In my previous posts on unlocking the mystery of teamwork and becoming an effective team player, I mentioned that one of the hallmarks of a solid team player is engaging in constructive conflict. The central idea behind constructive conflict is to embrace different ideas and viewpoints. It is easier said than done though. When faced with an opposing point of view or when analysing situations where things go wrong, it is a natural human tendency to focus on the person. In layman’s terms, constructive conflicts can quickly spiral into destructive ones, especially if people are unable to converge onto the same page. One of the best ways to avoid such pitfalls is to develop your critical thinking abilities.
But what exactly is critical thinking? If you do a quick internet search on the topic you will find simplistic definitions such as thinking reasonably, detaching yourself from personal bias, avoiding emotional responses and refraining from making subjective opinions. All good ideas. But how do you apply those behaviours? And even if you find a way to do so, can you do it all or most of the time? Humans after all are humans.
The subject of critical thinking is vast. It is not my intent to go over all the details as I certainly not an expert. However, in my experience there are two key areas in which you can specifically focus on:
1. Understand and appreciate the power of the context or situation in which other people act.
2. Groupthink.
Critical Thinking – A Real Life Example
You might be familiar with the infamous Space Shuttle Challenger disaster that occurred on Jan 28, 1986 where the shuttle broke apart 73 seconds into its flight, killing all seven members on board. What made the incident even worse that it was shown live on television. The incident is taught extensively as a case study in engineering schools on subjects such as safety, whistle-blowing, communications and group decision making.
Without going into a lot of technical details, the investigation essentially narrowed down to the engineering and management at Morton-Thiokol who made the fateful decision. The engineering team had clearly recommended against the launch. The VP of engineering, Robert Lund, had agreed with his engineers. However, the senior VP, Jerry Mason, then told him to “take off his engineering hat and put on his management hat”. Lund then changed his decision and then voted to go along with the rest (who were already on board). The rest is history.
The subsequent Rogers commission that was formed after the incident focused on issues such as flawed safety and management culture at NASA, among a host of other findings. When you read about the incident in hindsight, it is very easy and reasonable to conclude that the engineering managers “should have known better”. But is it really that simple? The Space Shuttle Columbia disaster that occurred 17 years later on Feb 1, 2003 showed that the not much had changed since that time.
That is why this real life scenario presents an excellent insight into critical thinking and how powerful it can be if used correctly.
The Power Of The Situation
When it comes to understanding and explaining human behavior, most people often greatly underestimate the power of the context or situation in which other people act. We attribute their actions to their internal abilities or motivation (or lack of). In reality, the situation plays a bigger role in explaining their behavior.
Lets re-visit the Challenger disaster again. If you read into the details of the findings, you can see there were more than just a disagreement on technical concepts. There was a lot of politics and optics on hand. The NASA management had clearly expressed their disappointment to Morton-Thiokol on the prospect of calling off the launch. The heightened media interest and the participation of big-wig politicians from Washington had certainly created a pressure-cooker like situation.
Internal and External Causes
We can try to explain the fateful decision by citing some internal causes:
- Lund changed his mind because he had little or no regard for safety.
- Mason pressured Lund to go along with the rest of the team because he had a cowboy attitude.
We can also try to explain the logic behind the decision by using an external cause:
- The expectations on Lund and Mason with the media hype and political attention were unrealistic. Anyone else would probably have done the same thing in those circumstances.
All actions take place in some context or situation. Both a person’s internal state (ability, attitude, etc) and the features of the situation (presence of others, commands of the boss, etc) play a role in determining what he or she does.
Fundamental Attribution Error
Most people tend to overestimate the strength of internal causes while underestimating the strength of external causes. In the study of critical thinking, it is known as the fundamental attribution error. We can make this error when we do not understand or appreciate the power of the situation to influence behavior.
In analysing the Challenger disaster, most people would tend to emphasise upon the individual traits (disregarding safety, cowboy attitude) rather than the situation (media hype, political spotlight). The fundamental attribution error is a common bias when thinking about other people because it can mislead you in several ways:
- It leads you to believe that other people are more consistent than they actually are.
- It leads you to think that you can accurately predict other person’s behavior on the basis of his or her individual traits. In reality, your prediction would be much better if you fully understood the situation at hand.
Groupthink
Many people’s jobs require them to work as part of a group. Group work is encouraged because it is perceived to have the following advantages:
- Viewpoints represented have a lot of variety.
- Groups have more information than individuals working alone.
- Others can notice issues overlooked by one person.
- Groups are likely to take fewer risks and make less extreme recommendations.
However, when faced with extraordinary situations or when the stakes are high, groups tend to spiral downwards. At this stage, all the advantages become nullified. This is called groupthink. It is an impairment in judgement because of the need to make a decision and a pressure to agree.
In the Challenger disaster, it is very easy to see where groupthink comes in. Lund changed his decision because his boss told him to take off his engineering hat and put on his management hat. But Mason was also under pressure. NASA’s management was clearly unhappy at the prospect of a delayed launch. And for Morton-Thiokol, NASA was its biggest customer. The result was that the group boxed itself into deciding between two extreme choices. A huge financial loss versus a catastrophic mid-air explosion.
Summing It Up
The best way to develop your critical thinking skills is to become aware of how your mental processes work. Becoming aware of mental biases such as the fundamental attribution error and groupthink is the first step. The more you practice in real life the more skilled you will become at recognizing when you are falling into the “mental trap”. And when you become better at it, you will dramatically improve your ability to prevent constructive conflicts from spiralling into destructive ones.
Yours truly,
Rizwan.