The Reflective Judgment Model: What Role in Leader Development? This prĂŠcis outlines the Reflective Judgment model, defines its seven stages, notes the basis for their articulation as a developmental process, flags intrinsic and extrinsic limitations, and ponders a desired relationship between cognitive development, leader development, and organization-wide learning. Olivier Serrat 27/03/2019
1 A Cognitive Development Toolbox Epistemic cognition, critical thinking, and reflective judgment go a long way: if nothing is more tragic than ignorance in action, as Goethe aptly put it, the alternative is to develop the ability to interpret and assess situations and take requisite action. Kitchener (1983), who introduced the term into the literature, defined epistemic cognition as "individual understanding of knowledge itself; the process an individual invokes to monitor the epistemic nature of problems and the truth value of alternative solutions" (p. 298).1 To Kitchener (1983), epistemic cognition, which describes an understanding of the limits, certainty, and criteria of thought, was the highest level of thinking. The others are cognition, which describes the basic processing of thought, and meta-cognition, in which an individual can monitor his/her progress in learning (Kitchener, 1983). Quintessentially, therefore, epistemic cognition invites individuals to reflect upon the sources of their learning; the certainty of the truth of their learning (i.e., absolute or relative); the simplicity or complexity of knowledge; and the justifications for that knowledge (Day, Harrison, & Halpin, 2009, p. 86). Critical thinking, about which much more is usually said, has ancient roots in the "Socratic Method", viz., argumentative but cooperative dialogue bent on asking and answering questions. Particularizing, critical thinking is about searching for evidence, analyzing underlying concepts, scrutinizing reasoning and assumptions, and tracing the implications and repercussions not only of what is said but of what is done as well. As a process of inquiry, critical thinking is conscious, deliberate, and cognitive: it supports goal-directed behavior and so, unlike epistemic cognition, has associated training suggestions. Reflective judgment, the third element in the cognitive development toolbox, is predicated after Dewey (1933) in particular on the assumption that some problems are ill-structured and so cannot be framed let alone addressed with certainty; hence, "reflective thinking requires the continual evaluation of beliefs, assumptions, and hypotheses against existing data and against other plausible interpretations of the data (King & Kitchener, 1994, p. 7).2 Thus, while epistemic cognition and critical thinking are unapologetically about knowing, particularly the process of that in the latter instance, reflective judgment wisely acknowledges that views might subsequently be falsified (but also conversely enriched) by supplementary data and information (King & Kitchener, 1994). Quid Reflective Judgment? Per King and Kitchener (1994), the conceptual framework for reflective judgment is a stage model. Specifically, the Reflective Judgment model is characterized by seven distinct, but developmentally related, sets of assumptions about the process of knowing and how knowledge is acquired: the Reflective Judgment model entail pre-reflective (Stages 1–3), quasi-reflective
1
Other have defined epistemic cognition more simply, for example as "the ways that people acquire, justify, and use knowledge" (Greene, Cartiff, & Duke, 2018, p.1). 2 Well-structured problems (e.g., algebraic equations) are problems that are defined completely and can ultimately be resolved with certainty. In contrast, ill-structured problems (e.g., hunger, inflation, overpopulation, pollution, etc.) are problems that "cannot be described with a high degree of completeness or solved with a high degree of certainty" (King & Kitchener, 1994, p. 10).
2 (Stages 4 and 5), and reflective (Stages 6 and 7) periods of thinking.3 "In the pre-reflective reasoning period, … assumptions center on the belief that knowledge is gained through the word of an authority figure or through first-hand observation or evaluation of evidence" (Day, Harrison, & Halpin, 2009, p. 90). "In the quasi-reflective reasoning period, people recognize that knowledge, or more accurately claims about knowledge, contains elements of uncertainty (Day, Harrison, & Halpin, 2009, p. 90). "In the reflective period, a core assumption is that no knowledge claims can be made with absolute certainty"; however, eschewing analysis paralysis, reflective thinkers make judgments they feel are reasonably certain (Day, Harrison, & Halpin, 2009, p. 91). King and Kitchener (1994) concluded that a stage model was the most appropriate framework for conceptualizing the Reflective Judgment model because it captures the observed consistency between defining components of the model that reflect an underlying, organized structure; delineates the qualitative differences between the seven sets of assumptions; and provides a framework for observed sequential changes in the emergence of epistemic assumptions. Not surprisingly, ergo the theory that moving up levels is—intrinsically—a developmental process, King and Kitchener (1994) as educationalists held the—rather stern— view that the real challenge of education was "… empowering individuals to know that the world is far more complex than it first appears, and that they must make interpretive arguments and decision judgments that entail real consequences for which they must take responsibility and from which they may not flee by disclaiming expertise" (King & Kitchener, 1994, p. 1). That said, most individuals appear to use two or occasionally three (typically adjacent) stages, depending on circumstances. Notwithstanding its intuitive appeal, reflective judgment is prey to attribution errors, confirmation bias, certainty, and source reliability, which raises questions about how best to develop it in individuals.4 Moreover, the Reflective Judgment model does not say anything about ethnicity, gender, race, or other demographic factors that, by means of inequalities, likely affect development. Elsewhere still, King and Kitchener admit that research on the relationship
3
Summarizing, the essence of each stage of reasoning is: (a) Stage 1—"I know what I have seen."; (b) Stage 2—"If it is on the news, it has to be true."; (c) Stage 3—"When there is evidence that people can give to convince everybody one way or another, then it will be knowledge, until then, it's just a guess."; (d) Stage 4—"I'd be more inclined to believe evolution if they had proof. It's just like the pyramids: I don't think we'll ever know. Who are you going to ask? No one was there."; (e) Stage 5—"People think differently and so they attack the problem differently. Other theories could be as true as my own, but based on different evidence."; (f) Stage 6—"It's very difficult in this life to be sure. There are degrees of sureness. You come to a point at which you are sure enough for a personal stance on the issue."; and (g) Stage 7—"One can judge an argument by how well thought-out the positions are, what kinds of reasoning and evidence are used to support it, and how consistent the way one argues on this topic is as compared with other topics." (King & Kitchener, 2002). 4 To illustrate, the forces commonly arraigned against reflective judgment include ad hominem attacks, which aim to discredit an argument by harming the good reputation of the person advancing it; the bandwagon fallacy, which claims that the popularity of an idea is a good enough reason for accepting it; appeals to antiquity (or tradition), which assert that a traditional idea must be true because it has been around for a while; the straw man fallacy, which misrepresents a position to make it appear weaker than it actually is; and post hoc ergo propter hoc arguments, which claim that because one thing occurred after another it must have been caused by it.
3 between personality and the development of reflective judgment is still "in its infancy" (King & Kitchener, 2002, p. 53). The Reflective Judgment Model: What Role in Leader Development? All the same, epistemic cognition, critical thinking, and reflective judgment speak to leader development. In a globalizing world beset by economic, environmental, political, and social problems, all of them ill-structured and therefore complex if not chaotic, leaders simply cannot rely on prior training and experience. For sure, ill-structured problems cast doubt on the efficacy (and before that sheer relevance) of well-recognized decision-making processes, invite better awareness of the limits and uncertainty of knowledge, and demand reinterpretation of the leader's agency in events. The Great Man Theory that Thomas Carlyle promoted and many still enthuse about no longer satisfies: in stark contrast to the cornucopia of qualities that many, quite mechanically, continue to attribute to leaders (e.g., ambitious, authentic, charismatic, empowering, ethical, humble, inspiring, visionary, etc.), Yukl (2013), for one, identified that three deeply interconnected variables help understand leadership but also condition its effectiveness: (a) characteristics of leaders, (b) characteristics of followers, and—evermore so it seems—(c) characteristics of the situation (p. 10). Bolden, Gosling, Hawkins, and Taylor (2011), to cite other dissenting views that open wide vistas for leader development, noted that "Leadership has variously been presented as a 'science', 'art' or 'craft', and conceptual clarity has proved elusive" (p. 38). Next, Bolden, Gosling, Hawkins, and Taylor (2011) both audaciously and comprehensively (re)defined leadership as "(1) a process, (2) of social influence, (3) to guide, structure, and/or facilitate, (4) behaviors, activities, and/or relationships, (5) towards the achievement of shared aims" (p. 21). Unmistakably, new-era definitions of leadership such as Yukl's (2013) and Bolden, Gosling, Hawkins, and Taylor's (2011) are a clarion call for leader development. That said, if there is—as there must—be a role for the Reflective Judgment model in leader development, however, this must be in association (or at least in close parallel) with long-term developmental inputs, not training, in epistemic cognition and critical thinking, the other elements in the cognitive development toolbox; where possible, and with an accent on functionality (not optimality), such leader development would entail formal education, on-the-job assignments, and self-directed development. But, there is another side to the reinterpretation of the leader's agency in events, mentioned earlier, and to the enlargement of the concept and practice of leadership. Noting that, in the 21st century, organizations must increasingly be concerned with leadership modes—not just (if at all) with leadership styles—there is a need to decentralize (or rather distribute) cognitive development organization-wide and promote both reflecting on action and reflecting in action.5 After-action reviews and retrospects, dialog on ill-structured problems, electronic discussion groups, exit interviews, Future Search conferencing, group problem-solving, guided reflections, learning histories, meta-cognitive reflection, peer assists, personal journaling/microblogging, premortems, retreats, Socratic dialogue, and not least of all use-modeling of reflective judgment (based on difficulty, complexity, and structuredness of problems), to name but a few tools, methods, and approaches of knowledge management, should be the bread-and-butter of
5
Leadership modes are administrative, adaptive, and enabling leadership—and combinations thereof—that need not be person-centered. Leadership modes are distinct from leadership styles, be they—say—autocratic, bureaucratic, charismatic, situational, transactional, or transformational.
4 Senge's (2006) vision of a learning organization.6 If leader development thusly distributes cognitive development, distributed leadership may at long last herald the appearance of what Raelin (2003) termed "leaderful" organizations, where capacitated and empowered individuals concurrently and collectively participate in leading and leaderful practice dispels the idea of leadership "being out in front" (Raelin, 2005, p. 18). References Bolden, R., Gosling, J., Hawkins. B., & Taylor, S. (2011). Exploring leadership: Individual, organizational, and societal perspectives. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Dewey, J. (1933). How we think: A restatement of the relation of reflective thinking to the educative process. Boston, MA: D.C. Heath & Co Publishers. Greene, J., Cartiff, B., & Duke, R. (2018). A meta-analytic review of the relationship between epistemic cognition and academic achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 110(8), 1084–1111. Kitchener, K. (1983). Cognition, meta-cognition, and epistemic cognition: A three-level model of cognitive processing. Human Development, 26, 222–232. King, P., & Kitchener, K. (1994). Developing reflective judgment: Understanding and promoting intellectual growth and critical thinking in adolescents and adults. San Francisco: CA: Jossey-Bass. King, P., & Kitchener, K. (2002). The Reflective Judgment Model: Twenty years of research on epistemic cognition. In B. Hofer & P. Pintrich (Eds.), Personal epistemology: The psychology of beliefs about knowledge and knowing (pp. 37–61). Mahwah, NJ, US: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers. Raelin, J. (2003). Creating leaderful organizations: How to bring out leadership in everyone. San Francisco: CA: Berrett-Koehler. Raelin, J. (2005). We the leaders: In order to form a leaderful organization. Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies, 12(2), 18–30. Senge, P. (2006). The fifth discipline: The art and practice of the learning organization (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Currency/Doubleday. Yukl, G. (2013). Leadership in organizations (8th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
6
Knowledge management is about identifying, creating, storing, sharing, and using knowledge to improve organizational performance. With a view to learning before, during, and after, knowledge management has applications across the five disciplines of systems thinking, personal mastery, mental models, shared vision, and team learning.