With artificial intelligence increasingly capable of handling complex tasks, the debate around human judgment has shifted from a philosophical question to a practical necessity. Even AI advocates admit that human judgment remains irreplaceable, making it a critical skill to refine in an automated world.
Philosopher John Locke described judgment as the essential quality for handling situations where certain knowledge is absent. While we recognize poor judgment when it results in an embarrassing scandal or a disastrous business failure, pinpointing exactly what constitutes good judgment is much harder. A track record of success in marriage, business, or health does not guarantee sound judgment, as luck, economic conditions, and genetics often play a significant role.
Sir Andrew Likierman, a professor and former central banker, proposes a working definition: judgment is the combination of relevant knowledge and experience with personal qualities to form opinions or make decisions. This framework breaks the abstract concept into tangible elements, including awareness of self and context, trust in sources, feelings and beliefs, and the choices made from those inputs.
Related: Susannah Donaldson warns employers of stricter harassment laws
A Framework for Improvement
Likierman structures his book to help readers adopt this framework for better decision-making. He addresses specific challenges that cloud judgment, such as groupthink, procrastination, stress, and cultural biases. The author argues that judgment is not the same as caution, though both are often conflated in high-stakes environments. He also notes that while the core fundamentals of judgment seem similar across cultures, the specific application can vary significantly depending on social norms.
Applying this framework in practice requires a person to reflect deeply and be honest about their own biases. The book applies these concepts across various sectors, offering advice for leaders, board members, professional advisers, and human resources managers. It suggests that while judgment can be learned, it is a dynamic skill that can improve with age but also deteriorate if not actively maintained. The text includes a self-test on common biases, though it notably omits the “bias blind spot”—the tendency to notice errors in others while failing to see them in oneself.
Practical Application
Unlike dense academic texts, Likierman’s writing is practical and uses plain English without simplifying the underlying complexity. He draws from his own experience founding start-ups and serving as an adviser to multiple enterprises to ground his advice in reality. The book moves beyond theoretical models to discuss how judgment functions in start-ups, public sector organizations, and professional hiring situations.
Readers looking to improve their decision-making skills will find the text engaging and digestible. It is not a quick fix, but rather a guide that requires the user to actively engage with their own thought processes. The author suggests that having a trusted peer review one’s self-assessment can help mitigate the natural tendency to overlook personal biases.
Related: Muslim candidate faces rising online abuse
Sir Andrew Likierman’s book serves as a useful tool for anyone facing difficult choices. It provides a structured approach to handling uncertainty, helping professionals and leaders make more credible decisions in an unpredictable environment. Whether applied to career changes, business strategies, or personal relationships, the framework offers a path toward more deliberate thinking.
Modern workplaces must adapt to these evolving standards. Employers are increasingly held accountable for maintaining environments free from harassment. Susannah Donaldson warns that employers face stricter harassment laws, requiring immediate attention to workplace culture. [1] This legal setting demands vigilance from management teams to prevent liability and protect employees.
While Likierman focuses on cognitive bias, the broader professional setting presents distinct challenges. Professionals must also handle the rise of online abuse, which disproportionately affects specific groups. Muslim candidate faces rising online abuse, creating barriers to participation in public discourse. [2] Addressing these digital threats requires both individual resilience and systemic support structures.