Micro Organizational Behaviour

Stephen Friedman writes about the “The blame game” in this weeks Financial Post. I agree 100% that blame can be poison in an organization, and, as the legal professional is keenly aware, determining who is at fault can be a long process that can be well removed from objective reasoning.

In the past, I have adopted the stance of “pin it on me and let’s move forward” with some success. There is a dangerous balance when it comes to taking this acceptance too lightly, as I have on occasion. Chalk up short-term gain of not having to worry about whose fault it is; the danger, however, lies in the long-term issue of “well, you have made these kind of mistakes before.”

Prof. Friedman suggests that a boss will need to give the employee the benefit of the doubt that the fault does indeed lie with the client (and not, presumably, the account manager or consultant). One has to be aware of the one’s own benefit-of-the-doubt status with others (e.g. bosses), and whether that particular equity rising or falling. If your reputation is strong enough that it can withstand a stain or two, falling on the sword may be the path of least resistance and fastest route to a resolution. If your reputation needs strengthening, be wary of (unduly) accepting yet more undeserved blame.

Picking battles becomes very important. Going through the steps of establishing a solid benefit of the doubt can give you the leeway of forgoing a battle of blame to focus–as Prof. Friedman suggests–on solutions.