(no title)
huhnmonster | 5 years ago
I have never been in such a situation (at least not one where the stakes were relevant), so take this with a grain of salt. Blaming under these kind of circumstances might arise because the people who do it:
* Either do not have access to the information necessary in order to develop a sufficient understanding of the problem at hand
* Or are incapable of understanding the problem at hand to a sufficient degree (because the project is too big for a single person to grasp or whatever)
So, they resort to assuming some simplifications in order to make everything understandable to them, but these simplifications are likely to be wrong. Consequently, they start blaming people they think to be at fault under their own flawed model of the situation.
A blame-free culture? Explain the situation to such a degree that the decision making around the root cause is easily understandable for everyone. For example, if a bridge fails, there will likely be experts that identify what has caused the failure. If the decision makers for the bridge now say that due to circumstances they disregarded a certain load situation, because x and y and this is an acceptable argumentation (to whoever is judging the situation), there will be less/no blaming as it is now understandable why things have been done that way.
But at a cultural level? I think that this would require everyone to ultimately only judge situations once they have understood the problem at hand. At that point, why do we even talk to each other? Everything we say is based on incomplete information anyways..
vkou|5 years ago
* They are capable of understanding the problem, and have access to the information necessary in order to understand the problem, but will advance their career/campaign by pushing their opponent under the bus.
Politicians don't get elected based on objective past results, they get elected based on how well they can spin promises of the future.
And, as the saying goes, you get what you measure.