Blaming Others Is Not Constructive!

In my three decades of consulting in numerous areas, including motivation and self- help, I have come to realize that blaming others rarely accomplishes anything constructive. Many individuals choose to blame others in order to absolve themselves of any blame, often making another individual the "scapegoat" for all issues, woes, and challenges. Dictionary.com defines "scapegoat" as "one who is made to bear the blame for others." This expression had biblical origins, from when Aaron sacrificed a goat for forgiveness of the sins of the Israelites. Today, we
witness scapegoating in many aspects of life. Politicians often "sacrifice" a campaign worker, aide, or even a friend or family member, to shelter themselves from blame. We have all heard of police interrogations when police, reportedly, tell multiple suspects that a "deal" will be made with whichever suspect "comes clean" first.

From an honesty and decency point of view, the practice of scapegoating should be repugnant to any ethical, moral, and honorable person. What ever happened to personal responsibility. We often hear that the "scapegoat" was the "weak link" in the operation, and that by disposing of a certain individual, the operation will function more efficiently.

Very rarely does a subordinate either scapegoat a superior, or even get that opportunity. Those in charge are the ones who generally shelter themselves by saying that a subordinate was not doing his job, or that it wasn't the superior's fault that the subordinate was either incompetent or dishonest. We have even witnessed President Obama throwing both his grandmother, as well as his Reverend "under the bus," in the sense that, during his presidential campaign, he said he even observed a form of racism from his maternal grandmother, and that he did not pay attention to, nor even remember, some of the more controversial statements made by his Reverend.

In the workplace, when a superior (supervisor, manager, or even above) comes "under fire" for nor getting something done properly, or not accomplishing what he should have, often blames a subordinate, and often that subordinate is "forced" to either resign or have his or her employment terminated. While there are certainly times that much of the fault may have been the subordinates, or at least that subordinate contributed to the ineffectiveness by not adequately performing his duties, effective managers effectively oversee what their aides or subordinates are doing, and review and evaluate their work on an ongoing basis, requiring certain tasks accomplished on a timely basis, or, at the very least, receive regular reports (which should include tasks performed, being worked on, anticipated resolution dates, status, and other relevant information). If a subordinate has worked for a superior for more than thirty (but certainly less than sixty days), the superior should always be held accountable for the failings of a superior, unless the superior took effective action in a timely manner. Harry Truman did not believe that "The Buck Stops Here" was merely a sign on his desk, or a clever motto, but rather that it was his obligation to assure that tasks were accomplished as they should be.

It is however, important to realize that there is a difference between scapegoating and rightfully terminating a subordinate because he or she could not get the job done. Proper handling of personnel employed by a superior is that individual's duty, and the superior must be held accountable, if he is lax about assuring that his employees were properly handling tasks assigned. A superior is not responsible merely because an employee makes an error, but becomes responsible when he fails to act in a timely manner to correct the situation.

There is very little in business as cowardly as scapegoating. Unfortunately, it regularly occurs, because, often, either "higher-ups" or someone influential demands "someone's head." Those higher up often automatically believe that by eliminating the supposed "weakest link" the problem will be resolved, should likewise be held responsible for not fully examining the issue. In many cases, the individual who makes another the scapegoat is at least as responsible by not properly overseeing the situation, and being a proper manager!