In January of 2011 we told you about the new book “Academically Adrift” which followed 2,322 students during their 4 years in college and found that these students are not improving their critical thinking skills.

In fact, in the first 2 years, 45% of students showed no improvement in critical thinking skills, and after 4 years 36% still showed no improvement.

This week, a follow-up report was released that showed the long term effects of this critical thinking crisis.  The study (“Documenting Uncertain Times: Post-graduate Transition of the Academically Adrift Cohort”) showed the devastating results of poor critical thinking skills with respect to job placement and debt.

…graduates who scored in the bottom quintile of the test were three times more likely to be unemployed than those who scored in the top quintile, twice as likely to still be living at home and significantly more likely to have amassed credit card debt.

This study should be no surprise considering the competitive nature of the job market when unemployment is still extremely high.  When you lack the #1 skill sought after by employers, you will likely remain unemployed.  However this paints a very bleak future for Gen Y graduates.  Students are taking out massive student loans to get through 4 years of college, only to find that their basic analytical thinking skills are lacking.  As a result, they are living at home longer, taking out credit cards to cover daily expenses, and likely going into default with their student loans.  The debt they amass will haunt them for a lifetime as they apply for car loans, mortgages, auto insurance, and even jobs.

So, who should be held accountable?  Are the Universities to blame? Are the students ultimately responsible for choosing challenging courses that will improve their skill set?  What are the long term implications for employers?

How would you solve this problem?

Krishnan Anantharaman from the Wall Street Journal wrote an interesting article about the new trend of asking questions designed to elicit critical thinking abilities in candidates.  Initially, I was pleased to hear that recruiters are trying to measure critical thinking ability given the fact that only 28% of college graduates are rated as having excellent critical thinking skills yet it’s the #1 workplace skill.

However, the types of questions being used by interviewers really caught my eye.  Here are a few examples from the article:

• “What did you play with as a child?”
• “If you could describe Hershey, Godiva and Dove chocolate as people, how would you describe them?”
• “What is the chance that at least two people were born on the same day of the week if there are three people in the room?”
• “If you walk into a liquor store to count the bottles unsold, but the clerk is screaming at you to leave, what do you do?

I’ll be honest, if I received any of those interview questions, I would be very caught off-guard.  To some extent, that is the point.  Candidates today are so well-coached on the common questions like “Tell me about a time when you had a conflict with a co-worker” or “Where do you see yourself in 5 years?” that the answers rarely reflect the candidate themselves.

But do these questions really get to the heart of critical thinking ability?  Given the fact that interview questions are notoriously unreliable  measures of ability, it is doubtful.  However, there is an easier solution.  Use an assessment.

Not only is the Watson-Glaser II Critical Thinking Appraisal the gold standard for assessing critical thinking skills, but there is also an Interview Report that recruiters/interviewers can use to delve deeper into an individual’s assessment results.

You don’t need to come up with silly questions or have someone role-play how to sell an imaginary pen.  Instead, use a psychometrically sound assessment that has a proven correlation with overall job success, occupational/educational attainment, and cognitive ability.

In the Watson Glaser Interview Report, interview questions are generated based on each individual’s results on the Watson-Glaser assessment.  This creates a unique interview experience for each candidate.  In addition, the report uses a structured behavioral question format, additional probing questions, and scoring format to guide the interview.

Which approach do you think would more accurately predict a strong critical thinker- the questions in the WSJ article or the results from the Watson-Glaser II plus Interview Report?

Not every job requires you to be a great critical thinker, but most do! Of course doctors and judges need above-average critical thinking and problem solving skills, but did you know critical thinking is just as important for archeologists and school counselors? Athletic trainers, sales managers, and real estate appraisers also need to know how to evaluate both sides of an issue, draw logical conclusions, and make good decisions.

We created this fun critical thinking infographic to illustrate the top jobs requiring critical thinking skills. Students, job seekers, and career changers… you’ve been warned!

Does your job require critical thinking?  If so, how?

Do you ever read a news story and just shake your head in total bewilderment?  Prepare to start shaking your head now.

My friend Jessica Miller-Merrell of Blogging4Jobs brought the following news story to my attention:  Louisiana Official Moves to Ban Wearing Pajamas in Public

Here are a few excerpts from the news story:

“Michael Williams, a Caddo commissioner, is proposing an ordinance that will prohibit locals from wearing pajama pants in public after an incident at a local Walmart offended the official and other customers. Williams said one of a group of young men clad in pajama pants revealed his private parts, inciting the idea for the ban.”

“If you can’t [wear pajamas] at the boardwalk or courthouse, why are you going to do it in a restaurant or in public? Today it’s pajamas,” Williams told the Times. “Tomorrow it’s underwear. Where does it stop?”

With all of the problems in today’s economy, education, and unemployment rate, this is what Caddo Parish is spending their time legislating- pajamas!  When I first read the article I double-checked the source, because I was positive that something this absurd must have come from The Onion, but I was wrong.  The story is sad and true.

I could spend all day ridiculing the bill, its intent, and Michael Williams, but instead let’s focus on the critical thinking aspect of this proposal.

1)  The ordinance was proposed after some young men exposed themselves in a local Walmart.  In critical thinking, it is essential that we define the problem before we offer an appropriate solution.  In this case, the problem is indecent exposure in public.  The proposed solution is banning the style of pants worn by the accused in this particular case– pajama pants.  Here are some critical thinking questions we should ask ourselves before placing a ban on pajama pants:

• Do all indecent exposure cases involve pajama pants?
• How often do indecent exposure cases involve pajama pants?
• What is unique about pajama pants as compared to any other style of pants?
• Are pajama pants the problem?
• Will banning pajama pants stop indecent exposure?

2)  Michael Williams believes that allowing pajama pants to be worn in public is a slippery slope towards allowing underwear in public.

• The Slippery Slope argument is one of the most common logical fallacies.  Just because X happens does not mean that Y will inevitably happen as well.
• If you want to legislate against wearing underwear in public, then do that.  Do not use another ordinance as a Trojan Horse for future legislation.
• If they do pursue future legislation against wearing underwear in public, they will hopefully be prepared to define the difference between a bra/panties and a bikini (for example).  Thin line…

3)  And now on to my favorite problem with this ordinance- how do you define pajama pants?

• Not all pajama pants are pink, fuzzy, and covered in Hello Kitty (though in my perfect world, they would be).
• Many women wear yoga pants as pajama pants.
• Many men wear track pants or basketball shorts as pajamas.
• And let’s not forget about the 21st century miracle invention of the Pajama Jeans!
• So, should we outlaw wearing yoga pants, track pants, pajama jeans, and basketball shorts in public or only pants with cartoon characters on them?

4)  Will the ordinance stipulate an age requirement for enforcement of the law?  Michael Williams, I would duck and cover if you plan to ban all pajama pants in public regardless of age.  The first time you try to cite a mother headed into Walmart while carrying  a pajama-wearing toddler who has the sniffles will not end well.

Whether you think it is fashionably appropriate for a person to wear pajamas in public isn’t the issue.

The fact is that Michael Williams isn’t seeking this ordinance as a “crime against fashion”- he’s seeking the ordinance as a solution for public indecency.  I would argue that it is just as easy to expose oneself in pajama pants as it is in drawstring basketball shorts.  Banning pajama pants doesn’t solve the indecent exposure issue at all.  And if the solution doesn’t address the true problem, then we are not critically thinking.

What do you think about the Pajama Prohibition?

Do you think Michael Williams and Caddo Parish are thinking critically?

(Image source #1)

It’s Christmas eve, and if you celebrate Christmas, then I really hope you have all of your shopping done.  I waited until last night to do my shopping and it was BRUTAL.  On 3 separate occasions I heard mothers screaming at their children saying “Santa is watching and he’s not going to bring you any presents if you act like this.”

I’m not a parent, so I found the fact that the children immediately showed improved behavior fascinating!  That threat of “Santa watching” is powerful!  I also recently learn about the Elf on the Shelf who is apparently Santa’s secret spy/tattletale.  This little elf heads back to the North Pole every night to tell Santa whether you’ve been naughty or nice.  But the problem is, Santa’s “Big Brother” power only really works from about November until Christmas.  How do these parents keep their kids in line all year round when the imminent threat of Santa has worn off?

Let’s be honest- the same issue is true for adults. What happens when no one is watching? If you’ve caught the 2 latest unfortunate videos about package deliveries, then the answer is “nothing good.”   It’s as if the cloak of anonymity and lack of accountability erases our good decision making skills.   When a FedEx delivery driver thought no one was watching, he decided to toss a flat screen TV over a security fence instead of ringing the bell to deliver the package appropriately.  When the security camera caught the shocking behavior, the video went viral and provided unfortunate PR for Fedex (despite the fact that this was the action of only 1 employee).

www.youtube.com/watch?v=PLoIGu3mm5o

So, would this employee have made this same mistake if he’d known someone was watching?  We hope not….but then there’s this:

www.youtube.com/watch?v=gE0G1y2InrE

Only 1 week after the now infamous FedEx video, this UPS driver boldly looks square at the camera, gives a one finger salute and then tosses the package at the porch.  Maybe it doesn’t matter if anyone is watching.  This guy definitely made it on Santa’s naughty list.

I’d love to say that these are isolated incidences, but if you search for UPS or FedEx on YouTube you will find an abundance of additional similar videos.  So, what is the real source of the problem?  Are they hiring irresponsible workers?  Are their employees disgruntled?  What is going on here?

Let’s be honest, being a delivery driver during the holidays can’t be fun.  Everyone wants their packages faster than is often possible.  Last night, I saw a UPS driver walking down a super long driveway after 8pm to deliver a package.  I am guessing he worked much longer than an 8 hour day and was exhausted, but he was still working.  Additionally, some package delivery companies pay their employees based on the total number of items delivered in 1 day.  So if you’ve ever wondered why your delivery driver is so quick to leave a “You missed your delivery” note on the door, it’s because every second they spend at your door is taking potential money out of their pocket.  I also assume that’s why my local delivery driver has perfected a bowling ball style delivery of my packages.

Perhaps the problem isn’t the quality of the worker, but the unintended side effects of a pay-for-performance system.  While both FedEx and UPS would rather not be in this PR nightmare, I think it provides a wonderful opportunity for management to do some deep problem solving.  What is the real problem?  Are we listening to the frustration expressed by our front-line employees?  Have we examined the total cost of these unethical practices vs. the value of additional training or modified selection process?   Should we re-assess our compensation/bonus packages?

What do you think is the real problem here?

Do you have similar issues in your organization?  What do you think happens when no one is watching your employees?

In case you missed the last 2 BlogTalkRadio interviews by John Maketa and Heather Ishikawa (co-authors of Now You’re Thinking), then be sure to listen to DriveThruHR today (Dec 23rd) at Noon CT.  Heather Ishikawa will be chatting live with DriveThruHR hosts Bryan Wempen and William Tincup about the value of critical thinking in the workplace and her new book. 

Here’s a link to the interview:  http://www.blogtalkradio.com/drivethruhr/2011/12/23/lunch-with-heather-ishikawa-and-drivethruhr

You can also follow tweets about the interview with #dthr.

Here are the links to 2 previous radio interviews about Now You’re Thinking!

• Nov 8, 2011:  John Maketa shares Now You’re Thinking
• Dec 8, 2011:  How to Be a Better Thinker (with Heather Ishikawa)

We wrote 149 posts on this blog about critical thinking in 2011.  We’ve covered everything from Devil’s Advocates to eating walnuts.  We’ve analyzed decisions by Southwest Airlines, Zappos, Panera, Lebron James and many others.  We’ve even covered the latest books and assessments on critical thinking.  With only 10 days left in 2011, we thought it would be a great time to share our 30 most popular posts on critical thinking.  Enjoy!

The Absence of Facts = Critical Thinking Danger

100 Ways to Think Better

College Students Aren’t Learning Critical Thinking

Strategic Thinking vs. Strategic Planning

Reflection: The First Step of Critical Thinking

70 Questions to Boost Your Critical Thinking

Did You Ask the Right Question?

Critical Thinking Logical Fallacy: Everybody Agrees

Philip Zimbardo:  Your Time Zone Influences the Way You Think

Experts Ruin Our Critical Thinking Skills

Scott Stratten Says “Stop”: Changing the Way We Think

Worst Case Scenario Strategic Thinking: Surviving a Plane Crash

3 Critical Thinking Tips to Overcome Emotional Situations

Why Does Critical Thinking Matter?

My 6 Word Secret Weapon

Critical Thinking eBook Now Available

Now You’re Thinking- Honoring American Heroes

You Don’t Need a Ph.D. to Think

You Disagree?  Then You’re Not a Critical Thinker!

What is Your Thinking Style?

What is the RED Model of Critical Thinking?

The Latest News in Problem Solving, Decision Making, and Critical Thinking

Leaders Say Next Generation Lacks Necessary Critical Thinking Skills

With Unemployment Numbers High, Critical Thinking is the Answer

Make Critical Thinking Fun: The Zombie Apocalypse Exercise

How to Ace the Tough Interview Questions

What We Need to Get Rid of is Critical Thinking

What is the Cost of Poor Critical Thinking?

Want to Improve Your Critical Thinking? Eat Walnuts

There is no wrong way to make a peanut butter and jelly sandwich…or is there?

Each year around this time HR pros write blog posts about the real cost of a bad hire (meaning someone who is ineffective or even destructive to the organization).  The latest statistic I read was covered by Lance Haun at TLNT.com.   In his post, Lance talks about the meaning behind the numbers in an infographic by Resoomy.com which states that the cost of a bad hire middle manager who makes $62,000 for 2.5 years is actually $840,000. Obviously this calculation is debatable because the statisticians try to account for things like Recruiting, HR, and training costs as well as disruption of business but can’t account for every variable.  Most models also account for severance, unemployment insurance, and some level of additional recruiting that must be done to fill the position once the “bad hire” is terminated.

But doesn’t $840,000 seem so arbitrary?  There’s a big difference between a “bad hire” who simply doesn’t contribute to the organization and one that either purposely or accidentally dramatically impacts the organization in a negative way.  The individual could have a negative attitude and bring down productivity, innovation, and satisfaction in a team.  The individual could also be responsible for a massive safety error that costs lives, customers, millions of dollars, brand image, etc.

In my opinion, the difference here is critical thinking.  Instead of focusing on the cost of all “bad hires,” could we isolate the cost of poor critical thinkers in the organization?  I would much rather spend my time trying to screen out the employee who is prone to making bad decisions than one who is simply an average producer.  It seems like the priority would be to make sure you don’t hire a “dangerous thinker” rather than an average thinker.

Someone who lacks critical thinking skills will frequently react emotionally and lack logic in decision making.  Poor critical thinkers either make decisions too quickly without analyzing all of the data or delay coming to a conclusion due to lack of confidence.  They will either be frozen in the face of unique problems or pursue fruitless solutions to the situation.  They will make the same errors repeatedly and not learn from their own mistakes.  These are dangerous employees.

What is the cost of that employee?  I would argue that it is immeasurable.

Can we instead measure the value of strong critical thinking?  If a picture is worth a thousand words, then this picture says a thousand words about the value of effective thinking.

This is Amenah al-Bayati who would have died of a congenital heart defect had the Marines of the 3rd Battalion, 23rd Regiment not used effective thinking to identify, define, and solve the complex problem of getting her medical care in the United States.  They faced seemingly insurmountable odds while trying to get a 2 year old child out of Haditha (the most active terror zone in Iraq at the time) for a privately-funded open heart surgery.  The entire heroic story is told in the book Now You’re Thinking!, which also details how to follow a critical thinking model and make the most of your own unique thinking style (through taking the My Thinking Styles assessment).

Instead of trying to calculate the cost of a bad hire (or debate about the accuracy of that number), let’s spend our time trying to find employees like those in the Marine Corps Battalion who saved the life of Amenah al-Bayati.  Let’s work on hiring critical thinkers.

Can you predict anything about a person’s critical thinking ability based on their credit score?  According to a new study, researchers have found that individuals with lower credit scores have a greater need for immediate gratification which impacts decision making.

Everyone loves a creative thinker, right?  Sure they tend to be great problem solvers and excel at handling difficult tasks, but what is the downside to hiring a creative thinker?  It turns out that creative thinkers are better at cheating than people less skilled in creative thinking.  

It appears that creative thinkers have a unique ability to create elaborate justifications for their unethical behavior as a result of their imagination.  Think about that the next time your most creative employee calls in sick to work with an elaborate story.

Clearly, though, the implications are much greater than a few unnecessary sick days.  The idea that creative thinkers are more adept at cheating raises questions about how dangerous those employees could be in an ethical business dilemma.  In other words, just because a creative thinker can create a great justification for unethical behavior, will they take that risk?

According to the study, the answer is unfortunately yes:

‘The results from the current paper indicate that, in fact, people who are creative or work in environments that promote creative thinking may be the most at risk when they face ethical dilemmas.’

So, how do you manage the risk of potential unethical behavior from a creative thinker when there are so many benefits to having them on your team?  What would you do?