Naserian operates an assembly line in Kajiado and is constantly resolving problems alone, with a reliance on dashboard information and guesswork as night-time production deadlines loom.
Conference calls and meetings ramble without tough questions, cause-and-effect meetings conclude after only one apparent solution gets tabled, and all the while machinery downtime carries on for longer and longer than supplier contracts even allow.
Suggestions from individual team members are strangled because new thoughts are never heard, and soon minor compromises on quality yield to compliance issues that mar the factory’s bottom line net profit.
Saitoti, on the other hand, has a line of packagers along the hall under his charge and begins each shift's briefing by having technicians repeat improbable modes of failure and argue for and against each other's supporting evidence.
He encourages everyone to challenge sources of information, overcome ingrained tendencies, and try out alternate repairs on a simulator rig before they are used on live equipment.
Morale on his team is boosted when operators see that their recommendations affect maintenance schedules, and the on-time delivery record at the plant also improves when scrap cost reduces significantly.
Researcher Amine Ayad equates critical thinking with the famous Six Sigma's mythical five-why drill famously tried at General Electric. She notes that the ever-important process improvement goal of achieving high yield requires far more penetrating questioning than simple successive cycles than “why” questions can offer.
The study cites examples of how teams can avoid catastrophic mistakes only when analysts asked probing questions of concealed variables, challenged statistical presumptions, and battled confirmation bias, and argues that systematic questioning improves root-cause accuracy and insulates companies against headline failure.
Sadly, most managers will just work toward the easiest and simplest solution without digging deeper. But the research shows there is a systematic way of handling the more depth needed in questioning cycles.
Additionally, researchers Bruno Dyck, Kent Walker, Frederick Starke, and Krista Uggerslev employ an experiment in their study wherein participants learn two competing models of management rather than one classical model.
The participants who learned a dual-framework approach showed greater critical thinking, questioned deep assumptions, and produced higher-level solutions in solving challenging cases.
The experiment shows that managers who provide multiple frameworks for their employees to utilise create a clear indication that exposure to alternative approaches loosens analytical strength and constructs flexible judgment among employees. Essentially, managers should be less prescriptive in their instructions and more of a thought leadership coach.
Further research by Susan Zori, Laura Nosek, and Carol Musil shows the benefits of fostering critical thinking in workplaces. Their study involves performing unit canvassing and discovering a positive correlation between high open-minded, analytic, and confident managers and healthy practice environments among staff.
Staff in units with functioning strong critical thinkers had higher job satisfaction and turnover rates, indicating that reflective leadership not only enhances the quality of decision making but also constructs climates in which frontline professionals thrive.
Kenyan businesses which embed critical thinking in everyday rhythm see faster problem solving, stronger safety records, and juicier innovation pipelines.
Leadership teams that design cross-functional roundtable settings where, as different examples, engineers can autopsy customer grievances from different perspectives, or finance analysts stress-test models via scenario planning, or marketers canvas contrarian opinions prior to campaign launches.
Such behaviours flag blind spots early and turn would-be crises into tweaks in nuance, avoiding costly recalls and protecting brand loyalty.
Managers interested in developing personal capability can keep reflective diaries, documenting daily decisions as well as possible alternative diagnoses, attend workshops where facilitators compare models of analysis, and cycle through work that demands new thinking.
Peer-coaching teams can get collective inquiry through case files of neighbouring organisations, and partner with institutions that conduct evening workshops where executives tear apart live business issues with faculty supervision.
In summary, when leaders establish critical thinking as a team practice and not something of which anyone boasts an ability, teams begin to prefer evidence over assumption, dialogue over orders, and organisations become more immune to market volatility.
Research highlights that disciplined inquiry drives faster process, wiser strategy, and wiser way of work. Our Kenyan companies embracing questioning today will discover more stable tomorrow, more proud employees, and more committed stakeholder support.
Have a management or leadership issue, question, or challenge? Reach out to Dr. Scott through @ScottProfessor on X or on email [email protected]
