Live data from Hacker News

Ask HN: Do you assume good will at work?

news.ycombinator.com

1–10 of 28 posts

Ask HN: Do you assume good will at work?

#1
While reviewing code or interacting with your peers, how to not fall into the trap of assuming everyone is stupid, has second intentions, etc.

I do it from time to time but a recent hire was pretty angry at everything and seemed to think people were a bunch of headless chickens trying to code. I was surprised but also recognized I do that sometimes and I was wondering if people had ideas for being more mindful and avoid falling for this at work.

Re: Ask HN: Do you assume good will at work?

#2
Most people are headless chickens trying to code, but it’s not acceptable to tell them!! I usually assume people’s issues are not intentional and treat them as oversights unless it becomes too frequent. People appreciate it and work better when you treat them like they are equals even if there not (purely with respect to skill and not any other characteristics obviously)

Re: Ask HN: Do you assume good will at work?

#5
post #3

To assume everyone is a good actor is naive.

Assuming positive intent is the right (optimal) place to start.

Over time the bad actors inevitably expose themselves. They might not face negative repercussions from higher up, but at least you can then plan accordingly.

Re: Ask HN: Do you assume good will at work?

#6
I've been told by people I trust, that I consider wise, that you should always assume the best. Maybe they had a bad day, maybe they are smarter than you and its you that can't understand, maybe they are trying but their own life is at a low point. I've been told that believing in the best of people will bring grace into your life.

I don't know if that is true.

What I do know is that every single time - every time - I assume bad intentions, it sours me, makes me less than I could be, and nothing good comes from it.

Assume the best. We are all still people and still trying.

Re: Ask HN: Do you assume good will at work?

#7
My rule of thumb is to assume the best in regards to tech, and be skeptical in regards to politics. That includes your manager and your CEO.

You should be advancing your manager’s career. If you’re not, you’re at risk. So assuming good will in that situation is a recipe for nothing good.

Re: Ask HN: Do you assume good will at work?

#8

My rule of thumb is to assume the best in regards to tech, and be skeptical in regards to politics. That includes your manager and your CEO. You should be advancing your manager’s career. If you’re not, you’re at risk. So assuming good will in that situation is a recipe for nothing good.

>You should be advancing your manager’s career

I thought feudalism was a thing of the past

Re: Ask HN: Do you assume good will at work?

#9
I've tried both approaches, and now I always assume good will. I think Hanlon's razor can also be helpful here, but gets at a different problem entirely, and one should be careful about going too far with their conclusions about incompetence or stupidity.

Assuming the opposite is like a poison. And it's a poison that spreads to those around you. It spreads to your communications, and starts to manifest as a defensive communication style, which in turn starts to change how other people see you. It raises questions in other people's heads that wouldn't have been there otherwise, and the poison spreads.

It starts to change how you think. You start spending time and mental energy thinking about things that have no reason to be true. You start to base foundational arguments and ideas on this distorted version of reality.

To make this very practical, imagine a scenario which could be interpreted in two ways:

1. The other person has malicious intent

2. The other person has just as much going on in their life as you do, and doesn't always show up as the perfect version of themselves

If you go about life assuming #1, and if everyone around you goes about life assuming #1, the only place this can lead is distrust, conflict, unwarranted conclusions, and a generally combative or at the very least, defensive mode of interaction.

And it's because the same things you see in others are things that can show up in you or I. And chances are, you've done things that made someone else ask themselves the same question: "are they operating on good faith?". Of course, only you know the truthful answer, but I find it helpful to think about how someone else's default mode might change their perception of me.

This isn't to say you should be naive about people who are not good actors. But assuming the best won't hide those bad actors.

You don't have to look for the bad to find it. But if all you look for is bad, that's all you will find.

Re: Ask HN: Do you assume good will at work?

#10
I think I've grown more cynical as I've gotten older. I think I still assume competence and good intention usually, although not universally. However, I no longer assume good intention eventually prevails, or that the good intention isn't perverted by other motivations or problems. Even when you have a set of people individually following what seems like good intentions, sometimes collectively what they're doing leads to problems, and people can lack insight into the second-order effects of what they're doing.

I've just been hurt too badly by being naive, and seen the rampant destruction that problematic behavior has caused. All it takes is one or two people in the right (or wrong) places to cause an avalanche of problems. Often, in fact, assuming nothing wrong makes it worse ("why would A be misrepresenting things?")

My experience with problems, whether it be malicious or unintentional, is that the worst problems aren't with what they're doing at work, in the sense of the work tasks. It's in communicating with others, with managing, with fixing problems, mediating between individuals who disagree, effecting organizational change, and so forth. So for example, the coding is fine — there might be something I disagree with, or something dated, or something imperfect — but most of the time it's not a problem. Where the problem comes in is in discussing project goals, reconciling differences of opinion, how to inspire someone, how to address morale problems, water cooler manipulation, and so forth. That's where I get cynical or skeptical now. I still think most people are fine most of the time, but that remainder of people-time causes a world of problems.

On the flip side of it I think people who are really good at management can address these issues and keep things in check, move people in a different direction that's more constructive. Everyone has down phases in their life, organizations have obstacles, and the right person or persons can really lead to good change. It's sometimes that person who takes an opportunity to do really simple things that could improve morale, mediate conflicts, and so forth, and does the opposite, that's the most disturbing to me.

As for me, having said all that, I think I've only grown convinced the best thing is to be pretty open-minded and to try to consider all options. Sometimes I've thought people were being unfriendly or thought poorly of me, and if I had just reached out a bit, we would have both been happier. I guess that works both ways: I've tended to assume less in general, positive and negative, about coworkers.

Post reply on HN