Even though my work immerses me in the world of blame and its hidden consequences, it took me many years before I saw all the costs of ridiculing and demeaning others. Once you take an objective look at these hidden price tags of blaming others, it’s likely you’ll never again be tempted to use it.

Sometimes I am quietly amused when the true source of a problem is made visible. It is then clear that individuals have wasted so much pompous energy, goodwill, time, and resources! They’ve staked their reputations to publicly dethroning their enemies. However, after their scapegoat is exonerated and both sides of the story are known, they begin a painful—and at the same time, exhilarating—journey of restoring credibility and rebuilding relationships.

My clients almost always have the talent and expertise to fix the problem without my intervention, but the obvious becomes invisible when the focus is on personalities, not processes.

Organizations profit from extensive improvements when leaders, executives, or department heads reconcile. Behaviors such as off-task activity, mean-spirited retaliation, speculation, gossip, and undermining, are replaced by cooperation, creativity, cross-functional decision-making, and synergy—the primary reasons groups and organizations are created!

However, other costs mount even more dramatically. Many of my clients carefully cover up their embarrassment as they painlessly solve entrenched system problems that have been festering in the background for months or years after we’ve shifted from personality to situational problem-solving.

The real problems, which are typically systemic, have been draining millions of hard-earned dollars while leaders and employees have had their attention absorbed by escalating rounds of personality-based, destructive behaviors. When the focus is on personality and character, problems are hidden and excused, downplayed or, conversely, exaggerated and distorted. Behaviors such as objective fact-finding, admitting an oversight, sacrificing, lending a hand, and side-by-side problem-solving have all but disappeared.

It’s impossible to address the real causes of tension and waste when the key players are involved in a high-stakes power struggle. In Chapter Eight we’ll look at the cost savings in detail by closely examining two case studies.

Sometimes people blame others as a means of avoiding self-assessment, or to sidestep responsibility in playing a less than stellar role in a workplace difficulty. Individuals often hope that by building a slightly distorted case against another person their own behavior won’t be scrutinized.

The “Quick! Look-over-there!” scapegoat strategy harms, rather than helps, your reputation and career. I’ve seen this dozens of times. Colleagues, supervisors, and direct reports learn to doubt your word and suspect, fairly or not, that your version of truth is often incomplete or distorted.

Here’s what happens out of sight. If you attempt to convince your supervisor, Larry, that the cause of a joint problem lies entirely within someone else’s domain, and that you are merely an innocent by-stander, it won’t be long before he gathers enough information to discover that you are covering up your role in the problem.

However, it’s unlikely that Larry will mention his findings to you. He will anticipate more denials, and he won’t waste his time. Consequently, you won’t discover how his opinion of you plummeted when he uncovered facts you withheld. Larry will surmise that he can’t take you at your word, and will resent having to fact-find on his own, rather than trust you to relay the complete story.

It’s likely Larry will share his disappointment with his boss or peers, which will affect your reputation and career in unseen ways. Unfortunately, from your perspective—with no one confronting you directly—you’ll believe you were successful in avoiding your share of responsibility for the snafu.

No matter how incompetent, unethical, or self-defeating one’s own behavior might be, finding a scapegoat gives some people the illusion that they are superior to the object of their contempt. However, it’s distressing to watch someone attempt this transparent ploy. The speaker is assuming others don’t see through their feeble attempts to denigrate others for their own gain.

Even though your colleagues, boss, and direct reports might display weary smiles as you blame others, your efforts to look superior by making someone else look stupid will wear thin over time. It’s similar to a late-stage alcoholic who tries to convince others that she doesn’t have a drinking problem compared to the homeless, inebriated person sleeping on the street. Although no one in her party confronts her, what they say in her absence is harsh and blunt.

Criticizing others in their absence sends a clear, damaging message about you. The people who listen to your criticisms become disillusioned because finger pointing solves nothing and, therefore, makes their jobs more difficult.

Direct reports and colleagues carry deep, carefully hidden resentments when their supervisor attempts to discredit others as a means of winning allies. Your colleagues and direct reports won’t speak up for one very poignant reason—they don’t want to become your next target. However, coworkers and direct reports are paying the price for your ineffectiveness and your unwillingness to admit responsibility.

I saw this happen at a high-tech research and design company. Rob, the director of operations, ridiculed the chief engineer with the regularity of an atomic clock. In front of Rob, the operators would grin and shrug as he spun the latest story of the engineer’s incompetence. However, in private interview, every one of the seven operators said, in essence, “I wish Rob would stop. It’s like he wants the engineer to fail. Rob is making relationships between our departments more tense and more difficult—not easier.”

When a boss or colleague makes a habit of targeting others, few people have enough audacity to address the situation directly. However, as the following story reveals, resentment is simmering just below the surface.

I was asked to help a dialysis department at a prominent, metropolitan hospital. Alice, the division’s vice president, called me into her office and said, “I’ve tried everything to stop the three leaders of the unit from fighting, and you’re my last hope. If you can’t resolve the conflict between the head nurse, the assistant head nurse, and the technical supervisor, I am going to close the unit and tell the doctors to take their patients elsewhere. The closing would cost us millions in lost revenues, but I can’t allow the unit to continue. The staff is so preoccupied with this conflict that patient safety is at risk.”

I assured Alice that I would do my best. After gathering background information, I met with each of the three supervisors alone to get their candid perspectives. During the private interviews, each of them said to me, “I know I have the majority of the staff behind me.” When I inquired why they were so sure of their conclusion all three of them said, “They tell me they prefer working with me over the other two leaders.”

I wasn’t a math major, but I knew the three leaders were being “played.” My first step was to break through the illusion they each held, that they had a majority of the staff’s support behind them.

With their knowledge and input, I drew up a confidential survey for their 65 direct reports. When the surveys were returned to my office, the staff’s anger and resentment toward all three supervisors was stunning. Assured of confidentiality, the nurses and technicians revealed they were furious that the three leaders had each worked to pit the shifts, nurses, and technicians against the other managers. The staff comments were laced with bitter complaints about the immaturity and irresponsibility of the three leaders. Most of the employees were particularly enraged that the leaders had compromised patient safety in order to play out a private vendetta against one another.

I typed up their comments (removing any identifying information), made copies, and asked the three supervisors to meet with me as a group. After a few words of warning, I handed each of them a copy of the staff’s comments. As they read through the responses, their self-righteousness and smugness evaporated. All three shifted uncomfortably in their seats.

After a few minutes I shared my perspective. They had been in a power struggle to save their careers at the expense of their peers. In reality, even if they had succeeded in getting the other supervisors fired, they would not have been able to salvage their own reputations. Even if they were successful in driving out one or two of the other managers, the targeted person wouldn’t retreat meekly. The exiled supervisor would stay in touch with his or her former faction members and continue to defend their reputations from a distance. Their loyal coalition members would continue to undermine the surviving leader and create a smoldering, intractable mutiny. The situations are hard to detect and almost impossible to eradicate.

I shared my belief that the only way the three leaders could salvage their reputations was to combine their talents and skills to restore the productivity, morale, and efficiency of their unit. If they wanted to regain the respect of the vice president, their direct reports and peers, they had to lay aside their animosity and turn their department into a world-class team.

Our two-hour meeting was a major turning point. Confronted with irrefutable evidence that the gig was up, and, in fact had never worked, they looked exhausted and self-conscious. The next morning there was a noticeable shift in the energy and mood. Their smugness and defensiveness were replaced with a sense of resignation and chagrin. We began working to identify the specific incidents and the role confusion that had driven them apart. Then we created a plan to heal the damage that their contempt had caused their direct reports.

Individuals who rely on blame as a means to solve problems believe that by undermining others, they will remove the risk of scrutiny from their plates. However, it’s foolish to assume that the derogatory comments you make about your target don’t leak back! Ridicule is not only passed along, it is embellished and amplified. Negative comments about others alienate people who are, or could have become, significant sources of information and support. Zingers about others, even witty ones, create permanent breeches of trust.

The following scenario is more common than not. Imagine you make a negative, but seemingly harmless comment to a colleague, Barry, about Sheila the shipping manager. Barry loves to “stir the pot” and passes the juicy bit on to Megan. Megan carpools with Sheila and can hardly wait to tell her about your comment on the way home.

Sheila will reciprocate your denigrating remark by making her own negative comments about you and attacking your character or competence. Megan will be caught in the middle of a volley and will be very tempted to use the spicy gossip to gain attention, or enhance her status with her peers. Soon there will be an invisible wall of hurt and mistrust, not only between you and Sheila, but the people who are loyal to each of you. Your closest friends and colleagues will bring you every rumor or negative innuendo to prevent you from being blindsided. As your behavior changes in response to an ongoing stream of negative speculation, you will look paranoid and irrational.

As the following story reveals, you may never know the true damage to your reputation, relationships, and effectiveness.

I was asked by a company president to help his family-owned, high-tech printing company. The VP of sales was the president’s son, Mark, a handsome, polished young man, and proud possessor of a newly acquired M.B.A. The president’s business partner of 30 years, Bob, was COO. Bob was an easygoing, reliable, salt-of-the-earth graduate from the school of hard knocks. These two leaders couldn’t have been more different in upbringing and outlook. When I arrived at their company, their disagreements about the future direction of the organization had grown into a two year power struggle. As in many escalated conflicts, Mark and Bob were each privately lobbying the president to terminate the other.

At the height of the conflict, Mark had reluctantly invited Bob to a sales meeting with one of their biggest customers. Because Bob had years of experiences with ink, printers, and paper and Mark was relatively new to the trade, Mark needed Bob’s input to make the sale. However, Mark’s desire to see his nemesis fail couldn’t help but impact their project. Mark didn’t coach Bob on the formality of a high-status meeting. Bob, who had never been included in a high-stakes, polished sales call, arrived in his scruffy attire that was appropriate for the shop floor, but not a corporate environment.

Bob’s embarrassment and discomfort over his obvious faux paus increased as the meeting progressed. Bob was in over his head and didn’t know how to regain his equilibrium. Unfortunately, he fell back on a technique that worked well back at the plant: he swore! In this setting, however, his outburst hung awkwardly in the air. The meeting came to an premature end. No more than five minutes after returning to the office, Mark approached his father with the latest proof that Bob was too unsophisticated and crude to make a transition to working with corporate clients.

However, Bob wasn’t powerless. He skillfully undermined Mark’s support and popularity. With his crew—the majority of the employees—Bob painted Mark out to be a hopeless, silver spoon yuppie totally out of touch with the realities of their trade and privileged only because of his father’s authority. Consequently, when Mark walked the shop floor, people would barely acknowledge his presence, let alone give him the information he needed to learn the nuances of the trade.

The situation was typical of power struggles. Although the conflict centered on these two men, every employee in the organization knew about this conflict, fed it, gossiped about it, and picked sides.

Every employee in their respective departments carried half-baked prejudices and unjust criticisms of the other person (and eventually the entire department) throughout the organization. Customers were pulled into the web. The two men became invested in the other’s decline and began contributing to each other’s blunders. It undoubtedly cost the organization thousands, if not millions, of unmeasured dollars in the form of off-task behavior, lost opportunities, and the resulting impact of an invisible, but deep, trench between operations and sales.

The hapless father/owner responded to the tension and torn loyalties in a manner similar to many conflicted leaders—he increased his trips to the golf course! The organization’s growth was paralyzed and system problems grew.

I worked with Mark and Bob intermittently over several months. As they began to learn more about each other and address the conflict and rumors between them, they realized the vast majority of their dislike and fear of one another was based on misunderstandings and speculations that had been distorted and amplified as they circulated throughout the organization.

They began to talk in depth about their expertise and vision of the future. Their commitment to the company was obvious even though it was expressed in very different ways. Bob showed his devotion to the company and lifelong business partner through his rock-solid reliability and depth. Mark’s commitment to his father’s enterprise was expressed through flamboyant, gutsy, and charismatic risk-taking. As I worked with Mark and Bob, their annoyance developed into admiration. Their former hostility over the dramatic differences in their personalities morphed into fascination for the unique combination of Bob’s superb craftsmanship and Mark’s creativity, chutzpah, and business savvy.

As their bond solidified, we knew they each had to break the habit of bringing forward distorted half-truths and speculations about the other person. I suggested that they not only state frankly that they had begun to strengthen and repair their partnership, but also begin speaking highly of each other in front of their direct reports, peers, and the president.

I enjoyed several lunches with the executive team over the next two years and watched Bob and Mark become each other’s strongest defenders. On multiple occasions I observed one or the other spontaneously and genuinely come to the other’s defense in their absence. After my formal work wrapped up, I stayed in touch, and learned that they had entered new markets and created products that re-energized their organization. When I did my final follow up three years later they were still going strong.

At the closure of my work, the president struggled to express his profound relief that the long simmering friction between two important people in his life had finally come to an end. I suspect that the resolution of Bob and Mark’s conflict not only contributed to the prosperity of the company, it added many years to the president’s life.

The details and idiosyncrasies of Bob and Mark’s struggle are unique. But the course of their conflict is not. Speculation, fueled by onlookers, fills the vacuum when two interdependent colleagues withdraw. Consequently, sometimes when I dig for true barriers to a working alliance all I find are remnants and wisps of rumors and assumption. I can’t help but wonder how many brilliant partnerships crumble under the surprising weight of avoidance.

Individuals often believe that blame is harmless and they use it reflexively as a source of entertainment, particularly in work areas that have little stimulation, variety, or access to information. Blame is often the fallback position for people with low skills or low self-confidence who compensate for their deficiencies and insecurities by ridiculing and tearing others down. Unskilled workers or individuals with low self-confidence often develop a cutting sense of humor (with a keen ability to deflate the intentions of any person or project). Sadly, sarcasm and put-downs become the one thing at which they excel, and they use it habitually to increase their status within the group.

Our minds are remarkably plastic, and cutting humor easily becomes an automatic response. You may regret the relexive, automatic, contempuous wit you use when what you really want to do is assist a collegue, partner, or child, or to speak on their behalf.

Bobby Knight was previously mentioned as an example of an individual who was unable to stop his destructive, aggressive reactions when he was frustrated, even when facing the loss of his job. Minnesota’s former governor, Jesse Ventura, is another public figure who discovered that flooding and blame-based reactions to frustration (learned during his wrestling career) were the undoing of his political career. Early in his campaign many people admired his unique, irreverent style and his willingness to challenge the status quo. However, as his term progressed, his aggressive reactions toward anyone who challenged him alienated the press, legislators, and supporters. His inability to stop flooding eventually cost him the broad base he had once enjoyed.

If you reinforce and reiterate reflexive reactions, they become automatic. Over time you will respond reflexively even when it’s not your intention to alienate the other party. As a result, you risk becoming more isolated, less effective, and more cynical as others distance themselves from you and your disheartening comments.

Even though individuals use blame to avoid responsibility or juice up an otherwise lackluster day, the primary reason formal and informal leaders use blame is to create a sense of camaraderie with their direct reports. However, your department will become more demoralized, not less, if they are told repeatedly that incompetent dimwits and control-freaks run the organization for which they work.

Years ago, I worked for an employee assistance program and my boss, Alexa, and I would frequently bond over our mutual dislike for her supervisor, Michael. Whenever I’d come into her office to complain about him she’d whisper, “Close the door,” and pull out memos he had written. We’d laugh and ridicule him. If Alexa and I had approached our problems more professionally, I would have learned the reasons behind the decisions that troubled me the most. However, she and I unknowingly squandered our opportunity to build a better department by turning frustrations and concerns into a black hole of hopelessness and futile attacks. Alexa and I formed a perverse bond, and I didn’t realize until later how destructive our behavior had been for my career and for the rest of our department.

Because I heard and tracked every negative situation that was brought to my attention, I developed a reputation among management of being critical and cynical. When I left to take a new position, I was convinced that the demise of the employee assistance program was imminent. I believed that Michael’s poor decisions, which I had heard about daily and worked so hard to improve, would have dire consequences. In reality, after I left the business not only survived, it thrived and expanded. I was truly puzzled, and perhaps a bit disappointed that the pending drama I had envisioned never materialized.

I realized later that I had unwittingly become a “lightning rod of dissent.” Disgruntled employees knew they could bring me major and minor grievances and find a willing ear. However, they often neglected to tell me good news or update me when their concerns were resolved. My fears were exacerbated by Alexa’s willingness to confirm my fears about Michael’s incompetence.

Leaders are conduits of information. Explaining the decisions of management is one of their most important roles. When leaders sidestep this responsibility and ridicule those in authority to create a superficial sense of closeness, direct reports feel foolish for investing in their work.

This doesn’t mean you need to agree with every decision. Leaders at all levels need to be in ongoing dialogue and share their genuine support and disagreement. However, there is a world of difference between face-to-face discussion and ridiculing other decision-makers behind their backs in order to gain popularity and loyalty within a team. While you may feel temporarily inflated, or even heroic, by rallying the troops against a common enemy, in the long run, blame destroys your department’s motivation, morale, and pride in work.

I didn’t clearly see the link between blame and the loss of pride in work until I worked with chiefs of police and department supervisors in Wisconsin.

The first time I was asked to do a seminar with police departments I felt slightly paranoid. Before I left home I kept checking to see if I had my driver’s license, car tabs, and insurance documents. Despite my nervousness, the officers were warm, funny, and grateful to learn about flooding, heart disease, and hostilty.

I asked the participants to think about conflicts with colleagues, citizens, supervisors, city hall, and politicians—anyone they interfaced with regularly—except perpetrators and drug addicts. To my surprise, in a group of 80 officers there was a strong consensus that the most demoralizing part of their work was conflict within the ranks.

Unexpectedly, three officers were paged out of the seminar. A nearby resident had locked himself in his apartment with a collection of guns, threatening to harm himself or anyone else who came within range. My heart went out to the officers as they left. I learned later that they had been successful in convincing the man to surrender.

That evening as I drove home, the incident triggered a stream of thoughts. I wondered what it would be like to have a job in which you literally risked your life, and then reported to a chief who used reflexive, blaming reactions to bond with his direct reports.

This is a perfect scenario to see the damage of blame upon morale. Imagine an officer returning from this dangerous call and experiencing one of his 30 frustrations for the day. He finds a memo on his desk from their mayor, Joy. The memo starts, “I regret to inform you that your department’s request for bulletproof vests has been denied….”

In this situation, it would be appropriate for the officer who, just minutes ago, risked his life to be flooded with adrenaline, cortisol, and hormones. During the fight-or-flight response, his blood would thicken to prevent blood loss and his pulse and blood pressure would be elevated. Consequently, the officer, who is partially (and appropriately) flooded is primed to overreact to the disappointing news. He marches in to the chief’s office and exclaims, “Have you seen this? What an idiot! Does the mayor know anything about police work? Has she ever walked a beat? All she cares about getting reelected, like all politicians!”

This is a critical moment for the chief. If he takes the bait, his reflexive response will be similar to, “I saw that memo. I gave Joy the benefit of the doubt but now I’m convinced she’s depriving some village of an idiot. If you think that’s bad, wait until I tell you what she said at the golf course last week when she was half plowed.”

If the officer and chief make this choice, they will take a critical event down the left side of the “Frustration” diagram in Chapter Two (page 41). They will react with blame, inflammatory thinking, and contempt. Behaviorally, they are primed for attack and withdraw, and they will probably do both.

If they attack the mayor by spreading negative opinions of her, it’s unlikely they’ll be in a mind-set to problem-solve with her. After they agree she’s a hopeless opportunist, there is little hope they’ll be successful in securing a different decision.

This scenario happens across organizations in every department and level, thousands of times every day. The supervisor and direct report are bonding through blame, and they are getting an immediate payoff—the surge of energy created by hostility. However, there’s a consequence that will occur after the meeting which leaders often miss. Although the supervisor has bonded with his employee, he has failed to bridge him to the broader leadership and mission of the city.

After Mike leaves his supervisor’s office he has to go back on his beat. Halfway to his squad car it will hit him: “Wait a minute. I’m putting my life on the line for a jerk! Now I’m the chump! Why should I care about this place? Some half-baked, petty politician is our leader! I think I’ll call in sick.”

With multiple repetitions, the chief will discover that he has a demoralized workforce. His officers will be cynical about the organization, and resent the perception of unethical and incompetent leadership. The chief will discover his officer’s pride in their organization is waning, or they are becoming increasingly fixated on the financial aspects of their job. Without knowing it, the chief is inadvertently destroying the intrinsic rewards of work (service, pride, camaraderie, identity, and meaning). The officers will fear the worst is yet to come.

Sadly, most leaders in this position don’t see the connection between treating other decision-makers with contempt and a growing loss of morale. Leaders and colleagues who use contempt as a bonding ritual often become more derogatory and critical of leadership as their unit deteriorates.

Employees want their sacrifices, overtime, and commitment to matter. When they are told their leader is incompetent or unethical, they feel foolish for caring, and then withdraw.

If you use ridicule to explain shortages or delays, you’ll reduce the possibility that your staff will be able to make sense out of their organization and leverage its strengths. Without information about organizational constraints, pressures, and strategies, employees cannot align their efforts in a meaningful way, nor will they feel pride in belonging to a workplace worthy of their deep investments.

Rather than build morale, blame triggers feelings of helplessness and hopelessness. When you attribute the source of a problem to people, it means they must change in order for your problem to be fixed. Because this is unlikely, employees will conclude that they are stuck with intractable problems, and their desire to improve and invest in their organization will falter.

Returning to the previous example of the chief and his officer, imagine that after they’ve done a thorough job of discrediting the intentions and character of Joy, the mayor, she unexpectedly drops in. The chief quickly shifts gears and responds to his supervisor with warmth and a statement that he is pleasantly surprised to see her.

While the chief is covering up his negative behavior and making nice, the officer is busy “reading” his chief. The officer won’t miss a single nuance. He concludes that the chief is a hypocrite, and willing to flatter and charm the same people he was ridiculing just seconds ago.

The officer wonders whether the chief does the same thing behind the his back. The officer never again feels certain that his supervisor speaks well of him in his absence, or will come to his defense.

There’s a parable from Ireland that summarizes this well, “People who are talking to you about others, are talking to others about you.” Even if the officer previously looked up to the chief, he now seems like a blow-hard without integrity.

The most expensive, and invisible, cost of blame is betrayal—when colleagues or direct reports take privileged ridicule to the targeted person. I have seen this end a promising career without any awareness on the part of the person who was being betrayed.

I was asked to untangle a conflict between two up-and-coming attorneys by Sheila, one of the firm’s senior partners. One of the attorneys, Adam, had been at the firm for many years. He was quite withdrawn and his social skills were poor. However, Adam’s work was consistent and reliable. Three years before my arrival, his colleague, Lance, had joined the firm after being recruited aggressively by the partners. When Lance came on board he brought a national reputation from which the firm had benefited.

Although Lance and Adam could easily have become competitors, they created an uneasy alliance by nurturing their deep dislike for one of the senior partners, Pamela. Their aversion was so intense that every morning they’d shut themselves in their offices for the daily round of “Pummeling Pamela.” Adam and Lance saw this particular form of entertainment as a job perk and enjoyed the cohesiveness it created.

However, during Lance’s third year, Adam made a series of errors. At first Lance tried to hide his colleague’s mistakes, but eventually he had no choice but to inform their adversary, Pamela.

Adam, who was used to being a respected performer, handled his fall from grace poorly. He withdrew from the social life of the office and became despondent. Increasingly, the most prestigious work was referred to Lance.

Several months into this painful decline, Adam made a desperate attempt to regain some of his former status by tarnishing Lance’s rising star. Unfortunately, Lance had given Adam plenty of data to accomplish his goal.

Adam dropped into Pamela’s office and asked if he could share something in confidence. Pamela agreed and Adam revealed some of the most noxious comments Lance had made behind her back. To solidify his credibility, he included information that Pamela had told Lance in confidence and that Adam could not have learned elsewhere.

Despite the fact that Adam’s self-oriented motives were transparent, he achieved his goal. Because Pamela had agreed to confidentiality before the conversation began, she decided not to confront Lance directly. Instead, she retaliated subtly, and quietly shelved his career.

Lance continued to work at the firm, oblivious to the fact that his now estranged colleague, Adam, had poisoned Lance’s relationship with the person who had the most influence over his future. Lance had played a significant role in his own downfall by wallowing in negativity on a daily basis with Adam.

Although this is the most extreme act of betrayal I’ve witnessed, I’ve seen many that are less dramatic. These situations have taught me that the only way you can keep others from repeating your disparaging comments is to never give them material to exploit. Refusing to initiate or take part in backstabbing not only preserves your reputation for integrity and honesty, but it’s essential to maintain a clean and unabashed relationship with your supervisor, or anyone else who affects your career. Once you target another person, your relationship begins to change. You can never be certain if they’ve heard your disparaging remarks, and that subtle doubt will affect your interactions. You will become slightly more guarded, less warm, and uneasy in their presence.

Here’s the ground rule I’d suggest for sideways comments: if you wouldn’t be willing to make your comment directly to the person, don’t say it to someone else. It’s too likely that it will be relayed to the person of whom you speak—and because you won’t be informed, you will be powerless to undo the harm.

The hidden price tags of blame demonstrate the long-term futility and destructiveness of a personality-based orientation. By looking at examples from history, we can see how these costs escalate to tragic dimensions. Whether it’s an office unit or government that disseminates a climate of blame, no one is safe from becoming a target.

In Chapter Two I used Hitler as an example of an infamous architect of blame, and I want to return to him as an example of how targets are replaced when previous scapegoats are eliminated—and yet the problem remains.

Early in Hitler’s reign, he targeted small, vulnerable groups such as the developmentally disabled or the mentally retarded, and identified them as the source of the country’s economic problems. He annihilated most of this population in Germany, claiming they were a drain on society. When none of the country’s economic problems changed, Hitler shifted his focus to Gypsies, an unpopular group with few political allies. Of course, after they were removed from German society none of the country’s economic problems improved, because the economic situation Germany faced was the result of widespread, systemic problems, not the behavior of a small subgroup.

However, like most people with blame orientations, Hitler didn’t learn from his lack of success. Instead, he became more desperate as he failed to deliver on his promised improvements. Hitler shifted the direction of his hostility again. He targeted gay and lesbian people, Catholics, and finally Jewish communities.

Hitler believed he could reach his goals by targeting those who disagreed with him or appeared to stand in his way. Although he was able to carry his distorted plans to fruition, he did not deliver the changes he promised. As a result, he brought an entire country, and much of Europe, to ruin. In an ever-escalating spiral of blame he squandered the opportunity to bring about the systemic changes that would have made a difference.

Although Hitler is an extreme example, there are strains of the same reflexive damage in every organization—or government—that tolerates blame as an acceptable response to frustration.

In our society, blame is on the rise. Conservatives blame liberals, liberals blame neo-conservatives, parents blame schools, schools blame society, the rich blame the poor, the poor blame the middle and upper classes. Wives blame husbands, husbands blame the boss, farmers blame immigrants, corporations blame government, and Arabs blame the Jews. We blame based on race, religion, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, and age. We blame politicians in general, minorities, the police, attorneys, and so on.

Workplaces can divide into destructive factions based on almost every conceivable difference: occupation, shift, geographic location, longevity, gender, race, level, and job-function. I’ve even seen groups break into coalitions based on the kind of truck they drove to work or the sports team they supported.

If you look at the reasons individuals assign blame to certain groups, one thing stands out. Any perceivable difference, such as a physical difference (gender, ethnic, or racial origins), or any philosophical difference (the perspectives of an engineer versus sales, or a psychologist versus a social worker) can be used to justify blame.

If you blame others for problems in your systems, you teach your colleagues, direct reports, and loved ones that when they are frustrated, it is appropriate to respond with blame. It’s not difficult to foresee that when they are frustrated, they will turn the arrow of contempt in your direction. After all, you’ve taught them that this is an appropriate response.

Once blame takes hold of an organization or a society, no one is safe. Blame ricochets through groups and pulls in unwilling participants who feel they must monitor the gossip and retaliate in order to defend their reputations and alliances.

If you blame others when you are frustrated, you are setting yourself up for a lifetime of disappointment and mistrust. Blame destroys the positive energy and interactions that are essential to workplace cohesiveness, alignment, and success.

The next chapter will explain a simple, positive alternative to blame. You will see how you can change your reaction from reflexive to reflective, and bond and bridge with your direct reports during moments of frustration. You can preserve their pride in the organization, your reputation as a leader of integrity, and solve the problem—to the benefit of your career, department, employees, and organization.