The focus in this chapter is working through some key dimensions of blame that will assist the mentor in working with the mentee along an agreed path. Understanding the role of blame in a person’s life is important for self-regulation, professional and personal development and ultimately a degree of satisfaction with outcomes.
Mentoring can assist the mentee develop an awareness and reinforce a person’s self-esteem in meeting both professional and personal standards. The mentor becomes a source of a“second opinion”in regard to the mentee’s coping strategies and feelings, and if successful can rebuild feelings of control over their social or physical envi- ronment through the mentee taking appropriate action. Learning to handle criticism from others in the mentoring relationship is a key process.
2012, 52). So while one person may not be culpable legally or otherwise, it is important to question: what part did I contribute to this outcome? What could have been done differently?
Blame is a powerful form of post hoc rationalisation. People either blame others for why things are as they are or turn it in on themselves. In blaming others they often perceive themselves as the good person who is trying to do their best and failed through no fault of their own. They may acknowledge that they participated in the event, however, were not responsible for the outcome. Legal decisions around who is blameworthy consider this too (Gray and Wegner2011, p. 516).
Turning blame inwards is another matter. Emotions can be differentiated in terms of feelings, thoughts, appraisals, action tendencies, and actions (e.g., Frijda1986;
Roseman et al.1994). Most people experience blame as a powerful emotional blow.
It is rationalised by seeing the fault lies with other’s shortfalls, mistakes or wrongdoings or as a performance deficit, a failure, a lack of responsibility or inaction by them.
When things go amiss in life, most people look for reasons why. Sometimes it is not apparent, and the next thing people question is who is responsible? And fol- lowing that who is accountable? The closer the mishap affects a person, the more they will seek answers to these questions to avoid cognitive dissonance. It is not so much to blame another rather they seek explanation. Depending on how readily forthcoming the information to their questions is will depend on the extent of their evaluation of the situation.
The absence of information may lead a person to attribute blame as a way of making sense of the situation. A list of sources of blame follows.
5.2.1 Sources of Blame at Work Include
(a) Feeling powerless e.g. a sense of being blocked by another before the desired goal is attained and motivation is sapped.
(b) Lack of role clarity.
(c) Poor definition of responsibility and accountability.
(d) Oppositional role responsibilities interfacing with another.
(e) A colleague relying on allies to enhance their position.
(f) Competing for the sake of competing.
(g) Perceiving something out of context.
(h) Poor performance criteria.
(i) Interdependence and shared performance resources.
(j) Poor channels of communication.
(k) Information overload.
A second reason for blame is that people expect that events proceed in a fair and reasonable way. The greater this expectation, the more people are likely to blame something or someone when things go awry (Dalbert 2009). Depending on the
outcome of the event, people will develop a reason or justification for it based on their experience of similar issues or incidents events. If they are personally harmed or injured or someone else is they will expect to be recompensed. Another source of blame surrounds less implicit harm such as professional reputation or personal integrity which could occur directly as a consequence of an event or indirectly. In this case also, people seek to be recompensed.
Often people blame the person at the centre of the incident or a close colleague, supervisor for not taking greater responsibility. Blame often takes the form of why did they put themselves in that situation? In other words, the victim is responsible for their predicament because, in a fair world, they are in control of the situation and should have known about how to avoid it. For people who believe the world is unfair, there is no inconsistency and, therefore, no need to blame the victim (Van den Bos and Maas2009).
If the blame cannot be pinpointed, a mentee may engage in self-blame. The form of this may start with“why me?”and then gather intensity to the point where they feel guilty characterised by how did they come to be in that situation? Why did they put themselves in that situation?
These are questions that a mentee may voice and a clear marker for the mentor to be alert to for critical reflection analysing their beliefs about blame in relation to the circumstances, which trigger“disorienting dilemmas”(Mezirow and Taylor2009).
These conundrums consequently deepen critical self-criticism. They are important opportunities for the mentor to initiate reflective discourse with the mentee, so as to transform and expand understandings of their needs, goals and interests and those of others.
The professional or workplace culture also guides people in the event of a mishap in terms of what they should or should not do as well as what they can and cannot do. The culture will be shaped by regulations and policies in place governing specific events such as fraud, workplace health and safety, discrimination and harassment. In events outside this the work culture provides some guidance depending on how its values and beliefs have been articulated and strengthened.
A mentor can assist the mentee to identify these norms and values as a way of dealing with issues of blame.
People have a sense of both in their lives either through their formal institutional memberships or through socialisation (particularly norms that establish role expectations and obligations in a given society) and use both according to their knowledge and attitudes that are, in the case of the latter, attuned to their beliefs, motivation and experience. Aspects of one’s national culture that provide order and control (i.e., social norms and rules), and those that provide a valued personal identity (i.e., heritage and history). In the main if someone transgresses a workplace policy, e.g. a teacher takes a class on a field trip while, under the influence of alcohol and an accident occurs, this results in greater blame. People perceive sit- uations as less fair and expressed higher intent to address the wrongdoing when the consequences were high in severity and when a person who should have known better is responsible (Nicklin and Williams2009).
When people work professionally, guided by clear implemented policies and norms they are more likely to comply and if they do not, they will be deemed irresponsible and their supervisor may be also held accountable. Given that self-regulation involves monitoring and formative feedback, it is more useful for mentors to monitor actions rather than inactions, decisiveness rather than indecision (Coats et al.1996; Wegner1994). It is important that mentees understand how each contribute to these respective outcomes as disapproving versus approving, culpable versus laudable.
Credit is bestowed for achieving positive outcomes based on role responsibility, and approval is afforded a person for overcoming the temptation to do the wrong thing: e.g. avoiding lying, covering up or scapegoating others. Both involve effort and taking control of the situation by the main actor in the situation. Both instances accord with a Kantian view that is, an action is not praise or blameworthy unless it is done intentionally by the person either by enacting the responsibilities of their role or taking control of the situation and acting in the best interests of the wider group (Kant1785/1996).