A systems view of management is generally a constructive approach that lends itself to problem solving, especially in the context of a collaborative and high functioning team.  But has the concept of “blame” been discarded too readily?  

Let’s redefine “blame” as “apportioning accountability at the appropriate level”.  In many organisations, the concept of accountability is not applied as rigorously as it might be.

Individual Variability Within a System

An area in which this becomes obvious is interpersonal conflict.  Conflict is often put in the “too hard basket” or excused with phrases like “clash of personalities”, “different value systems” or “incompatibility”.  These excuses open the door to the collapse of a system, because they focus on individual perspectives at the expense of the organisation’s core business. 

Employees are contracted to reliably perform at standards acceptable to the organisation. Failure of employees to perform may be a reflection on the system as a whole.  However, we need to understand that, in some circumstances, employees are accountable for failure at an individual level.  Remedial and/or disciplinary interventions are required in these circumstances. 

The further removed that performance management and disciplinary delegations are from the manager, the more difficult it is to apply appropriate interventions.  Complex organisations, or those with a smaller span of control, have a tendency to limit interventions at the line management level, sometimes requiring the endorsement of the chief executive for applying sanctions.  The tendency is that the line manager has to justify their case through each layer of management, responding to an ever greater number of questions about their line management processes.  Line managers often rely on the next management level to communicate the issues in an accurate and compelling manner.  How can a manager effectively deal with recalcitrant staff under these circumstances?

Employees who are committed to undermining a manager (and they do exist, even if a “rarer breed”) understand the disempowering nature of hierarchical structures and will use this to maintain their opposition to organisational requirements, whilst protecting themselves.  To further complicate matters, many industrial jurisdictions also provide opportunities for employees to lodge grievances through bullying, harassment, discrimination or workers compensation avenues.

Let me make it clear that bullying, harassment, discrimination and mental stresses are very real risks to employees and that strategies to deal with these issues are imperative in the workplace.

However, the evidence suggests that when managers have limited capacity to apply sanctions directly, these processes (like any other) are open to abuse.