Critical thinking entails separating the truth from lies using the approach of being open-minded in the line of ensuring the deduction of the non-biased conclusion (Fisher, 2011). The process demands from one to ascertain that they fully understand the premise of the discourse, different prevailing viewpoints or assertions to completely figure out the various relevant parameters of concern (Bassham et al., 2011). A combination of the above mentioned approaches enables one to remain objective while considering the issue so that he/she is able to come up with the most optimal decision or solution required. Therefore, the intention of the following paper is to employ critical thinking in evaluating and analyzing a work dispute in ASAP Company in order to provide the most relevant resolution that will safeguard the interests of all the parties involved.
Get a price quote
The Explanation of the Issue
The issue at hand is that employees of the ASAP Company have been complaining to the Human Resource Department over the delayed improvement of the pay package. The workers are of the view that the HR office is deliberately postponing the commencement of the pay increase. However, the staff of the department argues that the workers representatives are misleading the employees by withholding the part of the deal that states that the process will start only if the workers sign the performance contract.
The Analysis of the Information
Critical thinking outlines that when you are evaluating a case, there is the need to ensure that all ideas are considered and adhered to when identifying what can be classified as the truth or the opposite (Lau, 2011). Besides, it is expected when applying critical thinking that you clearly identify all the relevant variables that need to be consulted in the line of making sure that objective and rational thinking is upheld throughout the analysis process (Deane & Borg, 2011).
As a result, the main challenge of the case at hand it to identify the parties who are sincere and those who are at guilty of lying. To fulfill the above stated requirements, there is the necessity to incorporate the insights brought forth by the following parties: the Human Resource Department, the workers representatives and a small number of randomly chosen employees. It is evident that the HR office fully blames the workers representatives for the conflict in the ASAP Company. On the other hand, the workers believe that the department is not willing to implement the agreed upon pay hike. Moreover, the belief brought forward by the workers’ representatives is that the HR office is not sincere when they argue that the current conflict is a result of them misguiding the employees.
being the part of our team!
Join our Affiliate program!
The Analysis of the Alternative Viewpoints and Solutions
Remaining objective and open-minded as demanded in critical thinking entails not jumping into conclusion without employing the element of an expanded line of thinking (Brink-Budgen, 2011). To meet the condition, there is a need to evaluate the situation at hand based on alternative viewpoint. To fulfill the requirements in the case under consideration, there is the necessity to assume that all parties are at guilty in the conflict. Therefore, to figure out the relevant steps that have to be utilized to reach the state of normalcy in the company, one must gather together all the parties which will help in identifying the area of contention based on the first-hand evidence presented by their insights.
Personal Conclusions and Proposed Decisions
Having brought all the parties, it has become clear that indeed the workers representatives were not sincere to the employees concerning the terms and conditions of the pay improvement. It has also turned out that the Human Resource Department had conspicuously indicated to the workers’ representatives that they pay hike would be considered if the staff members first agreed to sign the performance contract. However, these are the demands that the employees are fully against since they view them as a scheme to deny them an improved pay. It is also worth stating that the elections of worker’s representatives are due in three months, and the tenure of the current ones heavily depended on them securing the pay hike for the staff. Therefore, to look good, they had to ensure that pay hike was settled between the workers and the HR Department. The only thing they failed and did not mention to the employees were the conditions stated by the HR if the pay hike was to be considered. Apparently, the HR office was not aware that the terms agreed upon were not supported by the employees.
As a result, the best way forward is to ensure that the staff members are fully furnished with the all relevant details on matters of the agreement signed by the HR department and the workers’ representatives. This will ascertain that the next course of action is based on a platform that rests on the truth. The employees will be in a position to understand what is required of them by the HR department if they are going to enjoy the improved pay.
Thus, it is evident that the current standoff between the employees and the HR department in the ASAP Company is a result of the lack of integrity of the workers’ representatives. Moreover, the arguments of both the employees and HR department were sincere since they were not fully informed of the demands made by the relevant parties. It is also clear the employing critical thinking has brought forward insights that have helped identify the core issue bringing forth the conflict. Over and above, one can see that finding the right solution to any particular problem heavily depends on the employment of critical thinking that is based on prevailing evidence.