Critical Thinking
In the Graduate Diploma you will be asked to examine, apply and
critically analyse a range of models and theories on the topic you
are studying.
Theory:
When someone makes an observation about something and they then come up with some reason as
to why what they observe is happening. This is usually based on some kind of research or verifiable
evidence to support it.
"A theory is a set of interrelated principles and definitions that present a systematic view of
phenomena by specifying relationships among variables with the purpose of explaining natural
phenomena." Kerlinger (1986)1
Model:
The description of what something looks like and why.
"Any simplified abstract of reality ". Lucey (1991)2
Critical Analysis:
When you examine someone’s theory or model and carefully consider whether you accept, reject or
suspend judgement about the truth of a claim or an assumption or a recommendation to act in a
certain way. That is, is the argument the person presents for justifying something sound? For
example, it might be that you think the author was only looking at the situation from their own
perspective, the research method was flawed or in your experience it looks different. Critical
thinkers try to imagine and explore alternatives, they think about whether ideas apply to their
particular context and are sceptical about universal truths or “one best way” answers.
Example
Over the page is an example of a discussion and critical analysis of a model such as
you would find on our programme. As you read this example, note the way the writing
moves through:




Describing what Handy’s model is
Discussing how Handy’s model applies to their organisation
Critically analysing the weaknesses of Handy’s model
Drawing conclusions about how Handy’s model raises some important issues and
strategies for their future organisational direction.
This is a useful structure for your discussion of any theory or model in an assignment.
Charles Handy (1988)3 proposes a theory that an organisation’s culture is affected by it’s
‘style’ which is created by the way the organisation works. He proposes a model whereby
there are four types of organisation styles.
The first of these is what Handy calls the Club Culture. He likens this type of organisation to
a spider web with the spider, or leader, in the middle. In these organisations the leader is
central to all that happens in the organisation and someone’s level of influence in the
organisation depends on how close they are to the “spider” in the centre. Communication
and decision making is swift and there is a high level of trust in the leader. This spider is
often the founder and for that person the organisation is an extension of themselves.
Although this means that these organisations are usually dynamic and exciting places to
work the downside is the leader can be seen as a dictator, and everything hinges on
relationships with the leader.
The next type of organisation is what Handy calls the role culture. The example he provides
of this type of organisation is a typical bureaucratic structure with clear defined role
boundaries and lines of communication and accountability. In these organisations the role is
seen as more pivotal than the person who fills that role. Processes and systems are formal,
routine and based on set policies and procedures. This works very well for large
organisations or organisations managing routine processes where tight quality control is
important but it does mean that often decision making and communication is slow around
making changes.
The third type of organisation is what Handy calls the task culture. He compares this type of
organisation to a net which is very flexible and all roles and responsibilities can be shared.
Teams come together around particular projects and may change to new groupings when a
new need arises. The organisation is almost like a well functioning team. These
organisations tend to focus on problem solving and create plans to achieve outcomes rather
than being driven by bureaucratic processes. These types of organisations tend to have
coordinators or team leaders rather than managers. They are exciting and challenging
workplaces but often lack long term security.
The final type of organisation Handy describes has what he calls the ‘person culture’ which
he describes as a group of stars. These tend to be organisations made up of groups of
professional people such as can be seen in doctor’s or lawyer’s practices. In the Not for
Profit sector this can seen in some counselling organisations. In this type of organisation the
organisation itself exists to serve the individual professional. The manager tends to have a
large administration function.
Handy says that organisations can be a mix of cultures and may change over time. The
characteristics an organisation has are determined by components such as its size, work
flow, environment and history.
Handy’s model is useful as a tool for analysing organisations because it does provide a
framework for potentially explaining why staff and volunteers behave as they do in response
to its structure which defines its workplace culture. However, the model is a somewhat
simplistic way to define an organisation’s culture. Although he states that the model is
examining organisation style he then directly defines each as an organisational culture.
Culture is very complex and multifaceted, and the structure and leadership function is only a
component of what creates an organisation’s culture. The article does not provide
information on what evidence he used to create his model. While it is from a book on
understanding voluntary organisations, it not clear if this model is based on for profit
organisations and further research may be required to determine how well it can be applied
to not for profit organisations
When reflecting on my organisation we do however fit the Handy model. Like a club culture,
our founder is still the leader of our group and we operate very informally according to the
vision of our leader without formal role descriptions and written policies and procedures.
Likewise though, we also operate a bit like the task culture in that we operate as a team to
accomplish our projects. Each of us is allocated our tasks according to our strengths and our
jobs change according to the project we are working on such as described as a task culture.
Handy’s model can provide some guidance for our organisation in the near future. There are
strong indications that we are about to grow through a large injection of funding. This will
require us to consider our work style to ensure we are able to remain accountable and
survive rapid growth. Aspects of the role culture may need to be identified to counteract any
negative implications of us being so strongly a club culture in that our leader will not be able
to maintain full influence over all of the work of the organisation.
Bibliography
1
Kerlinger, Fred, N. (1986). Foundations of Behavioural Research, 3rd Edition. New York Holt Rinehart
and Winston.
2
Lucey, T. (1991), Management Information Systems, 6th Edition, London: DP Publications.
3
Handy, Charles. “The Culture of Organisations” in Understanding Voluntary Organisations pp 85-102. Penguin
Some thoughts on Critical Thinking
When reading other people’s material – this can be in one book or in a collection of things you have
found, ask questions like:














Who is the author? Are they biased? (e.g. someone from a food company being in favour of
people eating junk food)
Are both sides presented?
Is there a midway point between the two sides?
Is there a third point of view?
Are many authors saying the same thing? Or is there big disagreement?
Does what they say apply to today?
Does what they say apply to all groups of people?
Is this source recent – the latest discussion, or is it out of date?
How would this apply in my world?
How could this apply in the future to me or certain groups?
Is there a gap that nobody’s talking about? Do I have any ideas about what directions the
topic could go in the future?
Of the points being made, which are the most important ones?
Is this source too difficult to understand – could I find the same thing said more clearly
somewhere else?
How could I use this in my argument?
Critical Writing
Think critically about your writing, think about the following:
Clarity – Is there a better way to express my point? Do I have enough explanation or examples? (hint:
use of words, paragraph structure, sentences etc.)
Accuracy- What evidence do I have to support my argument?
Relevant – does my argument answer the question?
Depth – Have I talked in enough depth or have I just given surface details?
(hint: look at depth of the points made, but also think of are there any other points/dimensions missed. E.g.
Discussion of culture in NZ using only Pakeha and Maori culture—what about Asians?)
Logic – Does it follow from what I said before or am I contradicting myself?
Breadth (wide enough)– Have I mentioned other issues that might also be important?
Focus – Am I going into too much detail for the word limit?
Balance – Am I writing more about one side than the other? Am I writing in too much detail on one
point (maybe because that’s just what I found information on easily!)