The Most Charitable Interpretation
Hire for and enforce a norm of assuming good intent, and let the misfits leave
- Difficulty
- Moderate
- Time to result
- ~ongoing to results
- Steps
- 4
- Confidence
- 85%
A behavioral value ProfitWell hired and fired against: in any conflict, people take the most charitable interpretation of the other person's actions and resolve it directly rather than escalating to HR. Campbell stresses values are only real if there's a trade-off and it's clear who does NOT fit — and that defending the value, including moving out people who can't assume positive intent, made everything better.
Origin
Adopted (not invented) by Patrick Campbell at ProfitWell; he links it to Airbnb's 'assume good intent' value and to Douglas Atkin's work on Airbnb's core values.
Core principles
- 01Values aren't values unless there's a real trade-off
- 02A value only matters if it's clear who doesn't fit
- 03Don't infantilize smart people with policy run-arounds
- 04Pull values forward into hiring, and defend them after
How to run it
- 1
Define behaviors with explicit trade-offs
Write values that name who you are and aren't for, e.g. 'optimize for the long term' (trading off short-term revenue), and the most-charitable-interpretation norm for conflict.
Pro tip Test each value by asking who it excludes; if it excludes no one (like 'integrity'), it's worthless.
- 2
Handle conflict directly and charitably
When friction arises, assume the other person didn't know and either let it go or raise it directly ('you probably didn't know, but I don't like comments on my shirt') instead of escalating.
Watch out With 20+ people these small conflicts multiply, so the norm must be explicit, not assumed.
- 3
Pull the value into the interview
Surface the value and its trade-offs during hiring, using a culture case study, and tell candidates plainly 'if this isn't how you think, that's okay — this is how we do things here.'
Pro tip Frame it as 'we're not better than you, you're not better than us' to remove fear and get honest signal.
- 4
Defend the value, including exits
When someone can't take the charitable interpretation, help them find another role rather than diluting the culture.
Watch out Not defending the value early is the mistake; 'when we started defending it everything got better.'
In the wild
Campbell's example: if someone dislikes a comment about their shirt, the ProfitWell-approved response is to assume the commenter didn't know and either drop it or mention it directly — not run to HR or get mad.
→ Smart, well-paid people resolve friction directly and keep working together instead of triggering policy run-arounds.
Common mistakes
Writing values with no trade-off
Values like integrity or trust that everyone agrees with are wordless — a value is only useful if it makes clear who is not a fit.
Accommodation culture in hiring
Being so desperate for hires that you hide your values and trade-offs in interviews leads to expensively onboarding people who don't fit, which is bad for them and for you.
Is it for you?
Best for
Founders and leaders building a 20+ person culture who want direct conflict resolution over HR escalation
Not ideal for
Organizations that legitimately need formal, policy-mediated conflict processes — Campbell concedes such a culture is valid, just not his
From the transcript
“this concept known as the most charitable interpretation”
“values aren't values unless there's an actual trade-off”
“we would say like hey like it seems like this is really tough this is how we think about things ... if that's hard for…”
From the episode
10 lessons on bootstrapping a $200m business
Patrick Campbell (ProfitWell)