleged facts and information from sources considered to be
authoritative, we tend not to challenge them. The old joke that, &dquo;It must be true,
I read it in the newspaper&dquo; must be subscribed to by millions of Americans
according to the number of copies of the National Enquirer and Star newspapers
sold at the check-out counters each day. Nothing may be so deceptive as

thought
..
,,~

..
,

&dquo;obvious fact.&dquo;

We must initiate truth verification by making an inventory of our assumptions,

then refining them into their smallest components--their premises, or arguments.
What appears to be true often is deceptive, for what is accepted as true by one
person may be rejected by another. Truth is an agreement with reality. If a
statement is not entirely true, it is false.

allege that either there is no absolute truth, or if there is, humans

perceive its totality and therefore, it has no practical function in their lives.
They further allege that truth need not be universally accepted as 100%
consistent with reality because there is no common reality. Reality, they allege,
is constituted by individual perception of truth upon which basis the individual
designs behavior with which to act and react. Should the existentialists be
correct, there can be no such thing as truth, but only &dquo;relative truth&dquo;, or opinion.
Furthermore, there could be no such thing as a scientifically critical thought
Existentialists

cannot

process.

The first step in critical thinking requires a test of the accuracy of our perceptions
and the truth of the premises supporting our conclusions. There are many
influences that can deceive us, causing us to accept falsity as fact. The fault lies
in two primary areas--the acuity of the senses and the skill of logical thought.

, . Perception

Psychologists claim than human perception is influenced by our ability to

sharpen, or particularize, our perceptions. Should we not sharpen our
perceptions, we will interpret them in terms too general by which to derive
specific understanding and by which to devise appropriate, effective and efficient
responses.

A model of one with sharpened perceptions is the fictional character Sherlock

Holmes. He would observe and be able to describe the most minute details of
his perceptions. His visual observations were particularly acute, noticing dirty
fingernails, -callouses on the hands, even the large callous of the middle finger
of the writing hand in order to infer which was the favored hand. He was alert
to what he heard, even the time period between footsteps in calculating the
height of the walker. Of course, he was similarly sensitive to what he smelled,
tasted and touched. Of most noteworthy importance here, he was very careful
not to permit his perceptions to dictate a false conclusion. Combining his

92

sharpened perceptual abilities and critical thinking skills, Mr. Holmes could most
accurately verify the truth of assumptions and assertions. Using deductive and
inductive methods, he could infer probabilities with the highest degree of
accuracy. Is such a degree of skill possible only in a fictional character?
,

Logical

Distortion

There are dozens of logical distortions that can deceive the thinker. Formal
fallacies are deceptions couched in the formal structure of argument. There are
hundreds of types of informal fallacies, such as those of irrelevancy and those
of evidence. Accepting fallacies of evidence is among the most significant
causes of failure in critical thinking on the part of leaders. The failure to discover
all evidence in an argument, and/or forming premises upon faulty evidence,
guarantees faulty conclusions. Logical distortions are deceitful in the use of
both deductive argument and inductive reasoning and often are so subtle that
the their victims are ignorantly adamant that their erroneous conclusions are
correct. When leaders appear to be unable to admit it when they are wrong, it
is often because they still believe they are right. Such faulty logic has
reverberating negative effects within an organization severely undermining
followers confidence in their leader.
~

(,.

...

The

Challenge .

Historically, American managers have been concerned only with the bottom line
of the quarterly financial report. They looked into the future only as far as the
time they projected they would be in their current position. Their goal was
personal advancement, and if their balance sheet was favorable each quarter
during the present assignment, they had hopes they could be promoted and
move on. From this perspective, too often they had no qualms about borrowing
organizational resources from one line-item to bolster another. Too often they
didnt mind creating a bigger problem for their followers and successor to solve
in the future so long as they solved their own current problems now. They
would be gone and would not have to worry about long-term consequences.
Managers in the past too often were only crisis managers. So much of their time
was spent attempting to resolve current, operational problems that &dquo;band-aid&dquo;
solutions were the most expedient means by which to meet production
schedules. Thinking with a tactical perspective only in the present or near future
simply required immediate, expedient answers with an immediate pay-off.
This short-term perspective of American leaders demanded &dquo;efficiency&dquo; in
thinking. In fact, it was a popular standard for them to make snap judgments
and to live by them. What such a vertical, linear thinking process did not
account for were the broader and long-term implications of expediency.
The process of vertical thinking begins with a single, isolated, clear-cut goal, the
achievement of which has a clearly identifiable and immediate pay-off. The
challenge for a leader in vertical thinking is to determine the most cost-effective
means now of achieving that goal. The answer dictates products, policies and

93
. :

..:

&dquo;

.. :

.
,

.&dquo;,
&dquo;

......
. &dquo;
.

..

-.
..

:>

I he leader

begins deliberations with

eye on the goal and the

other on his/her present position. S/he logically moves up one or more plateaus
toward goal achievement. At the terminus of that action, s/he again moves
laterally only to discover and identify an action s/he determines will move
her/him up one or more plateaus again. Of course, the vertical thinkers most
ideal choice would be one action or set of actions that drives the straightest line
from present position to immediate goal achievement. Vertical thinking is devoid
of consideration of tangential potentialities and their long-term effects.
Consequently, in the search for alternatives at any level of progression, the
tendency is to seize upon the first, seemingly workable solution that costs the
least in organizational resources now.

procedures.

.
-

one

Strategic Leadership
....
<

...

...
..

: &dquo;

...

&dquo;...

<.

:
.,
..- ~~v,: ~

.,

. &dquo;j&dquo;

....

..

~~-

>;.. :

. .<

&dquo; :&dquo;

.,

..

;
&dquo;

>...

....
..

....
.
-

....

. &dquo;, ~.
....

,.. , ,
,

,
.. : ;

strength of lateral thinking is that it is more eclectic. It is thinking in

systematic cause-and-effect relationships in the long-term. Instead of taking the
most direct route to achievement of an immediate goal, lateral thinking requires
that all possible alternatives of action be identified and all implications of each
alternative be identified in a strategic perspective. Even though in lateral
thinking, s/he will identify the same alternative s/he closed on in vertical thinking,
now s/he refuses closure on it. Instead, s/he continues on to identify all other
alternatives on that level that would proceed forward, or upward toward goal
achievement. By doing so, tangential implications of each alternative are
explored to discover positive effects that are not even being sought currently.
Also, lateral thinking can uncover potential negative effects of the vertical
thinking decision that the leader would have overlooked in his/her race to shortThe

:.; .-...
~

thinking (De Bono, 1992) is a creative thought process. As vertical

thinking is a progression of linear, logical thought from a current position to an
identified other position, lateral thinking provides for explorations into the
unknown, looking for alternatives heretofore considered worthless.
Lateral

..

Today, when change is the only true constant in the competitive, global
marketplace, managers must be able clearly to envision the distant future, instill
that vision in the minds of subordinates and lead them in creating that future.
Strategic management requires strategic thinking, exploring the uncertain realms
of the yet to be, placing ones self out in front of competitors in product,
processes and people. Being out in front means there has been no one there
ahead providing guidance in decision-making, benchmarking and other areas
of operations. Strategic management requires leaders to make decisions for
the long-term, with broader implications and expectations they, and people they
care about, will have to live with the consequences instead of passing them on
to a successor. Strategic management takes into account a broader range of
alternatives and a more complex set of implications for each alternative.
Identifying more alternatives and more comprehensively examining the
implications of each requires the mastery of a whole new process of thinking,
referred to as &dquo;lateral thinking.&dquo;

...
~

......

term success.

94

Lateral thinking is particularly productive in problem-solving in identifying other

effective and efficient alternatives that the vertical thinker likely would have
overlooked. The richness in lateral thinking is that it generates innovation and
creativity, not only in the achievement of current objectives, but by producing
new, broader, alternative objectives such as new markets, customers, products
and processes.

:
.
&dquo;

:/~.
&dquo;.

The number of faulty decisions made in the past by leaders who were assumed
to be critical thinkers politicians, industrial executives and government leadersis tacit evidence of the general lack of critical thinking skills in those genera.
Today, competitiveness is defined by the company that not only perceives future
market demand, but creates it. Such a company must create the good or
service within an efficiently running organization. They are building one future
while planning the next. Bennis and Nanus (1985) refer to the visionary leader
as a &dquo;transformative &dquo; leader, one who inspires, energizes, guides and coaches
subordinates to build futures.
--

We have reduced the questions to one: How can traditional American leaders
be converted from a tactical perspective and vertical thinking into transformative
leaders with a strategic perspective and critical thinking?
~... -

Teaching Critical Thinking

in

-of..

t,

Leadership

Today, strategic management requires strategic thinking by strategic leaders.

Educators who focus upon the classical elements of leadership--the traits, skills
- and behaviors--to the exclusion of critical thinking skills are failing their students
~ -,~ _ . and in the real world, those students are failing. &dquo;There would seem to be little
. disagreement among the research people in this area of education that practice
in critical thinking is necessary in the curriculum of the school. Most of these
people deplore the lack of this type of teaching, and most of them point out or
imply that we are cheating school children and consequently, future generations,
~ ~
by not effectively equipping learners to think critically&dquo; (Aylesworth and Reagan,
1969). Educating people to think critically must begin with grade-school children
and continue through higher education (DeNitto and Strickland, 1987). Waiting
until one becomes a leader to begin teaching critical thinking may be too late.
&dquo;Courses in literary criticism and philosophy courses, to name just two, have
been requiring this kind of thinking for generations. I see no endemic reasons
why most secondary school courses cannot be taught this way as well. Science
and history are no less open to critical questioning than are literary criticism and
philosophy. But teachers must be prepared to assess the quality of the
,_,
students reasoning and articulation every bit as much as they have been
&dquo;
rx prepared to mark the &dquo;right&dquo; answers in the past.
Pedagogically comfortable
which
have
have
to
be
single &dquo;right answers
replaced with questions
, :; questions
which dont have them&dquo; (McPeak, 1990). It would be pertinent here to know just
how many faculty in the disciplines of higher education still test for the &dquo;right&dquo;
.

....;

..

,: ,.

:.

..

...

a n swe rs.
..

I)

,.:

,,;

;...,

.......

....

7 , , ......
,

... , ...... ,

95

Educators must encourage their students to question everything that is said in

the classroom, by the educator, text contents or statements of fellow students.
They must teach students how to examine the veracity of arguments supporting
curricular theses. Instead of depending upon their own lectures, educators
should make better use of the Socratic method of questioning, forcing students
to justify and prove their own answers and theses by the deductive and inductive
methods. The power of an answer lies in the power of its question.
A students greatest tool may be the judicious use of the question &dquo;why&dquo;. It is not
suffice to know, but to know why, the level of analysis in the upper cognitive
domain. The ultimate objective of any science is to provide the means by which
to predict events and control their outcomes. Actually, we are attempting to
predict what our own responses should be to those predictions, or what to do
next in controlling outcomes. The ultimate objective of education in any field,
then, is not only to understand what has happened, or even what is happening,
but through reflection, to predict what will be happening and how one may
appropriately, effectively and efficiently respond to it--to know what to do next.
&dquo;Reflection involves not simply a sequence of ideas, but a con-sequence--a
consecutive ordering in such a way that each determines the next as its proper
outcome, while each outcome in turn leans back on, or refers to, its

predecessors&dquo; (Dewey, 1933).

Simple knowledge as the product of education is insufficient. Critical thinking is

not to be achieved by a specific course on the subject, but must be achieved by
inclusion across disciplines, to be incorporated into every course. &dquo;The
statement II teach critical thinking, simpliciter, is vacuous because there is no
generalized skill properly called critical thinking&dquo;(McPeak, 1981 ). In each course
then, across the disciplines, the educator must target at which level her/his
product, the student, will be able to function with the material substance of the
class at the end of the course(Young, 1980). The ideal would be the level of
&dquo;evaluation&dquo;. Unfortunately, it appears that too many educators only target the
level of &dquo;knowledge.&dquo;
.

Educators must challenge students to think in the future. &dquo;What does this mean&dquo;
must be followed with &dquo;What will this mean&dquo;. &dquo;Why did/does this happen&dquo;, must
be followed by questions of prediction and control, such as &dquo;How can we make
it happen?&dquo;, &dquo;How can we keep it from happening?&dquo;, &dquo;What do we do if it does
happen?&dquo;, or &dquo;What do we do next?&dquo;

teaching method in leadership development that can reach beyond

knowledge and is amenable to the development of critical thinking is the case
method, real or hypothetical. Another is the hypothetical application method,
wherein the student creates a hypothetical, real-life application of the subject
matter. In each instance, the teaching objective must be at some level in the
upper cognitive domain. In every instance, it is important for the educator to
challenge the students thinking, making them defend their products.

96

.,

Educators themselves must be able to think vertically and horizontally with a

strategic perspective. They must challenge their students to think in these terms
when examining any aspect of organizational leadership in the classroom. Any
technical skills trainer knows that the more closely s/he can replicate the real-life
hardware and the real-life stimuli in the classroom, the more likely the trainee is
to transfer the learning behavior into real-life application. Similarly, the more
closely the educator can create the real-life scenario in the classroom and create
real-life stimuli, the more effective will be the students thoughts and behaviors
in the real-life environment.

f .:..

...: j .

:.

....

&dquo;

Today, the environment is a world market, from cheap labor to high technology
and all points in between. Todays leader must be a strategic manager with
critical thinking skills - being able to figure out just exactly what to do next.
Contrary to early trait theory which suggested that leaders are born, not made,
critical thinking is an attitude with a set of learned and practiced thinking skills.
The leader is not born with these skills. S/he leams to think critically. The tools
of critical thought should be learned throughout her/his education and honed
through real-life experiences.

&dquo;

Summary
Leadership and the content of leadership development have not been defined
t
by research. However, speculative abstract theory makes a case that the ability
to think critically is an essential quality of all effective leaders. Leadership is the
.
power to persuade followers, and followers validate leaders often on the basis
I
that they trust the leaders superior thinking abilities. Thinking is a process of
... -=/-.
.~ ~~..;,
information reprocessing within the human brain. Thinking is a matter of

learning various task-specific thought processes. Critical thinking is the

development of common sense--knowing what to do next. Thinking proceeds
from the known to the unknown. Leaders begin by verifying what s/he thinks
..
s/he already knows. There are numerous faults and deceptions in the thinking
,&dquo;
..
processes that the critical thinker must learn to overcome. Historically, American
leaders have been accustomed to thinking in a short-term perspective in which
vertical thinking has appeared to be most expedient. However, in the global
marketplace with fierce competition and rapidly developing technologies, the
strategic leader must learn to develop critical lateral thinking skills, a much more
eclectic and creative thought process, in order to be effective. Critical thinking
should be taught across disciplines beginning in grade school and continuing
.
through higher education. Educators must be critical thinkers themselves. They
,
must target at which level of Blooms taxonomy of the cognitive domain they
j
wish their students to be able to function with course content. Too many target
.. : .the level of knowledge, the lowest level, when they should be targeting and
. educating for function at the synthesis or evaluation levels. The most effective
teaching methods in higher education are the case methods, real or
..
hypothetical.
..

,.

&dquo;

..

..

,,;

...
;,

.:...

<
:

....

:
.

~.. - ~,

~-e

..

.. , . _ , .. ; ~ ~ ., ..

97

Bibliography
Amosov, N.M., Modeling of Thinking and the
Mind, (New York: Spartan Books), 1967.

Aylesworth, Thomas G., and Reagan,

Derald M., Thinking. (Garden City:
Doubleday and Company, Inc.), 1969.

McPeck,

John,

Critical Thinking and

Martin Robertson),

Education, (Oxford:
1981.

McPeck, John E., Teaching Critical

Thinking, (New York: Routledge), 1990.

Sir Frederic, Thinking:

An
Experimental and Social Study, (New York:
Basic Books, Inc.), 1958.

Mitroff, Ian I., and Linstone, Harold A., The

Unbounded Mind, (New York: Oxford

Bloom, Benjamin S., editor, Taxonomy of

Ruggiero, Vincent Ryan, Beyond Feelings,

(New York: Alfred Publishing Co., Inc.),

Bartlett,

Educational
Objectives,
Longman), 1956.

(New

York:

University Press),

1993.

1975.

DeNitto, John, and Strickland, James,

Rudinow, Joel, and Barry, Vincent E.,

"Critical

A Skill for All Seasons."

Student Journal 21, no. 2 (Summer

Invitation to Critical Thinking, (New York:

Harcourt Brace College Publishers), 1994.

Dewey, John, How We Think, (Boston: D.C.

Heath and Company), 1933.

Young, Robert E., "Fostering Critical

Thinking", New Directions for Teaching and
Learning, no. 3, (San Francisco: JosseyBass), 1980.

College
1987).

Thinking: