„‚ CONDITIONS THAT HINDER EFFECTIVE COMMUNICATION

❚❘
MAKING JUDGMENTS DESCRIPTIVE
Alan C. Filley and Larry A. Pace
Both the literature and the training norms associated with the human-potential
movement in the United States have stressed the value of using descriptive rather than
judgmental language. It is useful in providing non-evaluative feedback (Pfeiffer &
Jones, 1972; Hanson, 1975). It is helpful in developing a problem-solving rather than a
conflictive interaction between parties (Filley, 1975). It tends to evoke factual rather
than judgmental responses (Berne, 1961; Harris, 1969). In a counseling or therapeutic
context, it encourages trust and openness between the parties rather than promoting
defensiveness.
There is little doubt about the efficacy of such behavior. The response to the
judgmental statement “You are wrong” is likely to be different from and less functional
than the response to the descriptive statement “I disagree with you.” The former is more
likely to evoke anger or defensiveness than the latter. The descriptive statement, instead,
is more likely to generate neutral fact gathering and problem solving.
Yet experience indicates that judgments do have to be made and communicated.
Words like “good,” “bad,” “effective,” “ineffective,” “better,” and “worse” are a
necessary part of human interaction. Supervisors evaluate employee performance.
Trainers communicate judgments about group performance. Therapists evaluate client
progress. The way in which such judgments are communicated can evoke a wide variety
of responses, depending on the form of the statement. Following are some alternative
ways to make what might be called “descriptive judgments.” They suggest approaches
in communicating evaluations that minimize the threat to the recipient and reduce his or
her defensive reaction.
It is assumed that the performance of the party (a person or a group) in question has
been objectively measured by any reasonably reliable method; the point of concern here
is the objective assignment of value statements to measured performance. Thus, the
definition of “good” versus “bad” performance is crucial. The elements of the process
are twofold: (1) the presence of objective measures that compare actual behavior with
some kind of standard and (2) the communication of the standard, the measure, and the
judgment to the recipient.
Originally published in The 1976 Annual Handbook for Group Facilitators by J. William Pfeiffer and John E. Jones (Eds.), San Diego,
CA: Pfeiffer & Company.
The Pfeiffer Library Volume 6, 2nd Edition. Copyright ©1998 Jossey-Bass/Pfeiffer ❚❘ 191