My first real job after college was in human

resources for an established but still humble

retail company. I was drawn to the culture

more than the job itself. The organization had a team-based environment

championing employee excellence, self-determination, and leadership

over management. Having started as a local “mom and pop” business, it

had a history of anti-corporate sentiment. The problem was the company

was now becoming one of those large corporations the founders detested.

Growing Pains

This growth did not mean managers had to abandon our values, but it

did require us to reevaluate many of our systems. Over almost a decade,

my job functions and the overall structure of my department morphed

dramatically. The bigger we got, the more liability we had, and the more

I was expected to protect the corporation and reduce risks. I was still

accountable to my direct boss on site, but I also now reported to and was

expected to comply with directives from Regional Human Resources

(HR). This shift was particularly daunting as my direct boss was of the

lingering anti-corporate mindset.

Learning to Test Negative Assumptions | 43

To reduce corporate liability, Human Resources dictated new protocols

and standards for managing personnel. For example, my boss and

I no longer had the authority to hire or terminate employees without

HR approval.

About a week after this policy was handed down, my boss, whom I’ll

call Eric, walked into my office and declared, “We’ve got to let Michael

(fictitious name) go.”

Knowing this lackluster employee was still in his probationary period

but had no documentable major infractions, I told my boss, “I’ll be happy

to present your concerns to Regional HR, but I don’t expect them to

approve termination. There just isn’t enough on paper to justify it.”

Later that day, Eric called me into his office to say, “I’m going to

terminate Michael. Would you get the paperwork ready?”

Somewhat in shock and still processing, I asked, “Have you spoken

to Regional about this?”

“No, this was my call.”

Figuring we were already in hot water, I attempted to salvage the

situation. “They’re going to see it on my reports, plus they’ll be notified

if there’s an unemployment claim, and I’m sure there will be. Should I

alert them now?”

“Don’t worry about it. I’ll deal with it.”

Eric’s body language indicated he was done with this discussion,

so, internal warning bells ringing loudly, I returned to my office. But I

found myself distracted as I prepared the requested documentation. This

went against our directive. My inner voice continued to nag at me as I

contemplated my potential next move.

Should I email Regional anyway? my internal conversation went.

Would that be considered insubordination in the eyes of my direct boss? Will

he retaliate by denying me future promotions or salary increases if I go above

his head? If I stay out of it, will Regional reprimand or fire me when they

find out? What will happen if the company gets sued over this and I didn’t

alert the appropriate people when they still had the potential to intervene?

My internal inquisition was interrupted only by my occasional

attempts to explain Eric’s behavior to myself: He’s just doing what he

wants and doesn’t care about repercussions to the company or anyone else. He

doesn’t respect my opinion or judgment.

44 | CONSCIOUS CHANGE

In the end, I did as I was told without contacting Regional, following

Eric’s instructions to let him shoulder any blame. Shortly afterward, I

transferred to a different department. I cited professional opportunity as

the reason, but the truth was that I felt burned out. In hindsight, much

of my frustration and exhaustion was from the energy I spent navigating

the evolving corporate structure and expectations. It was not the changes

per se causing the stress, but how I chose to respond to them. I never

confronted Eric about the situation with Michael and will likely never

know the truth behind his decision. Nor did I ever hear anything about

Regional’s reaction to his disobedience.

Six years later, having learned of the importance of testing negative

assumptions, I reflect on the turmoil I felt and wonder how I might

have handled it differently. Looking back, I realize I had only negative

assumptions about Eric, feeling caught in a damned-if-I-do, damnedif-

I-don’t situation.

Fortunately, I knew better than to march into his office and say that

to his face. Still, I was stuck. His actions triggered my emotions, and in

that state, I could only imagine the worst. My range of imagined choices

was limited. I couldn’t see a way out.

Exploring Assumptions and Testing Hypotheses

Suppose I had known to test my negative assumptions by using the

Generating Three Hypotheses Method, as described in Reframing

Change? What might I have done? Well, I’ll put myself back in that

time and pretend I knew then what I know now . . .

Applying the Three Hypotheses Method

Step 1. Def ine the negative hypothesis.

My underlying negative hypothesis in this instance was that Eric deliberately

violated protocol to get what he wanted when he wanted it, without

considering consequences for the company, his career, or my career.

Learning to Test Negative Assumptions | 45

Step 2. Def ine possible situational and

good-intent hypotheses.

Maybe there were circumstances beyond my knowledge leading Eric

to conclude he was justified in making the termination decision unilaterally,

disregarding the new procedure. This didn’t seem likely, but I’m

determined to remain in inquiry and hold the space for having possibly

missed something.

Situational: Looking back, it was possible he’d been in touch with

Regional and they granted him some sort of exemption, or perhaps he

had found a loophole in the policy. If either of these occurred, he chose

not to fill me in. That might be why Regional never contacted me about

my role in the situation.

Even with many years of hindsight and acquisition of better tools

and practices, developing a good intent motive for this exchange was

still a challenge. I have often noticed, though, the harder the motive is

to construct, the more impactful and liberating the resulting shift in my

perspective (and energy) regarding the situation.

Good Intent: Maybe Eric was taking a stand for our area’s sovereignty.

What I considered as unilateral decision making could have been

viewed by him as a stand for empowerment and self-determination for

those of us who remembered the old days at the company. He might have

been willing to go to the wall for us.

Was this too much of a stretch to consider? I still have a pragmatic

tendency to quickly dismiss potential alternatives. Yet I have learned that

unlikely hypotheses, even those which seem next to impossible, serve to

stretch my thinking. I often remind myself that the desired outcome in

considering alternatives is not to determine the best answer or solve the

mystery, but to create the space and willingness to be wrong. I don’t know

what I don’t know.

Step 3. Reframe the negative hypothesis.

Constructing my reframed hypothesis was a learning process. It took

several iterations, along with some guidance and feedback, to arrive at

an ideal approach.

First Attempt at Reframing: “I thought maybe you were just doing

what you wanted, how you wanted . . .”

46 | CONSCIOUS CHANGE

In this initial attempt, my negative assumptions were still present

and would likely have been counterproductive. It would only have made

Eric mad.

Second Attempt at Reframing: Maybe he did in fact follow protocol

and went to Regional himself as a favor to me, to spare me the arduous

task of building and defending our case for termination.

Hmmmm. This stretches credibility and doesn’t really test my negative

assumption. To truly reframe the negative hypothesis, I needed to

voice it in a way that would be palatable to Eric yet also getting to the

core of the negative assumption I was testing.

Third Attempt at Reframing: Maybe he was taking a stand on behalf

of us all.

With this, I was acknowledging that while Eric was deliberately

breaking protocol and putting us both at risk, it might have seemed

justifiable from his vantage point. If I were to have approached him

from this genuinely inquisitive space, it would likely have resulted in

productive dialogue. Perhaps I would have obtained the information I

felt was missing.

Step 4. Putting it all together

I might have made this statement to Eric: “I’m curious about how you

arrived at your decision and was hoping you could help me understand.

First, I thought maybe Regional had granted you some kind of exception

making it okay for you to fire Michael. Then I thought maybe you’d

found a loophole so you could get around the new regulations. Finally,

I thought maybe you were just taking a stand against what you thought

was unworkable red tape and were willing to go to bat for it even if you

and I paid a price. Is there something else I’m missing?”

Would that have worked? Maybe.

Learning is Valuable Whenever It Occurs

The key is whether I was willing to open my mind to the possibility

of a good intent or situational hypothesis driving Eric’s behavior. If I

couldn’t, my inauthenticity would have made the whole exercise backfire.

Learning to Test Negative Assumptions | 47

Maybe he really was just carelessly violating protocol, regardless of consequences

to himself or me. Maybe there was an even more beneficent

explanation than I could imagine. Regardless, I do believe I missed an

opportunity to expand my understanding and possibly strengthen our

working relationship.

Equipped with the wisdom and tools presently at my disposal, I

certainly could have navigated the situation with less wasted cognitive

and emotional energy. My confidence in the effectiveness of the Three

Hypotheses Method to shift my perspective on emotionally provocative

scenarios has increased significantly since that interaction with my old

boss. I am now more aware of situations where I can leverage these tools

and be more adept in their application. Rather than avoiding conflict, I

now find myself welcoming these emotionally rich encounters as opportunities

for education and exploration.

48 | CONSCIOUS CHANGE

Avoid the Co-creation of Negative Interactions

(Reflections on Eli’s Story)

Eli’s story is an illustration of how things are often much clearer

in the rearview mirror! As he looks back on a previous interaction

with his boss, Eric, and analyzes how he could or should

have handled it, he describes some of the inner turmoil and

self-questioning experienced at the time of the incident. That

he still remembers the interaction after six years suggests it

carried a hefty emotional charge.

Eli clearly missed an opportunity to clear his emotions, test

his assumptions, and provide feedback to his supervisor. Instead,

he thinks suppression of his emotions around this and other

situations may have contributed to his “burnout”—leading to a

voluntary transfer to another department within the company.

He admits to having been emotionally triggered by the

interaction with Eric, but even in retrospect doesn’t fully recognize

how helpful it might have been to clear those emotions

before attempting to deal with the cognitive task of testing

assumptions. In fact, it might be useful to him, even after all

this time, to think back to the situation and see what emotions

arise. There may still be remnants of unresolved emotions he

could benefit from clearing—either through journaling or some

other emotional-clearing technique.

Despite his dissatisfaction with how he handled the situation,

Eli did take personal responsibility for his part in it: “It

wasn’t the changes per se causing the stress, but how I chose to

respond to them.” He is describing an important underpinning

of the notion of conscious use of self, specifically acceptance of

the ways in which we often co-create negative experiences and

interactions, leading to stress and less-than-full effectiveness as

leaders. Many of us walk around frustrated, blaming bad bosses

rather than identifying opportunities to seek communication

and feedback we could benefit from.

• • •

Learning to Test Negative Assumptions | 49

Eli does a good job of giving a step-by-step description of

generating multiple hypotheses to explain why his boss might

have taken the action he did: the original negative hypothesis,

a good-intent hypothesis giving Eric the benefit of the doubt,

and a situational hypothesis considering possible extenuating

circumstances.

Using these, Eli reframed his original hypothesis as a statement

to his former supervisor that might have led to a more

productive discussion, as well as increased understanding and

learning. Eli recognized he would have had to enter into the

question and approach the hypothesis testing from a position

of genuine curiosity.

As he demonstrates, even in hindsight, this is not always an

easy task. Holding on to what we believe is much easier than

testing our assumptions, especially when those assumptions are

steeped in negative emotions.

Eli’s story demonstrates the benefit of revisiting situations

that trigger us. He clearly learned from analyzing this workplace

experience. He now welcomes what he considers “emotionally

rich encounters” as opportunities for learning and growth.

Conscious Change Principles

and Skills in This Chapter

■ Test Negative Assumptions

• Move from the answer into the question

• Consciously test your negative assumptions

■ Clear Emotions

• Avoid emotional suppression

• Clear your negative emotions

■ Build Effective Relationships

• Learn how to give, receive, and seek feedback

• • •

50 | CONSCIOUS CHANGE

■ Conscious Use of Self

• Accept responsibility for your own contributions

About Eli

Eli Davis received a Master of Social Work from the University of

Houston Graduate College of Social Work. After a circuitous career

track through a few different helping professions, he found his passion in

social justice advocacy and policy work. An avid lover of animals, nature,

science, and the human experience, he can often be found wandering the

woods with his latest four-legged rescue.

He first learned the Conscious Change skills in a course taught by

Dr. Latting in the Graduate College of Social Work at the University

‍