We can classify organizational cultures by examining how they deal with failure. One class of organizations seeks people accountable for a failure; a second seeks people to blame for the failure. (For a brief summary of the differences between blame and accountability, see "Is It Blame or Is It Accountability?," Point Lookout for December 21, 2005) In an accountability-oriented culture, when we look for factors that led to failures, we seek out people who have relevant knowledge. They know that we're trying to change things to avoid repeating past errors. They're willing to offer what they know about what happened, because they feel safe doing so. With the information they provide we devise changes in processes that reduce the probability of repeating mistakes. Complete repair might be a bigger job than we can take on right now, but we make what changes we can. We take steps in the right direction and monitor our progress.
In a blame-oriented culture, when we look for the sources of failures, we try to isolate a few people, and hang the whole thing on them. Even better: isolate a single individual. There's no point in hurting more people than necessary. The whole exercise is a fiction anyway, because we know that the true causes are complicated. Many, many people contributed in one way or another. To truly fix things to avoid a repetition would be a daunting task that we have neither the time nor the resources to address. So we designate the scapegoats and move on.
Comparing the two cultures
The differences In a blame-oriented culture, when we look for
the sources of failures, we try to isolate a
few people, and hang the whole thing on thembetween these two cultures — Accountability-Oriented Cultures (AOC) and Blame-Oriented Cultures (BOC) — have material consequences for their respective abilities to succeed. AOCs tend to facilitate learning and steady improvement. BOCs tend to suppress learning and stall improvement. Here are three phenomena that account for some of this difference.
- People harbor differing views as to where safety lies
- When failure occurs, people naturally seek safety. In AOCs, people feel safer when they're confident that something is being done to reduce the probability of failure in the future. They voluntarily contribute whatever they can to advance those efforts. These measures increase the probability that the investigation might produce information that could enhance organizational learning.
- In BOCs, people feel safer when they find a place as far as possible from the investigation into the conditions that contributed to the failure. They do what they can to deflect the investigation from themselves or their own activities. They don't volunteer what they know. Indeed, they might withhold information or even misrepresent what they do know. These measures reduce the probability that the investigation might produce information that could enhance organizational learning.
- People learn how to deal with investigations of failures
- Over time, people learn how to succeed in the organizations in which they work. In AOCs, success depends on keeping up with ever-improving processes. People advance when they demonstrate capability and make positive contributions to organizational efforts. One category of efforts worthy of positive contributions includes the investigations of failures. That's why these investigations produce valuable results.
- In BOCs, success depends on avoiding entanglement with any effort that has produced disappointing results. Even among those who left the effort prior to the failure's becoming visible, there is recognition of the wisdom of keeping out of sight once the investigations begin. This pattern limits the value of the results these investigations produce.
- Organizations use critical thinking skills differently
- To understand the factors that contributed to failure, investigators must analyze the available data using critical thinking skills. That entails applying careful reasoning to the available evidence to reach objective conclusions. AOCs tend to let evidence and reason lead them to conclusions.
- BOCs do use critical thinking skills, but they use them to find ways to connect evidence to the conclusions they prefer. In BOCs, conclusions are more likely to be preconceived, even before evidence is available. Indeed, in what might be termed organizational confirmation bias, preferred conclusions often guide the evidence collection activity. BOCs are therefore more likely to permit preferred outcomes to bias the conclusions of failure investigations.
The findings of failure investigations distinguish Accountability-Oriented Cultures from Blame-Oriented Cultures. BOCs are more likely to attribute failures to a single decision or a few individuals. AOCs are more likely to find complex webs of contributing factors, with many individuals playing roles that contributed to the failure. The appeal of the BOC approach is its simplicity. Regrettably, it rarely has a strong connection to reality. Top Next Issue
Are your projects always (or almost always) late and over budget? Are your project teams plagued by turnover, burnout, and high defect rates? Turn your culture around. Read 52 Tips for Leaders of Project-Oriented Organizations, filled with tips and techniques for organizational leaders. Order Now!
Your comments are welcomeWould you like to see your comments posted here? rbrenogMhuqCxAnbfLvzbner@ChacigAthhhYwzZDgxshoCanyon.comSend me your comments by email, or by Web form.
About Point Lookout
Thank you for reading this article. I hope you enjoyed it and found it useful, and that you'll consider recommending it to a friend.
This article in its entirety was written by a human being. No machine intelligence was involved in any way.
Support Point Lookout by joining the Friends of Point Lookout, as an individual or as an organization.
Do you face a complex interpersonal situation? Send it in, anonymously if you like, and I'll give you my two cents.
More articles on Workplace Politics:
- Workplace Politics Is Not a Game
- We often think about "playing the game" — either with relish or repugnance. Whatever
your level of skill or interest, you'll do better if you see workplace politics as it is. It is not a game.
- Stalking the Elephant in the Room: I
- The expression "the elephant in the room" describes the thought that most of us are thinking,
and none of us dare discuss. Usually, we believe that in avoidance lies personal safety. But free-ranging
elephants present intolerable risks to both the organization and its people.
- Social Entry Strategies: II
- When we first engage with a group at work, we employ social entry strategies to make places for ourselves
to carry out our responsibilities, and to find enjoyment and fulfillment at work. Here's Part II of
a little catalog of social entry strategies.
- Suspense Is Not Your Friend
- Most of us have to talk to other people at work. Whether to peers, subordinates, or superiors, sometimes
we must convey information that can be complicated when delivered in full detail. To convey complicated
ideas effectively, avoid suspense.
- Problem Displacement by Intention
- When solving problems creates new problems, or creates problems elsewhere, we say that problem displacement
has occurred. Sometimes it's intentional.
Forthcoming issues of Point Lookout
- Coming October 4: Self-Importance and Conversational Narcissism at Work: I
- Conversational narcissism is a set of behaviors that participants use to focus the exchange on their own self-interest rather than the shared objective. This post emphasizes the role of these behaviors in advancing a narcissist's sense of self-importance. Available here and by RSS on October 4.
- And on October 11: Self-Importance and Conversational Narcissism at Work: II
- Self-importance is one of four major themes of conversational narcissism. Knowing how to recognize the patterns of conversational narcissism is a fundamental skill needed for controlling it. Here are eight examples that emphasize self-importance. Available here and by RSS on October 11.
I offer email and telephone coaching at both corporate and individual rates. Contact Rick for details at rbrenogMhuqCxAnbfLvzbner@ChacigAthhhYwzZDgxshoCanyon.com or (650) 787-6475, or toll-free in the continental US at (866) 378-5470.
Get the ebook!
Past issues of Point Lookout are available in six ebooks:
- Get 2001-2 in Geese Don't Land on Twigs (PDF, )
- Get 2003-4 in Why Dogs Wag (PDF, )
- Get 2005-6 in Loopy Things We Do (PDF, )
- Get 2007-8 in Things We Believe That Maybe Aren't So True (PDF, )
- Get 2009-10 in The Questions Not Asked (PDF, )
- Get all of the first twelve years (2001-2012) in The Collected Issues of Point Lookout (PDF, )
Are you a writer, editor or publisher on deadline? Are you looking for an article that will get people talking and get compliments flying your way? You can have 500-1000 words in your inbox in one hour. License any article from this Web site. More info