Click to send email 

Bacal & Associates 
252 Cathcart St. 
Winnipeg, Manitoba 
Canada, R3R 0S2 
(204) 888-9290 

Continuous Improvement  
Exorcise  Blame!  
  
We live in a blaming society. Whether one looks at politics, organizations, or even personal relationships, we, as a society, seem to place great importance on finding some entity or person to blame for almost everything. Political parties blame each other (watch any governmental body meeting or election campaign). Unions blame management. Management blames union. Spouses blame each other.  
  
Perhaps it's just part of our natures, or the way we are brought up, but it seems  
that we are unable to separate the process of blaming from the process of making things better. This separation is of critical importance if we are to improve anything anywhere, but particularly applies to the workplace. While Edward Deming tells us to "drive out fear", we should also be prepared to "drive out blame" from our workplaces. Perhaps the single most important barrier to improvement is blame!  
  
To understand the issue, we need to make some very important distinctions among terms...terms that will help us to recognize the destructiveness of the blaming process.  
  
Blaming refers to an emotion-filled process where we assign responsibility for a past event, but also assign negative emotions to that responsibility. The blamer is attempting to avoid responsibility by pointing to someone else, and may be experiencing fear, anger or other feelings. The receiver (or blamee) tends to experience loss of face, embarrassment, fear and anger.  
  
The problem with the blaming process is not so much to do with responsibility (which is a good thing), but with the emotions that are attached to that responsibility. People who are experiencing anger, humiliation, etc are not likely to focus their energy on solving or preventing a problem from occurring. Clearly, they will be oriented toward defending themselves from experiencing the negative emotions attached to blame.  

  
Taking or assigning responsibility is a subtlely different process. First, it can apply to past, present or future events, where blame is almost exclusively focused on the past. Second, assigning responsibility does not have the excess emotional content of blaming. Responsibility language is different than blaming language. As a manager, you may assign responsibility for a task without assigning blame. And you can hold someone accountable for results without blaming, also. Sometimes the distinctions lie in the delivery of language, even the tone of language. Take a look at the following two statements:  
  
"If you had done your work on time, we wouldn't be in this mess".  
  
"Your responsibility is to fulfil your work commitments on time". When your work wasn't available I had to speak to the Minister (Secretary) without the information I needed."  
  
Even without hearing the tone we can see that the first statement sounds somehow like blame...that the mess is the employee's fault. The second is more of a factual statement, and lacks the emotional content of the first. Also, consider which of the statements above is more conducive to improving things, or preventing delays of this sort in the future. Which is a prelude for problem-solving, and which is a prelude to argument?  
  
Problem-Solving is the third term we need to define. The hallmark of a problem-solving process is that it is focused on the present and the future. Its goal is to fix something occurring now, or prevent something from happening again. It is THE critical process for improving organizations, individual performance, and relationships. Non-blaming problem-solving lacks the negative emotions attached to blaming, and allows a more harmonious approach to the issue, since it's purpose is not to find a donkey to pin a tail on, but prevention. It is less personal and more systems-oriented.  
  
Often the problem solving process rests on an understanding of the past, and an  
understanding of the causes or root causes of a particular issue. It may include:  
  
¨ clarifying the problem solving goal or purpose  
¨ collecting data to help understand past and present  
¨ diagnosis (identifying sources of the problem)  
¨ formulating hypotheses for explaining  
¨ formulating a strategy for addressing the problem  
¨ evaluating the strategy (more data collection)  
  
However, nowhere in problem solving is there a need to assign blame, or create the kinds of humiliation and negative emotions that accompany blame.  
  
Problem solving is a complicated process, and  Total Quality Management leaders  (Deming, Crosby, Juran) have added much to the discussion of how one goes about problem-solving. In fact, one senior manager in government commented that the TQM concept is simply an extensive, efficient and more advanced method of solving problems.   
  
  
What Does This Mean For Managers & Leaders?  

Whether you are interested in continuous improvement, organizational health, or simply want to undertake a performance management approach more effectively, the issue of blame versus problem solving is critical. Not only can you forge better relationships with staff by focusing on problem-solving rather than blame, but you can also influence the degree of blame that is shown by staff to other staff, political department heads, and even customers. Your position in the organization places you firmly as a model for appropriate problem-solving, and anti-blaming behaviour. If you show blaming behaviour you can be sure that your staff will return the favour, often blaming you in turn (often covertly--you will never know). Consider the following suggestions:  
  
1. When problems or issues occur (eg. lack of performance, failure to keep  
commitments,etc), and you feel obligated to intervene, use a problem-solving approach. Begin the process by trying to understand (WITH the employee) the actual problem, and what lies behind it. Knowing, for example that poor performance may be a result of boredom, personal stress, lack of skills or knowledge or other larger systems issues (lack of equipment, authority, etc) and so on allows you to work with the employee to attack the root problem, to PREVENT it from re-occurring. But one important part to note. Problem-solving does NOT mean looking for excuses for the employees behaviour (that's the blame game still). The employee is still responsible for the consequences of their actions and future actions, but the focus is on the future. Again, let's look at two  
dialogues:  
  
Manager: John, you should have notified me that this work wasn't going to be ready for the meeting. We all looked stupid in front of the boss, and it's going to take us days to recover.  
  
John: I tried to tell you but you were on vacation, and I forgot. You are very hard to get hold of, you know.  
  
Manager: You could have called me at home.  
  
John: I didn't want to bother you with it..since you said not to call unless it was an emergency.  
  
Can you guess where this conversation will go? Already you see that the initial statement, rather than trying to uncover the cause of the problem, focused on the past, on what should have been done, and activated the defense of the employee. So, in fact, one person is "attacking" in a subtle way while the other is defending. If this continued, and someone didn't give up, both would end up attacking.  

Contrast this with:  
  
Manager: John, I was expecting to have the brief from you before my meeting. We need to figure out what happened and how to make sure that it doesn't happen again. Was I not clear on the date, or was there some other thing that popped up that caused us to miss the deadline?  
  
John: Well, I might have misunderstood about the urgency, and when you went on vacation, I didn't want to bother you at home.  
  
Manager: Ok, well, how does this sound. In future if I need something on an urgent basis I'll make sure that I tell you. I can also let people know when it is OK to call me at home, so it will be easier. I am also going to ask you to please keep me informed, though on projects like this so we won't be embarrassed again. Does that make sense?  
  
John: Sure...I have a few more suggestions that might help...  
  
If you compare the dialogues you can almost "feel" the difference. The first sounds blaming, emotional and past oriented. The second is neutral, aims to figure out where the problem lies and works to prevent reoccurrence. Of course, problem-solving dialogues don't always go this smoothly, and this example is probably over-simplified. It may be necessary to delve further into root causes than is shown above.  
  
2. As a manager your role extends beyond your direct interactions with a single  
employee, but includes modelling problem-solving in everything you do, particularly at staff meetings and other gatherings. Not only do you use problem-solving but you "steer" blaming conversations back to problem-solving and back to prevention. Employees may attempt to blame one another, or blame some "shadowy they" for difficulties. Your job is to quickly turn the conversation back to "What can we do, then, in future?" Expect and insist on staff taking responsibility not just for identifying problems (often in the form of complaints), but for suggesting workable, positive and constructive solutions to those problems. When you start doing this you begin to create a "blameless culture", and a "responsible culture" that discourages empty complaints, "bitching" and personal  
vendettas that will put you in the middle of other people's disputes.  
  
Closing Points  

We began by discussing our "blaming society", and we need to revisit it. Moving from blaming to responsibility and problem-solving is a tough slog, because you will find that many people will not discern the differences. For some, being responsible also means being at fault, to be culpable or to be blamed. Some people are sufficiently insecure or sensitive that any attempt to have them take responsibility (even for the future) will evoke a defensive and emotional response. Hence, even though YOU may make the transition, some of your staff will still see you as attempting to blame. Your response to those situations is to return to the problem, to continue to ask diagnostic questions, to develop understanding of root problems, etc, and to avoid being drawn into the "blame game" and the emotions that are associated with it. Hopefully after a period of consistent problem-solving behaviour on your part, some of those people will begin to see the difference, and  
to trust that you are not blaming, but "fixing". 

Over the last while our clients have requested that we do more conference speaking and keynotes. One reason is that we provide a different perspective on a number of subjects which has best been describes at pointing out that the "emperor is stark naked". Too many fads, too many abuses of management and training  techniques,  and we are particularly good at highlighting myths in the common wisdom.  
  
If you are looking for something different for your conference or get together, let us know. We promise a dynamic, energizing and thought provoking presentation that will get people's attention, and get people talking.  

We custom design our presentations but here are just a few sample topics:  
 

Why Performance Management Fails (and what to do about it)   
Training Scams That Trainers Play  
Why Most Training is A Bad Investment   
Cooperative Communication = The Core Team Skill   
Defusing Hostile Customers 

Teams & Personal Responsibility   
Dealing With Difficult Parents (for educators)   
How To Make Strategic Planning Work 

Return To Top of Page 

Need A Speaker? Have a comment on this article?  Click to send email  
 

As the editor of the Public Sector Manager (for six years) I would like to welcome you to the online version of our publication. We are migrating our newsletter to the 'net, and phasing out our paper publication. While the current title of the newsletter reflects it's roots and origins, you will find that almost all of the content relates to all sectors: public, private, and not-for-profit. In the Spring of '98, we will be renaming the newsletter to reflect these editorial changes.  

The PSM newsletter will be available in two ways. It will be posted on the internet at our web site, or you can subscribe for free and receive it in your mailbox. Subscription is simple. Just send us an email requesting that you be placed on our PSM mailing list. However, to take advantage of this option you will need:  

An Internet browser (like Netscape or MS Explorer)...what you are using to read this now.  

You will also need a program that can unzip "zipped" archives. 

All you will need to do is save the "zip" file we send you via email, unzip it and view the newsletter file with your browser. We will send instructions along with the newsletter.  

This is our first pure internet version. We invite your comments about the readability or formatting, so we can continue to improve it over the next few months. Please e-mail your comments to rbacal@escape.ca.  

 Return To Top of Page 

Effective Communication 

Conflict Prevention In The Workplace 

After about eight years working with government staff who deal with irate and angry clientele, we have concluded that organizations need to move away from the notions of conflict management and conflict resolution to a more proactive, preventative approach to conflict. Our research suggests that their are huge numbers of programs around to teach people to manage conflict, but very few programs that have a core focus on conflict prevention. In 1998 we will be offering a new "Conflict Prevention Through Cooperative Communication" seminar, and a new book on the subject. In this article we are going to present a rationale and some basic thoughts about the process of conflict prevention. 

Why Prevention? 

Whether it's in the workplace or our personal life, conflict can eat up large amounts of time, often creating "unpleasant" time. Whether it's between staff member and customer; manager and staff, or among colleagues in a team setting, a good amount of the time spent on conflict management is non-constructive. Even when conflict is handled well in organizations, there are often destructive outcomes--unresolved anger, sense of personality conflicts, and residual customer frustration. 

It makes sense to try to lower the overall incidence of conflict situations--to move away from the reactive, traditional approaches, so that we save time and avoid the negative effects of conflict in the workplace. This is consistent with more recent approaches coming from the Quality Improvement movement that stress prevention rather than action after the fact (inspection). 

Is Some Conflict Desirable? 

There are folks out there that suggest some organizational conflict is not only necessary but desirable. That's probably true. Conflict situations are opportunities to find new ways of doing things, and conflict management approaches stress the application of management techniques to increase the probability that conflict result in good things. 

However, the real answer is "It depends". It depends on the nature of the conflicts occurring and how they are dealt with. There is good conflict and bad. For example good conflict can be defined as conflict resulting in better processes, better ideas, better problem solving, and better relationships. Bad conflict is the opposite. For example, conflict that becomes personalized (as in the venerable "personality conflict") is almost always destructive in many ways, since it erodes the ability to create solutions to problems. In personality conflicts more energy is allocated to the conflict process than to the solution of problems, and this isn't surprising since most of these situations aren't about problem solving in the first place. 

Perhaps it's a good idea to answer the question this way: Let's define differences of opinion, clashes of ideas and so on as opportunities for problem-solving and opportunities for improvement. Let's define conflict situations as those that generate emotional responses, often in a way that deters people from problem solving or doing things better. 

So, we don't need to avoid idea clashes or differences in opinion...in fact we can grow our organizations on the backs of differences in opinion. We want these. We don't want heated conflict that drives us backwards, or creates resistance to new, better ideas. 

How Does "Bad" Conflict Occur? 

Destructive conflict occurs for a number of reasons. Understanding these reasons helps us to determine how we can go about eliminating unnecessary, destructive conflicts. 

A major source of conflict involves the use of language. We know that some ways of communicating are much more likely to create resistance (often active resistance) to ideas, and create conflict where none is necessary. Consider the person who communicates their ideas in an absolute, dogmatic fashion, using words such as always, everybody, should, ought to, and must. In so many situations, the use of such language drives people to resist, or even attack the speaker in question, simply on the basis of the use of those words. 

Destructive conflict evolves out of problems that are not solved quickly. If we start with a problem situation (eg. disagreement about a particular issue), there is a period of time where the situation can be "solved" with a minimal level of frustration and anger. After that point, frustration levels increase to the point where the conflict becomes "personalized"...the issue or problem gets lost, and it becomes an issue of one person vs. another, rather than one idea vs. the other. Unresolved problems move into conflict, and it isn't pleasant. 

Organizations can create a situation where the window for solving problems constructively is down to zero. We are all familiar with organizations (sometimes called toxic organizations), where the smallest point can become a battle-ground over and over again. This occurs when there is a history of poor problem-solving. When a number of people experience high levels of frustration from not being heard, or see problems dragging out, they get "primed" for conflict...easily encouraged to create destructive conflict, since lower-key problem-solving seems to be ineffective. Hence they raise the volume. 

Tips And Suggestions For Conflict Prevention For Managers 

Managers and supervisors bear a special responsibility for focusing on problem solving rather than conflict. The responsibility includes modelling desired problem-solving processes, moving away from blame, and acting as a constructive third party in potential conflict situations. 

1. Learn and use cooperative communication techniques. Cooperative communication techniques are specific approaches to communication that invite people to disagree constructively. 

They include: 

(each item has associated very specific uses of language and words associated with it) 
 

• focus on fixing problems, not finding the person to blame
• leave the past behind and emphasize present and future
• use qualifiers as appropriate (might, perhaps, it's possible)
• communicate it is possible you are mistaken
• use words and phrases with reduced negative emotional impact
• allows face saving for others
• respond directly to what is said to you first

3. Be "with-it". Withitness means that you are well connected to what is going on with and between staff. It means being aware of problems as they occur, so they can be addressed quickly and effectively without festering and becoming negative conflict. Withitness requires frequent communication -- primarily from staff to the manager. As such you may need to address how to formally imbed this communication into what you and your staff do. 

4. While there is some validity to encouraging people to "blow off steam" it should be clear that such an activity will be of limited duration when you are involved. Then it's time to refocus on fixing things, rather than bemoaning how bad things are. 

Managers don't have magic wands to fix problems, particularly interpersonal ones. It should be clear to staff that the primary responsibility to address problems lies with the parties involved, and that identifying a problem, while a good thing, also involves a responsibility to help in the solution. We need to encourage staff to avoid looking to management as a "father/mother figure" who will step in and eliminate a problem that is created by two other people. 

5. Consider that systems of work (how work is done, who does it, who is accountable and responsible) can be major contributors to increasing conflict. It is possible to set up systems that will guarantee destructive conflict. (eg. two people working on a project with overlapping or very unclear responsibilities. By improving work systems it is possible to prevent conflict that arises from that source. 

6. Finally, keep in mind that, as children,  we learn non-cooperative communication skills way before we learn to work together cooperatively. That means that conflict is created simply by virtue of people not knowing how to speak or communicate in constructive ways. It doesn't mean people do so intentionally or that they are locked into a "style". Cooperative communication is learned. As such, training in those skills, or team interventions that have a communication learning component are invaluable. Support staff by encouraging ALL staff to attend appropriate training in this area. If you are working in a team-context, you may find that communication related training can go a long way to increasing effectiveness, and may be a good starting point for team interventions. 

For more information about The Institute For Cooperative Communication and how it can assist you in reducing/preventing unnecessary conflict, contact us at (204) 888-9290 or by email at rbacal@escape.ca . 

Return To Top of Page 

Have a comment on this article?  Click to send email  

Workplace Improvement 

The Problem With Pop Psych. In The Workplace 

More and more writers are publishing books on psychology for the general public. These books (and also videos and tapes) help authors and psychologists get their theories and ideas out to a broad public, hence the term "pop(ular) psychology". The good news is that people unschooled in psychology can learn from these kinds of books even if they unlikely to read psychology textbooks or professional journals . The bad news is that people unschooled in psychology can learn from these kinds of books even if they are unlikely to read psychology textbooks or professional journals. 

Sounds nonsensical? Before you apply what you have learned from pop psych. books to your workplace make sure you read the rest of this article. 

The Nature of Pop Psych. 

Over the last decade or so we have seen an increase in interest in understanding ourselves and those around us, and with that increase, there has been an increase in the number of "psychology" books published for laypeople. If you browse the psychology section in any book store you will find books on multiple intelligence, emotional intelligence, personality typologies (such as the MBTI and the Enneagram), etc. Most of the available material is written by psychologists, adding at least a veneer of respectibility. After all, many people are impressed with a book written by a P.hD. 

Before you jump into using the concepts you may read about, or hire a consultant or trainer to do so, you should know that a single book or even a series of books from one author is not able to give you the "whole picture". There are several reasons for this. First, any author is going to be biased in favor of his or her ideas (if they thought they were writing junk, they probably wouldn't be writing). Second, for marketing reasons, ideas presented in a single book by a single author tend to be "watered down" so they are easier to understand by people without specialized education. Third, the ideas presented are often isolated from events in the history of psychology, and are not likely to be balanced with evidence that refutes the author's contentions. 

It isn't so much that the ideas are wrong (although they might be). They may represent just part of the truth, or part of our understanding at the time. This isn't done maliciously. It reflects the nature of the publishing industry AND the nature of how we research psychology. 

Psychology, like any science, evolves constantly. In a sense the "truth" is never found, since research almost always generates evidence in favour of a particular set of ideas AND evidence that contradicts that set of ideas. A person doing psychology research tends to want to publish in what are called peer-reviewed professional journals, where their article is critiqued and assessed prior to publication. If the methods used in the research are faulty, then the article should never get published. After many experiments are done over time, ideas are either reinforced or cast aside as others replace them. 

Where Does The Problem Lie? 

What we often end up with is the "a little knowledge is a dangerous thing". Managers, staff, and particularly trainers and consultants latch on to a particular psychological perspective based on the findings of one author or one or two books. Having found the "way" they try to implement things like diversity in the workplace based on psychological styles (see the November issue of the PSM Newsletter), without truly understanding the limitations of the approach. Or they read the Enneagram, another typing tool and do the same. Sometimes these approaches work. Sometimes they have no effect, and sometimes they can be negative. In all cases there is an investment of time and resources. But since people applying pop psych. don't have a really complete picture of the ideas they are applying, it really becomes a crap shoot. For example, most users of personality typing tools are not aware that there are probably hundreds of learning styles defined in the literature. How can they make intelligent decisions without haing that understanding? What tests are best? What are the differences between different ones? Which is most likely to work with a given organization for a specific purpose?  

None of these questions can be answered based on the reading of a single book. One has to read the actual research, some of which may go back decades, or take the risk that the lack of a "complete picture" will result in failure. 

So, in a sense, the use of pop psych. ideas encourages "faddism" in management and in organizations. The "newest thing" is tried, based on a popular book. Often it fails, but those "trying" will never know why. They discard the old fad and move to a new one, which again is based on an inadequate understanding of the background and issues. 

'Round and 'round we go. 

Some Specific Suggestions: 

1. Just because "pop psych" material may be biased, and in some cases partly incorrect or inaccurate doesn't mean you should stop reading. What it does mean is that you need to apply a good measure of critical thinking while you read. Be aware that you have an incomplete picture, and that you may not be able to easily create the full picture unless you have months to research. 

2. One of the scarier part of the "pop psych" trend is that many trainers and consultants believe that on the strength of reading a book or two, they can help you apply the concepts to your workplace. Here's an example. There are many assertiveness training people running around. Unfortunately, while assertive behaviour has it's pluses, it also has limitations when applied to specific ituations-- sometimes it makes discussion worse. Many trainers, having read only one or two pop psych. books on the subject won't have a complete picture and may teach your staff the wrong things through ignorance. So, explore the background, qualifications and source material any consultant uses. If they tend to quote or use only a limited range of sources, that may be a red flag. 

3. Always remember that the pop psych author, the publisher, and consultants and trainers have a vested interest not only in informing but entertaining, and above all, making a profit. Publishers in pop psych. don't publish for fun...they want you to read, be convinced and purchase the next book on the subject. 

4. If you are really interested in the study of psychology, you might want to look at alternate sources of information. One thing you can do is purchase a few basic psychology textbooks, often used in introductory psychology courses. In most cities, these can be purchased from used book stores at a tiny fraction of the cost. Textbooks tend to be less entertaining to read but at least try to balance out different perspectives. 

5. Don't assume that a pop psych book is "right" just because the author has a doctorate in psychology or because it has been printed. Always keep in mind point #3 above. It's a business. 

6. As a person in the workplace, you may not have the time or background to assess what you might read. That's fine if you read pop psych. material for fun (and a bit of information). It isn't so good if you want to apply the ideas to your workplace. Consider getting alternate opinions before you jump in to application. University faculty are great resources, and can sometimes be involved at low or no cost. A few phone calls to the local university psychology department may be very useful in getting a bit more balance. 

7. Above all, consider the purchase and application of training or pop psych like you would the purchase of a personal vehicle. You probably aren't going to spend $27,000 on a vehicle without at least finding out what other people (not the car company) are saying about the vehicle. Why would you invest considerable time, energy and money in purchasing or applying pop psych. principles in the workplace without finding out what others are saying? 

Return To Top of Page 

Have a comment on this article?  Click to send email