military critical thinking and problem solving

Thesoldiersproject is supported by its audience. When you buy through our links, we may earn an affiliate commission. Learn more

All About the 7-Step Military Problem Solving Process

Written by Everett Bledsoe / Fact checked by Brain Bartell

In addition to power and strength, the military relies on quick and decisive thinking. Members in service must be able to think on their feet and craft solutions in the blink of an eye. Obviously, this is not easy to do. But it is not too far-fetched when you realize that countless lives depend on a single personnel’s decision and course of action.

As such, every recruit coming into the military is taught and trained about the 7-step military problem solving process. This systematic approach is believed to be the best way for military members to address any problems that they encounter.

In short, the 7 steps to solve problems are:

• Pinpoint the Problem
• Identify the Facts and Assumptions
• Craft Alternatives
• Analyze the Generated Alternatives
• Weigh Between the Generated Alternatives
• Make and Carry Out Your Final Decision
• Evaluate the Results From Your Decision

To make it easier for you to comprehend and follow along, we have elaborated on each of the above steps in this article. So, continue reading by scrolling down!

Table of Contents

Step 1: Pinpoint the Problem

Step 2: identify the facts and assumptions, step 3: craft alternatives, step 4: analyze the generated alternatives, step 5: weigh between the generated alternatives, step 6: make and carry out your final decision, step 7: evaluate the results from your decision, army problem solving & decision making process, seven step military problem solving process.

The first step is to ID the problem, which means recognizing and identifying what needs fixing. Needless to say, you cannot attempt to seek a solution without first knowing what has to be addressed. By pinpointing your problem, you will have a clear goal or end destination in mind. Only then can you come up with the right steps to take.

To effectively define the problem, ask yourself the 5Ws—who, what, where, and when. In detail:

• Who is affected? Who is involved?
• What is affected? What is in the overall picture?
• When is/did this happen?
• Where is/did this happen?

Always be crystal clear about the problem and try to view it in the most objective way as much as possible. Imagine you are the third person looking at It rather than from it. It also helps to organize your answers into a coherent and concise problem statement.

The next step is to ID the facts and assumptions. This entails that you get whatever additional information you can in the time that you have. Try to garner more facts than assumptions by reviewing all the possible factors, internal and external, and use them together with what you have thought out in the step above to determine the cause of the problem. You should also be aware of the nature and scope of the problem from this step.

From here, you take a sub-step: think about what you want the final result to be. This does not have to be complicated but it has to be very clear. For instance, one of your troop members may be lost and uncontactable. Your ultimate goal is to find him/her and return to your base together. Remember, having a wishy-washy end state will only make your problem solving process more difficult.

These first two steps constitute situation assessment, which serves as the basis for you to work towards the remaining steps of the military problem solving process.

Onto the third step, strive to develop as many potential solutions as possible. Here, you will have to exercise your imagining and visualizing skills. Brainstorm and refine any ideas simultaneously. Engage both critical and critical thinking in this step. If possible, take note of what you have come up with. Do not be hesitant and brush off any ideas.

Then, analyze your options. Consider all of your possible courses of action with all the available information that you have compiled in the previous steps. Take into account your experiences, intuitions, and emotions. This does not have to be a purely rational or mathematical procedure. Nevertheless, this does not mean that you are 100% guided by your instincts and emotions. You must have a good balance between the two.

This step naturally lends itself to the next: compare between your generated alternatives. Weigh between their respective pros and cons. In particular, look at their cost and benefit of success. Are there any limiting factors or potential for unintended consequences? Evaluate carefully and ask yourself a lot of questions. You can also consider using a table, T-chart, or matrix to compare visually.

Try to settle for the “best” solution or course of action that is both logical and feels “right”. Apart from picking the best, select two or three more workable solutions as backups. Keep them handy in case you need to refer back to them. During this process, you may merge ideas and mix-match bits and pieces—that’s perfectly fine!

Once you have made your decision, craft your action plans. Know the details—what exactly do you have to do to solve the problem? If it is a long-term problem that you have to address, set milestones and timelines with clear methods of measuring progress and success. On the other hand, if it is a short, instantaneous problem, communicate your plans clearly to anyone else involved. Be aware of the specifics and be brutally honest. Execute your course of action with care. But do not be rigid. If something happens out of the plan, be willing to adjust and adapt.

After your solution implementation, wrap up by assessing the results. Was it what you envisioned? Were there deviations? What did you take away? Answer all of the questions so you can be even more equipped for future endeavors. Think of it as a reflection stage. The 7 steps to problem solving in the military are a continuous process—you will be confronted with challenges over and over, so do not skip this strengthening step. It will further your skills and expertise to handle problems going forward.

Another set of seven steps that you may come across during your service is the army problem solving steps. Needless to say, this is applied to the army problem solving process.

• Receiving the Mission
• Analyzing the Mission
• Developing the Course of Action
• Analyzing the Course of Action
• Comparing the Course of Action
• Getting Approval for the Course of Action
• Producing, Disseminating, and Transitioning Orders

This is a part of the MDMP, short for the military decision making process. In each step, there are inputs and outputs. In general, it is more specific than the above set of steps.

These seven steps focus on collaborative planning and performance. Plus, set the stage for interactions between different military agents, including commanders, staff, headquarters, etc.

COA is an abbreviation for a course of action. Thus, these steps are relatively similar to the steps that we have gone through earlier; specifically steps two: mission analysis, three: COA development, four: COA analysis, and five: COA comparison. Like the previous seven steps, these are carried out sequentially but can be revisited when needed.

The main difference is that these 7 steps to problem solving in the army are more explicitly directed to junior personnel. Hence, the mentioning of orders from higher-ranks, the significant role of commanders, and the need to earn approval before execution.

A mnemonic that service members use to remember this process is M.A.D.A.C.A.P. for:

• A: Analysis

You might want to remember this for an exam at military school, at NCO, or soldier of the month board.

You can learn more about the MDMP here:

So, there you have it—the 7-step military problem solving process. You should now be aware of two different but equally important sets of steps to problem solving and decision making. If you have any follow-up questions or thoughts, let us know in the comments. We look forward to hearing from you!

I am Everett Bledsoe, taking on the responsibility of content producer for The Soldiers Project. My purpose in this project is to give honest reviews on the gear utilized and tested over time. Of course, you cannot go wrong when checking out our package of information and guide, too, as they come from reliable sources and years of experience.

ASSOCIATION OF THE UNITED STATES ARMY

Voice for the army - support for the soldier, ‘thinking about thinking’: soldiers have a better way to solve problems.

A new field of systems thinking has emerged with the potential to transform the U.S. Army and its professional military education system. This new field could create emergent and adaptive leaders by placing a high value on creative and critical thinkers. It offers a new way to view problems and build intuitive thinking. Essentially, it could be the next frontier for the Army to create a superior cognitive force or, more specifically, a metacognitive force.

This new approach is called Systems Thinking v2.0, and it has the potential to fundamentally change and improve how leaders can think through, identify and solve problems in the Army. It is a new approach to problem-solving and concept mapping that can help build a new metacognitive warfighter.

Systems Thinking v2.0 is predicated on new discoveries and ideas:

• Systems thinking is the emergent property of four simple rules known as DSRP, an acronym for distinctions, systems, relationships and perspectives. That is, systems thinking itself is not a linear method or framework but an emergent property of the four simple rules from which systems thinking emerges. This is predicated on the idea that systems thinking is a complex adaptive system with underlying rules.
• There are many systems thinking and design frameworks (System Dynamics, Soft Systems Methodology, Systems Engineering, Army Design Methodology, etc.) and still other nonsystems thinking frameworks (Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats [SWOT]; Observe, Orient, Decide and Act [OODA]; etc.) but these frameworks are built on the common set of simple rules of DSRP.
• The four rules of DSRP are a simple cognitive algorithm not only for how humans think and can think more systemically about any system but also for how we understand existing knowledge and create new knowledge.

As a field, systems thinking attempts to understand how to think better about real-world systems and real-world problems. For the past 100 years, but especially since the 1950s, the field of systems thinking has amassed specialized methods and frameworks to better understand the real world, what systems theorists call Systems Thinking v1.0. Systems Thinking v2.0 instead supplies universal rules that can be used to more closely align human mental models with the real world (i.e., the process of metacognition).

Supporting Military Work

People across the military use Systems Thinking v2.0 to support their work. Systems Thinking v2.0 is taught at West Point within the systems engineering program to prepare future warfighters with necessary metacognitive skills. It also has been used to problem-solve during recent Army missions, and it should be examined as a way to transform professional military education across the Army.

Cornell University, N.Y., professors Derek and Laura Cabrera are the brains behind the Systems Thinking v2.0 model. They’ve also launched Plectica, a visual systems mapping software based on this approach. This free software (available at www.Plectica.com) allows you to do systems thinking and visualize, analyze and synthesize concepts to gain a greater understanding of ideas or concepts in their entirety.

Derek Cabrera, who teaches systems thinking, modeling and leadership at Cornell and is on the board of advisers for the Department of Systems Engineering at West Point, explained in an interview:

“The more we learn about systems thinking and how it works, the more it is clear that it dovetails with the field of metacognition. There is a growing research base in the interdisciplinary field of metacognition that demonstrates the far-ranging effects of increasing metacognition. … Metacognition sits at the crossroads of cognitive science, learning science, neuroscience, psychology, sociology and epistemology [the theory of knowledge]. Metacognition—meta equals self-referential plus cognition equals thinking—can be thought of as ‘thinking about thinking,’ or keeping a watchful eye on how one’s thinking affects how we feel, think further, and behave in the world. When we become aware of the simple underlying rules we use to think—DSRP—we are better able to use these patterned rules to think more systemically about any domain or problem.”

The world is increasingly more complex and uncertain than ever. Cabrera possesses a deep understanding of complexity and discovered four underlying patterns of metacognition universal to systemic thinking: making distinctions, organizing part/whole systems, recognizing relationships and taking perspectives—DSRP. These patterns of thought have successfully brought the field of systems thinking together and offer the building blocks of metacognition; hence, version 2.0. He has demonstrated that systemic thinking and metacognition are not only similar in their underlying structure and dynamics, but also their purpose. He said:

“Both physically and conceptually, we split whole things down into parts or alternatively lump things together to form a new whole. We sometimes say there are just two kinds of scientists, splitters and lumpers. Those who split stuff up and those who lump stuff together. In this new … volatile, uncertain, complex and ambiguous world, we need folks who can do both. We need a new kind of amphibious mind I call a splumper .”

A Better HQ

An element of a NATO-led mission in Afghanistan demonstrates Systems Thinking v2.0 at work. This element involved moving Resolute Support headquarters to a more resilient structure fit to handle emerging strategic requirements—force manning, Mission Command and flexibility for future missions. While the Napoleonic organizational model that reorganized the military corps remains relevant, Gen. John W. Nicholson, then-commander of U.S. Forces-Afghanistan and the Resolute Support mission, realized that the Resolute Support headquarters no longer fit the purpose of sustained multinational stability operations. He wanted to adapt the headquarters to be able to address emerging localized strategic requirements.

Resolute Support was launched after NATO’s International Security Assistance Force ended in 2014. Its mission is to focus on training, advising and assisting at the security-related ministries in Afghanistan’s institutions, and among the senior ranks of the Afghan army and police. 

After a recent shift in U.S. South Asia policy, as well as an enduring commitment from NATO and its partnering nations, changes have been made to the force manning-level constraints of Resolute Support headquarters. Under Nicholson’s guidance, these changes afforded Resolute Support headquarters an opportunity to reorganize staff and subordinate commands into a three-pillar functional headquarters that delivers capability to the operational, institutional and strategic areas. The new structure emphasizes perspectives of force generation and functional allocation (work processes and battle rhythm) and codifies these changes by amending existing organizational documentation.

To support the reorganization effort, Systems Thinking v2.0 was used to perform a functional and requirements analysis, and to identify potential measures of effectiveness for the final headquarters structure. Without Systems Thinking v2.0 and Plectica software to map out the current system, it would have been difficult to isolate the systems, relationships and perspectives requiring attention. The DSRP approach to systems thinking helped create a shared understanding that transcended personalities within the greater Resolute Support headquarters as documents were amended and people communicated through mission orders.

Anyone with military experience understands that reorganizing is nothing new; however, Resolute Support did something innovative. Executing such a reorganization is a monumental task and Resolute Support headquarters is expected to maintain a level of workflow that supports train-advise-assist down to the multiple commands, and to continue to plan, assess and coordinate with superior headquarters. This simultaneous effort can sometimes create opportunities to leverage the capacity of other organizations such as the U.S. Military Academy or the U.S. Army Combined Arms Center, or any of the intellectual capital throughout the military. These consulting opportunities afford a fresh perspective, can be unbiased and allow for operations to be minimally disrupted.

Improving PME

Using and understanding Systems Thinking v2.0 would also allow professional military education to adapt quickly to the changing environment. In essence, it would provide a complex adaptive curriculum allowing us to see learning for what it is: the process of making sense of information and connecting knowledge, leading to a better understanding of our environment. It offers simple rules—DSRP—that could bring about emergent learning.

Systems Thinking v2.0 would move the U.S. military past simple drill and rote memorization and allow it to learn by forming connections between ideas. It would allow the military to analyze and synthesize concepts bringing about emergent learning. In physics, the mass of an object does not equal the mass of all its parts as it also requires energy to bind it together. Here we can think of energy as intelligent thinking.

For example, if we break apart the principles of Mission Command, we cannot gain an understanding by simply putting the pieces back together. We must insert “thinking,” which is essentially the binding energy allowing us to truly understand a concept. By using DSRP, we can insert “thinking” into the equation. The sum of its parts does not provide an understanding of Mission Command, but the sum of its parts plus DSRP does.

The Army is a superior fighting force. However, to remain superior, it must evolve and adapt. It must create a superior cognitive and metacognitive force. To do this, the service must build knowledge in order to possess it. Systems Thinking v2.0 helps do this by structuring, organizing and making meaning out of information. By thinking metacognitively (thinking about thinking) and visually mapping our thinking, Systems Thinking v2.0 in concert with proven Army methods—Army design methodology, the Military Decision Making Process and Mission Command—will yield far greater results that are more holistic, traceable and implementable. In the case of Resolute Support, Systems Thinking v2.0 helped elucidate the structure of the complex Resolute Support headquarters system and enabled innovation and a shared understanding. 

Systems Thinking v2.0 provides the Army warfighter a better way to identify and solve any problem. Systems Thinking v2.0 allows warfighters to transform information into meaning by adding deliberate thinking (information plus thinking equals knowledge) into the existing processes. Army warfighters who think about their thinking are better prepared to solve any problem that comes their way.

Essentially, Systems Thinking v2.0 plus U.S. Army equals metacognitive force.

• Mission Command

Critical Thinking for Military Leaders

To achieve high levels of success within military leadership, a broad range of skills are needed. Besides the physical demands of the military, these roles also require the mental capacity to process information strategically. Critical strategic thinking training combines the objectives of leadership development and reasoning skills to equip military leaders with expertise in active- duty decisiveness. Mastering the fundamentals of this training works to expand personal and unit influence through trained strategic thought. In preparation, it is important to understand what critical strategic thinking is, why it should be used in the military and how it can be trained for an applicable approach to your leadership development.

Military leaders often are charged with making crucial decisions in high-pressure scenarios. Having a strong foundation in critical strategic thinking better prepares leaders to respond effectively to both expected and unexpected challenges. For better preparedness in your organization, learn how the skill of critical thinking can be put to use and how to instill it in your ranks.

What is Critical Strategic Thinking Training?

Critical strategic thinking training is a form of training that prepares military leaders to think strategically in a variety of critical circumstances. Strategic thinking requires a deep understanding from multiple angles to assess a situation holistically and rationally. This mindset is actionable and considers long-term consequences, in which achieving the best possible outcome is the top priority.

Components of critical strategic thinking include situational analysis, questioning and response. Situational analysis requires that military leaders examine situations through a variety of internal or external methods to gain knowledge on the current strategy being used and the essence of the problem faced. Questioning entails comprehension and application of this knowledge in order for leaders to more accurately detect gaps in the strategy and calculate possible consequences of action plans. Lastly, in response, the intelligence gained through analysis and questioning is synthesized and applied in a strategic plan of action. The quality and success of critical thinking performance reflects the processing and leadership abilities of the individual involved.

Why Use Critical Strategic Thinking Training for Military Success?

To achieve military success, leaders must first and foremost be prepared. Critical strategic thinking supplements industrial readiness in military organizations as they face complex challenges daily, demanding efficient decision-making. Yet before leaders can put any strategy into action, they must develop the thought behind it. Critical strategic thinking training is essential for military leaders to simultaneously test plans and guide their unit in the right direction, while assessing high-risk situations with confidence. In these circumstances, critical thought becomes an essential precursor to physical defense tactics, as uninformed action itself is a risk factor.

Continuous learning in the defense industry becomes a substantial part of this preparation due to the dynamic, complex nature of national security issues. As a result, military leaders must learn to properly examine situations, to constantly improvise courses of action and to address challenges in the present and the future. Not only can this critical thinking raise leaders’ awareness of these possible dilemmas, but it enables them to modify missions and create contingency plans in an informed manner.

In addition, critical strategic thinking supports military leaders in establishing order. Those with experience in the military know that mental preparation is just as important as physical preparation. In order to develop the most effective approaches, restrictions and resources for missions, it is essential that leadership assesses the situation first to relay appropriate delegations.

How Can Critical Strategic Thinking be Trained in Military Leaders?

This type of thinking can be trained within military leadership by studying, reasoning through situations that occur in real life and participating in an active training environment . Multiple books, articles and compositions offer foundational information on critical strategic thinking, serving as a resource to assist individuals in developing an initial base of knowledge. Once basic concepts are grasped, leaders can begin to apply these principles to their current situations and practice reasoning through challenges. For a more holistic approach, military leaders can participate in training environments such as professional courses or seminars where live education, scenarios and feedback are offered.

Critical strategic thinking training equips military leaders with the tools to accurately analyze situations, question strategy and discern effective responses in their active duty. This thought process is beneficial to military endeavors as it develops physical and mental preparation and quick, informed decision-making in military leaders. Additionally, critical thinking promotes successful contingency planning and mission order. By framing strategy from the inside-out, leaders are prepared to create action plans in assurance, as they are backed by factual information and calculated reasoning.

Ready to develop your critical strategic thinking? The Institute for Defense and Business (IDB) offers programs concerning strategic studies , such as IB2 IO . This industry-based broadening course is designed for experienced professionals seeking a better understanding of information operations and the role of strategic communication within businesses. Despite the importance of critical strategic thinking training for military preparedness, this course approaches the subject matter to cater to a broader audience with a non-military perspective. IDB has many program offerings that develop analytical thinking and will allow you to return to your organization ready to apply strategic direction that best leverages people, processes and technology that distribute efficient and effective logistics and supply chain capabilities. Through an executive education in logistics, you will challenge old thinking and gain the ability to relate logistics-based issues to critical thinking.

About the Institute for Defense and Business

The Institute for Defense and Business (IDB) delivers educational programs and research to teach, challenge and inspire leaders who work with and within the defense enterprise to achieve next-level results for their organization. IDB features curriculum in Logistics, Supply Chain and Life Cycle Management, Complex Industrial Leadership, Strategic Studies, Global Business and Defense Studies, Continuous Process Improvement, and Stabilization and Economic Reconstruction. Visit www.IDB.org or contact us on our website for more information.

Similar Posts

A letter to maggie… post covid-19.

A fictional piece from our IDB Executive Fellow, Mike Dana, of what the world will look like in 2041: 25 May 2041 Mike Dana Nuevo…

IDB Podcast Series

NDTA/IDB: Post-COVID-19: How to be Lean without Becoming Brittle! 06.25.20 The COVID19 pandemic has highlighted supply chain fragility as organizations have become too lean. How do we change…

Global Energy and Security

by: Jonathan Bush Recently, I had the opportunity to speak with Dr. Navin A. Bapat to have a conversation and ask a few questions pertaining…

5 Ways to Maintain Strong Engagement in the Virtual Business Setting 

As a result of COVID-19, businesses are rapidly adapting to the remote working culture. Business leaders have been challenged to overcome the remote barrier and keep…

IDB Best Practices for Technology in Defense Logistics

Emerging technology is transforming the defense enterprise and how organizations develop strategy while simultaneously combating threats. To advance defense logistics, the industry is now depending…

Utilizing Life Cycle Logistics for Continuous Process Improvement in Business 

Advancements in technology, industry and processes require constant developments in business practices. As a result, continuous process improvements demand that participants invest time in improving methodologies, strategic…

Into all problem-solving, a little dissent must fall

Events of the past several years have reiterated for executives the importance of collaboration and of welcoming diverse perspectives when trying to solve complicated workplace problems. Companies weren’t fully prepared for the onset of a global pandemic, for instance, and all that it engendered—including supply chain snarls and the resulting Great Attrition  and shift to remote (and now hybrid) work, which required employers to fundamentally rethink their talent strategies . But in most cases leaders have been able to collaborate their way through the uncertainty, engage in rigorous debate and analyses about the best steps to take, and work with employees, suppliers, partners, and other critical stakeholders to react and, ultimately, recover.

And It’s not just COVID-19: many organisations have had to rethink their business strategies and practices in the wake of environmental concerns, the war in Ukraine, and social movements sparked by racial injustice, sexual misconduct, and widespread economic inequity . Ours are fast-moving, complex times, rich not just in worrisome challenges but also in exciting potential—organisations that enable innovation will find ample opportunities to thrive. So now more than ever, decision makers can’t act alone; they must bring diverse perspectives to the table and ensure that those voices are fully heard . 1 Sundiatu Dixon-Fyle, Kevin Dolan, Vivian Hunt, and Sara Prince, “ Diversity wins: How inclusion matters ,” McKinsey, May 19, 2020.

But while many leaders say they welcome dissent, their reactions often change when they actually get some. They may feel defensive. They may question their own judgment. They may resent having to take time to revisit the decision-making process. These are natural responses, of course; employees’ loyalty and affirmation are more reassuring to leaders than robust challenges from the group. There is discomfort, too, for potential dissenters; it is much safer to keep your thoughts to yourself and conform  than to risk expulsion from the group. 2 Derived from this work on the evolutionary origins of social and political behavior: Christopher Boehm, Hierarchy in the Forest: The Evolution of Egalitarian Behavior , Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 2001.

What’s missing in many companies, in our experience, is the use of “contributory dissent” or the capabilities required to engage in healthy if divergent discussions about critical business problems. Contributory dissent allows individuals and groups to air their differences in a way that moves the discussion toward a positive outcome and doesn’t undermine leadership or group cohesion . 3 McKinsey itself has established obligation to dissent as one of its core values alongside those focused on client service and talent development. For more, see Bill Taylor, “True leaders believe dissent is an obligation,” Harvard Business Review , January 12, 2017.

McKinsey’s research and experience in the field point to several steps leaders can take to engage in healthy dissent and build a culture where constructive feedback is expected and where communication is forthright. These include modeling “open” behaviors, embedding psychological safety  and robust debate into decision-making processes, and equipping employees with the communication skills that will allow them to contribute dissenting opinions effectively.

In this article we outline the steps leaders can take to encourage healthy dissent, and the actions teams and individuals can take to share their voices and perspectives most effectively. It takes both sides, after all, to engage in robust debate, find the right solutions, and enable lasting, positive change.

How leaders can encourage contributory dissent

Senior leaders in an organisation play a central role in ensuring that individuals and teams see contributory dissent as a normal part of any discussion. They can signal the importance of dissent by taking a series of steps to institutionalise the practice within an organisation and empower employees to share their ideas freely and productively. Specifically, senior leaders should strive to inspire rather than direct employees to collaborate, explicitly demand dissent and, taking that one step further, actively engage with naysayers (see sidebar “How to encourage healthy dissent”). 4 Leaders can also draw on McKinsey’s “influence model” for changing mindsets and behaviors: role modeling, fostering understanding and conviction, reinforcing with formal mechanisms, and developing talent and skills. For more, see Tessa Basford and Bill Schaninger, “ The four building blocks of change ,” McKinsey Quarterly , April 11, 2016.

Inspire, don’t direct

How to encourage healthy dissent.

To encourage dissent through personal leadership:

Lead to inspire, not to direct:

• Empower the group to come up with ideas: “None of us knows the answer yet, but we can work it out together if we harness the best of everyone’s thinking.”

Foster dissent by actively seeking it:

• Explicitly seek dissent; give people permission and encouragement.
• Consider including dissent as a stated organisational value.
• Make provision for open discussion in the buildup to decisions.

Welcome open discussion when it comes:

• Listen to dissenters and naysayers, and thank them for their insights.
• Recognise this as a usefully unfiltered channel for understanding the organisation’s perceptions on issues.
• Seek to bring dissenters along the decision journey, so they become positive influencers later during implementation.
• Employ deliberate techniques such as red teaming and pre-mortems to widen the debate and mitigate groupthink.

As the inspirational speaker Simon Sinek put it, “The role of a leader is not to come up with all the great ideas. The role of a leader is to create an environment in which great ideas can happen.” 5 Simon Sinek, Start with Why: How Great Leaders Inspire Everyone to Take Action , New York, NY: Portfolio, 2009. That is especially important for fostering an atmosphere of collaboration and contributory dissent. Rather than immediately jump into a discussion about solutions, one senior leader in an international organisation addressed his team’s anxiety in the wake of a crisis. “Let me guess,” he said, “you’re all feeling confused and uncertain about the way ahead. Terrific. I’m so glad we are of one mind and that we all understand our situation correctly! I’m sure that we can work it out together, but it’s going to require the best of everyone’s thinking. Let’s get started.” His authenticity and understated humor allowed him to connect with the group and inspired them to keep calm, carry on, and generate solutions that the leader alone couldn’t have come up with. Harvard professor Ron Heifetz describes this as creating a holding environment, a key element of adaptive leadership. 6 Ronald A. Heifetz and Mary Linksy, Leadership on the Line: Staying Alive through the Dangers of Leading , Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press, 2002; Ronald Heifetz, Alexander Grashow, and Marty Linksy, The Practice of Adaptive Leadership: Tools and Tactics for Changing Your Organization and the World , Boston, MA: Harvard Business Press, 2009.

Explicitly demand dissent

It’s not enough for leaders to give people permission to dissent; they must demand it of people. In many companies, individuals and teams may (understandably) default to collegiality, not realizing that there are ways to challenge ideas while still respecting colleagues’ roles and intellect. It’s on senior leaders, then, to help employees understand where the boundaries are. In World War 1, Australia’s General Sir John Monash was determined to develop better tactics to overcome the catastrophic impasse of trench warfare. He knew there were answers to be found from the experience of soldiers in the trenches, but he needed to loosen the military discipline of blind obedience: “I don’t care a damn for your loyal service when you think I am right; when I really want it most is when you think I am wrong.” Monash scheduled open battle planning sessions and pulled in advice from whoever offered it. In doing so, he built ownership of and confidence in his plans among all ranks. The resulting orchestration of tanks, artillery, aircraft, and troops led to rapid advances along the Somme Valley, and Monash garnered respect and appreciation from his troops, whose chances of survival and ultimate victory had increased markedly.

Actively engage with naysayers

Taking the demand imperative one step further, it’s beneficial for leaders to actively seek out the views of vocal naysayers , who can turn into influential champions just by being part of the conversation. They can immediately improve the nature of business debate and may boost the quality of the final decision, although engaging with naysayers can be tough. Some dissenting opinions can be ill-informed or uncomfortable to hear. The objective for senior leaders, then, is to put their discomfort aside and listen for signs of cognitive dissonance within an organisation. As an example, front-line employees may say things like “We’re not considered strategic thinkers,” or “The company doesn’t put people first,” while senior management may actually feel as though they have made strides in both of those areas. Still, leaders need to absorb such comments, treat them as useful data points, assess their validity, and engage in what may be a challenging discussion. They may want to use red teams  and premortems , in which teams at the outset anticipate all the ways a project could fail, to frame up dissenting opinions, mitigate groupthink, and find a positive resolution. These behaviours also serve to enhance organizational agility and resilience .

How leaders can establish psychological safety

Senior leaders need to establish a work environment in which it is safe to offer dissenting views. The McKinsey Health Institute’s work on employee well-being points to a strong correlation between leadership behaviors, collaborative culture, and resistance to mental health problems and burnout : only 15 percent of employees in environments with low inclusivity and low support for personal growth are highly engaged, compared with 38 percent in high-scoring environments. 7 “ Addressing employee burnout: Are you solving the right problem? ,” McKinsey, May 27, 2022. Leaders can build psychological safety (where team members feel they can take interpersonal risks and remain respected and accepted) and set the conditions for contributory dissent by rethinking how they engage in debate—both the dynamics and the choreography of it.

The dynamics of debate

The poet and playwright Oscar Wilde described a healthy debating culture as one in which people are “playing gracefully with ideas”— listening to, and even nourishing, opposing points of view in a measured and respectful way. 8 The Complete Works of Oscar Wilde, Volume 2: De Profundis, “Epistola: In Carcere et Vinculis,” Oxford, United Kingdom: Clarendon Press, 2005. Indeed, the best ideas can emerge at the intersection of cultures and opinions. In 15th century Florence, for instance, the Medici family attracted and funded creators from across the arts and sciences to establish an epicenter of innovative thinking that sparked the Renaissance. 9 Frans Johansson, The Medici Effect: Breakthrough Insights at the Intersection of Ideas, Concepts, and Culture , Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press, 2004. Closer to this century, we have seen cross-discipline innovations like the application of biologists’ research on ant colonies to solve problems in telecommunications routing. And in the business world, extraordinary innovations have been achieved by open-minded leaders bringing together smart people and creating the conditions for playful exploration.

To achieve a state of “graceful play,” senior leaders must carefully manage group dynamics during debates. Rather than lead with their own opinions, for instance, which might immediately carry outsize weight in the group and stifle discussion, senior leaders can hold back and let others lead the discussion . They can lean in to show genuine curiosity or to explicitly recognise when a dissenting view has changed their thinking. But by letting other, more junior voices carry the agenda and work through ideas, however imperfect, senior leaders can establish a climate of psychological safety—and garner more respect from colleagues long term. 10 Amy C. Edmondson, The Fearless Organization: Creating Psychological Safety in the Workplace for Learning, Innovation, and Growth , Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, 2019.

Leaders will also need to be aware of cultural differences that may crop up during debates. For example, many Australians speak candidly and are happy to address issues squarely. By contrast, the concept of “face” is so important in many Asian cultures that a more circumspect approach is taken. And the Pacific and Maori cultures emphasize displays of both strength and respect. 11 Erin Meyer, The Culture Map: Breaking through the Invisible Boundaries of Global Business , Philadelphia, PA: PublicAffairs, 2014. These differences in debate dynamics really matter. They can be a great source of hybrid vigour, 12 “Heterosis, also called hybrid vigour: the increase in such characteristics as size, growth rate, fertility, and yield of a hybrid organism over those of its parents. The first-generation offspring generally show, in greater measure, the desired characteristics of both parents.” Encyclopedia Britannica , accessed September 19, 2022. if sensitively managed, or a source of conflict and disenfranchisement if not. To approach these differences in a positive way, senior leaders could undertake a mapping exercise that identifies the different styles of the cultures present, thereby providing validation and enabling pragmatic measures to integrate them.

Choreographing debate

Beyond just managing debate dynamics, business leaders must take a hand in choreographing the debate and, specifically, in helping to design collective-thinking processes  so people know how best to play their part. Business leaders may adopt a structured approach  to brainstorming, for instance, or plan strategic off-site schedules that combine deliberate thinking with “distracted” thinking—taking time to engage in a social activity, for instance—to take advantage of employees’ deep-thinking processes.

How deliberate choices by the leader can optimise a decision-making process

A leader must consciously assess each new situation and design the collective-thinking process accordingly, then articulate this so that people know how best to play their part.

In doing so, the leader should consider an array of questions, the answers to which will determine the context, for example:

• What does success look like?
• Will the organisation underwrite initial failures in the interests of agility and innovation?
• How broad and freethinking an analysis is required?
• What are the explicit expectations for contributory dissent?
• Are any topics and behaviours out of bounds?
• Who will lead the discussion, and how will comments be captured?
• Does urgency mean that it’s better to be directive?
• Who will be consulted?
• Which decisions can be delegated, and to whom?
• Whose support needs to be built?
• What parameters and boundaries exist?
• Are there interim decisions and communications required?
• What form should the deliverable outcomes take?
• When are the deliverables required?
• Direction setting on these parameters by the leader focuses the team, while also creating space for creativity and iterative learning.

To create a sustainable structure for debate, business leaders will need to consider questions relating to team structure and rules of engagement: What does success look like when it comes to contributory dissent? What topics and behaviors are out of bounds? Who will lead the discussion, and how will comments be captured? Who has the final say on decisions, or which decisions can be delegated, and to whom? (For a more comprehensive explanation, see sidebar “How deliberate choices by the leader can optimise a decision-making process.”)

Having these parameters in place can free up the team to think more creatively about the issue at hand. Establishing such protocols can also make it easier to raise dissenting opinions. At one company, people are asked to call out their underlying values or potential biases when expressing a dissenting view. During meetings of the promotion committee, for instance, a statement like “I think we are making the wrong decision” would be rephrased as “I am someone who values experience over collaboration, and this decision would risk losing too much institutional knowledge.”

How individuals and teams can engage and dissent

As we’ve shared, senior leaders can take steps to set conditions for robust discussion and problem-solving, but individuals and teams themselves must also have the right mindsets and skills for contributory dissent to work well (see sidebar “How teams and individuals can dissent effectively”). In particular, they must embrace the obligation to dissent, actively make space to analyse ideas that are different from their own, and then find ways to either iterate on others’ ideas or respectfully agree to disagree.

Embrace the obligation to dissent

How teams and individuals can dissent effectively.

For dissent to be effective, its delivery requires courage and tactical skills underpinned by sincere respect and grace. Speaking up with respect is the right thing to do, and the responsibility to do so exists, even if there is uncertainty. The following guidelines are useful in enabling effective dissent:

Prepare a welcome for dissenting views:

• Understand the context and motivations of others, appreciate their views, and syndicate your own.
• Stop and strategise before wading into the conversations, establish a solid platform for agreement, and explicitly seek permission to dissent.

Play the long game:

• Be open minded and iterative. Don’t expect to succeed on the first try.
• Listen to others for what their views might add rather than to defend your own.

Withhold assent if you need to, but do it carefully:

• Withholding assent is a legitimate option if done judiciously.
• Minimise offense to and loss of face for the decision maker.
• If principles or legality is at stake, document your dissent.

Individuals and teams need to exhibit a certain amount of humility and confidence in order to speak truth to power with respect; they must be sure for themselves that doing so is the right thing to do. To build this confidence, individuals and teams should remember that the very act of dissent can be valuable, even if the contribution itself isn’t 100 percent baked. Others can react or build on the dissenting view—which, in itself, can be a satisfying process for a dissenter. If the ultimate decision isn’t what they proposed, they still helped shape it by offering and testing a worthy possibility.

Make space to analyse different views

Individuals and teams may need time to determine their positions on an issue. During this period, it’s important to be (and seen to be) open-minded and respectful of others’ views. That means asking lots of questions, gathering information, assessing others’ motivations, and acknowledging their views before syndicating alternatives of your own. Much of this fact gathering can be done one-on-one, in a nonconfrontational way, in offline conversations rather than in a tension-filled meeting room. In these conversations, individuals could start by reaffirming a shared commitment to finding a solution to the issue at hand, their respect for the decision-making process and the group, and areas of broad agreement. They could also signal their possible intention to dissent and seek permission to do so rather than confronting people head-on. People will find it harder to refuse that permission, and will be less likely to get defensive, when approached with statements like “This is a great discussion, and I love the vision of where we are headed, but would it be OK for us to explore some alternatives for how to get there?”

Agree to iterate …

Individuals and teams that decide to offer dissenting views should agree to iterate on other solutions, rather than digging in. Their dissenting opinions should be cogent, persuasive, and open-minded—but dissenters shouldn’t expect to change hearts and minds on the first try. They should plant seeds gently and bide their time; they might even see their idea come back as someone else’s. The critical skill required here is active, open listening: dissenters should listen carefully for others’ additive insights and find ways to build on them. In their contributory dissent, individuals and teams can take a moment to summarize what others have said and then use statements like “Can I offer another take?” and then allow the momentum of the conversation to take over.

… or agree to disagree

But what happens if, after all the considered and tactful input, the dissenter still believes a decision is heading in the wrong direction? In our experience, withholding assent then becomes a legitimate option: people shouldn’t agree if they don’t agree. This is where all the careful, respectful groundwork the dissenter has done can pay dividends. In fact, a dissenting view gains even more power when an individual can say something like, “I still believe in my alternate solution, but I’m grateful for the opportunity to contribute to this process, and I respect that you have the final say.” In this case, the dissenter is supporting the leader while flagging that the open debate hasn’t convinced them to change their initial view.

Of course, withholding assent should be a relatively rare action, taken only after an individual or team has shown that they can accommodate other views and have aligned with the consensus when they believe it’s right to do so. Think of US Supreme Court associate justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who joined the consensus view on many decisions but who is especially celebrated for the positive changes that arose from her highly influential dissenting opinions on issues such as gender equity, human rights, and religious freedom.

Contributory dissent can help strengthen employee engagement, unlock hidden insights, and help organisations solve tough challenges. But putting it into practice takes courage and humility, and it won’t just happen by accident. Leaders need to be intentional about welcoming challenges to their plans and opinions, even when it’s uncomfortable to do so. They need to establish cultures and structures where respectful debate can occur and where individuals and teams feel free to bring innovative—and often better—alternative solutions to the table.

Ben Fletcher is a senior partner in McKinsey’s Sydney office, Chris Hartley is a partner in the Melbourne office, Rupe Hoskin is a senior expert in the Canberra office, and Dana Maor is a senior partner in the Tel Aviv office.

The authors wish to thank Jacqueline Brassey, Nikki Dines, Richard Fitzgerald, Sam Hemphill, Ayush Jain, Jemma King, and Martin Nimmo for their contributions to this article.

Explore a career with us

Related articles.

Psychological safety and the critical role of leadership development

How to demonstrate calm and optimism in a crisis

The four building blocks of change

Explained: Importance of critical thinking, problem-solving skills in curriculum

F uture careers are no longer about domain expertise or technical skills. Rather, critical thinking and problem-solving skills in employees are on the wish list of every big organization today. Even curriculums and pedagogies across the globe and within India are now requiring skilled workers who are able to think critically and are analytical.

The reason for this shift in perspective is very simple.

These skills provide a staunch foundation for comprehensive learning that extends beyond books or the four walls of the classroom. In a nutshell, critical thinking and problem-solving skills are a part of '21st Century Skills' that can help unlock valuable learning for life.

Over the years, the education system has been moving away from the system of rote and other conventional teaching and learning parameters.

They are aligning their curriculums to the changing scenario which is becoming more tech-driven and demands a fusion of critical skills, life skills, values, and domain expertise. There's no set formula for success.

Rather, there's a defined need for humans to be more creative, innovative, adaptive, agile, risk-taking, and have a problem-solving mindset.

In today's scenario, critical thinking and problem-solving skills have become more important because they open the human mind to multiple possibilities, solutions, and a mindset that is interdisciplinary in nature.

Therefore, many schools and educational institutions are deploying AI and immersive learning experiences via gaming, and AR-VR technologies to give a more realistic and hands-on learning experience to their students that hone these abilities and help them overcome any doubt or fear.

ADVANTAGES OF CRITICAL THINKING AND PROBLEM-SOLVING IN CURRICULUM

Ability to relate to the real world:  Instead of theoretical knowledge, critical thinking, and problem-solving skills encourage students to look at their immediate and extended environment through a spirit of questioning, curiosity, and learning. When the curriculum presents students with real-world problems, the learning is immense.

Confidence, agility & collaboration : Critical thinking and problem-solving skills boost self-belief and confidence as students examine, re-examine, and sometimes fail or succeed while attempting to do something.

They are able to understand where they may have gone wrong, attempt new approaches, ask their peers for feedback and even seek their opinion, work together as a team, and learn to face any challenge by responding to it.

Willingness to try new things: When problem-solving skills and critical thinking are encouraged by teachers, they set a robust foundation for young learners to experiment, think out of the box, and be more innovative and creative besides looking for new ways to upskill.

It's important to understand that merely introducing these skills into the curriculum is not enough. Schools and educational institutions must have upskilling workshops and conduct special training for teachers so as to ensure that they are skilled and familiarized with new teaching and learning techniques and new-age concepts that can be used in the classrooms via assignments and projects.

Critical thinking and problem-solving skills are two of the most sought-after skills. Hence, schools should emphasise the upskilling of students as a part of the academic curriculum.

The article is authored by Dr Tassos Anastasiades, Principal- IB, Genesis Global School, Noida. 

Watch Live TV in English

Watch Live TV in Hindi