By Steve Kelman

Blog archive

The dynamics of taking blame in the workplace

We had another interesting presentation by a candidate for a junior faculty search in public management at the Kennedy School. 
Last time, we heard about the effects of gossip in the workplace (I wrote about that one here). This candidate's topic was taking the blame -- more specifically, how often do people take the blame for workplace problems with "diffuse causes" (that is, where there is not one specific person in the team or organization who is clearly responsible for the problem), and what are the consequences for individuals who do take blame?

It's no surprise that people are not inclined to rush forward to take blame in situations such as these. The researcher asked people at a consulting firm to write about a recent incident where something had gone wrong in their team or organization.  He then asked if anybody had stepped forward to take responsibility for the problem.  In most cases, nobody did.

Interestingly, in cases where the problem involved a competence failure (where blame-taking was somewhat more likely), often the blame-taker was a subordinate in the organization. If the problem pertained to integrity, fewer came forward to take the blame, but those who did were all managers or executives.

Still more interesting, in a separate study, the researcher presented people with scenarios involving workplace problems involving both factors. Some experimental subjects were asked how an acceptance of blame ("I was responsible") would affect their evaluations of the blame-taker; others, presented with the same scenario, were asked how a statement of remorse ("I am sorry for what happened") or evasion (unwillingness to take responsibility or express remorse) would affect evaluations. It turned out that subjects on average gave the blame-taker a higher performance rating, and were less likely to fire them, compared with the remorseful or the evasive. Contrary to expectations perhaps, the blame-taker was rewarded for taking the blame.

I wonder whether people in government are more likely, less likely, or equally likely as the researcher's subjects (who work for a private consulting firm) to take blame. One might predict on the one hand that they might be more likely to accept blame, because greater job security in government means they are less likely to be fired. On the other hand, in a government environment, there are so many external actors -- especially politicians and the media -- engaged in the politics of blame that government employees might consider it really damaging to accept blame, thus feeding these forces. As I mentioned to the researcher, it would be interesting to reproduce his studies in government workplaces.

Posted by Steve Kelman on Jan 14, 2011 at 12:09 PM


Featured

  • IT Modernization
    Eisenhower Executive Office Building (Image: Wikimedia Commons)

    OMB's user guide to the MGT Act

    The Office of Management and Budget is working on a rules-of-the-road document to cover how agencies can seek and use funds under the MGT Act.

  • global network (Pushish Images/Shutterstock.com)

    As others see us -- a few surprises

    A recent dinner with civil servants from Asia delivered some interesting insights, Steve Kelman writes.

  • FCW Perspectives
    cloud (Singkham/Shutterstock.com)

    A smarter approach to cloud

    Advances in cloud technology are shifting the focus toward choosing the right tool for the job and crafting solutions that truly modernize systems.

Stay Connected

FCW Update

Sign up for our newsletter.

I agree to this site's Privacy Policy.