Leadership – naive or not? Part One: not.

Recently, at a workshop—attended entirely by senior executives—on the topic of “Managing Tensions and Conflicts,” I shared, among other things, the rule of thumb: “Always assume good intentions.” One of the participants then asked if that wasn’t naive. After all, most people look out for their own interests. The discussion was sparked, and it was fascinating.

In retrospect, the question has continued to occupy my thoughts (once again, a big thank you to that participant!), and I’ve been quite self-critical: is it naive to simply assume good will, even when I’m extremely irritated or, excuse my language, pissed off? The answers I’ve found are enough for two blog posts, so here’s part one: No, it isn’t.

After countless one-on-one conversations across many engagements, I can say: selfishness is simply not what I encounter. The individuals involved consistently want nothing more than to do a good job and make the right decisions for the company—from their perspective, of course. 

But this perspective is practically never destructive or self-centered (I’ve actually experienced this a grand total of two times in my career), but simply incomplete and/or skewed. And that brings us to the systemic concept of restricted rationality: I act to the best of my knowledge and belief, based on the information available—which, unfortunately, is not complete.

I can nevertheless understand the participant’s question well, because when you look, for example, at the global stage or the upper floors of global corporations, the assumption of good will in the service of a greater good does indeed seem rather unrealistic. When power and money are too dominant and egos too large, this leads to opposing parties that seek above all their own advantage.

But now we are in the context of an SME, with specific framework conditions: Everyone works for the same company, has freely chosen to join it, and has agreed to uphold their employer’s legitimate interests. Everyone is part of an organization that champions certain values. And within a social system to which the participants feel they belong and with which they identify, good will and cooperation prevail. And by far. 

And thus, good will also becomes a leadership issue: it must be exemplified, promoted, nurtured, demanded, and fostered by leaders. It is fostered all the more the better leaders design the organization so that employees feel committed to it. 

An article in DIE ZEIT from April 1, 2026, states that the success story of our species is largely based on its capacity for empathy and cooperation. Humans as genuinely selfish? Not defensible. Why doesn’t anyone list “good will” in the requirements section of a job posting? Very simple: because it can apparently be taken for granted. Why should we stop doing so later on?

Of course, even with good will, there are tensions and disagreements, because there are always multiple possible solutions. But this is a healthy struggle to find the best solution—one that sometimes requires a casting vote—not a fight for personal gain. And if it is, that needs to be addressed.

Accepting a disadvantage for one’s own department in the interest of the organization’s overall well-being is, of course, a high standard and requires greatness, maturity, and integrity. Therefore these qualities are not just “nice-to-have” psychological quirks, but business-relevant factors that can massively increase an organization’s performance and the quality of its decisions.

So, for now: is assuming good will naive? I say no, it isn’t; on the contrary, it is the statistically most reasonable assumption — as long as leadership does its job well. 

Part two will follow soon.