How to Develop Critical Thinking at Work: Building Judgement Beyond Formal Training

Niko Verheulpen

Oct 3

9 min read

Updated: Oct 4

Professional examining information on a tablet in a modern office, illustrating critical thinking at work and the interpretation of different perspectives. — When a well-assembled argument and a well-founded one can look identical on a screen.

In short

Easier access to information, including AI-assisted research, can make critical thinking and judgement more consequential in customer-facing, commercial and management roles; it does not make them less necessary.
Reasoning can be developed deliberately, as clinical education shows: by making expert thinking visible, practising on real problems and building independence gradually.
Correcting a decision and developing the decision-maker are different responsibilities, because an outcome doesn't reveal the reasoning behind it.
Successful outcomes can hide development opportunities, because nothing prompts anyone to look.
Reflective infrastructure (deliberate opportunities, relationships, shared language and supportive conditions) lets that development continue through everyday work.

When access to information changes the nature of work

A passenger can research their rights before challenging a transport operator. A citizen can examine legislation before questioning an administrative decision. A customer can use AI-assisted research to analyse contractual wording, compare interpretations and identify previous disputes.

Some will arrive with well-founded questions. Others may present information that is incomplete, outdated or applicable to entirely different circumstances.

For the person receiving the question, having access to the same information does not necessarily make the task easier.

They may need to establish what is accurate, distinguish evidence from interpretation, recognise the boundaries of their authority and determine when specialist examination is required.

There is also a difference in responsibility. Someone raising a question may explore several possible interpretations. An employee communicating on behalf of an organisation may have contractual, regulatory or administrative obligations concerning the accuracy and consequences of their response.

AI can make it easier to assemble a sophisticated argument. It does not necessarily make that argument easier to assess.

The implications extend beyond customer-facing work. Commercial teams encounter increasingly informed buyers. Managers interpret growing volumes of operational information, while leadership teams must distinguish between plausible explanations before deciding how to respond.

Across these environments, access to information is only part of the requirement.

How do we deliberately develop the capacity to interpret, question and exercise judgement? And what allows that capacity to continue improving through everyday work?

Can critical thinking be taught? Lessons from clinical education

In some professional environments, reasoning is not simply an expected outcome. It becomes an explicit object of development.

Clinical education provides a useful illustration.

A medical student may be asked to reconsider an initial diagnosis, identify contradictory evidence, compare plausible alternatives and explain why one interpretation is more appropriate than another.

The objective is not merely to arrive at the correct answer to an individual problem. It is also to develop the ability to recognise which questions matter, how evidence should be examined and when an initial interpretation needs revisiting.

Research into critical-thinking instruction, clinical reasoning and cognitive apprenticeship offers useful principles for developing reasoning deliberately.

Expert reasoning can be made visible. Learners can practise examining authentic problems, articulate their interpretations, receive informed challenge and progressively exercise greater independence.

An important distinction emerges.

Learning a method is not quite the same as developing the capacity to recognise when and how to use it.

Someone may understand the importance of considering alternative explanations without spontaneously doing so when confronted with an unfamiliar problem. They may know that assumptions should be questioned without recognising when one of their own assumptions has become influential.

The developmental task is therefore not simply to teach additional techniques.

It is also to create opportunities in which people practise the thinking required to select, adapt and apply them appropriately.

Coaching decision-making: correcting the decision vs developing the decision-maker

Consider an employee who receives an unusually detailed challenge to an established contractual interpretation.

They examine the information, apply their understanding of the relevant conditions and provide a response. The matter is subsequently reviewed, and it becomes clear that the interpretation was incomplete and specialist clarification should have been sought.

The manager now has an immediate responsibility: correct the response and address any resulting consequences.

But there is also a developmental question.

Why did the employee consider their interpretation appropriate? Which information appeared decisive? What assumptions influenced their conclusion? Why did they believe the matter fell within their authority?

An explanation of the correct outcome may resolve the immediate issue without answering any of these questions.

This distinction matters because an inappropriate decision does not necessarily reveal the quality of the reasoning that produced it. Someone may reach an incorrect conclusion through an understandable interpretation of incomplete information. Equally, a correct outcome may depend on an assumption that would be unreliable in slightly different circumstances.

This does not diminish accountability. It means distinguishing between correcting a decision and developing the capacity to make future decisions.

It may also reveal something about the working environment. Were the decision boundaries sufficiently clear? Was specialist guidance accessible? Would another experienced employee have recognised the same difficulty?

These considerations become particularly relevant during periods of change, when employees may encounter unfamiliar situations for which their previous experience provides only partial guidance.

The developmental opportunity is not simply to explain what the person should have done. It is to examine how they understood the situation and help them become better equipped to recognise relevant distinctions next time.

The manager must therefore exercise judgement about the employee's judgement, including whether the difficulty lies in the person's reasoning, the guidance available or some combination of circumstances.

Correcting the decision and developing the decision-maker are two different responsibilities.

And this applies beyond the immediate management relationship.

A commercial director reviewing an unsuccessful negotiation may need to examine how the salesperson interpreted the customer's position. An operations manager investigating a recurring problem may need to understand why an established explanation continues to appear plausible to the team.

In each case, the quality of the developmental response depends partly on the manager's own capacity to examine reasoning, including their initial interpretation of what happened.

Developing the ability to examine our own thinking

Critical thinking, analytical reasoning, judgement and adaptability are related, but they are not interchangeable.

Critical thinking is treated here not as a standalone technique, but as one contributor to the broader exercise and development of judgement.

Interpreting information requires knowledge and an understanding of its limitations. Diagnostic reasoning involves identifying relevant distinctions and considering possible explanations. Judgement brings these considerations together within the objectives, constraints and consequences of a particular situation.

Another capability operates across them: recognising and regulating our own thinking.

Research commonly describes this monitoring and regulation of cognition as metacognition.

It includes noticing uncertainty, recognising the limitations of an interpretation and deciding whether to reconsider an assumption, seek additional information or approach a problem differently.

This becomes particularly relevant when familiar knowledge is no longer sufficient.

Experience can help us recognise patterns and make decisions efficiently. Yet circumstances change, and an interpretation that has repeatedly served us well may not remain appropriate in every situation.

The developmental challenge is not to encourage constant questioning. That would be neither practical nor necessarily beneficial.

It is to become increasingly capable of recognising when questioning is warranted.

Someone who initially needs a coach to ask, "What else could explain this?" may gradually begin to ask that question independently. Someone who once relied on an experienced colleague to identify uncertainty may become better able to recognise it while making a decision.

In that sense, the development of thinking involves more than acquiring additional knowledge. It also involves becoming more deliberate about how we use, examine and adapt what we already know.

What happens when ordinary work resumes?

We may deliberately practise diagnostic questioning during training. We may examine alternative interpretations during coaching or help someone recognise how assumptions influence a decision.

Then ordinary work resumes.

A subsequent management conversation may concentrate on results and improvement priorities. An operational meeting may focus on immediate problems, resources and actions. A quality assessment may examine compliance with agreed standards.

Each activity can be entirely appropriate.

Yet they do not necessarily examine the same things.

The reasoning developed in one setting may receive little attention in another. An observation made during coaching may not reappear when someone encounters a similar situation several weeks later. A useful discovery from everyday work may remain with the individual who made it.

Even when these activities involve the same people, what is examined in one conversation does not necessarily carry into the next.

Now imagine the same kind of contractual challenge being handled well.

The employee recognises that the interpretation requires further examination, obtains specialist clarification and communicates an appropriate response.

The individual case is resolved. There may be no error to correct and no immediate reason for a management intervention.

Yet something potentially valuable has occurred.

What enabled the employee to recognise the need for clarification? Which distinction did they identify? Did the investigation reveal something that colleagues might also benefit from understanding?

The experience may have strengthened the employee's judgement. It may have exposed an assumption that deserves wider examination or produced a clarification relevant to future situations.

Whether any of that contributes to subsequent development is a separate question.

A useful distinction from organisational learning is Argyris's concept of single-loop and double-loop learning. Single-loop learning corrects errors within existing goals, values and assumptions. Double-loop learning questions, and where necessary changes, those governing values and assumptions themselves.

Neither form of learning is universally preferable.

The important consideration is whether there are appropriate opportunities to recognise which kind of examination the situation requires.

What is reflective infrastructure?

Reflective infrastructure is the deliberate creation of opportunities, relationships and recurring practices through which people can examine consequential work, make reasoning discussable and allow experience to inform subsequent decisions. It also depends on a shared language for discussing reasoning, and on conditions in which reasoning can be examined openly.

Its purpose is not simply to provide space to look back at performance.

It is also to support the continued development of the thinking through which work is interpreted and decisions are made.

In practice, this need not involve an extensive new organisational programme.

During coaching, a conversation might examine not only what someone did, but what they noticed, how they interpreted the situation and which considerations influenced their decision.

A commercial team might occasionally revisit the assumptions behind its interpretation of a customer's objections, rather than concentrating exclusively on the eventual outcome.

An operational debrief might distinguish between an inappropriate action and an interpretation that appeared reasonable given the information available at the time.

A management discussion might consider competing explanations for a recurring difficulty before deciding which intervention is required.

These are different applications of a common principle: making the reasoning behind work available for appropriate examination.

The value does not necessarily lie in the number of reflective conversations taking place. It lies in their relevance, quality and continuity.

Not every decision warrants extended discussion. Established procedures, rapid instruction and expert guidance remain essential in many circumstances. Reflection can become unproductive, and collective discussion does not automatically produce better reasoning.

The question is where deliberate examination adds developmental value.

This is also where the relationship between individual and organisational learning becomes important.

A discovery made during one encounter may improve the judgement of the person involved. But if it remains confined to that encounter, its wider developmental potential may never be realised.

When people have appropriate opportunities to revisit significant experiences, introduce informed challenge and share verified insights, something else becomes possible.

The person who participates in a developmental conversation today may become better equipped to support another person's reasoning tomorrow.

The ability to recognise relevant distinctions, ask useful questions and identify consequential uncertainty need not remain dependent on the original trainer, coach or expert.

Over time, these capabilities can become part of how people work together.

That is an important aspect of reflective infrastructure: not merely preserving what people have learned, but supporting the continued development of their capacity to learn through work.

Making the development of thinking part of work

Greater access to information does not remove the need for judgement. In many situations it makes the ability to distinguish between information, interpretation and an appropriate course of action more consequential.

Formal development can introduce methods and make expert reasoning accessible. What happens afterwards depends on whether everyday work offers deliberate ways to examine consequential reasoning, revisit assumptions and let discoveries travel, including for those who manage and develop others.

This does not mean turning every experience into a lesson. It means recognising that the development of thinking need not remain separate from the work in which that thinking is required.

The objective is not simply to help people know more, but to develop their capacity to make better sense of what they encounter, support that capacity in others, and keep developing it through the work they do.

Developing Judgement Through Work

Professional development increasingly involves strengthening how situations are interpreted, how assumptions are examined and how decisions are made. These capabilities can be developed deliberately, including through the everyday responsibilities of those who lead and support others.

Explore our Leadership & People Development approach to strengthening capability, judgement and performance through work.