You are sad, hurt, and probably angry because you suffered a
insult, or injury. Someone must be
held responsible, who
should we blame?
- Assigning responsibility for a
- Disposing of grief.
- Disposing of your loss.
The terms: accuse, answer for, charge, hold responsible, incriminate, indict,
fault, take the fall, and find guilty are synonyms for blame.
We blame others to dispose of problems and protect our sense of
self-worth when things go bad. We take credit
ourselves to enhance our sense of self-worth when things go well.
Origins and Benefits
Understanding the causes that contribute to a loss promotes learning
and allows prevention of similar losses.
Assigning blame for your loss is an effort to sustain your
stature as you resolve your grief. The questions: “Whose fault is it?”, “Who do you blame”, “Who do you hold
responsible”, and “Are you willing to take the blame for this?” are so common we
rarely give them a second thought. But they each help to perpetuate the
fallacy of single cause—the mistaken belief
that a single person, group, organization, decision, or event caused the loss.
In almost every situation many factors contribute to each outcome. Relying
quickly on blame to dispose of our loss also relies on the
fallacy of intentional stance—the
mistaken belief that results only follow from deliberate intent. When things
go well, many people are quick to take credit. When things go bad, surely the
same number of people also contributed. Self-justification—describing events in
a way that preserves our pride and reduces
cognitive dissonance—causes us to
distort the evidence and shift blame to others.
pessimists tend to assign blame differently. The optimist takes broad credit for good outcomes and narrow
responsibility for bad outcomes. The pessimist
blames himself broadly for bad outcomes and
attributes good outcomes to external factors.
A careful and thoughtful analysis
will consider all the involved parties along with each of their actions and
inactions before attributing causes. You can begin this analysis by answering these
questions whenever a loss occurs:
- What are all the things that could have been done to prevent the loss?
- What people, groups, and organizations were involved in planning and
carrying out the events leading to the loss?
- What decisions, events, failures, or inactions contributed to the loss?
- What actions did each take that contributed to the loss?
- What actions did they fail to take to prevent the loss?
- What did you do to contribute to the loss?
- Who had the earliest opportunity to avoid the loss? Who had the last
chance? Why were these opportunities missed?
- How could you have prevented the loss?
- How do you divide up responsibility for the loss among all of the
contributing factors you have identified? (Assign “percent responsibility” to each
contributing factor and adjust this assignment to arrive at a total of 100%)
How much responsibility falls on you?
The 9/11 commission report is an excellent example of careful analysis that
results in allocating blame across many contributing causes. To understand the
causes of the tragic September 11, 2001 terrorist attack on the United States,
the members of the 9/11 commission interviewed over 1,200 people in 10 countries
and reviewed over two and a half million pages of documents, including some
closely-guarded classified national security documents. The report begins by
assigning blame broadly to “A failure of imagination” and ends with 97 specific
recommendations for preventive action.
Several systematic approaches are used to carefully analyze and identify the
many contributing causes of system failures. Each of these tools avoids the
fallacy of single cause by helping to identify
the many factors contributing to each outcome. One of the simplest and most
powerful is the Cause-and-Effect diagram, also know as a fishbone diagram or an
To illustrate use of the fishbone diagram, consider this example that
identifies the factors contributing to a particular tragic automobile accident.
Begin by identifying the loss being studied, in this case it is a particular
auto accident. Then list high level categories of contributing factors, in this
case “driver”, “car”, “road”, and “traffic” are each listed. Then enumerate the
contributing causes under each of those categories. Continue expanding the
outline until all the contributing factors are identified. Often simply
asking “why did this happen” in a curious and nonthreatening way for each listed
cause can help to expand the outline. Consider all the
evidence and a broad range of
viewpoints. The information can be recorded in an
outline as shown below, or more traditionally as an actual fishbone diagram.
Causes contributing to an Auto Accident:
- Driver completed only minimal driver training
- New driver
- Only practiced on local roads
- Got very little sleep last night
- Had already been driving 15 hours today before the accident
- Did not take rest stops, share driving, or drink coffee
- Distracted by a cell phone call
- Friends in the back seat were horsing around
- Driving decisions
- Not wearing seat belts
- Vehicle design is prone to skids and rolls.
- Brakes were badly worn.
- Tire pressure was low
- Poor visibility out the windows
- No side-view mirrors
- Dangerous curve not well marked
- Unlit roadway
- Dangerous intersection
- Slick surface
- Non-reflective paint
- Poor weather, night, fog, and rain.
- Other driver was not alert and experienced
- Traffic was very variable; often no cars then suddenly lots of cars
This outline now provides a structure for allocating responsibility
(assigning blame) to each contributing cause. Divide 100% responsibility across
the major contributing factors. The resulting assignment might look like this:
- 40% Driver related causes
- 20% Car design and maintenance related causes
- 30% Road design and road conditions
- 10% Traffic, including the other driver.
Based on this analysis, who is to blame? It looks like the blame is shared
across many causes with the driver (could that be you?) bearing the greatest
blame at 40% and the other driver (traffic) bearing the least blame at 10%. This
detailed analysis is probably substantially different from your immediate impulse to blame
the other guy.
Stories capture our attention and often shift blame. Alluring stories often
displace ambiguity and sometimes obscure facts. The
best story often wins. Red
herrings—stories designed to distract attention from inconvenient
often used to avoid blame and shift blame. Stories can create
scapegoats by shifting blame for the group's
misfortune to one particular person. Because stories create a complete and
consistent explanation of events, they tempt us to close off investigations,
even before all the facts are uncovered. The story may distract us from what is
relevant by making us so comfortable with what is irrelevant. Even if a story is
true, it may present only one point of view and may
not accurately represent all that happened.
Here are some common examples. If you do not eat fat you cannot become fat,
so please do not blame sugar for your weight gain. Saddam Hussein is building
weapons of mass destruction. We can blame him for the terrorism emerging from
the Middle East. Illegal aliens are taking our jobs, look no further for the
cause of our economic and social problems. Children's vaccinations cause autism,
so now we have an object for our anger.
Enjoy stories, then keep probing, check the facts and continue the
The term “corrective action” refers to steps taken to repair or recover from
the loss. In our example this may include getting the car fixed and attending to
any injured people or other property. It may also include paying restitution.
The term “preventive action” refers to steps taken to learn from the
original loss and to prevent additional similar losses. The phrase “you can be
sure I'll never do that again” begins to capture the idea. Continuing with “and
this is how I'll make sure it never happens again” completes the thought. In our example,
taking steps to improve driving skill, stay alert, minimize distractions, use
seat belts, and share the driving on long trips are all helpful preventive
The Paths of Blame
Events that can trigger blaming are common and frequent occurrences. How we
respond to those provocations and the choices we make critically affect our
peace of mind, well being, and our lives. The following figure illustrates
choices we have and paths we can take to either get stuck blaming and seeking
revenge, or to constructively resolve the problem.
Use this like you would any other map: 1) decide where you are now, 2) decide where you
want to go, 3) choose the best path to get there, and 4) go down the chosen path.
Keep in mind: as you walk you make your path.
This diagram is an example of a type of chart known by systems analysts as a
state transition diagram. Each colored elliptical bubble represents a state of being that represents the way you are now. The labels on the arrows
represent actions or events and the arrows show paths into or out of each state. You
are at one place on this chart for one particular relationship or interaction at any particular
time. Other people are likely to be in other places on the chart. This is
similar to an ordinary road map where you plot where you are now, while other
people are at other places on the same map. Begin the analysis at the green “OK”
bubble, or wherever else you believe you are now.
OK: This is the beginning or neutral state. It corresponds to someone
who is not now suffering a loss. The green color represents safety, tranquility, equanimity, and growth
Loss: We were OK until we suffered a loss or injury. We are sad, hurt, and
probably angry. The urge to blame someone for the loss is nearly overwhelming.
Injured: After the loss we are injured. We now face an important choice in
how to proceed and cope with our loss. The injury
contributes to our stress. The yellow color represents our loss.
Snap Judgment: We may yield to our primal thinking, make a snap judgment, and
fall into the
fallacy of single cause by finding someone to
blame for our troubles. The orange color reflects the increasing danger this
Blaming: Here we are finding someone, perhaps anyone, to pin the blame on.
Seeking Revenge: Having decided who is to blame, we can now seek
Vengeful: We are indulging our vengeful passions.
Careful Analysis: Rather than rushing to judgment and finding someone to
blame, we decide to conduct a careful analysis, as described in detail above. We
carefully create a cause-and-effect diagram to list all the contributing causes
to the problem.
Causes Known: The analysis helps us to know all the causes that contributed
to our loss. This information allows us to take effective corrective and
Corrective Action: We take steps to remedy the loss. We understand what we can change and what we cannot
change and take constructive action.
Loss Mitigated: Although we cannot change the past, we have done what we can
to repair the damage and reduce the loss.
Preventive Action: We learn from the mistakes that were made and take steps
to prevent further similar problems from occurring.
- “Success has many parents, but failure is an orphan.”
- “It is no use to blame the looking glass if your face is awry.” ~
- “Take your life in your own hands, and what happens? A terrible thing:
no one to blame.” ~ Erica Jong
- “When you blame others, you give up your power to change.” ~ Robert
- “Blame is where we try to park our grief.” ~
Leland R. Beaumont
- “Anyone who has never made a mistake has never tried anything.” ~
- “I screwed up.” ~ President Barack Obama
- “Don't blame the victim.” ~
- “By your stumbling, the world is perfected.”
Root Cause Analysis : A Tool for Total Quality Management, by Paul F.
Juran's Quality Control Handbook,
J.M. Juran and Frank M. Gryna
ISO 9001, The Standard Interpretation,
by Leland R. Beaumont
Mistakes Were Made (But Not by Me),
by Carol Tavris and Elliot Aronson
The 9/11 Commission Report: Final Report of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States,
by the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks.