Assuming good intent is a way to develop trust and foster cohesion within a team.
Trust is foundational for a cohesive team and fundamental to ensuring the health of an organization. There are a myriad of approaches for developing trust amongst individuals and team members. Patrick Lencioni suggests that a leader model vulnerability by admitting mistakes. Ernest Hemingway said to lead with trust and then adapt based on the outcome, or more simply stated, assume good intent.
Personally, I teach this; I know this … intellectually, at least.
Assume good intent, also framed as the fundamental attribution error. In a negative experience with another, we attribute the reason for the behavior to their character (and not in a good way); yet, when we encounter the same experience and instead are the culprit, we shift the reason for the behavior from character to environment. The classic “traffic” example, (for those living in major cities, substitute getting on the subway). You’re on the highway driving to a meeting. Someone cuts in front of you, just barely squeezing into the space between you and the car ahead. The thoughts you have about this individual (character) are not kind—I won’t list them here. Same scenario, yet this time you are the one doing the maneuvering. You give a quick wave or apologetic grimace as an act of contrition. You justify the behavior given you’re late to a very important meeting (environment) and need every saved minute available.
As with most constructs of import and impact, knowing and doing are two different things. Frequently throughout the day, we tell ourselves stories about people’s intentions. And we believe the stories we tell. Because the brain prefers efficiency, we switch to autopilot. Our brains love to make meaning, and when we don’t know something, our brains assist by crafting a reason. But is the reason correct?
It is a slippery slope. Chris Argyris’ ladder of inference identifies how we move quickly from facts to assumptions to beliefs to making decisions or conclusions based on inaccurate data. How far up the ladder do I climb in my storytelling? We would be wise to hold those stories loosely until more facts are gathered, established, tested. And, asking a question that I learned from Joseph Grenny, “Why would a reasonable, rational person act this way?” Questioning our stories takes intentionality. In our busy, frenetic, hectic world, it isn’t something we do easily—or often. Yet when we unpack our storytelling, and test our assumptions, it is amazing how incorrect our stories can be, whether in part or whole. Even if our initial observation is accurate, the meaning we give it may be flawed.
So, for today, and tomorrow, and the next 66 days until it becomes a habit, I am going to notice my storytelling behavior in an effort to test and/or change it. When appropriate, I’ll suspend judgment, ask questions, gather facts, clarify … and assume good intent. I’ll employ the mnemonic I created to assist clients, “Describe, don’t ascribe.” Join me?