The Golden Rule, “treat others as you would like to be treated,” is a widely accepted moral guideline to promote ethical behavior and effective collaboration, but does it?

While it may be an excellent way to show others about us, it does little to teach us about them. In this sense, invoking the golden rule absolves us from investing the time and effort required to learn about another’s preferences—their priorities, expectations, and contributions—and how best to set them up for success. Couched in the mirage of noble certainty that our preferences are shared, the golden rule becomes the easy way out.

Why do we do it?

One of the biggest assumptions we make is that others think like we do. It follows that they should also do as we do. Our brains are prediction machines, and when what we expect to happen doesn’t, we tend to cling to our assumptions more tightly rather than question our beliefs. Instead of getting closer to reality, we step back into the comforting fantasy of “I’m right,” and its logical sequel, “you’re wrong.”

In its desire for coherence, our brain seeks explanations for why others are wrong. And in the land of right and wrong, what we think we understand but don’t we casually ascribe to another’s incompetence or ill intent. We label otherwise brilliant leaders “not coachable.” Fed up with giving advice that’s not followed, mentors withdraw; fed up with not receiving the support they need, executives retreat. Communication breaks down, trust erodes, and performance suffers.

There is a better way.

The Kantor Framework provides a mental model for recognizing the priorities, expectations, and contributions others value most, pointing to the Venn diagram where what we have to offer overlaps with how others want to receive it. This one small shift allows us to be wildly more effective with our time, energy, and attention, shaving hours off our thinking time each month, dissolving frustrations, and getting us more of the results we want.

Learn more about it here.