Don't try to be neutral at work (do this instead)

Don't try to be neutral at work (do this instead)

Many people make the mistake of trying to be "neutral" at work – and it's costing them dearly.

Because for many people – especially those in strategy, operations, analytics, or finance roles – they believe that if they operate "neutrally," then:

  • Their opinions will be taken more seriously
  • They'll have an easier time handling objections
  • They'll be perceived as more trustworthy by others

While this is all well and good, what they usually end up doing is this:

  • They become reluctant to take a stand on issues
  • They worry too much about making other people happy
  • They operate reactively, lest they appear to "have an agenda"
  • They focus on minimizing pushback, rather than driving insight

As a result: a genuine attempt to operate with integrity and gravitas backfires instead.

How do I know this? Because I've been there.


👋 Join 4900+ readers and subscribe to Herng's Newsletter for free:

Check your email for magic link

An error occurred, please try again later.



A blast from the past

When I first joined Google, part of my role involved running sales operations.

I was doing a bit of everything: putting together business plans, divvying up sales quotas, tracking revenue... etc.

But as someone new to the market, industry, company, and role? I was nervous.

I worried about my lack of tenure and credibility. And I told myself I needed more experience before I would be in a position to take a stand.

So I told myself to be neutral.

For example: I would analyze revenue trends and portfolio health, but stop short of hypothesizing the actions it implied for the business.

Because in my head, I thought: What if I'm wrong? Who am I to tell people with more experience how to do their jobs differently?

Or, as another example: I would take feedback I received from sellers ("This account is blocked because of XYZ reasons..."), and simply pass it onwards without asking follow-up questions.

Because in my head, I thought: If I ask too many questions, wouldn't that imply that I don't trust them? Wouldn't that prevent them from wanting to work with me in the future?

So as time went on, I remained "neutral" (or so I thought).

And I struggled to deliver impact.


👋 Thanks for reading Herng's newsletter! Subscribe for free and never miss a post.

Check your email for magic link

An error occurred, please try again later.



Don't try to be neutral. Aim to be bias-free.

You shouldn't try to be "neutral." You might not ruffle any feathers – but you won't achieve the right outcomes either.

Instead, you should strive to be "bias-free," which means that:

  • You approach problems with first-principles thinking
  • You don't shy away from articulating your point of view
  • You're agnostic to the outcomes – as long as the logic is robust

Let's look at a couple examples.


Example #1: Dealing with (lots of) feedback

Consider the following situation:

💡
You are planning to implement a new process for your org. Before you do so, you collect feedback from your stakeholders. You end up getting a lot of different opinions.

❌ Here's what a "neutral" operator thinks about:

  • "How do I revise my proposal so that it incorporates everyone's feedback and no one feels left out?"
  • "Two pieces of feedback are at odds with each other; how do I address both concerns and keep both sides happy?"
  • "There's one piece of feedback I want to prioritize but it will appear to favor one team over another; how do I manage the perception?"

✅ By comparison, here's what the "bias-free" operator focuses on:

  • "Do I still believe in my initial guiding principles that kicked off this proposal in the first place? Does the feedback change anything?"
  • "I've received lots of feedback, but some of the examples cited are anecdotal and shaky. What can I do to kick the tires respectfully yet rigorously?"
  • "After analysis, we've decided to adopt two pieces of feedback, and deprioritize the rest. How do I communicate the rationale behind our final decision in a firm yet empathetic way?"

The key difference?

When you optimize for being "neutral," you focus disproportionately on how to make people happy (or at least less unhappy).

But when you're optimizing for being "bias-free?" You focus on guiding principles.

You don't simply assume every piece of feedback is equally valid and important. You don't simply incorporate everyone's feedback in order to be "fair."

You focus on doing what's right for the business.

(This doesn't give you the license to operate unilaterally, of course. It just means that you focus on solving problems – and not managing emotions.)

Let's look at another example.


👋 Subscribe for free to get Herng's newsletter directly in your inbox.

Check your email for magic link

An error occurred, please try again later.



Example #2: Delivering an unpopular opinion

Consider the following situation:

💡
You've been asked to examine why revenue growth has been stagnant lately. Your analysis suggests that sales efforts may be the issue. You're asked to present your findings.

❌ Here's what a "neutral" operator thinks about:

  • "My findings might make the sales team look bad. How do I share the datapoints in a way that allows people to draw their own conclusions?"
  • "Sure, I have strong hypotheses backed by data. But what if I'm wrong? How do I hedge my statements so I minimize the risk of getting challenged?"
  • "If I make suggestions on what the sales team could do better, it might be considered over-reaching. How do I avoid that perception?"

✅ By comparison, here's what the "bias-free" operator focuses on:

  • "Have I conducted my analysis in a rigorous manner, and consulted the right experts in the process?"
  • "Are my hypotheses backed by strong evidence? What are the implicit assumptions I'm making?"
  • "Are my findings and recommendations intended to make the business better (as opposed to simply pointing fingers)?"
  • "Do I have clarity over my assumptions and inputs, so that I can be fully open with my stakeholders and incorporate feedback easily?"

To be clear: being bias-free doesn't mean that you desensitive yourself to company politics, org dynamics, or basic principles of collaborativeness.

You don't have to optimize for people's emotions, but you certainly can't pretend they don't exist. Common sense still applies.

But compared to the "neutral" operator, who focuses disproportionately on how people perceive them?

The bias-free operator focuses on whether they've brought more clarity to the table. Their egos don't matter.

So the next time you find yourself handling dissent or even conflict?

Take an honest look at how you react. And ask yourself if you're being neutral or bias-free.


👋 Join 4900+ readers and subscribe to Herng's Newsletter for free:

Check your email for magic link

An error occurred, please try again later.



Quick takeaways

  • Trying to be "neutral" isn't inherently bad. But it can backfire and prevent you from delivering impact.
  • Instead, consider optimizing for being "bias-free." Focus on problem-solving the right way. Focus on helping the business get better.
  • It's not that the best operators are never wrong or never get pushback. It's just that their focus on doing what's right for the business supersedes their need to protect their ego.

More like this

When someone said I was good, but not "great"

When someone said I was good, but not "great"

What holistic thinkers do differently from the rest

What holistic thinkers do differently from the rest

The right (and wrong) way to write your performance review

The right (and wrong) way to write your performance review


Read Herng's Newsletter:

Let’s Accelerate Our Careers. Together.

Check your email for magic link

An error occurred, please try again later.