By Chris Mikkides

A short message arrives: “Why was this done this way?” Six words, and already you have a theory. They are questioning your judgement. They are building a case. They never trusted you with this in the first place. None of that is in the message. You wrote it yourself, in about a second, and now you are about to reply to it. That gap between what was said and what we decide it meant is where many workplace conflicts begin. It is also where one of the simplest leadership habits does its work.

Advice from a father, not a business school

In May 2008, Fortune asked prominent leaders for the best advice they had ever received. Indra Nooyi, then chairman and CEO of PepsiCo, did not name a strategy or a mentor from the boardroom. She credited her father, and his instruction was short: “Whatever anybody says or does, assume positive intent.”

Her reasoning was practical. Assume the worst, she explained, and you get angry. Remove that anger and your whole approach to the person or the problem changes.

She was still giving the same advice a decade later. In a 2018 piece on the lessons she took from leading PepsiCo, she applied it to feedback, urging people to treat it as a genuine attempt to help.

Why the first assumption matters

We tend to read our own mistakes through circumstances and other people’s through character. I was rushed; they were careless. Psychologists call this the fundamental attribution error, and it means our first explanation of someone else’s behaviour is often the least generous one.

The assumption you start with then shapes everything that follows:

• Your tone. A reply written to an opponent sounds different from a reply written to a colleague.
• Your questions. Suspicion looks for proof. Good faith looks for understanding.
• Their response. People who feel accused defend themselves. Nooyi’s observation was that good faith can also prompt the other person to rethink their own reaction.

This is how trust makes room for collaboration. When nobody has to defend themselves, the energy can go into the problem.

A simple test

Before you reply to something that stings, ask three questions:

1. What did they actually say? Separate the words from the story you added.
2. What else could explain this? Find one reasonable explanation that has nothing to do with you.
3. What do I need to ask? Then ask it: “Help me understand what you’re looking for here.”

The third question matters most. You stop guessing at the other person’s meaning and find out.

What it doesn’t mean

Assuming positive intent is not the same as lowering your standards. Good intentions don’t fix a missed deadline, and they don’t erase the effect of a careless comment.

It is a starting point, not a verdict. You begin with good faith, then look at what actually happened. If the same behaviour keeps recurring after an honest conversation, that pattern is information, and accountability still applies.

The difference lies in how the conversation opens. “Why did you ignore this?” starts with a charge. “What got in the way of this?” starts with a question, and it still gets you to the issue.

The real discipline

Giving someone the benefit of the doubt can look soft. In practice, it takes discipline, because you have to hold back your first reaction when it feels most justified.

You can’t control how a message is written. You can control the story you add before you answer. Start with the most reasonable explanation, ask before you accuse, and hold people to the standard either way. Conversations get calmer, and problems get solved sooner.