Team members have a deep affection for leaders who make the charitable assumption about our less-than-desirable actions. When they are late, miss the deadline, show up unprepared, share confidential information, or one of the many other mistakes that are bound to happen on occasion, team members naturally prefer leaders who give them the benefit of the doubt.
Back in 1992, I had a Philosophy Professor, Bill Ryzek. I did really well in his Intro to Philosophy class. When I took his World Religions class, I got a C on my first exam. When he handed it to me, he said "This isn't you Dave, is everything alright?" It wasn't. I had just broken up with a long-time girlfriend, but him showing compassion motivated me to set my priorities straight - I lost the girl, I'm single, I now have more time to put into my studies. I got very serious about my college career at that point because a College Profession showed some compassion and got me thinking about who I was and who I wanted to be. Thank you Bill!
I tend to think about this more about combatting personal biases, rather than another layer of assumptions. The difference is nuanced, but starting from a neutral place rather than assuming good or bad (or ascribing morality to the behaviour) lets me see things more objectively.
I see it as a matter of empathy, putting yourself in the other’s position. Would you want someone to assume the worst? Compassion and empathy are not biases. They are baseline practices for any leader. Assuming nefarious motivations in others is the opposite of leading. It is bossing behavior.
Incidentally, I just had a business partner question my motivations and professionalism because I did not respond to a text message in the manner he deemed was most appropriate. I am rethinking our partnership. Not only did he not communicate his expectations, but he also leapt to wild conclusions about me--just the opposite of what you write about here.
Back in 1992, I had a Philosophy Professor, Bill Ryzek. I did really well in his Intro to Philosophy class. When I took his World Religions class, I got a C on my first exam. When he handed it to me, he said "This isn't you Dave, is everything alright?" It wasn't. I had just broken up with a long-time girlfriend, but him showing compassion motivated me to set my priorities straight - I lost the girl, I'm single, I now have more time to put into my studies. I got very serious about my college career at that point because a College Profession showed some compassion and got me thinking about who I was and who I wanted to be. Thank you Bill!
Wonderful story. Thanks for the vivid example, David.
I tend to think about this more about combatting personal biases, rather than another layer of assumptions. The difference is nuanced, but starting from a neutral place rather than assuming good or bad (or ascribing morality to the behaviour) lets me see things more objectively.
I see it as a matter of empathy, putting yourself in the other’s position. Would you want someone to assume the worst? Compassion and empathy are not biases. They are baseline practices for any leader. Assuming nefarious motivations in others is the opposite of leading. It is bossing behavior.
Incidentally, I just had a business partner question my motivations and professionalism because I did not respond to a text message in the manner he deemed was most appropriate. I am rethinking our partnership. Not only did he not communicate his expectations, but he also leapt to wild conclusions about me--just the opposite of what you write about here.