Running head: REFLECTIVE JUDGMENT AND LEADERSHIP 1

Reflective judgment, cognitive development, and leadership

Elizabeth A. Sweigart

The Chicago School of Professional Psychology

REFLECTIVE JUDGMENT AND LEADERSHIP 2

Reflective judgment, cognitive development, and leadership

Dewey (1933) first described the Reflective Judgment Model (RJM) as an approach taken

by maturing individuals—from adolescence through their adult years—to solving problems that

largely could not be conclusively determined head on, but rather required being considered in a

reflexive thought capacity. In the words of Day, Harrison, and Halpin (2009), RJM "addresses

interpretive judgments about ill-structured problems (i.e., those that cannot be described with a

high degree of completeness, cannot be resolved with a high degree of certainty, and those in

which experts disagree about the best solution)" (p. 90).

The Reflective Judgement Model

The RJM consists of three major developmental periods encompassing a total of seven

stages (King & Kitchener, 2004; Day et al., 2009). Each of the periods consists of two or more

stages that build upon each other (King & Kitchener, 2004; Day et al., 2009).

Pre-reflective thinking

In this first period, the pre-reflective thinking period, knowledge is considered to be

known because it is conferred by an authority figure or imparted through evidence or observation

by the knower (King & Kitchener, 2004; Day et al., 2009). As has been noted by Meltzoff

(1998), human beings are most likely to trust what they have observed themselves and once they

have adopted a belief, are unlikely to change it. Generally, what is known during this first period

"is assumed to be absolutely correct and known with complete certainty" (Day et al., 2009, p.

90). Day et al. (2009) describe the three stages that comprise this initial period as beginning with

an initial stage in which "knowing is limited to single concrete instances" (p. 92), progress to a

second stage where a right answer is discerned from a wrong answer, and finally a third stage in

which some knowledge is perceived to be known with certainty and other knowledge is not.
REFLECTIVE JUDGMENT AND LEADERSHIP 3

In considering these stages from a developmental perspective, they appear to build on one

another and resemble, in some ways, early childhood development and learning. Applying these

concepts to leadership, it makes sense that a leader would evolve from seeing things only as they

appear to be to seeing them as they may or may not be. However, this period presents as an

immature phase in a leader's development. As Mintzberg (2011) comments, in order to be

effective, leaders must be able to integrate complex and voluminous amounts of information in

real time, understanding subtlety and nuance. These initial stages in this first period do not bear

those hallmarks.

Quasi-reflective thinking

The second period represents a coming to terms with the inherent uncertainty in much

knowledge that appears, at first blush, to be clear and unquestionable (Day et al., 2009). In many

ways, this period is especially challenging for developing leaders, because it calls into question

what may seem to be fundamental and critical underlying assumptions and baseline beliefs held

by many (King & Kitchener, 2004). There are two stages that make up this period, each of which

is concerned with the extent to which the degree of certainty the knower has in the knowledge

effects the ability to apply that knowledge in context and in general (Day et al., 2009).

Looking again from a developmental perspective as a leader, the understanding of the

role of context is critical for young managers (Mintzberg, 2011). Whereas in the first period the

only way to truly know information is for it to be tangible—in other words, able to be physically

observed or encountered in the world through sight, sound, touch, taste, or smell—or to be

verified by an authority figure, in this period there is greater self-determination given to the

knower (Day et al., 2009). Continuing with the developmental line of thinking, it is a rather

immature model to consider accepting only knowledge that one has personally observed or that
REFLECTIVE JUDGMENT AND LEADERSHIP 4

has been assured by an authority figure. It sounds like the behavior of a young child. This second

period reflects a more mature and self-aware approach.

Reflective thinking

In this third period, "a core assumption is that no knowledge claims can be made with

absolute certainty" (Day et al., 2009, p. 91). Instead, the key to this period is the maturity and

wherewithal of the knower to first compare and contrast different pieces of—potentially

contradictory or conflicting—information, in the sixth stage. Then, finally, to look at the

information through a probabilistic lens and determine what may or may not be extrapolated or

generalized in the seventh (and last) stage (Day et al., 2009).

Considering this third period from a leadership development perspective, it is clear that

the level of maturity required to think through and apply this level of contextual cognition is

high. Similarly, the ability to hold in tension multiple conflicting ideas means that the leader

must also have the skills to look at issues holistically. This period would reflect the highest

degree of maturity and development in a leader.

Cognitive and leadership development

As individuals grow in their ability to gather, synthesize, and act on the analysis of

complex information, their abilities to lead others grows (Mintzberg, 2011). These thinking

skills, a form of cognition (Day et al., 2009), reflect development and growth that are critical to

increased maturity in adults. From a leadership perspective, as the ability of an individual to

master thinking through and around uncertainty increases, so does that person's qualities and

strengths as a leader (Day et al., 2009).

REFLECTIVE JUDGMENT AND LEADERSHIP 5

References

Day, D. V., Harrison, M. M., & Halpin, S. M. (2009). An integrative approach to leader

development: Connecting adult development, identity, and expertise. New York:

Psychology Press.

Dewey, J. (1933). How we think: A restatement of the relation of reflective thinking to the

educative process. Chicago: Regnery.

King, P. M., & Kitchener, K. S. (2004). Reflective Judgment: Theory and Research on the

Development of Epistemic Assumptions Through Adulthood. Educational Psychologist,

39(1), 5-18.

Meltzoff, J. (1998). Chapter 1: Critical reading. In Critical thinking about research: Psychology

and related fields (pp. 1-12). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Mintzberg, H. (2011). Managing. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler.