Analysis Using Critical Thinking Model: Cliffside Holding Company Memo
University of Maryland University College

Introduction Amidst this barrage of information in today’s world, it is often difficult to make a decision and stand by it, assured that it was the most advantageous to all those involved. Fortunately, critical thinking is a tool available to assist in making well thought out decisions in the face of contradictory opinions and impulsive actions. In Asking the Right Questions: A Guide to Critical Thinking, Browne and Keeley (2013) explain that critical thinking is “reacting with systematic evaluation to what you have heard and read” (p. 4). They further assert that critical thinking “requires a set of skills and attitudes that are built around a series of related critical questions” (p. 4). By asking the right questions, we employ the skill of critical thinking to enhance what and how we process information. To examine the concept of critical questions, this paper will analyze a business document from Cliffside Holding of Massapequa using the critical thinking model outlined by Browne and Keeley (2013) in Asking the Right Questions.
Analysis
Mr. Anil Ravaswami, Vice-President (VP) of Human Resources (HR) of Cliffside Holding Company of Massapequa (CHMC), wrote a memo to CEO Cynthia Castle in response to her request for the evaluation of a proposal for a new leadership development program to be designed for Cliffside’s junior insurance executives (personal communication, October 10, 2012). To evaluate the memo, the first critical question we have to ask is what is the issue and what is the conclusion? Mr. Ravaswami stated, “This is in response to your request for our office to evaluate the merit of Ms. Forsythe’s proposal that we establish and fund a new leadership development program for our junior insurance executives” (personal communication, 2012, p. 1). Thus, the issue in question is – should CHCM “establish and fund a new leadership development program for their junior executives.” The issue “raises questions about what we should do,” so it is a prescriptive issue (Browne & Keeley, 2013, p. 25). The conclusion can be determined by whether or not Ravaswami believes a leadership development program should be established and funded. It holds that the conclusion of this memo is CHCM should not establish and fund a new leadership development program for its junior executives (A.Ravaswami, personal communication, 2012, p. 3).
The next question in the critical thinking model is what are the reasons? What has Mr. Ravaswami given as reasons why CHCM should not establish and fund a new leadership program for its junior executives? The first reason he provides is that in the 50 years CHCM has been in business with a yearly growth rate of 12%, they have been successful without having the senior leadership attend leadership development; thus, it is not necessary for developing good leaders (A. Ravaswami, personal communication, 2012, p. 1). Secondly, he stated that leaders cannot be developed: a person is either a leader or they are not (A. Ravaswami, personal communication, 2012, p. 2). Mr. Ravaswami substantiates this statement with the results of a survey conducted on senior staff and research that discusses how leadership traits are already in a person. He also offers the ulterior motive of Ms. Forsythe as a reason. Mr. Ravaswami explained that she is not genuine in her request for a leadership program at CHCM. He insists tha tshe is motivated by personal reasons as opposed to a concern for the interests of the junior executives (personal communication, 2012, pp. 2-3). A final reason given by Mr. Ravaswami is that it will adversely affect the company’s finances. He stated that CHCM would not be able to afford all the training requests, a deficit would be created in the funding needed to recruit leaders, and developing people who are not necessarily leaders will be a waste of money.
Now, we need to define what words or phrases are ambiguous. These can be found in the issue, the conclusions and the reasons (Browne & Keeley, 2013, p. 45). Within the memo, the issue and the conclusion do not contain any ambiguous words or phrases. Yet, there are some ambiguous words or phrases in the reasons that Mr. Ravaswami uses to support his conclusion. In one of the reasons, he affirmed that “since our leadership has been successful and effective without such programs it appears that leaders are born, not made” (A. Ravaswami, personal communication, 2012, p. 1). “Successful and effective” are ambiguous as Mr. Ravaswami never explains what the terms mean. He could be referring to their style of leadership or their status in the company/society. Since he uses the terms to justify his assertion that “leaders are born, not made,” knowing what these terms mean will assist in deciding whether we agree with his reasoning (Ravaswami, personal communication, 2012, p. 1). The following phrase by Mr. Ravaswami, also contains ambiguity: “Well-respected research studies” (personal communication, 2012, p. 2). As a reader, one has to question what is meant by “well-respected research studies.” Does that mean that many scholars support the study or that the study contained irrefutable evidence? Clarifying what Mr. Ravaswami means would help readers determine whether these studies are viable support for not having a leadership program. Furthermore, “numerous requests for expensive training,” is an ambiguous phrase (personal communication, 2012, p. 2). In his background, Mr. Ravaswami explained that the proposal was to send 20 people to the leadership training and he already outlined the costs, so “numerous” and “expensive” would need to be clearly defined to understand if that reason is justified (personal communication, 2012, p. 1).
Delving deeper into the critical thinking process, the next question to ask is what are the value and descriptive assumptions? The first set of descriptive assumptions—based on the reason that leadership development is not necessary for the company’s prosperity—is that CHCM’s success is attributable to the senior leadership, none of the leaders caused the company any losses, and CHCM knows how to recruit the best leaders. Given the reason that people are either leaders or they are not, the descriptive assumptions are that you cannot train a person to become a leader if they are not one already, leaders come fully equipped and ready to lead without the need for training, and the right leaders can be chosen if certain traits are sought after. A value assumption that is made on the above reason is that it is a person’s responsibility to ensure that they are capable of becoming a good leader, not the responsibility of their company. Another value assumption, based on the question of Ms. Forsythe’s motivations, is that a company’s best interest should prevail over people’s personal agendas and their rights to opportunities. In his final reason about money, Mr. Ravaswami makes the following descriptive assumptions: people will assume that there is a training free-for-all, paying for leadership development will deplete the company’s recruitment budget, and that recruited leaders are better. The next critical question in this process is, are there any fallacies in the reasoning? The first fallacy in reasoning we observe is ad hominem. Mr. Ravaswami attacked Ms. Forsythe, the program’s advocate, by questioning her intentions and motives. He also presents a false dilemma fallacy in this attack by insinuating that the reason that she is advocating the leadership program is because she wants to be VP of HR. The next fallacy in this memo is ad populum. Mr Ravaswami asserted that a survey of the senior staff determined that all but one of them believed that “leaders are born, not made” (personal communication, 2012, p. 1). This is also an example of the reasoning fallacies that appeal to questionable authority; the senior staff members are not necessary experts on leadership. Another reasoning fallacy used in this memo is the slippery slope fallacy. Mr. Ravaswami said that starting this training will create a number of costly training requests that the company cannot pay for, but that may not be the case. Mr. Ravaswami also uses the searching for the perfect solution fallacy when he states that “if we spend money sending the wrong people to leadership training, the whole program will be a waste of money” (personal communication, 2012, p. 2). However, the program may benefit some people Lastly, Mr. Ravaswami employs the glittering generality fallacy when he describes the traits that a number of notable leaders had in order to insinuate that all leaders have them innately. After exploring the fallacies in reasoning, we need to know how good the evidence is. Mr. Ravaswami first introduced personal observation as evidence to support his conclusion; he mentions that the company has prospered and none of the executives attended leadership training (personal communication, 2012, p. 1). This is sound evidence as CHCM’s track record and their growth rate is proof that validates their success. The memo also used appeals to authorities as evidence. Mr. Ravaswami noted that the senior staff members were surveyed and all but one agreed that leaders are not made (personal communication, 2012, p. 1). He also presented a quote from Dr. Irwin Corey about how you are already born with your capabilities in you (personal communication, 2012, p. 2). This is weak evidence because there is no mention that these people have any expertise in the area of leadership or that they may be influenced by other factors. Mr. Ravaswami included case examples as evidence to validate that leadership traits are innate, but he only named three leaders and three traits. There can be people that possess these traits that are not leaders and vice versa. He also used research studies as evidence in his memo, but this is not good evidence because there is only an allusion to them. No mention is made of the details of the studies and what they entail. Just because Mr. Ravaswami stated that the studies support the idea that personality traits are an indicator of leadership, it does not justify the conclusion that there should not be a leadership program. Mr. Ravaswami used his personal experience of observing that leaders are tall (personal communication, 2012, p. 2). This evidence is insufficient because he has not met all leaders and there are some leaders that are short. Intuition is another form of evidence used by Mr. Ravaswami. He said that he “suspects” that Ms. Forsythe’s intentions are not good, but it is not sound evidence because it can be based on personal feelings and has not been proven (personal communication, 2012, p. 2). Next, we need to know if there are rival causes. Mr. Ravaswami notes that one of the reasons that CHMC does not need a leadership program is that the company was thriving and none of the senior leaders attended leadership development (personal communication, 2012, p. 1). However, the leadership may have attended leadership development before working for CHCM or the company’s prosperity may be due to other factors. Mr. Ravaswami pointed out that this program should not be established and funded because “leaders are born not made” (personal communication, 2012, p. 1). On the other hand, it may be that the experiences they went through in their lives developed the leadership traits that are expressed when they are put in a position. In that case the leader was made, not born. Another reason presented is that Ms. Forsythe wants this program so that she can gain and promote liberal ideas (personal communication, 2012, p. 2). Nevertheless, Ms. Forsythe could be advocating the program because she genuinely wants to see the junior executives developed or she may have seen proof that the leadership of CHCM is under-developed. Mr. Ravaswami also added that the leadership development program will deplete funds and waste money (personal communication, 2012, p. 1). On the contrary, the increased training request that exhaust company funds may be the result of untrained leaders, not the new leadership program. Moreover, the recruitment fund may be getting depleted because there is constant recruiting in the company due to the lack of trained leaders. The next step in the process would be to determine if the statistics are deceptive, but since there are no statistics, we will decide what significant information is omitted. Mr. Ravaswami stated that CHCM was a successful company that has been in existence for 50 years with a yearly growth rate of 12% and their senior leaders did not have leadership development (personal communication, 2012, p. 1). However, no mention is made of the company’s downfalls or issues they experienced during those 50 years. If we are able to see some of the issues that CHCM experienced, we can assess if they related to leadership and then make a more concrete decision about whether we agree with Mr. Ravaswami’s conclusion. In addition, Ms. Forsythe proposed a new leadership program for a reason (personal communication, 2012, p. 1). What information is she using to conclude that it is necessary? Knowing this puts us in a better position to decide on the need for the program. Mr. Ravaswami was able to present a case for why CMCH should not have a leadership program, but we should be afforded the opportunity to know the benefits of a leadership program (personal communication, 2012, pp. 1 – 3). Moreover, Aspen Leadership Institute is the selected institution for the training and it is mentioned that Ms. Forsythe was trying to promote their views (personal communication, 2012, p. 3). No information is given as to Ms. Forsythe’s history with Aspen Institute, if any. With that, we would have a better idea of why Aspen Institute was selected as well as whether Ms. Forsythe has an ulterior motive. This would enable a more informed conclusion. Mr. Ravaswami mentioned that this program would create plenty of training requests that CHCM could not pay for, but no information was provided on the company’s training budget or operating budget (personal communication, 2012, p. 2). Some budgetary figures would be useful to contribute to our decision on whether to support the conclusion. Lastly, Mr. Ravaswami provided support for his argument that leaders are not made using quotations and facts and figures, but no information is provided about leaders who attended leadership development programs or what they offer. The final question to ask in the critical thinking process is what reasonable conclusions are possible? Mr. Ravaswami’s conclusion is that CHCM should not establish and fund a new leadership development program for its junior executives (personal communication, 2012, p. 3). An alternative conclusion would be that CHCM should establish and fund a new leadership development program as well as allow junior executives to participate if they display leadership potential traits and qualities. Another alternative conclusion would be that if there is money in the budget, then CHCM should establish and fund a new leadership development program. These conclusions would satisfy both Mr. Ravaswami and Ms. Forsythe, a leadership program would be established, but only promising leaders would participate, alleviating the concern of money being wasted. Finally, an additional reasonable conclusion would be that CHCM should not establish and fund a new leadership development program, but they can have their senior leadership mentor the junior executives. In conclusion, with the increased connectivity and evolving technology, information is constantly coming at us from various sources. This information is often conflicting, yet crucial to the decisions we need to make. Thus, many people lazily accept the opinions presented by those who are supposedly in the know and relieve themselves of the duty of making informed decisions. All the same, critical thinking is a means available to those who are not satisfied with taking the easy way out when deciphering information. By using the tool of critical thinking, people can sift through all types of data, retaining only what is of value. Asking the Right Questions provides a critical thinking model that uses ten questions to navigate through information as demonstrated by the evaluation of a memo regarding Cliffside Holding Company’s leadership development program.

References
Browne, M. N., & Keeley, S.M. (2013). Asking the right questions: A guide to critical thinking
(11th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson/Prentice Hall.