4 ms·

No corporate policy is more toxic than "assume positive intent." A less qualified manager clones constantly being promoted over more qualified minorities/women

No corporate policy is more toxic than "assume positive intent." A less qualified manager clones constantly being promoted over more qualified minorities/women/etc? "Assume positive intent!" Coworkers taking credit for your work? "Assume positive intent!" Promised raises never materialize? "Assume positive intent!" Pushed untested code to production? "Assume positive intent!"

pjscott 5y ago
"Assume positive intent" doesn't mean to never update your priors; that would be ridiculous, as your examples illustrate. It just means to start out with an initially charitable view of someone's behavior that can shift over time as you get to know them better.
jimkleiber 5y ago
I think the phrase "assume positive intent" does not explicitly say how to address the impact of someone's behavior, and therefore can imply that assuming positive intent means ignoring the impact. I don't think it has to mean that. The way I try to see it is that I try to assume positive intent while also letting people know of the impact their (in)actions had on me. If a coworker takes credit for my work, I can assume that their intention wasn't to hurt me, however, I can also let people know that what they did hurt me. So I wish there were a secondary policy of "and say how you feel," but this may be a lot more taboo in corporate environments than assuming positive intent.
6gvONxR4sf7o 5y ago
I think you may be misinterpreting it. Intent != outcomes. If someone's screwing up, they can do bad with good intent. You're taking examples of things with bad outcomes, but that don't imply bad intent. You still need to deal with harmful actions, but it's still useful to go in with the mindset that they're just trying to do their job (and failing) rather than thinking that they're cackling gleefully about the harm they've caused.

pjscott 5y ago

"Assume positive intent" doesn't mean to never update your priors; that would be ridiculous, as your examples illustrate. It just means to start out with an initially charitable view of someone's behavior that can shift over time as you get to know them better.

jimkleiber 5y ago

I think the phrase "assume positive intent" does not explicitly say how to address the impact of someone's behavior, and therefore can imply that assuming positive intent means ignoring the impact. I don't think it has to mean that. The way I try to see it is that I try to assume positive intent while also letting people know of the impact their (in)actions had on me. If a coworker takes credit for my work, I can assume that their intention wasn't to hurt me, however, I can also let people know that what they did hurt me. So I wish there were a secondary policy of "and say how you feel," but this may be a lot more taboo in corporate environments than assuming positive intent.

6gvONxR4sf7o 5y ago

I think you may be misinterpreting it. Intent != outcomes. If someone's screwing up, they can do bad with good intent. You're taking examples of things with bad outcomes, but that don't imply bad intent. You still need to deal with harmful actions, but it's still useful to go in with the mindset that they're just trying to do their job (and failing) rather than thinking that they're cackling gleefully about the harm they've caused.