Returning to the Principle That Almost Broke Me
This afternoon, I am stepping into a high‑stakes mediation in my role as a local elected leader. The focus is a zoning conflict between government agencies that has put the future of a $600 million private business investment in question. There are compelling reasons both for and against this project. There is no single “right” answer, no clean vantage point from which to negotiate.
This issue has been complicated, divisive, and deeply emotional for our community. Relationships have been strained and, in some cases, broken. Elections have turned on it; leadership roles have shifted because of it. It has been painful for many—and personally painful for me.
Through it all, one of my foundational principles, one that I teach regularly in my consulting practice, has been profoundly tested: assume positive intent. In my consulting world, this usually feels natural. My work is to serve others and to create environments where people can show up as their best selves at work. Clients are often facing gnarly, complex challenges, and especially in executive coaching, I have the privilege and confidentiality to help them work through those difficulties and find clarity. In those conversations, it is easier to assume positive intent because I can hear their deep desire to help their organizations—even when their approaches are hard for others to accept.
In the political world, it rarely feels that straightforward. People act from self‑interest, carry hidden agendas, and sometimes communicate in ways that obscure more than they reveal. Power becomes a tool, and relationships can be more like temporary alliances than enduring friendships—more fragile than they appear. In that environment, assuming positive intent is hard. Showing up believing that someone is acting from a positive place can feel naïve, even unsafe, given past experiences.
And I haven’t always lived up to my own principle. I’ve assumed the worst and held back from speaking openly. I’ve assumed the worst and avoided people altogether. I’ve assumed the worst and retreated to relationships that felt easier, more affirming, more predictable. The results of those choices are visible—in the distance, in the mistrust, in the missed chances to repair.
This morning, as I prepared for the mediation, I received new information about what had—or had not—taken place over the past year. With that information came an unsettling realization: it is likely that others have seen me as one of the “bad actors” in this situation. Even though I know I was acting with positive intent, I can now see how my actions may not have looked or felt that way to others, and how they may have stopped assuming positive intent about me.
For those familiar with the ladder of inference, you’ll recognize what happened. While I was climbing my ladder – selecting data, making assumptions, drawing conclusions – so was everyone else. We were all building stories about each other, and in the process, we collectively abandoned the very practice that might have kept us connected: assuming positive intent.
So where do I go from here?
For me, it starts with a quiet, sincere mea culpa. Instead of sitting in the comfort of believing I have been “right” all along, I intend to acknowledge how my actions have contributed to the current state of things. I plan to reach out to people I’ve avoided and see if conversations can be reopened. And I plan to return, deliberately, to my basic principle: assume positive intent.
That means entering the room with an open mind. It means questioning my own biases before I question others’ motives. It means staying curious and using tools like the “5 Whys” to get underneath statements that feel triggering or problematic. It is difficult, especially in situations where I have, in fact, been wronged. But assuming positive intent is not a fair‑weather practice. It is meant to act as a rudder precisely when the waters are rough, helping us hold a steady heading through the storm until we find calmer seas again.
How to practice assuming positive intent
- Pause to regulate.
When you feel emotionally “hooked,” take a deliberate breath and pause.
This brief interruption helps regulate your nervous system and reduces the likelihood of reactive responses. - Use structured curiosity.
Ask questions to understand, not to interrogate.
Tools like the “5 Whys” can help you get to the root of statements or behaviors that don’t make sense at first glance. - Consider that people may be doing their best.
Ask yourself: How could this make sense from their perspective?
Identify the possible strengths, pressures, or values that might be driving their behavior, even if you disagree with the outcome. - Interrogate your own narrative.
Notice the story you are telling yourself about the other person.
Challenge negative assumptions and examine your biases. A consistently negative mindset will filter for evidence that confirms it and obscure anything that might be constructive or hopeful. - Maintain a systems perspective.
“Stay on the balcony” and look at the broader context.
Ask: How is the system shaping this behavior? Consider policies, incentives, history, and culture. Often, individuals are responding to systemic pressures that make certain actions more likely, even when those actions are not ideal.
Assuming positive intent does not mean ignoring harm, abandoning accountability, or pretending everything is fine. It means choosing to ground your response in curiosity, dignity, and a belief that most people, most of the time, are trying to navigate complex systems with the tools they have.