The Emphatic Denial of Accountability

Stop me if you’ve heard this one before: “Who is going to take responsibility if anything happens?”

Here’s another: “I don’t want to be responsible for anything that happens.”

Someone in your office has probably also said (or might have said in so many words): “I refuse to take responsibility.”

Sound familiar?

These are not transcripts from a tape recorder I may or may not have hidden in my office. Rather, these are snippets of dialogue from the subjects in Stanley Milgram’s obedience study which studied the willingness of people to obey an authority figure who instructed them to perform acts conflicting with their conscience. While the study is useful for a whole host of reasons, during a recent viewing I couldn’t help but notice the emphasis with which the above was said.

I think you can safely call these examples of an emphatic denial of accountability.

Milgram reported that many of his subjects placed responsibility for their own actions on the experimenter. They were “just following orders.”

There is so much that could be (and has been) written about the subject of blame. I won’t add anything to the pile out there, but I have some thoughts on the matter from my casual observation.

In a scenario-based world, consider this: at an unnamed plant, power is reduced too far, too fast due to an operator’s programming mistake. The power is now far below the procedural limit for operation.

According to procedures, certain testing cannot proceed at this power level. A shift change occurs at midnight and as the morning begins, a supervisor begins a tyrannical rage at the operators, coercing them to restore power and continue.

The only method available to raise power at that point is to begin withdrawing control rods in excess of a set limit. The operators, under duress, do so.

One of the operators in an interview says later: “I didn’t know anything about it, and I can’t say whether there were fewer rods than required. I did what I was told to do.”

Did you notice something in that statement?  Perhaps you saw the employee attributing his behavior to the tyrannical supervisor? I did, anyway.

We know what this is called: the blame game. How often we say our employees must be practicing it daily in the hope they can beat the other person. After all, if they can pass the blame better and faster than the other person can pass the blame, they’re free of responsibility.

It’s like a hot potato.

And you would never do that.

For the most part I believe there is a strong insurgence of accountability in organizations today such that the average professional will do their best to abstain from the blame game. After all, there are posters and books and slogans and courses and coffee mugs which scream the business buzz word of the day: accountability, duty, responsibility, etc.

Here’s the problem, though: the threat of power will change all of that, and it doesn’t take much to shift an employee from the conscientious, accountable person you want them to be to a shifty-eyed, shortstop passing the blame from base to base like a pro.

And that’s where the blame for the blame game actually sits: with the lead, the supervisor, the manager.

I have a belief that should coercive power be removed from the organization, the majority of frontline workers will do the right thing: they will stop work when they see a threat to life or limb; they will display a true questioning attitude; and they will ensure that rework doesn’t drain a project of resources. They will stand up for—and stand behind—the organization.

When coercive power is applied, however, all of that changes.

Think of Milgram’s experiment for a moment: in the face of authoritarian pressure, the subject will continue past the point where stopping would be safe.

Examples of this effect are everywhere in organizations today, despite the call to be accountable for our actions. Sure: we’re willing to be accountable for our own actions, but sometimes our behavior puts an employee in the blame game at shortstop with a hot potato in their hand.

Let’s Choose Your Own Adventure again:

There is a highly accountable person in your organization. If pressured, he will remain sharp and will stop work when needed. He is always on top of procedural changes, and is willing to own mistakes and stand up for what’s right. You said as much on his last performance review. Conscientiousness is his middle name.

One day, the project receives news that a client must have a task completed by the end of the week. The pressure is on, and you—the supervisor—are on edge. If the task is a failure, your performance review will suffer and you’ll be lucky to have a job at month’s end.

You notice the employee appears uncomfortable and approach him with this observation. He says he knows the task must be done by the end of the week, but there are erroneous readings in every test he has performed. It could be something minor that won’t change the outcome of the task, but then again, it may be a major problem. He’s obviously worried, but has said (in so many words) that you must be worried more.

If you choose to force the employee to continue the task and press on while using catch phrases like “flexibility is the key” and “the tough stand tall,” turn to page 141.

If you choose to elevate the concerns of your employee and allow him to stop work while the readings are investigated—knowing this may cost you your job, turn to page 38.

What are you going to do? And if you do choose to elevate the concerns, will your manager understand?

Look around your organization for examples of the type of behavior that leads to that emphatic denial of accountability, because if you choose to force that employee into doing something that leads to disaster, his response may very well be “I was just following orders.”

It has happened many times before, even in a person oozing with accountability. (Both of the examples in this article are factual.)

Look for what behaviors are to blame for the continuation of the blame game.

Look at yourself, too. Are you the supervisor launching a tyrannical rage at your operators, coercing them to restore power and continue?

When you see “blame others” on engagement surveys, it may be wise to look inward and see if the problem rests with how you approach your employees.

---

If your organization needs Leadership Development, contact Wretlind Consulting Services, LLC to see what options are available for you.