‘He is only doing that to protect his territory.’
Few sentences escalate projects as reliably as this one.
Attributing motives feels clever. It is rarely a fact. Psychology calls it the fundamental attribution error: we see character in others, circumstances in ourselves.
In entrenched conflicts, this becomes a pattern. Researchers surveyed almost 3,000 people on both sides of serious conflicts: each side was convinced that its own actions came from loyalty, and the other side’s from hostility (Waytz, Young & Ginges, PNAS).
I have often experienced this in transformation projects. One committee, two camps, no movement for months. The turning point: remove every interpretation from the decision paper. What remained were figures, dates and consequences. Firm on the facts, without judging people. The decision was made in the same meeting.
That is why my principle is: provide facts, leave motives out. The facts can be hard. Interpretation belongs to the decision-makers. This creates pressure to decide without anyone losing face.
What interpretation of someone’s motives did you last hear when facts would have been enough?
Artikel teilen↗
What does this mean for your organisation?
Let’s explore your specific challenge together.
Let’s talk↗
