Judgment was hugely disappointing. Warren Bennis is a guru, and the book has been talked up no end. And to give it its due, the case studies are extensive, often fascinating, and well-researched. But the insights are so obvious as to be banal. We learn, for example, that leaders have to have "character and courage." And "values." Come on. The taxonomy of judgment, according to Bennis and Tichy include "pre-decision," the "call", and the "execution." There are 3 kinds of judgments that matter: judgments about people, strategy, and crisis. Really. Is that the best thinking we can apply to this subject? When good judgment brings fame and prosperity and bad judgment ignominy and career termination? And there's a deeper problem: the case studies, while fascinating -- especially the bad judgment ones -- in the end don't really tell us why the executive made the right or wrong call. Carly Fiorina didn't "get" the culture at H-P, and spent too much time showboating. But why? She's a smart woman. Why didn't she see what was going on? Why didn't anyone tell her? If someone did, why didn't she listen? By making Judgment just a question of character, and the test of good judgment simply whether it works or not, Bennis and Tichy oversimplify a complex and difficult arena of both human psychology and organizational theory. I am frankly appalled that so many trees were felled for so little new thinking. This judgment emperor has no clothes.