We’ve all heard it before: “I didn’t mean to upset you.” When your heart was genuinely in the right place it’s only normal to feel defensive as a first reaction. You wanted to help, not hurt, so how is it fair to be critiqued? But…. here’s the hard truth: intent matters but it doesn’t erase accountability for the impact. In user experience (UX) (and in life), what shapes the experience isn’t just what we intended. It is what people actually feel.
The same challenge shows up at work far too often. We have all beed there before. We are on a team that agrees on a process, and then someone changes it without internal alignment. It might be coming from a great place to support your shared vision and goals as a team. Unfortunately, that single decision doesn’t just create friction inside the team as it often ripples out to stakeholders or even vendors who depend on that alignment. Good intentions don’t cancel out the disruption caused when expectations aren’t met. (Though it would be really nice if they did).
In my last post, I wrote about empathy and clarity as human principles. Continuing on that theme, I want to dive into why accountability, not just good intentions, is the foundation of trust and collaboration.
Why intent ≠ impact
From a psychology perspective, several studies show why even the best intentions don’t outweigh the actual impact on others:
- Impact Bias: People remember negative experiences more strongly than positive ones (Baumeister et al., 2001). A single misstep can overshadow good intentions.
- Actor-Observer Bias: We tend to excuse our own behavior based on intent but judge others by outcomes (Jones & Nisbett). This creates a disconnect when we assume our motives should matter more than the effect.
In professional settings, this reality is often amplified. When we are working in teams saying something along the lines of “I meant well” can feel dismissive because it centers the giver, not the receiver. Let’s use a UX analogy: if a design fails usability testing, we don’t say, “…but I intended it to be intuitive.” We iterate the design. As MVPs, we expect this from Microsoft when we provide feedback and as community members, we need to hold ourselves to the same standard for the most effective collaboration. Accountability in collaboration means owning the impact and repairing trust.
Accountability as a UX principle
Often as technical practitioners this concept of accountability in team collaboration can feel too squishy to implement. So, how do we put this into action? You can frame your accountability in collaboration scenarios like usability testing:
- Empathy: Understand the harm caused, even if unintended.
- Clarity: Own the impact before explaining intent.
- Repair: Offer a path forward—what will change next time?
What does this actually look like?
When feedback lands poorly, accountability means saying, ‘I see this caused frustration. Let’s work on a better approach,’ instead of hiding behind intent or defensive replies.
User experience better practices are supported with evidence from research. We have studies in psychology to support this method of focusing on accountability in impact as well. Studies on psychological safety (Amy Edmondson) show teams thrive when mistakes are admitted openly. The Attribution Theory tells us that people judge outcomes, not motives. Lastly, Gottman’s research on relationships shows us that repair attempts restore trust more than explanations. With the scientific evidence to back more effective collaboration when we own our mistakes, it becomes harder to ignore the importance on navigating this well within our teams.
My checklist for accountability in collaboration conflict
Just like a pilot uses a checklist before take-off to ensure safety, I like to use a checklist to check my communication in times of collaboration conflict:
- Avoid “But I didn’t mean to…”
- Use collaborative language like “How can we fix this together?”
- Follow up after the repair, “Did this change help?”
- Ultimately, we want to treat every misstep as a usability test. Iterate, don’t justify.
What methods do you find effective in owning the impact when the intent was good?
Emily Mancini 
One thought