Hanlon’s Razor: Never attribute to malice that which can be sufficiently explained by ignorance

Grey’s Law: Sufficiently advanced ignorance is indistinguishable from malice

On the Assumption of Malice

I feel like “Don’t assume malice” gets thrown around a lot in corporate communication culture these days. And while I generally support giving people the benefit of the doubt, I think this doctrine creates a lot of problems.

“Assume” is doing a lot of heavy lifting in that sentence. What one person calls an assumption, another person might call a pattern of barely acceptable behavior. It’s not unreasonable to think that a “weaponized question” was weaponized on purpose.

Hiding behind the assumption of good intent

It’s important to look at policies from the viewpoint of how they could be attacked. In this case, it’s pretty straightforward. The entire idea of a “dog whistle” is plausible deniability of intent.

Context and history matter.

This is where “assume” really has to come under the microscope. The first time someone does something offensive and pleads ignorance, maybe it is reasonable to grant them some benefit of the doubt. But when a pattern develops over time, the same excuses over and over, then it is no longer an assumption, but rather evidence of malice.

Ignorance is not innocence

Often, the response to being told “this thing hurt me” is to plead ignorance. “I didn’t realize that was a concern,” or similar, and of course to expect that the wounded party accept that your ignorance was not malicious. But at some point, ignorance itself becomes malice. To remain ignorant of the ways in which your decisions impact those around you is not, and cannot be, a free pass for bad behavior. This is especially true when there is also an imbalance of power. Leadership requires knowing the impact of decsions on those one leads.

“Don’t assume malice” culture needs to be bi-directional. The person being given the benefit of the doubt needs to acknowledge that they have a harmful gap in their knowledge, and seek to correct it. That work is on them, and is the price of having the transgression forgiven.

Direction of power

It seems to me that “Don’t assume malice” often gets said in response to someone, typically someone who isn’t in a position of power, expressing their hurt. It then becomes this thing where the person who was hurt needs to explain to the person who hurt them why it hurt and how they trust that it wasn’t on purpose, and generally make the person who hurt them feel better about the situation. That seems wrong.

I see a lot of “I was hurt, then I reminded myself ‘don’t assume malice’ and reached out to try to understand…"; I rarely see “You seemed upset about what I said, but I didn’t assume malice and am reaching out to see why you’re upset.”

Outcome matter as much as intentions

Fundamentally, “don’t assume malice” culture is about giving weight to people’s intentions in a situation, and that is a good thing. But intentions cannot and should not weight heavier than outcomes. At the end of the day, it is the outcome of actions that leave a mark upon the world, not their intentions.

References