r Academy of Management Perspectives 2017, Vol. 31, No. 3, 222–238. https://doi.org/10.5465/amp.2015.0118 ARTICLES MUST HEADS ROLL? A CRITIQUE OF AND ALTERNATIVE APPROACHES TO SWIFT BLAME DANIEL P. SKARLICKI University of British Columbia ADAM A. KAY University of British Columbia KARL AQUINO University of British Columbia DAVID FUSHTEY Simon Fraser University When mistakes or perceived wrongdoings occur in the workplace, managers—like most human beings—demonstrate the tendency to locate someone to blame, including assign- ing responsibility and sanctioning perceived wrongdoers for their actions. We highlight that although this response can be motivated by organizational, legal, and psychological factors, blame can be detrimental to the organization and its employees when it occurs in a spontaneous and nondeliberative manner, which we label swift blame.Wearguethat swift blame can involve distorted perceptions and judgment, exacerbate conflict, erode employee engagement, and stifle organizational learning. We further argue that managers have a special responsibility to thoughtfully and carefully consider how they react to perceived wrongdoings. Drawing from dual processing theory of cognition, we propose that managers can respond more effectively by adopting perspectives that slow down these tendencies and promote more thoughtful reactions. To this end we highlight re- search opportunities for three alternatives to swift blame: (a) a no-blame approach, (b) systems of inquiry and accountability, and (c) mindfulness training. A patient at City Hospital was given the wrong medi- Scenes like this play out in different forms every day cation, causingher to go into a coma and die. Elizabeth, in workplaces all over the world. Although not often the nurse who administered the medication, was im- involving loss of life, the process typically involves an mediately placed on paid administrative leave. An error or alleged wrongdoing by an employee that po- investigation brought on by a civil lawsuit some time tentially results in perceived or real harm to one or later revealed that the drug manufacturer that supplied more parties, the organization, or its stakeholders. In the medication had used almost identical labels for response, managers are often swift to assign blame and very different medications, and concluded that system administer sanctions against those held responsible ’ errors could easily have contributed to the patient s (Crant & Bateman, 1993). Sanctions can range from death. During her leave, Elizabeth developed severe formal disciplinary actions such as warnings and dis- depression and eventually went on permanent stress missals to informal measures such as withholding re- leave. sources and opportunities, marginalizing, or ostracizing the perceived wrongdoer (Arvey & Ivancevich, 1980). The authors acknowledge the support from the Social Although the process described above unfolds Sciences and Humanities Council of Canada (#435-2014- in a seemingly rational and logical manner, the 0379) received by the first author. propensity to blame when something goes wrong 222 Copyright of the Academy of Management, all rights reserved. Contents may not be copied, emailed, posted to a listserv, or otherwise transmitted without the copyright holder’s express written permission. Users may print, download, or email articles for individual use only. 2017 Skarlicki, Kay, Aquino, and Fushtey 223 appears to be “wired” by evolution—a basic process sanctions that violate canons of procedural or dis- of human social cognition designed to quickly tributive justice. Swift blame can impede in- identify and deal with threats in the environment formation flow and organizational learning because (Cooley, 1964). According to social capital theory, of a fear of failure and a resistance to understanding because humans are inveterately social creatures our the causes of errors (Khatri, Brown, & Hicks, 2009). survival has depended on the ability to work together Swift blame can also cause managers to overlook effectively with others to realize individual goals alternative solutions to organizational problems (Lin, Cook, & Burt, 2001). As such, people have de- (Weick & Sutcliffe, 2011). Swift blame can further veloped a keen sense for efficiently identifying in- stigmatize the blamed party and generate re- dividuals who hinder or frustrate those goals, and for sentment, counterproductive behavior, and disen- influencing them to do otherwise. Over the ages, gagement among employees (Sitkin & Bies, 1994). blame (and the social sanctions it entails) has become We highlight how characteristics of modern orga- a critical means by which people influence one an- nizations conspire to motivate swift blame, and we other to comply with and support their goals (Kelsen, draw on dual processing theory (e.g., Kahneman, 1943). 2011, 2013) to argue that spontaneous and automatic As part of a larger toolkit that managers have at blame represents a system 1 mode of thinking. By their disposal for influencing employees to behave in encouraging system 2 thinking, which involves more desired ways, blame also serves numerous practical, deliberate and careful reactions (Lerner, Goldberg, & legal, and psychological purposes. First, blame pro- Tetlock, 1998), managers can potentially reduce vides a rationale for punishing those who violate the swift blame and its drawbacks. Various models of social order or undermine organizational efficiency blame exist (e.g., Alicke, 2000; Heider, 1958; Shaver, (Weber, 1978). Second, when blame is publicly 2012; Weiner, 2010), and our purpose in this article assigned it can signal to relevant stakeholders that is not to explicate a new theory of blame. Rather, we managers are acting in accordance with their legal seek to highlight the motivators and potential costs of obligations to do what is in the best interests of the an automatic, unthinking blame response and offer organization by holding people accountable for their theoretically driven yet actionable solutions to help misdeeds (Bell & Tetlock, 1989). Third, blame can managers administer blame more effectively. help managers feel better about themselves by sat- Although most people will engage in swift blame isfying their own needs to believe that the world is when things go wrong, we focus on managers for fair and just (Lerner, 1980) and that they are doing the several reasons. First, as argued above, managers can morally right thing (Smith, 2013), and by creating the have considerable legal, organizational, and psy- (sometimes illusory) impression that they are con- chological motivations to blame. Second, managers cerned about fairness (Alicke, 2000). can personify the organization (Rhoades, Eisenberger, While blame can serve these and other functional & Armeli, 2001). Their actions can ripple throughout ends, it can also produce adverse consequences for the organization and come to represent its culture, organizations and employees, especially when it is which can affect such factors as employee motivation, assigned reflexively and with little attempt to fully engagement, performance, and turnover (Schein, understand the circumstances and context sur- 2010). Third, assigning responsibility and sanction- rounding a mistake or perceived harm (Alicke, ing perceived wrongdoers can trigger procedural 1994). In this paper we label such knee-jerk re- justice concerns because managers can simulta- actions swift blame,1 and we describe its implica- neously play multiple roles in their organization— tions for management practice. The main problem including disputant, judge, and enforcer. Managers we address in the paper is that, although blame may can also feel the need to justify their sanctions to be a natural and unavoidable process, swift blame others (i.e., their superiors). Thus, given their multiple can have numerous downsides for organizations and roles and motivations, the organizational significance employees. For example, we propose that swift of their decisions, and the procedural justice con- blame can be especially susceptible to inaccurate cerns that arise from their decisions, managers hold judgments and distorted beliefs that can lead to a special duty to administer blame in a careful and considered manner and respond to errors and per- 1 We use the term swift blame as analogous to swift trust ceived wrongdoings in the most functional way (Meyerson, Weick, & Kramer, 1996), which is similarly possible. characterized as an instinctual and reflexive response to We advance our argument in three parts. First, we one’s environment. define the blame process and elaborate on factors 224 Academy of Management Perspectives August present in most workplaces that motivate managerial rebuke or perhaps just “making a note in the file” of blame. Second, we argue based on theory and em- the perceived wrongdoer. In the latter case, managers pirical evidence that in most organizational settings, can issue a public reprimand or possibly even ter- managers are likely to be tempted to engage in swift minate the perceived wrongdoer. A panoply of op- blame, and we highlight potential costs associated tions exist, and managers can have broad discretion with doing so. Third, we illustrate three perspectives to act in ways they think best befit the situation. that have the potential to slow down the blame re- Importantly, both components of blame involve sponse, allowing space for a more thoughtful and subjective perceptions, including judgments about deliberate approach and thereby lessening