(Don't) Assume Positive Intent

Have you ever had a leader who asked you to “assume positive intent”?

A lot of us have.

You may even be a leader who has asked that of a team member.

And sure, I get it. Employees are annoying. All they do is complain about other people. Sometimes it’s like they’re looking for something to complain about — like they want to see the bad in other people just so they have something to bitch about.

And it’s never about work quality.
If it were just about work quality, people wouldn’t get so emotionally reactive.

It’s deeper than that. It’s about people relations.
And people are emotional.

Which makes the leader’s job harder. Now you’re stuck dealing with interpersonal dynamics and conflict instead of driving results and getting “the real work” done.

Although the exact origin of this phrase is unclear, it first became popular in 2008 when the then-CEO of PepsiCo, Indra Nooyi, said in an interview with Fortune:

“From my father I learned to always assume positive intent. Whatever anybody says or does, assume positive intent. You’ll be amazed at how your whole approach to a person or problem becomes very different.”

Corporate America loves a phrase they can put on a poster, and this one was perfect.

Companies thought:
“This makes us sound kind, wise, grounded, and solutions-focused. AND we can put that quote on the wall. AND we can point to that wall when employees complain about other employees, and then we don’t have to do anything. We don’t have to be accountable, and we don’t have to change. This is PERFECT.”

Okay, so that’s not an actual quote — but I imagine it’s pretty accurate.
And it is the message they are sending:

Assuming positive intent is an expectation and a cultural norm. If you don’t assume positive intent, then something is wrong with you.

This is another way the system protects itself and makes you susceptible to abuse.

·         Because what if the other person doesn’t have positive intent, and every fiber of your body knows it?

·         What if you have a narcissistic boss or co-worker who is making your life a living hell?

·         What if you are the victim of harassment, discrimination, favoritism, future faking, or other manipulation tactics?

·         What if your nervous system picks up on this threat even if your logical brain can’t explain why?

This phrase protects the employer. Period.

It does nothing for the employee. It encourages you to ignore your inner signals and rationalize away behaviors that can be deeply damaging to your mental health.

It’s gaslighting.

It’s a phrase used to get you to deny your own reality to make leadership’s job easier and help protect the company from risk.

So let’s talk about what you should do instead.

You should assume that:

• Your inner signals matter.

• Your instincts are valid.

• You’re not obligated to override your own safety to make a workplace comfortable.

You should not assume that:

• Your employer cares about your inner signals or your instincts.

• Your employer is motivated to protect your emotional safety.

• Reporting unwanted behavior will automatically help you.

Every situation is different. The context ALWAYS matters.

It matters in court, and it matters in HR meetings.

The best thing you can do to protect yourself if something is not right at work is to:

• Pause and don’t act with emotion

• Consider the context from the business perspective

• Assess risk from the employer’s perspective as well as your own

• Develop a plan based on strategy

Put that on a poster.

Workplaces will always tell you who to be, how to feel, and what to overlook.
Your body will always tell you the truth first.

If something feels off, you don’t owe anyone the benefit of the doubt.
You owe yourself protection.