Critical Thinking for Making the Right Decisions - Essay Example

? Running head: CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF A MEMO Critical thinking is essential for making the right decisions. Communications, whether oral or written, need to be carefully analyzed through a process of questioning the information being conveyed to establish the issue(s) and evaluate the arguments/reasons, evidence and its value, omissions if any etc., in order to agree or disagree with the conclusions contained therein. Key words: Critical thinking, analysis, communication, issue, conclusion, argument, reason, statistical evidence and omission. Critical Analysis of a Memo Introduction The process of critical thinking for decision making is a structured approach in order that objectivity takes precedence over subjectivity, and the subject matter is dealt with on merit alone. Nothing is accepted on face value and every aspect of a communication, whether oral or written, is questioned to clearly identify the issues, stated conclusions, arguments, evidence in support and assumptions/omissions/fallacies. This should lead to the right conclusions and right decisions. Clear thinking is all about ‘the ability to engage in reflective and independent thinking’ (Anon., n.d., philosophy.hku.hk). According to Study Guides, clear thinking involves ‘placing the facts and information in a pattern … and … accepting or rejecting the source values and conclusions…’ (Anon., n.d., studygs.net). In the following paragraphs, a memo from the Director of Human Resources, Federated State Employees Union (FSEU), Local 343 to its President, in response to the proposal of the Governor of the state of Illinois for economizing the budgeted personnel cost of the department of transportation (DoT) through outsourcing its information systems management, is analyzed applying the critical thinking process through its various steps (Browne and Keeley, 2007). Analysis Step 1: Issue and conclusion The memo lays down the union’s opposition to privatization of jobs as a means to curtail costs, dilates on the perils of the proposed action on union and its members, and attempts to justify the opposition on multiple grounds. The prescriptive issue conveyed is: Should the Governor’s proposal to cut costs by eliminating certain jobs by resorting to privatization be allowed to be implemented? The conclusion is: It is not only a bad idea but also bad in law, and is in effect an attempt to control the union. Step 2: Reasons offered FSEU is questioning the rationale of eliminating jobs through outsourcing, which opens up the possibility of permanent unemployment of the concerned union members. Since outsourcing would potentially invite foreign agents with their unfair advantage of low-wage workers, the proposal is seen as anti-American and as a forerunner for similar attempts in other departments too. Further, it would lead to reduced wages as a result of competition from foreign workers. Dispersal to other departments and potential wage reduction are attempts by the management to gain control over the union. Displaced workers, if at all they get new postings, would need to learn new skills and to cope with new environs, in spite of their age, experience and merit. It is contended that employee reduction/displacement through privatization runs contrary to the Pendleton Act of 1883. Step 3: Ambiguity in reasoning The Wikipedia reference to the relevance of Pendleton Act of 1883 is tenuous and not specific. Words and phrases like ‘instability, most likely, similar, attempt to drive out old experienced workers’ are ambiguous in context and not supported by reason or evidence. Step 4: Value assumptions/conflicts The major value assumed in the memo is the union’s right to protect the interests of its members and for citizens at large, both on the present issue and for future. Further, it is argued that yielding by the union on the issue would weaken its position for future negotiations with the management. At the same time, the assumed threat for the union members is sought to be used to garner votes for the re-election of its President. Hence a doubt rises naturally if the issue is not being used to influence union elections rather than protect members’ genuine interests. Step 5: Descriptive assumptions Terms/phrases used loosely like ‘assault, bully, if we allow … it will happen, relearn, attempt to drive out experience old workers, most likely … on the street, corporate greed’ etc., are descriptive assumptions not supported by valid reasons or evidence. That privatization would lead to instability is another descriptive assumption. Step 6: Fallacies in reasoning, if any The terms privatization, outsourcing and job losses to foreign contractors are freely interchanged to carry same meaning and to paint a dire picture. It need not be so and checking the basis of projected cost savings would bring out if privatization/outsourcing to private US firms/US employees is on cards or not. If the job is outsourced to US companies employing US citizens, a possibility which can not be ruled out, the entire argument against privatization collapses. Step 7: Evidence in support of arguments The single substantive evidence is that of a ‘brother-in-law’ who was out of job for a long time despite promises to reemploy. The reference to violation of Pendleton Act of 1883 is causal and unsubstantiated. Barring these two, there no shred of evidence what-so-ever and the memo is full of dire proclamations and assumptions, in the backdrop of a clear conflict of interests. Step 8: Rival causes On the face of it, the memo wishes to safeguard the interests of union members but a closer examination reveals the attempt to use the opportunity to retain control over the affairs of the union, getting re-elected in the next year and gaining an upper hand in the dealings with the management. The brazen attempt to put fear of losing jobs to foreign workers and use that threat to retain union control and negotiating strength vis-a-vis management is the most obvious rival cause. Step 9: Statistical evidence and its value Statistical evidence is provided at two spots saying that, “ … 80% of the time they don’t keep their promise’ and that, “…additional costs of overseeing third-party contractors adds 20% of hidden costs…”. The first one is pure hearsay and the second one can be considered to be of some value if the reference and full context of the Wall Street Journal article is provided and examined on its merit. Overall, the memo fails to provide any statistical evidence of reliable value. Step 10: Significant omissions The proposed action contained in the memo does not include any attempt to obtain clarity on the issue, especially w.r.t. engaging local contractors with local employees and seeking guarantees for re-employment of the affected members. Step 11: Conclusions From the foregoing critical analysis, it can be reasonably concluded that the merits/demerits of the proposed privatization have not been adequately addressed and the issue is sought to be exploited for continued control over the affairs of the union by misleading the President and members of FSEU Local 343, with vacuous arguments devoid of reason or credible evidence. Conclusion The surprising element of this exercise is the dramatic change in the reader’s opinion of the contents of the memo between the first quick reading and realization of the shallowness of the arguments after asking the right questions and analyzing minutely. This is the result of clear thinking. References Anon., (n.d.). What is critical thinking and why is it important? [online]. Retrieved from: http://www.philosophy.hku.hk Anon., (n.d.). Summary of critical thinking [online]. Retrieved from: http://www.studygs.net/crtthk.htm Browne, N. and Keeley, S.M. (2007). “Asking the right questions: A guide to critical thinking” 8th ed., Allyn & Bacon (Ch. 1 and Ch.2). Read More