Lately “assume positive intent” is a thing. I think it’s amazing how things like this can get perverted.
In the workplace, this is a very simple concept. Let’s say Susie doesn’t complete her report when it was due. Coworkers should assume Susie meant to complete the report, she probably isn’t stupid or lazy. Susie set out with good intentions to complete the report. It’s supposed to put a person into the mindset of approaching Susie in a positive way to understand what caused her not to finish her report. This enables everyone to get to the root of the problem and solve it.
You know what this doesn’t mean. That you should keep assuming positive intent after Susie hasn’t completed any reports in 3 months and isn’t holding herself accountable.
Intent is now a perverted buzzword.
I strongly believe people who say things like “Intent is everything” are irresponsible. It’s something but clearly, it’s not everything. It’s a strange way of not holding yourself accountable for shitty results.
There is this thing called murder where you intentionally kill another person. There is also this thing called manslaughter where you accidentally kill another person. Is murder worse than manslaughter? Legally, yes. Are the results the same? Absolutely. Whether your intent was to kill another person or not you did and you are still going to prison. Intent is something.
Good intentions doesn’t mean not being accountable for the results of your intentions.
It’s negligent to go around causing harm and not holding yourself accountable.
— The fug.