Descriptive vs Critical Writing: Side-by-Side CIPD Examples

Too descriptive is the most requested clarification in tutor feedback, and the comment is easy to misread. It does not mean your description is wrong, and it does not mean description is forbidden. It means the assessor found an accurate account where the task asked for a judgement: the facts arrived, but nothing was done with them. The frustrating part is that the difference between the two registers is hard to see from definitions alone. It becomes obvious the moment you see the same material written both ways, which is what this guide provides: four paired examples, each a descriptive passage rewritten critically, with a note on exactly what changed.

The tell-tale signs of each register

Before the examples, it helps to know what to look for, because each register leaves fingerprints. The clearest is the verbs. Descriptive writing runs on verbs of reporting: is, has, involves, consists of, was introduced, includes, states. Critical writing runs on verbs and connectives of reasoning: because, suggests, however, therefore, assumes, depends on, fails to, outweighs. Scan any paragraph for its verbs and you can usually name its register before you have read for meaning.

The second fingerprint is the ordering. Descriptive writing sequences facts: this, then this, then this, arranged by topic or chronology, and any sentence could be removed without damaging the others. Critical writing argues claims: each sentence does a job for the one before it, supporting, complicating or answering, so removing one leaves a visible hole. If your paragraph would survive being shuffled, it is a list. If shuffling would break it, it is an argument.

All four examples below are invented for illustration: every organisation, figure and named author in them is fictional or used at the level of common knowledge, and none refers to a real study or workplace.

Example one: writing about a model

The descriptive version: Maslow's hierarchy of needs proposes that human needs are arranged in levels, from physiological and safety needs through belonging and esteem to self-actualisation, with lower needs requiring satisfaction before higher ones motivate. The model is widely taught on management courses and often appears in discussions of employee motivation and reward.

The critical version: Maslow's hierarchy offers a memorable prompt for thinking about motivation, but it is too blunt an instrument for reward decisions at Brayfield Connect, a fictional contact centre. The model assumes needs are satisfied in strict sequence, yet Brayfield's advisers on insecure incomes still respond visibly to recognition and team belonging, which a strict ordering would not predict. It also says little about how needs vary between individuals and cultures, which matters in a workforce this varied. The hierarchy earns its place as a checklist for asking what employees currently lack, but designing a reward package around it would build on sand, and a framework grounded in empirical reward research would serve Brayfield better.

What changed: the rewrite stops reporting what the model says and starts testing whether it holds in a specific context, and the verbs shift from proposes and appears to assumes, predicts and earns.

Example two: writing about organisational practice

The descriptive version: Halworth Logistics, a fictional distribution firm, runs a two-day induction programme for all new starters. Day one covers company history, values, policies and health and safety, delivered through presentations. Day two includes a warehouse tour, introductions to key managers and the setup of systems access. New starters then join their teams and receive on-the-job training from a buddy.

The critical version: Halworth's induction is thorough on compliance and thin on connection, which is the wrong balance for a firm whose leavers go early. The two days deliver everything the organisation needs to have said, but almost nothing a new starter needs to feel: presentations transmit policies efficiently, yet the parts of induction most associated with early retention, relationships, early wins and manager contact, are compressed into a tour and a round of introductions. The buddy system could carry that weight, but nothing in the design ensures it does, since buddies are unbriefed and untrained for the role. The programme succeeds as an information event and underperforms as the start of an employment relationship, and extending manager involvement into the first month would address the weaker half.

What changed: an inventory of contents became an evaluation against a purpose, with a stated judgement about where the design succeeds, where it fails and what should follow.

Example three: writing about data

The descriptive version: the annual survey at Halworth received responses from 68 per cent of staff. Overall engagement was 71 per cent, up from 69 per cent the previous year. The lowest-scoring question concerned career development, at 44 per cent, and the highest concerned relationships with colleagues, at 82 per cent. Warehouse staff scored lower than office staff on most questions.

The critical version: Halworth's survey results look stable at headline level, but the pattern underneath suggests a divided workforce rather than a contented one. The two-point rise in overall engagement sits within the year-to-year movement any survey shows, so it is weak evidence of improvement on its own. The more telling numbers are the gap between warehouse and office scores and the 44 per cent result on career development, which together point to a specific population, warehouse staff with nowhere to progress, driving most of the concern. Reading the average would prompt celebration; reading the distribution prompts a targeted response, and the career development result for warehouse roles is where investigation should start.

What changed: restated numbers became interpreted numbers, with claims about what the figures do and do not support, and a judgement about which of them deserves action.

Example four: writing about a source

The descriptive version: a study by Renard, an invented author for this example, surveyed 300 HR practitioners and found that a majority believed hybrid working had improved employee wellbeing in their organisations. The study was conducted through an online questionnaire and published in a practitioner magazine in 2023.

The critical version: Renard's study, invented here for illustration, is useful as a snapshot of practitioner sentiment but weak as evidence that hybrid working improves wellbeing, and the two should not be blurred. The study measures what practitioners believe, not what employees experienced, and belief about one's own organisation's policy is exactly where optimism bias operates. A self-selecting online sample and a practitioner magazine's lighter review process further limit the weight the finding can bear. None of this makes the study worthless: it establishes that practitioners perceive a benefit, which matters for adoption. But a claim about wellbeing itself needs employee-level evidence, and Renard cannot supply it.

What changed: a summary of findings became an appraisal of what the method can and cannot prove, ending with a precise statement of how far the source can be trusted and for what.

The rewrite toolkit

Four questions convert almost any descriptive sentence into the start of a critical one. Put them to every claim in your draft.

• So what: what follows from this fact, for the organisation, the argument or the decision at hand
• Compared to what: how does this option, score or practice look against an alternative, a benchmark or last year
• Says who: what kind of evidence supports this claim, and how much weight can that kind of evidence carry
• Under what conditions: where, when and for whom does this hold, and where would it stop holding

When description is appropriate

Description is not a fault; misplaced description is. Every answer needs some: a sentence or two of organisational context so the reader knows where they are, a brief accurate account of a model before you weigh it, a statement of what the data shows before you interpret it. Tasks led by the verb explain legitimately live mostly in the descriptive register. The discipline is proportion and position: describe briefly, early in a section, and only as much as the reasoning that follows will actually use. Description in service of an argument is scene-setting; description instead of an argument is the feedback you are trying to escape.

A conversion method

1. Highlight every sentence in the section that only reports: look for is, has, involves, includes and their relatives.
2. Decide what judgement the task's command verb ultimately asks for, and write it as one sentence.
3. Cut the reported material down to the minimum the judgement needs as background, usually a third of what you had.
4. Put each surviving fact through the toolkit: so what, compared to what, says who, under what conditions.
5. Rebuild the section with the claim first, the evidence weighed rather than listed, and the judgement carrying a consequence at the end.
6. Reread only your verbs; if reporting verbs still outnumber reasoning verbs, the conversion is not finished.

Common pitfalls

• Adding critical vocabulary to descriptive sentences, so the register changes but the reasoning does not
• Converting by deletion alone, which produces a shorter description rather than an analysis
• Interrogating everything equally, when the task needs deep weighing of two or three points, not shallow doubt about ten
• Removing all description, leaving judgements floating with no established facts beneath them
• Treating the descriptive and critical registers as good and bad, rather than as tools for different jobs

Go deeper

For the full account of the skill these examples demonstrate, What Is Critical Analysis in CIPD? A Complete Guide is the hub of this cluster, covering the reasoning moves, the description-to-evaluation ladder and a method for any task. The natural next step from paired examples is the counterarguments guide, which covers the single strongest critical move: bringing an opposing reading into your answer and answering it. And as ever, check your current brief and centre guidance for the depth your specific task requires.

If your drafts keep coming back marked too descriptive, our writing support includes coaching on exactly this conversion and honest review of your draft passages, pointing to the sentences that need to become claims, while the analysis and the writing stay entirely yours.