avoiding the blame trap
i don’t want to sound blame-y… but…
damn, what a statement. twice in the last week i’ve had clients struggle with this common issue - they want to hold someone accountable, but not come across as blaming or aggressive. they WANT to act from above the line, but struggle with the words.
i’ll admit, i struggle with this too.
how do we share critical feedback, concerns over a missed obligation, our frustrations with poor work, or a simple miss that someone else should have caught, without jumping down below the line into villainy or blame?
for me, the key is remembering that there’s a true difference between context and content. between the facts of the situation, and how we think and speak about it.
how we get to blame-state:
human beings spend the majority of their time in a reactive (i.e. below the line) state - we get energy. we get to feel right. we get to commiserate with others. and when we’re unconscious and reactive, its soooo easy to slip down onto the drama triangle, placing blame on others for things going poorly or falling out of control. it’s a natural human response. we all do it.
that first client - let’s call her sara - stepped in and hero’ed a teammate when they didn’t get something done in time, saving their project (at least temporarily). she brought up the issue with her manager, and dropped into blame-state:
‘just so you know, i took care of this, but only because he didn’t have the foresight to account for the potential delays. he didn’t plan, and it almost cost us the project!’
ouch. in our session sara shared serious shame and regret for blaming her colleague. all she’d wanted to do was let the boss know that things were taken care of, but there was also an issue. she felt like she couldn’t express her frustration without blaming him!
my second client is an uber-successful coo at a fast growing startup, and an enneagram 8 - the challenger. when we came together this week, his struggle was obvious - how to ‘call out’ a fellow executive for consistently not living up to the agreements they’re making, while finding a softer edge.
(enneagram 8’s, in case you don’t know, are motivated by a primary desire to show strength and action, often shooting first and aiming later - and more often than not coming across as super rational, unemotional, and harsh.)
in his desire to find a softer approach, he was afraid that giving up his innate level of candor would feel out of integrity.
‘i want to be able to be me - to communicate clearly what’s going on, i just wish people didn’t have so many goddamn feelings!’
the blame trap
conscious leadership 101: there’s a difference between content (the ‘what’ of a situation) and context (everything else).
for both clients, the content was true: a slip in planning caused a potential failed project. that fellow exec keeps saying things’ll be done, but they never are. the facts are unarguable.
but what about the context? both wanted to feel right. to be seen as successful. to drive forward at all costs. to be even shinier in the eyes of their managers or teammates.
in that moment, they became the villain. and villains need victims…
boom. blame trap!
‘i solved it! you fucked it up.’
‘why can’t you just focus on getting this shit done instead of constantly promising and then delivering nothing but excuses??’
again, the content - the actual issues present - needed to be brought up. but the blame trap snapped, and below the line context just added to the drama of the situation rather than cleanly resolving it.
how to shift
so, to the core question both asked: how the hell do i avoid the blame trap?
there’s a few options in terms of shift moves, but the first step? awareness. are you aware that you’re below the line? can you accept yourself for feeling like blaming that person? if yes… awesome. let’s see if we can shift.
examine the facts, and your stories:
what are the unarguable facts of this situation? if a video camera or court reporter recorded everything that happened, what would they see? a missed deadline. a broken or unclean agreement. a message in slack. a frowning look. a task that you took on when someone else didn’t.
what are your stories - your judgements, thoughts, narratives, assumptions, etc.? what are you putting on top of the facts? he didn’t get that done on time, so he must be a bad planner. he obviously didn’t even think of contingency plans. she never gets anything done. she’s just a fractional exec and doesn’t actually care about the business. he just doesn’t have the ability to take harsh feedback. they take everything so damn personally. business is business, and feelings shouldn’t be here.
focus on the facts when sharing feedback and having that discussion. it’s really easy to get into even further drama if we include stories or mix them up with facts. starting with facts that you and the other person can agree on? perfect. now there’s a clear foundation, and you can share your stories openly.
‘now that we agree on the facts, i want to share a story that you’re not as committed to this team’s success as i am. is that true? can you help me understand your motivation?’
switch from the drama triangle to the empowerment triangle:
there are above the line versions of that villain, victim, or hero role. above the line, the villain switches into challenger mode: encouraging growth without blame.
David emerald’s definition of the Challenger is that it serves as the positive alternative to the villain, sharing:
“Rather than criticizing or blaming, a Challenger inspires others to reach for the highest good of all involved. Willing to shake things up and go to the heart of the matter, Challengers are sometimes called the “truth-tellers,” in service to outcomes and the Co-Creators with whom they interact.”
take a deep breath and ask yourself - is there a different way to phrase my feedback? maybe a different tone i can take? how can i frame this as an opportunity to grow rather than a chance to put down or blame?
be (somewhat) ok with failure:
this one’s a toughy. while in techstars, our Managing director emphasized that nobody is 100% right, all the time - sometimes we accidentally (even with the best of intentions) screw up and fail. we called it ending up ‘in the ditch’ - just like when your car slips off an icy road. we celebrated those ‘in the ditch’ moments, because it helped us see that humans are fallible - we all fuck it up sometimes - and if we’re not screwing something up, we might not be trying hard enough. so… can it be ok that sara’s colleague missed that deadline? or that the coo’s fellow exec overpromised and underdelivered?
caveat: failing once is a chance to correct and do things better next time. beware the pattern, though - if you’re just shrugging off accountability or having that hard conversation around a ditch moment, or if that moment turns into a pattern… it’s time to step into that challenger role and correct the situation.
yes, sara jumped in and hero-ed her colleague to save that project, but what would have happened if she’d let it go, and let her colleague slip into the ditch? obviously this situation was feeling critical and could have affected the reputation of her business… but what about the next time it happens in a less urgent or critical area? maybe a little failure would be helpful.
be even better than you already are:
a super tactical one: add in the word ‘even’ to your feedback. not just ‘you’d be better if…’ but ‘you’d be even better than you already are, if…’
when folks offer me feedback that starts with ‘you’d be better at that if you do [X], i automatically fall into victim mentality - i’m not good - i’m not doing it right. by adding in the ‘even better than you already are,’ it starts me on a way less reactive footing. i’m not… bad… i’m just not quite as good as i could be.
again, this is about context: the ‘how’ we’re talking with each other, not about the ‘what’ of the content. small shifts in language can have huge impacts for both sides of the conversation, avoiding defensiveness and blame along the way.
clean up your agreements:
the two situations i encountered this week could have used some agreement cleanup. both clients were carrying expectations, rather than agreements, and an expectation is just an unknown need that will likely never be met. by being more precise about who - will do what - by when, we have facts that we can point back to, rather than squishy expectations and stories that can be argued back and forth.
clean agreements also provide the much needed accountability and responsibility outlines for working together. next time that exec ‘promises’ something, a clean agreement around the task will allow for a cleaner, less blame-oriented, more fact oriented conversation about any missed expectations.
context is key
next time you’re feeling like you’re teetering on the edge of the blame trap, stop. take a breath. re-read that slack message before sending it.
how can you convey the same content - the same issue you’re having - the same problem that someone caused - in a more open, curious, fact-oriented way? before you know it, you’re in challenger mode, and you’ve left that blame trap in the past.
thanks for being here.
