What do you think?
Rate this book
The Thinking Effect: Rethinking Thinking to Create Great Leaders and the New Value Worker
The revolutionary approach to smart thinking.
In a rapidly changing world there is an increasing need for critical, creative, and systems thinking. These abilities, though, are only gained through a virtuous circle of trying, reflecting, learning, and trying again; despite this, most organizations are still trying to develop these skills through linear approaches.
The Thinking Effect by Michael Vaughan redefines smart thinking and effective learning - teaching how rather than what to think. Vaughan has spent his career teaching smart thinking to Fortune 500 companies and government agencies around the globe.
By adopting this new thinking, leaders will learn how to develop "neural leadership" - understanding and engaging with the psychology of their team - while employees at all levels will learn how develop patterns of thought that differentiate top performers from those who merely do their jobs, increase productivity, improve problem-solving, and influence profitability, and become Value Workers who generate value for growth and a sustainable future.
The Thinking Effect offers learning solutions, individual practices, and real-world applications to help companies break free from institutional processes that hinder fresh and innovative thought. The result is an engaged, valuable workforce that rethinks established practices - and thinking itself.
In a rapidly changing world there is an increasing need for critical, creative, and systems thinking. These abilities, though, are only gained through a virtuous circle of trying, reflecting, learning, and trying again; despite this, most organizations are still trying to develop these skills through linear approaches.
The Thinking Effect by Michael Vaughan redefines smart thinking and effective learning - teaching how rather than what to think. Vaughan has spent his career teaching smart thinking to Fortune 500 companies and government agencies around the globe.
By adopting this new thinking, leaders will learn how to develop "neural leadership" - understanding and engaging with the psychology of their team - while employees at all levels will learn how develop patterns of thought that differentiate top performers from those who merely do their jobs, increase productivity, improve problem-solving, and influence profitability, and become Value Workers who generate value for growth and a sustainable future.
The Thinking Effect offers learning solutions, individual practices, and real-world applications to help companies break free from institutional processes that hinder fresh and innovative thought. The result is an engaged, valuable workforce that rethinks established practices - and thinking itself.
228 pages, Paperback
First published June 1, 2013
1 person is currently reading
22 people want to read
About the author
Michael Vaughan
19 books2 followersMichael Paul Vaughan OBE is a retired cricketer who represented Yorkshire and England. A classically elegant right-handed batsman and occasional off-spinner, Vaughan was ranked the best batsman in the world following the 2002/3 Ashes, in which he scored 633 runs, including three centuries. Vaughan was an opening batsman and forged a successful England opening partnership with Marcus Trescothick, although he had often batted in the middle order for England. He was the captain of the England team when it regained the Ashes in 2005, eighteen years after having last won the trophy.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 3 of 3 reviews
May 26, 2025
The book starts with a highly plausible seeming idea: that the world of business (and indeed every other aspect of the world) would be a better place, if only people could learn to think better.
The main thrust of the book is then a focus upon trying to get people away from learning WHAT to think, towards learning HOW to think.
On the surface this all seems to be something that no one could possibly disagree with. After all, who would support a counter-thesis of discouraging people from learning to think better?
But there is a devil in the detail, which we can see if we look at examples of countries who have tried to teach thinking skills programs in schools. Generally, they have not worked to expectations. The issues are argued and debated by academics in Educational journals, but one factor to emerge is that it is a lot harder than it initially seems to separate thinking into a WHAT and a HOW. Many generic thinking courses ended up drifting into subject specific courses (such as thinking skills in Maths, etc) because it was found that higher level thinking often has a domain specificity to it.
I was surprised that the book does not consider the significant issues raised by school programs. And I was left wondering about how accurate the author is in his conviction that the WHAT and HOW of thinking can really be separated to the extent that he assumes. It doesn’t help that the book cites relatively little evidence to support its claims.
Those same issues arise towards the end of the book when the author is talking about the (generic) improvement of ‘problem solving.’ Surely, problem solving in finance is going to look a bit different than problem solving in HR. And why should we expect someone who is good at problem solving in one aspect of a company to be automatically a good problem solver in another? Yes there are undoubtedly transferable skills, but there are also knowledge and experiences bases which are relevant to problem solving. Once again this raises the issue of how appropriate it is to really try to separate the WHAT from the HOW, and is the book just being a little overly-simplistic in how it thinks about thinking?
Another example of potential over-simplification occurred in the books advice to improve thinking by reducing distractions (10%) and improving diet (76%). Yes those are relevant factors, but there are a lot more than were not really considered. Improving sleep, for example!
In a final example, I noticed that the book referred to studies in primary schools which showed that children were highly creative, but they had largely lost their creativity when they were re-evaluated ten years later.
Actually there is controversy about what those studies showed, and how they should be interpreted. In some studies, creativity was measured in primary schools by counting how many ways a child could think of using something like a paperclip. When those children were evaluated many years later, they came up with a lot fewer ideas, because they were automatically discounting ideas which they could now see were silly or inappropriate. Age gave the children a better qualitative appreciation of which ideas were appropriate, but they came up with a lower quantity. Is that really a loss of creativity? Once again, the issues are far more complex than the book allows, and its claims therefore risk being overly simplistic.
By about half way through the book I was also beginning to feel that this is largely an advertising speel. I lost count of the number of times I read some version of ‘At the Regis company we have developed…’ The book seemed to be at risk of becoming just a vehicle to list what the author’s company actually did.
I started the book with high hopes as the book diagnosed an interesting problem in thinking. But it just didn’t seem to deliver a deep and thoughtful response which engaged with sufficient relevant research, so that readers could have appropriate confidence in the book’s claims.
The main thrust of the book is then a focus upon trying to get people away from learning WHAT to think, towards learning HOW to think.
On the surface this all seems to be something that no one could possibly disagree with. After all, who would support a counter-thesis of discouraging people from learning to think better?
But there is a devil in the detail, which we can see if we look at examples of countries who have tried to teach thinking skills programs in schools. Generally, they have not worked to expectations. The issues are argued and debated by academics in Educational journals, but one factor to emerge is that it is a lot harder than it initially seems to separate thinking into a WHAT and a HOW. Many generic thinking courses ended up drifting into subject specific courses (such as thinking skills in Maths, etc) because it was found that higher level thinking often has a domain specificity to it.
I was surprised that the book does not consider the significant issues raised by school programs. And I was left wondering about how accurate the author is in his conviction that the WHAT and HOW of thinking can really be separated to the extent that he assumes. It doesn’t help that the book cites relatively little evidence to support its claims.
Those same issues arise towards the end of the book when the author is talking about the (generic) improvement of ‘problem solving.’ Surely, problem solving in finance is going to look a bit different than problem solving in HR. And why should we expect someone who is good at problem solving in one aspect of a company to be automatically a good problem solver in another? Yes there are undoubtedly transferable skills, but there are also knowledge and experiences bases which are relevant to problem solving. Once again this raises the issue of how appropriate it is to really try to separate the WHAT from the HOW, and is the book just being a little overly-simplistic in how it thinks about thinking?
Another example of potential over-simplification occurred in the books advice to improve thinking by reducing distractions (10%) and improving diet (76%). Yes those are relevant factors, but there are a lot more than were not really considered. Improving sleep, for example!
In a final example, I noticed that the book referred to studies in primary schools which showed that children were highly creative, but they had largely lost their creativity when they were re-evaluated ten years later.
Actually there is controversy about what those studies showed, and how they should be interpreted. In some studies, creativity was measured in primary schools by counting how many ways a child could think of using something like a paperclip. When those children were evaluated many years later, they came up with a lot fewer ideas, because they were automatically discounting ideas which they could now see were silly or inappropriate. Age gave the children a better qualitative appreciation of which ideas were appropriate, but they came up with a lower quantity. Is that really a loss of creativity? Once again, the issues are far more complex than the book allows, and its claims therefore risk being overly simplistic.
By about half way through the book I was also beginning to feel that this is largely an advertising speel. I lost count of the number of times I read some version of ‘At the Regis company we have developed…’ The book seemed to be at risk of becoming just a vehicle to list what the author’s company actually did.
I started the book with high hopes as the book diagnosed an interesting problem in thinking. But it just didn’t seem to deliver a deep and thoughtful response which engaged with sufficient relevant research, so that readers could have appropriate confidence in the book’s claims.
March 14, 2023
I've had this sitting on, under, and in my nightstand for long enough that I don't rememeber where I foud it. Part exposition and part sales (think: we developed these tools...and came iup with catchy names for them...), sift the self-serving stuff and you will find some value here.
Vaughn focuses on the "how to think" instead of the cultural standard "what to think", and he outlines the differences in Part 1 (What to Think vs How to Think). It's a sad commentary on the product of an educational system designed to churn out compliant workers (he addresses briefly Horace Mann and the benefits of the system for the new Industrial Age workers). He nails it by borrowing from Oliver Van DeMille: "conveyor belt education". Surprising to me (and interesting to him) was the Millenium Project's 2009 State of the Future report which discusses among other things the "15 Global Challenges facing humanity". Fourteen are what you'd expect, things like health, conflict, rich/poor gap, energy, women status, ... Number 9 was "Capcity to Decide. What vs How learning affects that, as do derailers of decision-making: biases, fear, choice (too many makes it difficult to decide), noise - busy world, busy imnformation bloat, and ... attention. I'd recently finished Johann Hari's Stolen Focus: Why You Can't Pay Attention- and How to Think Deeply Again and some of this was covered there in much more detail. Can't focus, can't make good decisions. Of most value to me was a good summary table contrasting (of course, the section) What to Think - common patterns with How to Think - patterns of Value Workers.
His Part 2 talks about Rethinking Thinking. He identifies his three Core Concepts: critical, creative and systems thinking. On critical thinking, “We need to be careful to avoid confusing critical thinking with fault finding. Fault finding and being critical are used interchangeably.” This is good and should be kept forefront in the mind. He suggests equating “critical with cautious and purposeful.” I agree. He acknowledges that critical thinking is important to understand situations and analyze information. But… without creative thinking, a trap is fitting “used solutions to new problems.” He offers a(nother) contrast table of critical vs creative thinking. My note questioned why the critical descriptors were bolded and the creatives were not. Now, he did have “left brain/right brain” there, perpetuating that myth. And systems thinking? Holistic. Notes started getting sparse from here on…
Part 3, Rethinking Learning, had the least for me. He offered an anecdote about a VP who introduced himself with a [Myers-Briggs] “I’m an NTFJ, Driver-Analytic, with left brain dominance.” Ostensibly, “knowing” this is supposed to help people understand how to interact with peers, employees, bosses. In my experience, it doesn’t, but does make for posturing.
He offered some good suggestions in Part 4, Beyond Training. Core practices of seeking to understand the big picture, understand the underlying behaviors, systemic change, expose limiting beliefs, evolve a shared vision. And he gives “guideposts” for those practices that were actually pretty good (my margin note.)
This was published in 2013, and there have been a lot of similar books before and since, but there is something here for everyone, even if only reminders or nudges.
Vaughn focuses on the "how to think" instead of the cultural standard "what to think", and he outlines the differences in Part 1 (What to Think vs How to Think). It's a sad commentary on the product of an educational system designed to churn out compliant workers (he addresses briefly Horace Mann and the benefits of the system for the new Industrial Age workers). He nails it by borrowing from Oliver Van DeMille: "conveyor belt education". Surprising to me (and interesting to him) was the Millenium Project's 2009 State of the Future report which discusses among other things the "15 Global Challenges facing humanity". Fourteen are what you'd expect, things like health, conflict, rich/poor gap, energy, women status, ... Number 9 was "Capcity to Decide. What vs How learning affects that, as do derailers of decision-making: biases, fear, choice (too many makes it difficult to decide), noise - busy world, busy imnformation bloat, and ... attention. I'd recently finished Johann Hari's Stolen Focus: Why You Can't Pay Attention- and How to Think Deeply Again and some of this was covered there in much more detail. Can't focus, can't make good decisions. Of most value to me was a good summary table contrasting (of course, the section) What to Think - common patterns with How to Think - patterns of Value Workers.
His Part 2 talks about Rethinking Thinking. He identifies his three Core Concepts: critical, creative and systems thinking. On critical thinking, “We need to be careful to avoid confusing critical thinking with fault finding. Fault finding and being critical are used interchangeably.” This is good and should be kept forefront in the mind. He suggests equating “critical with cautious and purposeful.” I agree. He acknowledges that critical thinking is important to understand situations and analyze information. But… without creative thinking, a trap is fitting “used solutions to new problems.” He offers a(nother) contrast table of critical vs creative thinking. My note questioned why the critical descriptors were bolded and the creatives were not. Now, he did have “left brain/right brain” there, perpetuating that myth. And systems thinking? Holistic. Notes started getting sparse from here on…
Part 3, Rethinking Learning, had the least for me. He offered an anecdote about a VP who introduced himself with a [Myers-Briggs] “I’m an NTFJ, Driver-Analytic, with left brain dominance.” Ostensibly, “knowing” this is supposed to help people understand how to interact with peers, employees, bosses. In my experience, it doesn’t, but does make for posturing.
He offered some good suggestions in Part 4, Beyond Training. Core practices of seeking to understand the big picture, understand the underlying behaviors, systemic change, expose limiting beliefs, evolve a shared vision. And he gives “guideposts” for those practices that were actually pretty good (my margin note.)
This was published in 2013, and there have been a lot of similar books before and since, but there is something here for everyone, even if only reminders or nudges.
April 8, 2014
Disclaimer: While I aim to be unbiased, I received a copy of this for free to review.
The Thinking Effect is yet another excellent publication by Nicholas Brealey, one which is of immense value to business leaders and their subordinates alike. In it, Vaughan tackles the age-old problem that’s plagued managers since they first invested in training – too many courses try to teach people what to think. Vaughan believes that those courses should focus on how to think instead, and I think that’s a noble idea.
Instead of teaching people using stale methods, Michael Vaughan is a proponent of systems thinking and in-depth simulations as a way of deciding how best to act in any situation. Vaughan and his team at The Regis Company found that when people are taught using traditional methods, they revert to their old ways of thinking because reality doesn’t often correspond to what they’re taught in the classroom.
It’s an intriguing concept, and Vaughan does a great job of explaining it – he backs his argument with convincing research that will have you on-side by the end of the book. Now you just have to get management buy-in and get him in to your office!
The Thinking Effect is yet another excellent publication by Nicholas Brealey, one which is of immense value to business leaders and their subordinates alike. In it, Vaughan tackles the age-old problem that’s plagued managers since they first invested in training – too many courses try to teach people what to think. Vaughan believes that those courses should focus on how to think instead, and I think that’s a noble idea.
Instead of teaching people using stale methods, Michael Vaughan is a proponent of systems thinking and in-depth simulations as a way of deciding how best to act in any situation. Vaughan and his team at The Regis Company found that when people are taught using traditional methods, they revert to their old ways of thinking because reality doesn’t often correspond to what they’re taught in the classroom.
It’s an intriguing concept, and Vaughan does a great job of explaining it – he backs his argument with convincing research that will have you on-side by the end of the book. Now you just have to get management buy-in and get him in to your office!
Displaying 1 - 3 of 3 reviews