Number 64 – Teach and Develop Scientific Thinking

Teach and develop scientific thinking in others through experiential and experimental learning.

Practitioners: tactical, integrative, and strategic

Organizations often say they want scientific thinking. What they usually mean is that they want better answers. Scientific thinking, however, begins before answers are available. It begins with the willingness to not know — and to remain there long enough to learn.

This is where many development efforts fall short. We attempt to teach scientific thinking through explanation. We introduce tools, templates, and language, assuming competence will follow. What often follows instead is compliance. People learn how to perform the method without engaging in the thinking that gives the method life.

Scientific thinking is formed through experience, not instruction. A person becomes a scientist the moment they make a prediction, test it in the real world, observe the outcome, and revise their understanding without defensiveness or embarrassment. That sequence matters. When any part of it is skipped or shortened, learning is incomplete.

Experiential learning creates contact with reality. Experimental learning introduces humility. Together, they teach something no classroom can: the world does not care what we intended. This is why experimentation must be allowed to finish. Leaders often interrupt learning too early. We correct, rescue, optimize, or explain before the experience has had time to teach. In doing so, we remove the very conditions required for capability to form.

Treating work itself as an experiment changes this dynamic. Simple questions asked consistently can shift execution into learning: What do we expect to happen? What actually happened? Where were we surprised? What will we try next? When asked sincerely, these questions develop scientific thinkers. When asked performatively, they do nothing at all.

Developing scientific thinking requires restraint. Leaders must resist the urge to be right, to move quickly, or to protect people from small failures that carry large lessons. This restraint is often mistaken for passivity. It is not. It is an active commitment to let learning complete its cycle.

Scientific thinking cannot be installed through training. It cannot be mandated through process. It grows only where curiosity is protected and where outcomes are examined without blame. The fastest way to build capability is often to slow down long enough to let people learn.

Questions For Your Consideration

Where in your organization is learning being interrupted by explanation or rescue?

How often are predictions made explicit before action is taken?

What small experiments could be allowed to run to completion without intervention?

How do your current responses to failure shape curiosity and scientific thinking?

What restraint might be required of you to allow learning to fully form?

More OpEx 4 OpEx