Must Heads Roll? A Critique of and Alternative Approaches to Swift Blame

Abstract

When mistakes or perceived wrongdoings occur in the workplace, managers-like most human beings-demonstrate the tendency to locate someone to blame, including assigning responsibility and sanctioning perceived wrongdoers for their actions. We highlight that although this response can be motivated by organizational, legal, and psychological factors, blame can be detrimental to the organization and its employees when it occurs in a spontaneous and nondeliberative manner, which we label swift blame. We argue that swift blame can involve distorted perceptions and judgment, exacerbate conflict, erode employee engagement, and stifle organizational learning. We further argue that managers have a special responsibility to thoughtfully and carefully consider how they react to perceived wrongdoings. Drawing from dual processing theory of cognition, we propose that managers can respond more effectively by adopting perspectives that slow down these tendencies and promote more thoughtful reactions. To this end we highlight research opportunities for three alternatives to swift blame: (a) a no-blame approach, (b) systems of inquiry and accountability, and (c) mindfulness training.The authors acknowledge the support from the Social Sciences and Humanities Council of Canada (#435-2014-0379) received by the first author. 222Copyright of the Academy of Management, all rights reserved. Contents may not be copied, emailed, posted to a listserv, or otherwise transmitted without the copyright holder's express written permission. Users may print, download, or email articles for individual use only. 1 We use the term swift blame as analogous to swift trust (Meyerson, Weick, & Kramer, 1996), which is similarly characterized as an instinctual and reflexive response to one's environment.

Perceived forgiveness climate and punishment of ethical misconduct

“…Doing so would help minimize inappropriate punishment choices that can generate employee resentment (e.g. George, 2008) and inflated turnover (Skarlicki et al, 2017). To the extent that punishing ethical misconduct helps an organization fulfill its social responsibility, these findings reassure managers that promoting a forgiving organizational climate does not necessarily result in greater tolerance of workplace unethical behavior.…”

Much blame – little gain? The effects of single vs multi-blaming on labelling and third-party intervention in workplace bullying

“…Regarding the implications of blame, the question remains whether blaming individuals for wrongdoing in complex and multi-causal phenomena is an effective starting point for intervention. Engaging in blaming fosters system 1 thinking, which does not lead to innovation or an overall reflection of multiple (structural) antecedents of the bullying (Skarlicki et al. , 2017).…”

“…Regarding the implications of blame, the question remains whether blaming individuals for wrongdoing in complex and multi-causal phenomena is an effective starting point for intervention. Engaging in blaming fosters system 1 thinking, which does not lead to innovation or an overall reflection of multiple (structural) antecedents of the bullying (Skarlicki et al, 2017). More recent approaches in (school) bullying intervention highlight "no blame approaches" where not the blame, but only potential (joint) solutions in the classroom are in focus during intervention.…”

Mindfulness and emotion: a five-level analysis

“…Not only are organizations with a PWE more resilient (cf. Vogus & Sutcliffe, 2007b), but they also engender the psychological safety needed by employees to question assumptions (Edmondson, 2002), defer to the expertise of subordinates (Nembhard & Edmondson, 2006), and share their mistakes without fear of reprisal and thereby enable organizational learning (Skarlicki, Kay, Aquino, & Fushtey, 2017).…”