Blame Fixes Nothing... What Now? Applying Human & Organizational Performance (HOP)

Sam Goodman hosts The HOP Nerd 'What Now?' series - Title card focused on practical Human & Organizational Performance.

Tired of just talking about Human & Organizational Performance concepts and ready to actually do something? This series is for you. Each episode breaks down a key HOP principle and delivers concrete, practical actions you can take to operationalize it in your workplace.

Sam, known for blending real-life sharp-end know-how and strategy with a keen eye for workplace absurdity, draws on his experience helping numerous businesses successfully implement Human & Organizational Performance (HOP).

So, If you've ever asked "Okay, I get the theory... What Now?", tune in as Sam guides you through some real steps to make HOP happen in real life.

On Today's episode, Sam is tackling Blame Fixes Nothing... What Now?

After accepting that Error is Normal (Episode 1), the next hurdle is our instinctive reaction when things go wrong: Blame. It's natural, maybe even justified sometimes. But does it actually fix anything?

Why Blame is So Problematic (But Our Go-To):

The Illusion of Control: Blame gives a false sense of having addressed the problem quickly ("found the culprit!").
It Stops Learning Cold: Once blame is assigned, curiosity dies. We stop asking "What?" and "How did this make sense?" because we have already settled for "Who?" and "What do they deserve?"
Destroys Psychological Safety: Who will speak up about problems or mistakes if they fear being blamed, shamed, retrained, harshly punished, and likely fired? Blame drives raw and real operational information underground... even if we have a rule that says "tell us everything or else!"
Blame ≠ Accountability: This is crucial. Blaming is about finding fault. True accountability is about owning the problem, learning, and improving the system. Ironically, blame often reduces real accountability.
Wasted Energy: Time spent assigning blame is time not spent understanding context and fixing real problems.

"What Now?" Action 1: Shift the Question

Idea: Your first question dictates the direction of your response. Focus on problems, not people.
Action: Make it a discipline to ask "What failed?" and then "How did this make sense at the time?" relentlessly before asking "Who failed?". Focus curiosity on the process, conditions, tools, and pressures.
Bonus Action: Immediate Response – Care, Stabilize, Learn
- Idea: Instead of defaulting to blame immediately after an event, focus on a structured response that prioritizes people, ensures safety, addresses immediate needs, and sets the stage for deep learning. Asking these questions first isn't just critical – it buys a necessary pause, helping temper knee-jerk reactions, focus on first things first, and move more gracefully towards learning with those nearest the work.
- Action: Right after an event, before blame takes root, quickly ask and answer these must-ask questions:
  1. Care: Who was hurt? (Identify all impacted – primary victims, those involved/second victims, witnesses, team). What are their immediate needs (support, medical, information)? Whose obligation is it to meet these needs now? How can we begin steps to restore those harmed?
  2. Stabilize: Are our operations safe, stable, and secure right now? If not, what immediate actions must we take?
  3. Communicate: Who else do we need to share this information with immediately (internal teams, leadership, external agencies, families)?
  4. Plan Learning: What is the best way for us to learn deeply about this event? (e.g., Assemble a Learning Team, formal post-incident review, combination).

"What Now?" Action 2: Separate Learning from Disciplinary Action

Idea: You cannot expect people to provide information for learning if they fear it will be used for punishment.
Action: Formally separate learning reviews/investigations from disciplinary processes. Crucially, ensure discipline is the last resort, not the first step. Many traditional accident investigation processes wrongly start with: "Did someone break a rule or make an error? If yes -> Discipline first, maybe try to learn later." This approach fails because we end up disciplining without any real understanding of the context or contributing factors that influenced behavior. Tactical Pro Tip: Look at your actual incident response procedure or flowchart. Literally move any disciplinary decision point or step to the very end of the entire process, ensuring it comes after the learning review and understanding phase is complete. Often, organizations discover through this shift that they've been vastly overusing discipline (applying it broadly for simple mistakes or normal variability) rather than reserving it only for the rare situations where it might actually be appropriate and warranted. Put understanding first.

"What Now?" Action 3: Adopt Fair & Just Responses

Idea: Not all errors or deviations are the same. Your response should match the true operational reality faced and intent, not just the outcome.
Action: Implement and communicate a clear framework (like a Just Culture model) to differentiate between types of behavior – such as simple errors/mistakes, well-intended violations (e.g., bending a cumbersome rule to meet a goal), versus truly reckless or malicious acts. Make formal discipline the last step, reserved only for those rare instances reflecting conscious disregard or ill intent – the kind of behavior best summed up as "Screw you, I do what I want!" – definitely not the first reaction to everyday mistakes.

"What Now?" Action 4: Focus Communication on System Fixes (and Handle Personnel Outcomes Transparently)
Idea: What you communicate signals what you value. Publicly blaming individuals reinforces fear; publicly discussing system fixes reinforces learning and builds trust in the process.
Action: When talking about events or findings, focus relentlessly on the systemic issues identified and the corrective actions being taken to improve conditions, processes, or tools. Avoid naming individuals or assigning personal fault in broader communications about the event itself – keep the focus on learning and improvement. Separately, but importantly, when the fair process outlined in Action 3 does lead to a rare disciplinary outcome, consider how to handle the communication around that transparently (as much as legally and ethically possible). Why? Because in the absence of factual information, we tend to invent stories, often painting the organization as a people-eating monster ("They fired Bob just for reporting that issue!"). This is where carefully considered transparency helps. While respecting privacy is paramount and legal constraints apply, sharing some appropriate context counters harmful rumors and shows fairness. Instead of silence, imagine being able to clarify (depending on specifics and what can legally be shared): "We understand the concerns circulating about Bob's separation. To be clear, it was entirely unrelated to operational reporting. The situation involved serious misconduct, including theft and actions well outside the ethical standards we all operate by. While these actions necessitated separation, we are also providing Bob support resources to address underlying personal challenges. We believe in accountability but also in supporting individuals, offering pathways to recovery where possible." Obviously, the exact message depends heavily on the unique situation, privacy laws, and company policy, but the principle holds: Sharing what you responsibly can about the fairness of the process and the actual reasons (clearly distinct from operational reporting or normal errors or mistakes) prevents the organization from being unfairly painted as retaliatory and builds trust. Silence breeds suspicion; always share what you can.

"What Now?" Action 5: Leaders Model the Way

Idea: Change is driven from the top. How leaders react to failure sets the tone for the entire organization.
Action: Leaders must visibly practice all these principles themselves. They need to be the first to ask "What failed?" or "How did this make sense?", actively champion the separation of learning and discipline, publicly discuss system improvements derived from events, and crucially, admit their own fallibility to foster trust. Remember, people often live up to the expectations we set – they tend to bring us what we ask for. If leaders subtly signal (or overtly demand) that they want a villain found after an event, the team will often deliver blame because it seems to satisfy the request. Guess what you'll keep getting? But when leaders react to blame-focused answers as insufficient, maybe even boring, seeing it as a dead end, and instead consistently ask for deeper context, system vulnerabilities, and improvement ideas ("Bring me better info, tell me WHAT we can fix, not WHO we can fix..."), people learn to bring that instead. Your team will rise (or fall) to meet your genuine expectations. Leaders' reactions directly shape what the organization learns to value and pursue – make sure you're clearly asking for, and rewarding, learning and improvement, not just blame.

Moving beyond blame isn't about being "soft"; it's about being smart. It's about choosing effective learning and improvement over ineffective finger-pointing.

Need a hand with your Human & Organizational Performance journey? GET IN TOUCH!