Assume Good Intent: 3 transformative words for managing stakeholders
“Assume Good Intent” - I picked up this phrase in a book by Russel Howcroft nearly a decade ago and have found it highly beneficial across my career, and more recently to my NGB clients and their stakeholders. During the Australian Sports Commission 's recent Coaching & Officiating Conference, I participated in a workshop facilitated by Richard McInnes on optimising meetings for connection that reminded me of this concept.
Let's say that in the sports context, you might be a…
Peak body having challenges with their member associations (or vice-versa);
Volunteer coach preparing to meet with a disgruntled parent;
CEO trying to re-negotiate a failing sponsorship; or
A HR manager conducting an internal investigation
It's human nature to enter these meetings assuming confrontation, but this perception often leads to reality. The trick instead is to approach the meeting or situation "assuming good intent" by the other person. This means looking past the strongly worded email challenging your approach, or the vocal voice at the AGM, and instead adopting the mindset that your stakeholder comes from a good place (even when they have a dissenting opinion or philosophy).
Here's why I find it highly effective:
Embedded in this approach is having empathy for your stakeholder. So when you adopt this thinking it leads you to consider their perspective more deeply, which will either lead to A) a re-thinking of your position, or B) helping you tailor your communication more effectively to achieve your preferred outcome.
It changes your demeanour to start the meeting. Your tone and body language are signals that are picked up and often reciprocated by the other stakeholder, so having your shields up is more likely to encourage them to do likewise.
It provides a greater foundation for connection, which is key to resolving all of the scenarios listed above .
Finally, it places the burden on the other party to actively behave with bad intent. Of course there are people who act in bad faith, which I often see in cultures with a "win at all costs" mentality. But if the meeting is going to turn sour, you're ensuring it's entirely on them, not you. I'd almost consider this a branch of 'controlling the controllables'.
'Assuming good intent' in action
I had a young volunteer coach use this approach earlier this year: they were about to meet with a parent who requested to meet to discuss 'issues'. Those who coach community sport know, this can be a super confronting prospect, particularly for young people. Amidst all the tips I gave this coach to counter the arguments we were anticipating, the final piece of advice was to "assume good intent". That turned out to be the most beneficial one, as the coach reported back that the meeting ended up being totally amicable and productive.
I can't count the amount of times I've received advice that "Stakeholder A" is a real piece of work, only to find that Stakeholder A just hasn't felt heard in years.
And I believe there's a productivity element to "assuming good intent" as well. Too often I see managers impose themselves into meetings, anticipating bad intent. But one thing I've learned as a manager is that jumping into a meeting to support your team member can change the tone of that meeting, creating a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Russel talks in the book about how he'd write the words in huge lettering on a whiteboard to start certain meetings. I haven't gone that far yet, but I encourage everyone to try their version of "Assume Good Intent" when they're next navigating complex stakeholders or change management projects.
