As a country we seem never happier than when we are united in that favourite national pastime – playing the blame game. Whether that is in relation to sport (blame the player(s), blame the manager, blame the referee/umpire, blame the playing conditions) or in a wider societal context (blame the politicians, blame the unions, blame the bankers and, more recently, blame the public sector). With the sudden benefit that 20:20 hindsight appears to bring, we latch onto all sorts of reasons and offer all manner of opinions to explain (or excuse) the perceived failings of the particular individual, group or initiative at whom our disappointment, frustration or anger is directed.
How often do we stop to consider the situation in any logical, rational or informed way or to gather or assess the relevant evidence which may support or counter the particular line of argument we are promoting? And to what extent do we consider the impact that our often ill-informed remarks or assertions may have on those at whom the finger of blame is pointed, simply seeing them as part of the perceived problem, rather than considering them as part of the solution and seeking to engage them in a more meaningful debate?
Often there will be a range of factors which will have contributed to or resulted in the particular outcome but inferences are often drawn in a simplistic way – an approach which may be more immediately appealing, but does little to address or seek to resolve the underlying and substantive issue.
Whilst there has been a shift toward a more evidence-based approach to HR and reward management, do we still find ourselves caught in that vicious cycle, the “good ideas syndrome”, as we enthusiastically embrace the latest initiative or perceived model of good practice, often imported from another organisation where different circumstances may apply, only to regress from initial (unrealistic) optimism to disappointment and, potentially, recrimination when it fails to live up to our expectations?
A recent edition of People Management (15 July) contained a review by Charles Cotton, CIPD Reward Adviser, of Evidence-Based Reward Management, by Michael Armstrong, Duncan Brown and Peter Reilly, the purpose of which is to champion the cause of evidence-based reward management. At a time when workforce costs are under increasing scrutiny and organisations are required to deliver ever more and/or better for less, it is imperative that we can demonstrate the “return on investment” that our reward practices can provide and that they are underpinned by a sound and well researched evidence base. Otherwise, the next time we are left wondering why our expectations have not been met, perhaps we will only have ourselves to blame!
An excellent post, Deborah
I fear that one of the main problems here is that we are seemingly locked in a culture based on individual accountability. When something goes wrong, we look for someone to blame. We ask 'who has messed up?' rather than 'what has gone wrong?'
Organisational performance is based on a complex interaction and interdependency between a number of factors - our methods of working, the materials and equipment we use, the environment in which we work, our approach to managing people. Yes, on the rare occasion it can be the responsibility of one identifiable person, but in the majority of cases we need to undertake a far more holistic analysis of the situation.
Let's practice asking more 'what' than 'who' questions from now. on.
A trackback is a method for Web authors to request notification when somebody links to one of their documents. This enables authors to keep track of who is linking, and so referring, to their articles. Some weblog software programs, such as Wordpress, Drupal and Movable Type, support automatic pingbacks where all the links in a published article can be pinged when the article is published. The term is used colloquially for any kind of linkback.