I often ponder the question of whether some strengths are more important than others. As politically incorrect as it may be to say so, I believe that this is actually the case. My colleague Jonathan Hill and I think of these as "organising strengths", since there are some strengths that seem to have a profound impact on the exercise and appropriate use of other strengths - their very own category of "strengths dynamics" if you like.

Judgement is, without question, one of these organising strengths. I suspect that, as is so often the case, Aristotle had it nailed 2,500 years ago in his Nicomachean Ethics. He described the concept of phronesis, or practical wisdom.  Phronesis is the ability to decide how to achieve what we want, as well as what it is that we actually want. In Realise2 terms, the closest equivalent to phronesis would be our strength of Judgement. Unlike every other strength, Judgement is the one strength that I think cannot be overplayed or taken too far - because inherent within the strength itself is the essence of knowing the right thing, to the right amount, at the right time, in the right way (what I called the "golden mean of strengths use" in Average to A+).

Hence, if Judgement cannot be overplayed, and if it is instrumental in defining how other strengths are used, it seems to be a quite distinct and intriguing strength in relation to its potential strengths dynamics. This is indeed the case, as I go on to explore below.

Judgement will be influenced by our general cognitive operating speed. While Judgement itself is characterised by the ability to make good decisions rapidly, even this processing speed could be put under even more pressure when it is combined with Action. In contrast, pair Judgement and Incubator, and you may see somebody who characteristically takes their time in weighing the options (Isambard Kingdom Brunel famously went to sleep to solve complex engineering problems).

Paired with Counterpoint, you may see the person strong in Judgement flipping back and forth between different decisions before ultimately coming down on the side of one or the other. Combined with Pride, the person strong in Judgement will always want to ensure that they make the best quality of decision possible, and will pride themselves on doing so.

When Judgement is found with Strategic Awareness, it will manifest itself in the context of always giving due consideration to the broader consequences of any decisions made. What will happen further down the line if I make decision A? And what about if I make decision B? What precedents may be set? These will be the types of questions entertained by those with Judgement and Strategic Awareness significant in their profile.

The dynamic of Judgement and Compassion would likely be reflected in decisions that were weighted towards their impact on other people. In contrast, with the dynamic of Judgement and Adherence, you might experience someone who is constrained by the narrow parameters of rules and procedures in their thinking and deciding - a comparison point here being the Thinking versus Feeling preferences of the MBTI, with Thinkers according more weight to the logical-rational (e.g., Adherence), and Feelers more to the socio-emotional (e.g., Compassion).

Judgement paired with Moral Compass would always be focused on doing whatever it was that was deemed to be right. Similarly, Judgement with Equality would be focused squarely on the issue of fairness. But how to define what is right or what is fair? Amartya Sen grappled with this question in The Idea of Justice, exploring distinctions between procedural justice (which may loosely be defined as being focused on the process of justice) and distributive justice (which may be loosely defined as being focused on the outcomes of justice). Critically, these two types of justice may both be internally consistent, and yet lead to quite different outcomes - evidencing the need for effective judgement if ever there was one!

As such, it's worth keeping in mind that if you're struggling to decide on something, a useful trick can be to imagine that you are doing it for somebody else. When I was grappling with a particularly challenging problem, my great friend and colleague Nicky Garcea taught me to tap into the wisdom of one of my heroes, by asking me "What would Drucker do?" That question is now printed out in large font and posted on my office wall. As it happens, there's good psychological evidence for the value of trying to make decisions on the behalf of somebody else, rather than doing it for yourself. The reason is that psychological distance seems to give us a better perspective, as Evan Polman and Kyle Emich (2011) showed in their recent Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin paper.

"On balance then..." (a classic catchphrase of those who have Judgement), it seems that the complexities of the judgements we all face, even on a daily basis, can be immense. As a result, and in this ever-changing world, the need for Judgement has never been greater, whether in matters large or small.

May you judge well, and judge wisely.

With best wishes,

Alex Linley

Reference