Impact Vs. Intent
By Pushpa Iyer
When having courageous conversations with compassion, there will be tensions and even conflicts. The flawed human beings that we all are, we do not get it right all the time. We say the wrong thing, we are insensitive, and we do not always listen carefully. In anti-ism work, we are often told that intentions do not matter, but the impact of our actions matters. Articles like this or this stress the need to focus on impact, and they all suggest that intent does not matter. However, others (see this or this) have presented a more nuanced understanding of resolving the intent vs. impact tension.
Agreeing with the latter understanding, I feel uncomfortable with any literal interpretation which dismisses intent in favor or impact. Therefore, using my conflict resolution lens let me try to explore this dichotomy in identity-based conversations.
Imagine a situation where someone causes harm to another person, like saying something inappropriate. Suppose the person causing harm has privilege, and the person at the receiving end of harm is without privilege. In that case, the image is always the privileged person at the center and the marginalized person in the periphery. By putting impact over intent, the marginalized person now occupies the center, and the privileged person becomes the periphery, at least in that context. While some cheer this phenomenon and use the reversed positions to claim power, the reality is that we are reproducing the same center-periphery dynamics by putting impact over intent. Instead, we need to expand the center so they can both be in the same place, listen to each other, and share power.
Here are some additional thoughts:
An intent conversation is personal; it is about labeling someone and defining them by their harmful actions.
An impact conversation focuses on the emotions and the harm a person experiences because of the actions of another.
In identity-based conversations, those harmed engage in impact conversations by emphasizing their hurt, pain, grief, and the consequences of being at the receiving end. However, it is quite likely that they never have just an impact conversation; they easily and very quickly in their communication approach tend to blame the person causing them harm and assume their intent. If not skilled in engaging in impact-only conversation, they end up completely ignoring intentions, thus challenging the identity of the person who caused them harm. In their book, Difficult Conversations, Stone, Patton, and Heen say that this assignment of blame and intention invention is a feature of all difficult conversations.
Those who have caused harm are inclined to defend themselves by asserting no intent to hurt. This is because their defense mechanism sets in very quickly, and the desire is to prove who they are or who they are not. Unfortunately, it means that usually, as a person with privilege, they divert attention from the impact of their actions by trying to have an intent conversation. In the end, apologizing for who they are is difficult, and they end up not being accountable at all for the impact of their actions.
Intent and impact conversations happen simultaneously in identity-based conflicts, with intent conversations being the most challenging.
What can you do when having an impact vs. intent conversation?
In an “impact” conversation, you can apologize to the other person for hurting them, that is, for the impact your actions have had on another person. To repeat, you are asking forgiveness for what you did and not for who you are. Remember, only your words and actions are being called to question. Also, you should not tone-police the emotions of the person holding you responsible because your words or actions landed on them in ways that caused them pain. Instead, listen to their pain with compassion, and it becomes easy to apologize for your actions and actions alone.
If you are the person who has been hurt, you need to be mindful to engage in an “impact” conversation. You must explain the impact an act has had on you without labeling the person who has caused them harm. When you label someone, you become the victim, and you invariably work on retaining that status by “inventing” intent to blame the person who caused you harm. If you stay with the impact conversation, you will hear where they - the person who caused you harm - are coming from and their apology. You can then work on being compassionate and hopefully establish a new relationship of mutual respect. Remind yourself to start with the assumption that the person who caused you harm is not the problem, but their actions need to be questioned.
In short, both the person who is harmed and the person who causes harm need to build the courage to have only an impact conversation and engage each other with compassion.
Drawing from my experiences of conflicts, I will reiterate that intent does matter in identity-based tensions. To ‘resolve’ conflicts, you must understand the attitudes (including intention) to understand behavior. Intentions help us understand a person’s behavior or action. Creating a culture for impact-only conversations is necessary if organizations or communities want to build positive relationships amongst community members. Impact-only conversation culture goes hand in hand with accountability culture so that someone takes ownership for the hurt caused. The steps an organization or community takes to build these two cultures will bring them long-term gains in the form of healthy relationships amongst its members.