Judging Others

Like many words in many languages, the word judging in English has multiple meanings. One meaning denotes a potentially problematic pattern of thought that can lead to behaviors that cause real problems at work. To judge others in this sense is to evaluate their worth as people, based on possibly flimsy evidence not subject to review, and then to find those people wanting. This pattern causes trouble because, often, the judgments we make aren't merely inaccurate. They also have a self-fulfilling property that limits the ability of anyone to effectively dispute — or even to question — the validity of the judgment. That is, the act of forming the judgment, and propagating it, prevents anyone from correcting errors in the judgment itself.

Judging isn't always dysfunctional. For example, consider an organizational leader who repeatedly engages in behavior abusive of subordinates, or in corrupt self-dealing, or in misrepresentation of facts for personal advantage. Judging such a person as unfit for any level of organizational responsibility is not only functional, but might also be ethically obligatory.

So judging itself isn't problematic. What is problematic is judging based on insufficient or manufactured evidence, with inadequate mechanisms available for error correction. Even such judgments — call them proto-judgments — can occasionally prove to be accurate. The subset of proto-judgments of interest here are those that would prove to be inaccurate and harmful if subjected to careful review.

In what follows, I use the term propagator to refer to a person who passes the judgment along to others. The form in which the judgment propagates is the message, which could be conveyed in conversation (face-to-face or telephone), or text message or email or (shudder) hardcopy. The person who receives the message is the recipient. The target is the person who's being judged. The originator is the person who originates the judgment. Any given judgment can have any number of originators and propagators.

Let's have a look at how this fascinatingly dysfunctional thought pattern works.

Judgments are often shared

Sharing is the means by which propagators pass their judgments to others. Propagation provides a means of amplifying the effects of the judgments to enable them to influence more people than merely the originator of the judgment.

Recipients Recipients of judgment messages
are rarely able to evaluate
their validity. They pass
them along anyway.of judgment messages are rarely able to evaluate their validity. Recipients usually rely on the propagator's credibility as a means of assessing message validity. Doing so can be risky. As a recipient of a judgment message, if you can't independently validate the judgment contained in the message, beware.

Sharing usually happens in secret

Covert judgments are much less likely to be disputed or reviewed against disconfirming evidence, because only the propagator(s) and recipient(s) know that the message has been passed along. Secrecy enables the judgments to persist even if inapplicable, and protects them from any form of corrective action. Moreover, secrecy acts as an accelerant, because originators of unsubstantiated or easily falsified judgments are more likely to propagate them if they feel confident that (a) the judgment won't be subject to review and (b) neither originators nor propagators will be required to provide justifying evidence. In this way, secrecy encourages spontaneous judgment origination and speeds propagation.

Receiving in secret — we usually call it "in confidence" — a message of judgment about someone else is an indicator that the message is very unlikely to have been validated.

"Evidence" is frequently attributed to anonymous sources

Another element of the "secrecy envelope" that's so necessary for rapid and accelerating message propagation is anonymity of the sources of supposed facts in evidence that support the judgments. By characterizing the anonymous source as someone credible and authoritative, originators and propagators can harvest much of the good will a named source would provide for the judgment, without exposing the source to the risk of consequences of having provided the evidence itself. Anonymity of sources also enables manufacture of evidence.

If the message cites anonymous sources, beware. Such citations are indicators of untrustworthiness.

Harming the target might be in the interest of the propagators and originator

Messages that convey judgments that do harm to the target are more likely to propagate rapidly and widely, because some propagators have an interest in harming the target. Motivations can range from schadenfreude to competition for promotion, to vengeance for perceived wrongs.

If you receive a judgment message from someone who would benefit from harming the target, be skeptical of its authenticity.

Some judgments are consistent with widely accepted stereotypes

Some judgments are actually little more than encapsulations of stereotypes that match characteristics of the target. For example, if the target belongs to a demographic group, the judgment might correspond to the stereotype of that demographic group. In this way, judgments gain propagation speed and longevity by exploiting a cognitive bias known as confirmation bias. Messages that align with the propagators' preconceptions about the stereotype are more likely to propagate.

Judgments that correspond to stereotypical characteristics of the target can usually be disregarded as wholly without merit. When you detect such messages, pause and reflect on their possible effect on your own conclusions. Propagating such judgments can be ethically questionable.

Some judgments are consistent with widely known information or misinformation

Confirmation bias can play an accelerant role when the judgment involves not stereotypes based on demographics of the target, but instead involves other information or misinformation about the target. For example, if the target happens to be absent from work at the same time as another person with whom the target is wrongly rumored to be having an affair, the simultaneous absences can serve as "evidence" supporting judgments about the target's loose morals.

Judgments based on inferences drawn from coincidences are particularly suspect.

Judgments about others at work are foundational to toxic and destructive workplace politics. We have some control over our own thoughts — sometimes, admittedly, not enough. But we have much better control over our own actions. And one class of actions from which we can refrain is propagating judgments about others.  Top    Next Issue

Is every other day a tense, anxious, angry misery as you watch people around you, who couldn't even think their way through a game of Jacks, win at workplace politics and steal the credit and glory for just about everyone's best work including yours? Read 303 Secrets of Workplace Politics, filled with tips and techniques for succeeding in workplace politics. More info

Your comments are welcome

About Point Lookout

Thank you for reading this article. I hope you enjoyed it and found it useful, and that you'll consider recommending it to a friend.

This article in its entirety was written by a human being. No machine intelligence was involved in any way.

Point Lookout is a free weekly email newsletter. Browse the archive of past issues. Subscribe for free.

Support Point Lookout by joining the Friends of Point Lookout, as an individual or as an organization.

Do you face a complex interpersonal situation? Send it in, anonymously if you like, and I'll give you my two cents.

Related articles

More articles on Workplace Politics:

Devious Political Tactics: A Field Manual

Some practitioners of workplace politics use an assortment of devious tactics to accomplish their ends. Since most of us operate in a fairly straightforward manner, the devious among us gain unfair advantage. Here are some of their techniques, and some suggestions for effective responses.

Kinds of Organizational Authority: the Informal

Understanding Power, Authority, and Influence depends on familiarity with the kinds of authority found in organizations. Here's Part II of a little catalog of authority, emphasizing informal authority.

Getting Into the Conversation

In well-facilitated meetings, facilitators work hard to ensure that all participants have opportunities to contribute. The story is rather different for many meetings, where getting into the conversation can be challenging for some.

Active Deceptions at Work

Among the vast family of workplace deceptions, those that involve presenting fiction as reality are among the most exasperating, because we sometimes feel fooled or gullible. Lies are the simplest example of this type, but there are others, and some are fiendishly clever.

Joint Leadership Teams: Risks

Some teams, business units, or enterprises are led not by individuals, but by joint leadership teams of two or more. They face special risks that arise from the organizations that host them, from the teams they lead, or from within the joint leadership team itself.

See also Workplace Politics and Workplace Politics for more related articles.

Forthcoming issues of Point Lookout

Coming December 11: White Water Rafting as a Metaphor for Group Development

Tuckman's model of small group development, best known as "Forming-Storming-Norming-Performing," applies better to development of some groups than to others. We can use a metaphor to explore how the model applies to Storming in task-oriented work groups. Available here and by RSS on December 11.

And on December 18: Subgrouping and Conway's Law

When task-oriented work groups address complex tasks, they might form subgroups to address subtasks. The structure of the subgroups and the order in which they form depend on the structure of the group's task and the sequencing of the subtasks. Available here and by RSS on December 18.

Coaching services

I offer email and telephone coaching at both corporate and individual rates. Contact Rick for details at rbrenyrWpTxHuyCrjZbUpner@ChacnoFNuSyWlVzCaGfooCanyon.com or (650) 787-6475, or toll-free in the continental US at (866) 378-5470.

Get the ebook!

Past issues of Point Lookout are available in six ebooks:

• Get 2001-2 in Geese Don't Land on Twigs (PDF, )
• Get 2003-4 in Why Dogs Wag (PDF, )
• Get 2005-6 in Loopy Things We Do (PDF, )
• Get 2007-8 in Things We Believe That Maybe Aren't So True (PDF, )
• Get 2009-10 in The Questions Not Asked (PDF, )
• Get all of the first twelve years (2001-2012) in The Collected Issues of Point Lookout (PDF, )

Are you a writer, editor or publisher on deadline? Are you looking for an article that will get people talking and get compliments flying your way? You can have 500-1000 words in your inbox in one hour. License any article from this Web site. More info