I first ran into this concept maybe 4-5 years ago while reading the GitLab handbook[1]. I have to say that I am a fan. I've been repeating this idea to every company and team that I have worked with since.<p>Lol, I recently had a potential issue where I switched teams and the team lead was new to the company. We had a daily standup thread in Slack. I would make the key ideas bold so it is easy to skim. The manager reached out a few weeks later and was taken aback by my "attitude" in these threads. He/she was assuming the bold text for anger and impatience (despite happening with both positive and negative ideas) while the original intent was to just ease reading comprehension. Now "assume positive intent" is always part of my intro spiel when working with new people.<p>1. <a href="https://about.gitlab.com/handbook/values/#assume-positive-intent" rel="nofollow">https://about.gitlab.com/handbook/values/#assume-positive-in...</a>
This is a mindset I think is very valuable to apply to yourself, but moderately dangerous to officially encourage in other people especially as a corporate policy or value, which I have seen.<p>Particularly if someone is expressing a specific grievance, asking them to assume positive intent from the other party is dismissing their experience of what happened and how they should feel about it.<p>Sometimes people don't act with positive intent and sometimes <i>you can fucking tell</i>. You don't want to be telling, for example, a woman in tech who has had a coworker take credit for her work, that she should assume positive intent in that situation.<p>Good general guideline for self, but be careful when asking others to follow it imo.
A great philosopher once said:<p>> If you put your trust out there… if you give people the benefit of the doubt, see their best intentions… people will rise to the occasion.<p>(Okay I lied, it's not from a great philosopher, it's Paul Rudd playing Ned in 'Our Idiot Brother'.)<p>I would like to add one thing: doing the opposite is just too tiring, don't do it. Yes, some might try to take advantage of you, others might call you naive. As long as you have a functional brain, I bet you can avoid dramatic consequences. And you'll be happier and more relaxed.
I generally agree and here is something a little more fleshed out.<p>1. Postulate positive intent.
2. Verify intent when outcomes are negative.
3. Don't ignore a pattern.
4. Intent stops being relevant and strength of desire becomes more import with repeated negative outcomes.
5. Outcomes have to be evaluated separately when a dark triad person is involved.
GitLab has "Assume Positive Intent" as a sub-value of Collaboration [1]. This has been extremely helpful for me because we work in an all-remote environment and rely a lot on text communication. Sometimes I read a comment from someone that looks to be more harsh than was likely intended, and I have to remind myself that I should assume they don't mean any ill-will towards me. This is especially helpful when working with people of different cultures and languages.<p>1. <a href="https://about.gitlab.com/handbook/values/#assume-positive-intent" rel="nofollow">https://about.gitlab.com/handbook/values/#assume-positive-in...</a>
Don't! It depends on the People involved and the Specific Context, else you will be played for a "Sucker".<p>See Robert Axelrod's <i>The Evolution of Cooperation</i> - <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Evolution_of_Cooperation" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Evolution_of_Cooperation</a>
Slightly more pragmatic version for those situations where many people do, in fact, have negative/selfish/manipulative intent: play dumb and play along with fake cheer if you have to. Assume Positive Intent, but find a way to verify it. If they have bad intent, you might be able to get them to reveal it first. If you act first by being uncooperative or calling them out, you will lose because you are now the bad guy. In fact, articles and attitudes like this submission will be used to paint you as such, regardless of whether there really was positive intent! If "Assume Positive Intent" is a principle that is promoted in your organization, it can be weaponized and one-sided.
Past comments: <a href="https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15040525" rel="nofollow">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15040525</a>
No corporate policy is more toxic than "assume positive intent."<p>A less qualified manager clones constantly being promoted over more qualified minorities/women/etc? "Assume positive intent!"<p>Coworkers taking credit for your work? "Assume positive intent!"<p>Promised raises never materialize? "Assume positive intent!"<p>Pushed untested code to production? "Assume positive intent!"
In practice, this becomes “good intentions prevent punishment of bad behaviors.” It becomes a way for kind incompetence to belittle wise disagreement.<p>The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
I think this was the single most damaging bit of fortune cookie wisdom I experienced in my entire time at my previous job. Blatantly toxic behavior was constantly brushed aside with the phrase "assume positive intent!"<p>> There are con artists and sociopaths out there. Marth Stout claims 4% of the population falls into this category.<p>That's the general population. What do you think the proportions are at high-growth tech companies? What about the further and higher-up you get in your career? Sociopaths are attracted to places where they can wield power and domineer over others.<p>My general philosophy: start from a place of neutrality to mild positivity. As your interactions with a person increases, gather datapoints and weigh them based on their context and severity of the behavior. Build up a picture based on actions and evidence and then, for God's sake, remember it.
Discussion from before:<p><a href="https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15040525" rel="nofollow">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15040525</a>
This generally works until you meet your first narcissist/sociopath.<p>After that it's all "once bitten twice shy" all the way down.