Recently I've been involved in an ongoing debate about the behavior of individuals within an organization. My feeling has always been that the way we act in a given situation often has more to do with the situation than the individual. The opposing view believes that people are what they are, and they will act as they will act, period. Though many psychologists scoff at this belief (often called the fundamental-attribution error), it is nevertheless firmly grounded in many people's perceptions. It is so firmly grounded, in fact, that I am not always sure whether it's true or not.
For example, one of the organizations that I am a part of has a member that many perceive to be too "passive." He does not take initiative or go the extra mile. My thinking is: "The leadership within the organization is doing something wrong. What can we change about our procedures, communication, or organizational culture so that he feels more willing to take charge?" My "opposition's" thinking is: "Well, that's the way he is. It sucks, but there's nothing we can do about it. He's to blame."
It's tempting to accept. After all, I personally feel that my actions are consistent regardless of the circumstances, but research shows that I'm probably wrong. Regardless, as organizational leaders, I think we have to accept the possibility that we are causing a person to act in a way we don't like, and it is our responsibility to change ourselves (or the system) before we try to change the individual.
Of course, if we try and try and nothing helps, then maybe we have to accept that the person just isn't a good fit. Maybe it just isn't worth it for us to bend over backwards to change someone's behavior. But I stick by my initial argument that the finger of blame (or as I like to put it "opportunity for improvement") should point to the leaders first.
Comments