Managing the Judge


Carl Rogers, the humanistic psychologist , writes , ˜˜Our tendency to evaluate intrudes on communication. This opinion is perfectly aligned with our discussion about the pernicious effects of some meta-level thinking. This ˜˜tendency to evaluate is what I am calling the tendency to chatter.

We need to consider the impact of chatter on our communications in our exploration of the six types for two reasons. The first reason is pretty obvious: Our relationships with coworkers are the primary source of what pushes us into our troublesome patterned responses. If we can get better control of the judgments that ensue from our dialogues , we are less likely to be provoked.

The second reason is more subtle and profound: When we stop judging people in conversation, we open the door for more authentic and fulfilling interactions. Certainly , our judgments of behavior are critical for effective functioning, but judgments of people themselves erect walls between us and them. And unfortunately , some of us allow our judgments of behavior to bleed into our view of the humans whose behavior we judge. When people pick up on this broad-stroke assessment of their humanity, they disconnect from us. They fear us, and they dislike us. When we find unconditional appreciation of their humanity, however, they bond with us. Aside from the absolute benefit to society as a whole and to the quality of our lives as individuals, this bonding also happens to offer a simple, tangible benefit: People who bond with us tend to be more cooperative. Becoming skilled at managing our judgments ultimately means there will be fewer unfavorable judgments to make.

If youre like 99 percent of the human race, you find it difficult to manage your judgments of others. After all, your meta-level thinking most frequently gets you into trouble when you are interacting with others. It is during these times that the meta-level is most active. It produces judgments; judgments strengthen the sense of self-as-judge; and the judgments create a distance between us, the other person, and the rest of the world. Our selfishness and our judgments sometimes wreck our ability to experience the present and have peace with others. Lets look at an example.

The following dialogue is between two people: a boss, Janice, and her employee, Marvin. In brackets are the chatter or meta-level thoughts of each personthe stuff the two people would never say out loud.

JANICE: [Oh, there he is, never at his desk, always socializing.] ˜˜Marvin, have you got a minute?

MARVIN: [Here she goes, shes going to assign me something or criticize me.] ˜˜Sure.

JANICE: ˜˜Have a seat.

MARVIN: ˜˜Thanks.

JANICE: [He always slouches. What a lazy image it projects.] ˜˜I read over the first draft of your report and thought overall that it was pretty good. [I hope thats all the schmoozing Im going to have to do, because the details were sloppy and unprofessional.] ˜˜There are a few things Id like you to go over and clean up a bit.

MARVIN: [She is never, ever satisfied. Here she goes again. I cant wait for the weekend . I hope she doesnt expect these changes on Monday. Jane will kill me if I have to work over the weekend.] ˜˜Sure, what are they?

JANICE: ˜˜You did a good job of keeping the reader at the big-picture message. I mean, your conclusion is perfectly clear. But I think a lot of readers are going to be questioning the data. For example, you summarized the survey results as though they were conclusive, but the sample size was so small that youre just begging for dispute. [And frankly, seventy-three people does not come close to being adequateit makes me look dumb, and I resent it.]

MARVIN: [You little crab apple! This is what I hate about you. Youre the one who told me seventy-three was enough!] ˜˜I thought you supported using that data, even though the sample was so small.

JANICE: ˜˜Sure. But I didnt want it positioned as though we thought it was conclusive. I was thinking of it as just another chunk of evidence. [But, of course, youre too stupid to put that kind of distinction in writing.]

MARVIN: ˜˜So what are you saying? [You . . . Dont you dare wreck my weekend!]

JANICE: ˜˜Well, all you have to do is go back over sections like that and temper your claims a bit. [I shouldnt have to do it. Its not my job.]

Marvin and Janice are both too busy with their judgments, fears, and frustrations to be present in the conversation with any authenticity. The sad thing is that conversations like this go on every day, in every office, and all of them deplete the quality of communication and the quality of life for all concerned .

In a sense, both Janice and Marvin are fueling their sense of self throughout their dialogue. For example, when they pass judgment on each other, they are reinforcing their sense of being right and the other person being wrong. And their selfishness intrudes on the quality of their relationship and the goal orientation and productivity of their organization. Obviously, these two have a relationship problemprimarily a lack of trust and certainly a lack of openness. And they both think they are right in their opinions . All of the negative emotions that are between them can be traced to the kind of judgments that they make during their conversations. How often do most of us engage in this kind of dialogue? More than we would like to admit.




Face It. Recognizing and Conquering The Hidden Fear That Drives All Conflict At Work
Face It. Recognizing and Conquering The Hidden Fear That Drives All Conflict At Work
ISBN: 814408354
EAN: N/A
Year: 2002
Pages: 134

flylib.com © 2008-2017.
If you may any questions please contact us: flylib@qtcs.net