The Weaponization of “Assume Good Intent”

The Weaponization of “Assume Good Intent”

Some people operate on the theory that they didn’t mean any harm and people should just quit being so sensitive. But instead of asking others to “assume good intent,” consider focusing on your impact instead of your intention.

Code-of-conduct consultant Annalee Flower Horne suggests thinking about it this way: If someone told you that you were stepping on their toe , would you continue to step on it while you told them to “stop being so sensitive” and delivered a lecture about how you didn’t mean to step on it? Of course not! You’d get off their damn toe and then apologize.


A person stepping on someone's foot and then telling them it's no big deal.

If you tell a joke that harms someone, then it was a bad joke, and you’re better off apologizing for it than trying to use humor to cover up what you did wrong. Good humor reveals hidden attitudes and behaviors in a way that creates change. Bad humor reinforces harmful attitudes and behaviors.

Remember, communication is measured at the listener’s ear, not at the speaker’s mouth . It's not what you say, it's how the other person hears it.

Maybe something you said upset someone, but you don’t quite understand why. You didn’t mean any harm. You simply used a word you’ve used your whole life, a word that has always been in common refusing to understand why what you said causes harm, you are demanding that the other person conform to your expectations of “normal.”

Furthermore, telling other people how they “should” feel is an exercise in futility. People feel how they feel, and the best you can do is to try to understand why.

Telling people to “assume good intent” often ignores the cumulative pain and anger that builds up in people when they experience bias many times a day, every day of their lives, and when they feel, or are, powerless to respond to it.

This is a moment to step back and realize that while you are involved in this problem, it goes well beyond you—you are one tiny piece of this person’s justified anger. Try to be one tiny part of making it better by changing your behavior.

The missing piece of the puzzle.

Rather than focusing on your intention, take a moment to look for the actual harm your attitude or behavior may have done. If someone is upset, try to understand why rather than reject the person’s emotions. This sometimes turns out to be an exercise in enlightened self-interest.

You may find that you have harmed yourself more than you’ve harmed the person. When you make a biased assumption that the man in a meeting is the decision-maker when in fact it’s the woman sitting next to him, you may have annoyed her a little. But you’ve just killed your chances of landing the deal. So you’re the person causing harm, and the person you’ve harmed the most is not she, it’s you.


LIT Videobooks Radical Respect edition is now available! Get it today and unlock a 3-free day trial to the entire LIT library. Interested in learning how your leaders and team can access the Radical Respect and Radical Candor videobooks? HR/Learning/People leaders are eligible for complimentary 2-week access to these titles and the full LIT Videobooks library. [Fill out this form to get started.] Missed the Fireside Chat? Watch it below.


Radical Respect is a weekly newsletter I am publishing on LinkedIn to highlight?some of the things that get in the way of creating a collaborative, respectful working environment. A healthy organization is not merely an absence of unpleasant symptoms. Creating a just working environment is about eliminating bad behavior and reinforcing collaborative, respectful behavior. Each week I'll offer tips on how to do that so you can create a workplace where everyone feels supported and respected. Learn more in my new book Radical Respect , available wherever books are sold! You can also follow Radical Candor? and the Radical Candor Podcast more tips about building better relationships at work.

Daniel A. Jones

Author & Journalist

4 天前

Sometimes there's a disconnect between what's in our heart and what comes out of our mouth. I am SO guilty of this. I've often been accused of lacking a filter. (This is one reason I became a writer -- so I could get it right, the way I originally had it in my heart.) As it pertains to what's cool or not to say in our society, the office, etc., it seems that our efforts to avoid offending people have encouraged us to avoid actually talking to each other about real stuff. So we just edit our thoughts and walk on eggshells around each other. And we no longer communicate anything of value; we avoid finding common ground. What happens then? We idolize those who actually speak their minds (politicians, celebrities, comedians), because these rules don't seem to apply to them. So they amass power and influence, because we appreciate how willing they are to stick their necks out, to go out on a limb -- something Americans are afraid to do. Standing out from the crowd -- from the tribe -- isn't exactly something we love doing. And we must remember our one true superpower: "Between stimulus and response?there is a SPACE. In that space is our power to choose our response. In our response lies our growth and our freedom." - Viktor Frankl

Michele Burmaster

Creative Director | experiential omnichannel strategist

5 天前

When there’s a track record of good intent and good impact, it’s easy to assume good intent. But it is not a band aid solution nor a fix for a culture where harm has caused more progress than kindness. It’s just a cop out from addressing the foundational issues at play.

Ruzana Glaeser, MBA

High-Performance Team Builder | Supplier Relationship Architect | Negotiation Expert | AI Enthusiast

6 天前

I don’t remember what book I was reading but it said “if you ever have to follow up a joke with ‘I was joking’ or ‘it’s just a joke’ then don’t do it, it’s not funny”

Ken Fanger

Humanizing Security by making allies of users and cyber security professionals! - CMMC-RP - Ohio Cyber Reservist -Speaker, Presenter, Author - advocate for changing how we promote cyber security

1 周

Kim Scott How do you address that sometimes Humor is intended to push the envelope? Some comedians do the insult by direct intent, often to make a social or emotional point. #GeorgeCarlin was an example of one such comedian. How can you expand social understanding if you are restricting a person's ability to say what they are thinking. There are many things that I have heard comedians say that I felt went way beyond what should be, but the problem is who gets to determine what should be? I agree that we need respect for people and context is critical, what can be said in a comedy club should not be said in the office, and many times humor is crude and poorly placed. If we silence those that we don't like it does not make the thoughts go away it lets them build and rage. The problem with the first amendment is that it applies to everyone, not just the people we want to hear. I will share that I know humor can be very painful, most of my life I had people tell me how fat I was with statements like "Give me forty acers and I'll turn your ass around" then they would follow it up with something like "It was just a joke, can't you take a joke" We all know that it was not "just a joke" it was meant to hurt deep and it did.

回复
Edgar Bateman III

LEADERSHIP REDEFINED | BPO/VENDOR MANAGEMENT | TURNAROUND | STARTUP EXPERT | CHANGE CHAMPION | LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT | DATA-DRIVEN DECISION-MAKER | CERTIFIED COACH | CUSTOMER EXPERIENCE ENGINEER

1 周

Like many things assuming good intent is often applied in an overly simplistic way. There is more depth to this idea. While we are asking others to assume our good intent. We should be seeking to affirm our good intent. The responsibility is not only on the receiver.

要查看或添加评论,请登录

Kim Scott的更多文章

社区洞察

其他会员也浏览了