Opinion | How the corporate edict to ‘assume positive intent’ is making workplaces more toxic

Opinion editor’s note: Strib Voices publishes a mix of guest commentaries online and in print each day. To contribute, click here.

•••

An employee tells her manager that when he referred to the team’s brainstorming process as “pow-wowing,” it felt dismissive of her Native American heritage. His response? “I had no idea that was offensive. I was just trying to describe collaboration. I think you need to assume more positive intent.”

In another example I’ve also come across in my work, a well-meaning supervisor implements mandatory daily check-ins because he wants his remote team to feel more connected and supported. When several team members express that the meetings feel like micromanaging and make them uncomfortable, the supervisor responds, “I’m just trying to help the team bond. Why don’t you assume some positive intent?”

The phrase “assume positive intent” gained widespread popularity after Indra Nooyi, then the CEO of PepsiCo, shared it in a Fortune magazine interview in 2008. When asked about the best advice she’d ever received, she credited her father.

“From my father, I learned to always assume positive intent,” she said. “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.”

Since then, “assume positive intent” has gained widespread adoption among corporate circles, nonprofits and government entities alike. It sounds kind. It sounds wise. And it can go very, very wrong.

When we hurt someone, it’s natural to defend our intentions. We all do it. We say, “I didn’t mean it that way!” or “You misunderstood me!” The message this sends, however, is that it’s the other person’s fault if they were offended. But this doesn’t hold up. Let me give you an example.

Say I’m making eggs and accidentally drop one on the floor. No amount of shouting, “That’s not what I meant to do!” will make the egg magically go back together and hop back into my hand. Instead, we need to own the impact, no matter our intent, and clean up the mess before trying again.

If we’re willing to do that for eggs, we should be willing to do that for one another.

When organizations respond to workplace tensions by telling people to “assume positive intent,” they often skip the harder question: Why don’t people feel safe assuming the best of us in the first place? Employees aren’t necessarily walking around assuming the worst. They’re defending themselves against dynamics where speaking up can be costly, especially when leaders use good intentions as a shield to avoid accountability for real harm.

Research on blame culture shows that when problem-solving is replaced by blame avoidance, engagement plummets and organizational learning stalls. When leaders lean on “I didn’t mean to” instead of owning impact, staff see a double standard: Leaders’ intentions are protected, but employees are still held accountable for their impact. Over time, that erodes trust, fuels passive-aggressive behavior and drives talent out the door.

Amy Edmondson’s research on psychological safety shows that high-performing teams thrive when people can speak up without fear. “Assume positive intent,” used carelessly, undermines that safety by teaching employees to downplay their own experiences. It sends a quiet but clear message: It doesn’t matter how we make you feel as long as we meant well.

There’s a better approach: impact over intent. Own your impact first. Then bring your intention into the conversation as a bridge to doing better next time. That’s how we align our good intentions with real-world outcomes.

So the next time someone suggests your organization just needs to “assume positive intent,” try asking: What would make it easier for people to assume the best of us without being told to?

Until we’re willing to clean up the mess we’ve made, regardless of our intentions, we’re just standing in a kitchen full of broken eggs, shouting about what we meant to do instead of taking responsibility for what we actually did.