I’ve taken plenty of assessments over the years. Most leaders have — DISC, strengths inventories, color systems, all of it. They’re useful tools and I’ve gotten real value from them. But most of them leave you with a label and not much to actually do differently on Monday morning.
About a month ago, my associate director changed that for me. She’s the kind of person who doesn’t bring things forward unless she’s already done her homework — analytical, thoughtful, and deliberate. When she came to me and said she’d taken something called the Judgment Index and found it genuinely valuable, and asked if our leadership group could do it together, I didn’t hesitate. If she found it worth her time, I was in. I’m glad I said yes.
So What Is This Thing, Exactly?
DISC, Real Colors, Myers-Briggs — those measure behavior. How you act, how you communicate, how you show up. Valuable, especially for team dynamics. The Judgment Index measures something different. It measures how you think — specifically, how you assign value to people, to tasks, and to the big picture. It’s built on a field called axiology, the science of how humans decide what matters, and there are actual math and logic equations underneath it. (You can find it at Judgment Index | Assessments & Reporting) You’re not describing yourself. You’re revealing where your mind places value whether you realize it or not. Think of it like an MRI for your judgment. And just like an MRI, you don’t get to decide what it finds.
How It Got Real For Me
Every significant decision in a complex organization disappoints someone. I knew that going in. Other leaders had said it plainly: get comfortable being disliked.
I thought I had. Turns out I had just gotten better at not showing that I hadn’t.
What the debrief clarified was the distinction between making decisions and needing people to feel okay about them. I wasn’t struggling with the former. I was quietly working overtime on the latter — and telling myself it was just good leadership. The assessment saw it differently. That weight was in the data whether I named it or not.
Here’s What I Saw in the Mirror
The first thing I recognized immediately was that I tend to go to the big picture first — my default is to look for patterns and connections before anything else. My first instinct is to look for patterns and connections — the big picture tends to lead, but people and task thinking follow close behind. It’s more of a default sequence than a dramatic gap. When a problem shows up, my brain starts connecting systems — workflow, precedent, risk, downstream effects. That’s useful in a complex organization. But it also means my head carries a lot at once, and I hadn’t fully acknowledged how heavy that constant mental load actually is.
The harder thing to ignore was a consistent theme around speed. I tend to see patterns quickly and move toward solutions quickly. The problem is that others don’t always have the same information or the same processing pace. What feels efficient to me can feel abrupt to someone else. I had heard a version of this from colleagues not long before, and seeing it confirmed — in math, not someone’s opinion — forced me to take it seriously. There’s something humbling about a spreadsheet agreeing with your critics. The uncomfortable truth I had to sit with was this: sometimes the issue isn’t the decision. Sometimes it’s the experience of the decision. People don’t just need a correct outcome. They need to feel heard in the process.
Another part of the report flagged that I was close to the edge in self-care. My first instinct was to argue with it. I exercise. I protect evenings. I said all of that out loud and then went quiet — because none of it addressed the mental carry. When you’re responsible for a lot of people and a lot of decisions, you don’t clock out mentally. The assessment saw it before I said it out loud. That’s the kind of insight that makes a tool worth using.
Three Things I’m Actually Doing Differently
This only matters if it changes behavior, so I’ve focused on a few specific things. I’ve started creating space before certain decisions — not delaying, just allowing time. An extra week rarely hurts the organization, but it often improves alignment and trust. I’ve also reversed decisions before because I didn’t give enough runway. Slowing down occasionally is just good management.
I’ve also started asking more questions before concluding. I still make the call, but I want people to feel they participated in the process rather than just received the outcome. And I’ve been watching my internal dialogue more closely. Leaders quietly carry a lot of self-criticism. If you constantly measure yourself against what hasn’t moved yet, you never feel successful — even when you’re making real progress. I catch myself calling my own strengths faults. That’s worth paying attention to.
Why I’m Glad I Did It
The real value wasn’t identifying strengths or weaknesses. It was awareness. I realized my natural tendencies — decisiveness, efficiency, big-picture thinking — are also exactly the places where I can unintentionally create friction. Knowing that changes how you lead. Technical competence gets you into leadership. Self-awareness determines how effective you are once you’re there.
I’m a bass boat operating in barge territory. But at least now I know what kind of engine I’m running, where the throttle sticks, and when to ease up. And oddly enough, once I accepted that — the job actually felt lighter.