Blame Games

Find a dysfunctional workplace and you'll discover various versions of blame. Some involve in-your-face shouting matches and many result in litigation, but most blame games are more subtle.

The common types are:

• Scapegoating. This is one of the most popular activities as it is often easier to ascribe blame than to fix the problem. There is, of course, another motive. By finding a scapegoat, others can establish their own innocence.
• Taking fake action. Policy reminders are disseminated, training is ordered, and staff meetings are held although there is little reasonable expectation that any of these steps will be effective. Making a substantive difference, however, is not the goal. The real purpose of these exercises is to create a bureaucratic alibi.
• Making a nonapologetic apology. "Mistakes were made" and "If anyone was offended, I'm sorry" are apologies without accountability. This technique is an art form in Washington, D.C.
• Gunnysacking grievances. This can be a blamer’s dream. Rather than acting promptly to get problems resolved, the would-be blamer stores accusations so they can be unloaded later. Victims are noble, right?
• Ascribing blame to one side when in reality the blame is so widespread that it is inappropriate to single out any particular individual or group. Although lawyers may look for villains due to the role playing of the adversary system, in the real world both sides often share the guilt. You’ve probably heard of what is sometimes called a Scotch verdict; i.e., "not proven." We could use a "pox on both your houses" finding in many employment disputes.
• Ascribing blame to an individual or individuals when a system or a policy is to blame. At the risk of sounding like some streetcorner theorist who blames everything on the system, it is important to acknowledge that there are procedures and policies in workplaces that produce poor performance regardless of the abilities or will power of the participants.
• Ascribing equal blame when there actually is one clear perpetrator. The "cycle of violence" rhetoric is a real ethical cop-out. Rather than having the guts to confront the guilty party, the organization or person paints both sides with the same brush, even though simple investigation would reveal that one side started the incident or is far more culpable.
• Ascribing no blame out of fear of being judgmental. If you are going to be ethical, you have to be judgmental. Winston Churchill once observed that some people want to be neutral between the fire brigade and the fire. It's time to leave nonjudgmentalism back in the Sixties.
• Martyrdom. A surprising number of people want to be blamed. They are the workplace martyrs who run from solutions like the rest of us run from lions. Being victimized is their way of achieving superiority. Martyrs wear blame as a badge of honor.
• Innocent self-blame. You see this in many harassment cases where the victim feels guilt and the perpetrator feels victimized. The roles need to be reversed.

The subject of blame deserves much more discussion in workplaces because it goes to the values and effectiveness of the organization. A first step, however, is to determine the type of blame that is present and to beware of the enormous creativity that spawns the blame games.