I travel often for work, and have become quite critical of the airlines I choose.  Frontier, United, Continental, Southwest, American, Virgin, Delta- each have their own unique advantages and disadvantages.  So, how do you choose the right airline for your needs?

I suggest using a strategic approach to decision making that I learned at the Critical Thinking Boot Camp.  While I cannot share the handy worksheet we used at the bootcamp, I will share a shortened version of the general process for deciding between multiple alternatives.

After I search for the available flights to my destination, I need to decide which criteria I should use to evaluate the airline choices.  What features of this flight should be considered mandatory? Which measurable factors make one flight better than another?

For example, my criteria for a good flight would be:

• timing that works with my planned schedule
• low price
• no layovers
• ability to upgrade to more legroom
• good customer service experience
• low rate of delays/cancellations
• nice boarding area
• TV availability
• Auto Check-in
• Good frequent flyer program
• In-flight wi-fi

Based on this list, it is clear that some of the criteria listed are just “nice to have” versus necessary.  So, next we need to assign a numerical weight to the criteria.  For me, having a direct flight would be a 10 (most important) whereas the auto check-in availability would be less relevant (likely a 2).

Once we have addressed which criteria are most important, it is time to compare the airlines to the criteria.  For example, prior to merging with Midwest, Frontier had TV’s on the headrest of each flight.  Southwest lets you pay a few extra dollars to automatically check in.  Both of those satisfy one of the criteria completely, so they would receive a 10 for those categories.  However, Southwest does not offer any upgrades for extra legroom, so for that category they would receive a 0.

Pricing and flight times would vary for each airline, so the values assessed compared to the criteria would differ for each flight.

As you can see by now, we are taking a qualitative decision and thinking critically about the best possible choice by quantifying the advantages and disadvantages of each alternative.

At the end of the process, you should be able to use the scores assigned to each airline for the weighted criteria to choose the best airline to meet your unique needs.  In the end, the decision you make will be justified by data, and not gut feeling or emotional preference.

How can you imagine using this decision making process today?

Increasingly nurses are dealing with life and death decisions and there’s no doubt that a competent, thorough nurse will help a patient get on the road to recovery faster.

Here’s an infographic demonstrating the critical thinking steps a nurse could take to help make an early diagnosis. These are by no means comprehensive, but the steps (from Pearson’s RED critical thinking model) are a beginning point that a nurse could add to and customize…

Let’s first start by defining Wishful vs. Cynical Thinking.

Wishful Thinking (according to Wikipedia) is the formation of beliefs and making decisions according to what might be pleasing to imagine instead of by appealing to evidence, rationality or reality.

Cynical Thinking (which is NOT the same thing as Critical Thinking) is thinking that is predisposed to doubt and lack of trust.  Cynical Thinkers have a pessimstic view when problem solving and decision making.

The idea of Wishful vs. Cynical Thinking came to mind for me this week when a friend told me he thinks he has a coin worth $35,000.  This particular person is not a collector and typically does not own things of value, and to be quite honest, my Cynical Thinking kicked in immediately.

1. If you “think” you have a coin worth $35,000 and yet you’re just scraping by with your bills, wouldn’t you run to a coin appraiser and sell it immediately?
2. What does this individual even know about coins that would make him think it’s worth $35k?
3. Just because this kind of coin was once sold at auction for $35k doesn’t mean that’s what his coin is worth.  After all, his version isn’t even in the original packaging, so it would be down-graded in its current condition.
4. I’ll bet it’s a fake.
5. People like “us” don’t experience miracles like this.

So after I asked him several questions he showed me the coin and I really saw the stark difference between a Wishful Thinker and my Cynical Thinking.  He told me the history of how the “Sacagawea Dollar 2000 P” came into circulation.  Apparently Cheerios ran a marketing campaign that included 5,500 of these previously unreleased Sacagawea dollars in Cheerios boxes.  It is still unknown how this happened, but non-patterned Sacagawea coins were included in this series, which means that they have a very slight design difference from the Sacagawea Dollars currently in circulation.  Translation:  rare + mistake  = valuable.  On top of the fact that these rare coins (now commonly referred to as a “Cheerios Dollar”) were available to unsuspecting cereal eaters, there’s the very real possibility that the individuals lucky enough to receive one of these 5,500 coins had no idea how valuable the coin would be.  Remember, they were still only worth a dollar in 2000.  They were created by the U.S. mint to get people excited about the upcoming release of the coin to the general population.  So, who knows how many people opened the packaging and spent the coin over the past 12 years.

So, back to my original story…after seeing the coin in person and doing some research, I examined the coin for the necessary characteristics.  I found myself looking for ways in which his coin differed from the pictures of the authentic coin.  At the same time, my friend kept telling me about all the ways in which the coin looks similar to the authentic coin.

And there’s the problem…neither Wishful Thinking nor Cynical Thinking is superior.  They’re both flawed by a logical fallacy called “Confirmation Bias.”  Instead of looking at the situation neutrally and only relying on logic and reasoning, we were both predisposed to seeking out information that proved our respective beliefs.

I wanted to prove that the coin was fake, so I paid close attention to the differences in his coin vs. a verified coin.  He wanted to believe he had a $35k coin, so he paid close attention to the similarities between his coin and the verified coin.

When you become influenced by Confirmation Bias, you stop paying attention to anything that could disprove your belief/hypothesis, and that is a major error.  That is NOT critical thinking.  So, in the end, it doesn’t matter if you’re a Wishful Thinker or Cynical Thinker because, by their very nature, the thinking is flawed from the start.

What examples of Confirmation Bias have you seen recently?

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?

One complaint I have about my MBA program is that it felt like a bunch of disconnected courses and assignments that  didn’t gel together (at times). I wanted more help “seeing the big picture” that drives success.

For example, how companies choose an HR strategy to win talent in their specific industry and why. Or which marketing techniques are best at promoting a new product vs an existing product. In essence, I wanted help thinking about my options, not necessarily learning each one.

In the book Rethinking the MBA: Business Education at a Crossroads, the authors offer eight unmet needs that business schools must focus on to better prepare future leaders. All relate to critical thinking.

Here are the book’s proposed unmet needs:

• Gaining a global perspective: identifying, analyzing, and practicing how best to manage when faced with economic, institutional, and cultural differences across countries.
• Developing leadership skills: understanding the responsibilities of leadership; developing alternative approaches to inspiring, influencing, and guiding others; learning such skills as conducting a performance review and giving critical feedback; and recognizing the impact of one’s actions and behaviors on others.
• Honing integration skills: thinking about issues from diverse, shifting angles to frame problems holistically; learning to make decisions based on multiple, often conflicting, functional perspectives; and building judgment and intuition into messy, unstructured situations.
• Understanding the role, responsibilities, and purpose of business: balancing financial and nonfinancial objectives while simultaneously juggling the demands of diverse constituencies such as shareholders, employees, customers, regulators, and society.
• Recognizing organizational realities and the challenges of implementation: influencing others and getting things done in the context of hidden agendas, unwritten rules, political coalitions, and competing points of view.
• Thinking creatively and innovatively: finding and framing problems;collecting, synthesizing, and distilling large volumes of ambiguous data; engaging in generative and lateral thinking; and constantly experimenting and learning.
• Thinking critically and communicating clearly: developing and articulating logical, coherent, and persuasive arguments; marshalling supporting evidence; and distinguishing fact from opinion.
• Understanding the limits of models and markets: asking tough questions about risk by questioning underlying assumptions and emerging patterns and seeking to understand what might go wrong; learning about the sources of errors that lead to flawed decision making and the organizational safeguards that reduce these risks; and understanding the tension between regulatory activities aimed at preventing social harm and market-based incentives designed to encourage innovation and efficiency.

(Book excerpts taken fromhttp://www.mbauniverse.com/article/id/3380/Rethinking-MBA-Exc-Excerpts-II)

What do you think?  Do you agree that these are unmet needs in current MBA programs?

Are you scheduled to take the Watson-Glaser Critical Thinking Appraisal assessment for training or selection and looking for a practice test?

Then I have bad news for you.

Because the Watson-Glaser Critical Thinking Appraisal assessment is the most widely known assessment for measuring critical thinking skills and is most often used to select employees, therefore you will not find a practice test online.  In fact, if you’ve found a site that says it has the “real” questions to the Watson-Glaser, save your money…the site is a fraud.  We have a full-time team devoted to scouring the web to ensure that the questions in the assessment are not leaked.

The Watson-Glaser is a measure of cognitive ability, so there is really nothing you can do in a short period of time to practice the test and increase your scores anyway.

The best way to prepare for the assessment is to clear plenty of time (at least 30-45 minutes), make sure your environment is free of distractions, and read all of the questions carefully.

The assessment itself is made up of 40 questions and measures your skills in thinking, reasoning, and intelligence.  What you can expect are questions that measure your ability to understand:

• A strong versus weak argument
• Relevant versus irrelevant data
• Whether or not the conclusion follows from the data given
• Whether or not there is sufficient information to make a conclusion
• What assumptions were made

If you’re currently searching for a new job, I have tremendous sympathy for you. Unemployment is high, the job market is full of overqualified candidates, and unfortunately the candidate application process isn’t made to suit you.

If you haven’t looked for a job in the last 5 years, let me update you on the 2012 employment application process. The experience has evolved, and not in a positive way.  Over a decade ago, candidates still looked through the Help Wanted ads in the newspaper and  ”pounded the pavement” passing out resumes to every manager who would shake hands with them. Many people still snail-mailed their resumes to potential employers.  That’s right, kids, people paid for postage and fancy resume paper to look for a job during the dark ages. When Monster.com and Careerbuilder.com appeared on the scene, candidates rejoiced.  A job seeker could fire off hundreds of resumes a day with the “Apply Now” button (whether they were qualified or not) all while sitting on the couch, munching on Cheetos, and lounging in pajama pants.

Recruiters, on the other hand, did not necessarily rejoice. Suddenly they were inundated with hundreds of resumes for a single job posting. As a former recruiter myself, it was not uncommon to post a job opening for a Director of Sales and receive 2 dozen resumes from “pizza delivery specialists.” Something had to be done. Recruiters were spending tons of time wading through unqualified applicants and not meeting/interviewing true prospects.  

Around the same time, companies started heavily investing in Applicant Tracking Systems.  These programs helped weed through the unqualified candidates based on a set of criteria or keywords and give recruiters a chance to have more face time with interviewees.  Additionally, they helped recruiters track the candidates as they moved through the selection process and kept valuable records in case of a lawsuit.  Super! Applicants can still apply online, and recruiters have a computerized helper to target their efforts. Problem solved!

Not quite. Now when you click the “Apply Now” button on Monster or CareerBuilder, you’re taken to a company’s website and asked to fill in every detail of your employment history in their customized program.  Remember that resume that you worked so hard to format perfectly?  Well forget about it, because even if you’re allowed to upload your resume into the system, you’ll still have to manually type in your name, address, contact info, references, employers, job descriptions, dates of employment, education, certifications, blood type, organ donor status, favorite color, and food allergies (I’m almost kidding here).

My husband is currently searching for a new job, and over the past week I’ve timed how long it takes to complete each application.  On average, it takes 22 minutes per job and that’s if there is no selection assessment included in the process.  For one electronic retailer, there were 42 pages of questions, and several pages asked the same questions over and over again.  Imagine how it feels to do your taxes or apply for a mortgage loan.  Now multiply that by 5 or 6 times a day.  That’s how a job applicant feels.

To say the least, the candidate experience has suffered.

Now, seeing as how I’ve worked in the selection assessment industry for 8 years, I am obviously a strong advocate for using scientific assessments in the hiring process.  However, the right assessment should be used at the right place and the right time.  Some companies are trying to weed out candidates by including a selection assessment in the initial application process.  While that may cut down on the number of resumes to read and the amount of time a candidate has to spend in the recruiter’s office, there are a few problems with that approach.

First, without proctoring the assessment, you have no way of guaranteeing that the person answering the questions is the actual candidate you’re hiring.  Why assess a candidate’s skills if you aren’t sure who answered the questions?  My husband has completed at least 20 assessments during his job application process, and I could have easily taken any one of those assessments for him.  My assessment score wouldn’t help him once he’s on the job, but at that point the company has already wasted time, energy, and money bringing him on-board and training him.  Using a selection assessment without proctoring is risky at best.

Next, candidates often take the same popular assessments over and over when they apply at multiple companies. Recently, a colleague of mine mentioned that he had taken the same “sales ability” questionnaire 3 times now for 3 different companies.  He joked that it would be interesting to see if he even answered the same across the 3 administrations.  He also planned to take screen shots the next time he had to fill out that assessment so he wouldn’t have to read the questions in the future and could just fill in the same answer pattern.  There’s a problem here.

Finally, to accurately assess a candidate, you want them to be fresh, clear-minded, and free of distractions. How often is your household free of distractions?  How fresh and clear-minded do you think your candidate is if he/she has been filling out job applications/assessments all day long?  Certainly, I believe that it is the candidate’s responsibility to manage his/her time, energy level, and focus, but let’s be realistic.  Life happens.  When my husband was filling out applications, I was sitting next to him and the dogs were begging for his attention.  Some days he spent 4 to 6 hours just applying for jobs.  The last thing I want one of my candidates to do is take the Watson-Glaser Critical Thinking Appraisal (which requires serious concentration and mental clarity) after a long day of filling out mind-numbing applications. We all want the best candidates for our open positions, and our candidates should have the best chance possible to show off their skills.

HR and Recruiter friends, we can do better!

We need to do some creative thinking and problem solving to strike a balance between automating the paperwork side of recruiting while keeping the process human for our candidates.  We can take advantage of valid, scientific assessments that measure skills and abilities without compromising the integrity of the assessment or exhausting candidates with the length of the application process.  We have to stop looking at the candidate application process as an “either/or” experience (i.e. Either the recruiter is inconvenienced by paperwork or the candidate is inconvenienced by redundant questions.)

Let’s look for the win/win.

How can we improve the process for the recruiter and the candidate?

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)