Can Watching Elementary Improve Critical Thinking?

Vatching Elementary is, in its essence, an entertainment process. Sherlock Holmes notices things that the majority of people might miss, combines pieces of information rapidly and arrives at the correct result of the combination. Obviously, Holmes has one distinct advantage: the creators already know what has occurred. Attempting to work the same way in a real management situation would be harder.

However, behind the fictional story, there is something interesting about moving from pieces of information to conclusions.

Holmes rarely accepts the first explanation simply because it seems to be reasonable. He assesses what he knows, questions assumptions of others, considers other alternatives and adjusts his opinion if something does not match. We do not have to become detectives to find out the usefulness of such a thinking process.

One simple example is the difference between observation and interpretation of observed information. Different people may observe the same situation but reach completely different conclusions. In Elementary, Holmes sees something that other characters have considered well. However, he questions the meaning of it.

Another useful habit is asking a question: 'What else could explain this?' 

In the TV series, the alternative explanation is sometimes unusual and unexpected. It is a TV series, indeed. But the question is useful in real-life situations, as the first reasonable explanation is not always a correct one.

It applies when something does not match as well. In Elementary, one single contradiction is eventually the key to solving the crime. Management problems are rarely so clear-cut. Something is unknown, multiple explanations exist, or one must decide with insufficient information.

Here comes the connection to consultancy and management.

A consultant enters the company with some problem described by the client: "The employees are resisting the change", "The technology does not work properly", "We need more training" or "AI will reduce our costs".

All these descriptions might be correct. However, they are not facts. They are explanations of what happens in the client's mind. Thus, the consultant must be careful when moving quickly from the client's stated problem to the solution. There is an important question in between:

Is this the problem? Imagine that employees do not use the new AI system effectively. The first explanation is resistance to change. However, more detailed research might lead to such explanations as unreliable outputs of the AI system, bad integration with other systems, unclear responsibilities, lack of knowledge or poor management support.

Employees do not resist AI; they have good reasons not to trust or use it.

Thus, critical thinking is an integral part of effective diagnosis. Before suggesting the solution, one can ask the following questions: What proves this explanation? What does not match? What assumptions does one have? Is something else able to explain the same situation?

It is important for both consultants and managers/executives. They often have to make decisions rapidly and based on incomplete information. The danger is not only making a wrong decision. It is accepting one explanation too quickly and viewing everything else from the perspective of that accepted explanation. Take an AI pilot project that has yielded unsatisfactory results.

Probably, the problem is the low quality of technology. However, the organisation might lack data, necessary expertise, appropriate processes and system integration capabilities. Or perhaps the technology is good enough, but the organisation has not defined what exactly it should achieve through piloting it.

The result is the same – an unsatisfactory pilot – but the possible causes are quite different. Each cause implies completely different management action. Nowadays, it is becoming especially relevant due to AI.

AI can provide an analysis, an explanation or a recommendation within seconds. The answer is detailed, convincing and professionally written. However, convincing and correct are not the same thing. Thus, there is an interesting change of priorities in professional work. Providing a plausible answer is becoming easier, while judging the quality of the answer might become more significant.

AI can also help one to do it. Besides answering the question "What is the answer?", one can use it to test one's own thinking:

1-What else can explain this?

2- What information contradicts the conclusion?

3- What Assumptions – does one have them?

4-What information is missing?

5-What can make the answer incorrect? Using it in this way, AI does not replace the critical thinking process. It can only help one to extend it. The key difference is using AI to confirm what one thinks and using it to check if one's thinking process is strong enough.