The problem with assuming positive intent
“What if it’s obvious they don’t have positive intent?”
This pointed question from a participant got many nods from her teammates. I’m pretty sure they were all thinking about a specific person they all knew, and the question was still VERY valid.
The phrase “assume positive intent” often arises when I work with organizations that aim to manage internal conflict more directly and effectively.
I’m not the one who brings it up, but not because it’s potentially false.
I think the phrase is supposed to motivate someone to engage in a difficult conversation by reframing the other person’s engagement as not-too-harsh.
“It sets you up to gaslight yourself,” was the assessment of another participant, which is also on the right track but doesn’t get to the deeper issue with the sentiment.
These two objections are part of the problem. Still, the bigger issue with assuming positive intent is that it fundamentally disempowers people who are already nervous about dealing with a conflict in the first place.
Let’s examine these three problems one by one, and then explore a more satisfying and functional alternative.
1. It might not be true.
People have intentionally harmed others; this happens. However, the chances of it happening are generally low. Some people worry about this disproportionately, but in everyday life, it is rare for individuals to cause harm to others intentionally.
It is worth pausing when you are thinking “they did this on purpose to cause problems for me” to consider if that story has any factual basis, or how you can check the veracity of that claim.
A person may have devised a course of action specifically to irritate, challenge, or harm you. This takes a lot of thought and energy when the more likely answer is that they weren’t thinking of you at all.
We don’t help ourselves live connected and satisfying lives by convincing ourselves that people are out to get us. Yet, there are not many uplifting words to describe someone who blithely trusts that everyone has their best interests in mind.
2. Assuming positive intent fuels gaslighting.
If I am in a conflict, struggle, or disagreement with a person and I examine their behavior, then by actively labeling that behavior as actions of “positive intent,” I may need to engage in some fairly convoluted thinking to make these pieces fit together.
Far more likely, the other person was doing their best to meet their needs, and they did it in a way that did not align well with your needs/desires/wants. Their struggle to meet their needs can present challenges that spill over onto you, but I don’t think that means they have negative (or positive) intentions. More likely, they are not thinking of you at all.
Simply, you are not the star of their show. If their behavior does not resemble what “positive intent” looks like in any other context, then it may not be positive intent.
Having a thoughtful conversation to figure out what needs their behavior is trying to meet could resolve a lot of this confusion. And, it is likely that avoiding this type of clarifying conversation because it feels awkward or difficult is part of the fuel for the conflict you are experiencing with this person.
Learning that someone is apathetic toward you or wasn’t thinking of you at all can sting. It also doesn’t mean they were trying to do their best by you.
Labling someone’s actions as positive intent when they may not be thinking of you at all (or understanding your needs) puts you on the fast train from entitlement to hubris (along with that gaslighting thing). Trying to label someone’s behavior as “positive intent” to align with your desires is a bit presumptuous. If their behavior is what positive intent looks like when they’re likely not thinking of you at all, then it may be a good time to reassess how you describe positive intent.
We don’t help ourselves live connected and satisfying lives by telling ourselves that everyone’s actions are a sign of positive intent.
3. Assuming positive intent disempowers us in the situation (and them, too).
In the interaction, I’m acting based on how I hope you will act, rather than being proactive and leading with curiosity and empathy.
If I go into a situation where I’m assuming the other person’s mindset or goal is aligned with my own, I am stepping back from active engagement (and critical thinking) and taking a more passive role. I am externalizing the locus of control to my assumptions about them.
This willful self-disempowerment does not set the conversation up for success, if success is defined as all parties communicating effectively and empathetically to reach mutually agreeable next steps that strengthen the relationship.
I suspect it’s not your plan to squash your (possibly well-warranted) qualms about the other person’s motive, or gaslight yourself, when someone says “assume positive intent.” I’m also reasonably sure that your ideal goal is not to disengage your autonomy and empathy in the situation. More likely, people mean to say that they want to be patient and accepting and see the other person’s contributions in the best light possible.
Hold on. Does this mean the other person, the one making a mess of things, is just an unfortunate idiot who doesn’t see the world correctly, can’t figure out how to communicate effectively, is generally stupid, can’t manage their emotions well, is out of line, or is broken? The deepest possible cut of Hanlon’s razor. Yikes. Let’s give everyone else in the world a little credit for making it this far, at least.
An alternative
The alternate version of “assume positive intent” I’ve been suggesting lately is “make the generous assumption.” This statement empowers me to be actively in control of my assumptions, and it is not specifically about the abilities or motives of the other person involved.
Making the generous assumption, a phrase I picked up from Will Guidara in his book, Unreasonable Hospitality (here's my podcast on the book), means taking it upon ourselves to look deeper into all the possible circumstances underlying the behavior of the other person involved. I’m assuming, generously, that you’re doing the best you can with where you’re at right now, and if how you’re doing is not awesome, it’s on me to meet you where you’re at and/or offer kind support if something is keeping you from being at your best in this situation.
I’m not guessing at (or wilfully labeling) your motivation or backstory - I’m assessing your behavior in the moment and taking action from there.
Making the generous assumption is not a perfect system - it takes energy and trust to engage with someone with this level of respect. We may be challenged by entering the situation depleted of energy and openness to trust. Past involvement with the other folks involved can make this level of empathetic respect challenging. But it is still my active choice to make the generous assumption - the locus of control is internal to myself.
Shifting from assumptions about someone else’s motives and goals to my own empowered choice to engage from a place of curiosity and empathy will build a stronger relationship. This attention to creating a stronger relationship opens the door to creativity, care, and hope during conflict.
It is worth the work.