If you’re not familiar with the concept of “Assuming Positive Intent” it’s a behaviour that many folx who work remote-first have implemented in their workplaces to mitigate things like misreading tone in emails or messaging apps. Here’s an example:

“This section of the report seems overly complicated.”

I mean, between you and I, it seems fairly innocuous right? But if you’re under pressure with a deadline and this is the third or fourth time you’ve received ‘feedback’, you might not be so inclined to receive it positively. Even if it’s the first time, if you’re not accustomed to receiving feedback like this it can be really scary. 

This is where the concept of positive intent comes into play. When we advocate the value of ‘assuming positive intent’ we’re asking our teams and employees to assume that the person giving us this feedback or comment is not trying to criticize us but is aiming to help us produce the best result. 

This works really well I think, when both sides of the conversation are operating from the same set of values and work agreements. But what happens when that’s not the case? Let’s be honest, it’s usually the one receiving the feedback that hasn’t been looped into this whole ‘assuming positive intent’ thing and doesn’t receive it quite the way we expect.

I’ve seen this happen a few times over the last few months in WordPress so I thought I’d just call it out. This is not a critique of anyone in particular, just an observation that I think could shed some light on why certain camps have responded the way they have responded.

Automattic and WordPress.com Content for AI Training

There was a lot of dust kicked up (for about a day) when this news broke. Because it was a ‘scoop’ and not something that the company was able to announce on its own terms, the result was a reaction to something we weren’t sure we wanted.

Internally, I suspect there was a lot of frustration and perhaps even a bit of confusion about why folx on the outside were so negative about the decision to give users an opt-out and also sell access to publicly available content.

I think the disconnect is around positive intent. Automattic has a well-developed cultural value of assuming positive intent. As a remote-first company with folx all over the world, they have to be. But they operate in a world that doesn’t share the same values.

When the news came out that access to content on WordPress.com was going to be sold for AI training everyone was up in arms because it felt forced. What most folks missed was that everyone would have the option to opt-out of providing their content for training.

From Automattic’s perspective, they were doing something no one else on the internet was doing. They were giving their users the ability to control whether their content was available or not. No one at Reddit got that option, no one at other hosting companies was providing this option. In their minds, they were finding the right balance between generating revenue and protecting their customers.

I might be projecting here, but I bet they figured they were doing the right thing. Because all of the information is already publicly available, they reckoned more AI companies would prefer to pay for quick and easy access to content rather than a more general crawl. By giving their users an opt-out option, they were making it even more likely that a user’s content and site would be protected from AI bot crawlers.

The world, unfortunately, did not assume this positive intent and the result is some of the commentary we’ve seen.

To me, this is an example of positive intent getting lost in translation. One side has it embedded in their ways of working, while the other side has no clue it’s a thing.

Gutenberg Frustration & Developer Response

That post on X pinched a nerve. 86k views later Ari is a folk hero (again) and it seems to have set off a conversation about the complexity of Gutenberg and the documentation around its codebase. 

The post, on the surface, is quite emotional. I suspect when Ari wrote it, he was feeling all the things. Let’s look at how developers responded to this. 

We had a number of folks raise its profile as a commentary on the state of Gutenberg. We had others highlight the concern of losing a valuable contributor as a result of Gutenberg’s codebase. Others felt seen and empathized with how Ari was feeling as it represented their experience as well. And others took it as permission to launch personal attacks against folx in the project or air their frustrations with Gutenberg or React.

Some folx did something that I think is very interesting. They looked beyond the emotion to try and get a better understanding of what the issue was and how it might be resolved.

Those who looked beyond the emotion all share something in common, they come from workplaces where assuming positive intent is a value that is lived out. They empathized with Ari and rather than escalate the emotion or get hurt personally by the comments, they chose to respond in a way that allowed for more dialogue and the start of a path toward a solution. 

We see this very clearly in particular on a thread that Riad started. He saw the need for more input on Gutenberg, the frustration of a key volunteer and the opportunity to engage in conversation. 

This thread had an interesting response to it. Riad used it as an opportunity to answer questions, engage with contributors and learn where the pain points are. He responds to every question and does his best to guide folx. 

However, because assuming positive intent isn’t a shared value by the questioner, responder and third-party readers, rather than creating the conditions for positive momentum, what actually happens is something different. 

This thread is not seen universally as a positive thing. For those who don’t share the same starting point of assuming positive intent responses are read as defensive. The thread comes across as damage control rather than as a genuine and authentic attempt at constructive progress. 

Culture & Values Have More Impact Than We Realize

I am not a Gutenberg developer. I’m not in the weeds dealing with the code and being frustrated by these issues. I am, however, in the unique position of knowing almost everyone involved in these conversations. I’ve either met them in person or via video over the last few years.

Because of that, as a third party, I can see the positive intent on both sides. Even when the way the words are shared might be seen as negative, defensive, emotional or whatever. 

I think it’s great that folx are willing to share their feelings, and even do it in public. It’s awesome that others are willing to respond, constructively, to what is said. X is not a safe space for everyone.

I wonder if this is one of those places where shared ways of working or cultural values could actually transform the way these conversations are received and perceived both internally around WordPress and externally in the greater tech landscape.

I think culture and values have more impact on our day-to-day than we probably realize.

Bringing This Home To Your Workplace

These are very public examples but let’s narrow the focus a bit to your team and your environment. How often are comments or feedback the catalyst for conflict? What might it look like if your workplace had an ‘assume positive intent’ working agreement or value? 

I’m on record that I believe when our theme, plugin and service businesses are operating with values like “assuming positive intent”, that trickles into how the community and the project engage with each other. 

I wonder what might happen if at the beginning of a thread like the one Riad started we actually called out the goal or working agreement of assuming positive intent, how that might change the way we discuss and respond.

What do you think?