When things go wrong, it's a natural inclination to want to find out what went wrong and hope that someone or something else can be found at fault. After all, you don't want to take the blame and the consequences if you don't have to. And those with more power (i.e., managers) often look for those with less power (i.e., employees) to take the fall when problems occur. Everyone is essentially hoping to pass the buck in the blame game—and whoever ends up with the buck is out of the game or has to pay the penalty to stay in.

But sometimes the person passing the buck doesn't know. He or she doesn't recognize being responsible for creating a no-win situation that is doomed to fail. You might call this the "duck the blame by closing your eyes game." In effect, the whole game is poorly designed and doesn't play well—but no one wants to admit that he or she created a flawed design. What do you do if caught in such a "You're to blame!" situation, when someone with more power puts the blame on you? And what if he doesn't realize he is the one to blame, when he has more power to blame others?

That's what happened to Dave, a market research employee who had recently graduated with an M.A. in Organizational Development, when his company sent him to a training program to learn new research techniques for finding out more about how the company was doing. Dave was very enthusiastic, seeing this as an opportunity to advance to the next level as Project Manager. He arrived at the training, put on with the aid of an outside consulting team, with notebook in hand, eager to go.

"The goal is to get employees and managers talking about how they feel about the company, so you can look for what works well and where there might be problems," Sam, the outside consultant began, as Dave wrote down his comments. "You want not only to listen to what they say but observe how they are saying it. Then probe to learn more about their relationships with others in different departments."

"Of course, makes sense," Dave thought to himself, as Sam outlined the goals of the training. Dave also thought he could do a very good job, because he was an excellent interviewer, who had an easy rapport with others and was skilled at drawing people out. He had shown this on previous projects for the company and in his research at grad school.

But then, Sam began describing the process they would use. It wasn't straightforward interviewing. Instead, Dave wanted the researchers to use a diagram of a small town, so the interviewees could imagine they were in different roles in that town, from the mayor and members of the city council to small shopkeepers and visitors. The diagram even included a jail for placing criminals and an out-of-town motel by the airport where visitors could stay if passing through. Then, holding up a bag of crayons, Sam explained that the interviewees should use these to draw on the diagram. "You want the people you interview to place themselves and others in the company in the town. They should put all the major players there. Then, as they do, ask them to talk about what they are doing and ask them probing questions to get more in-depth information."

Sam passed out a script and list of sample questions to ask the interviewees as they drew. Plus, he explained, the researcher should tape and videotape the interviews and take some photographs for company records. "Oh, and you'll be doing these interviews with two employees and two managers at a time," Sam concluded. "That way you can get twice as many respondents in the same time to keep down costs for this project."

Then, the introductory explanation over, Sam used two assistants from his own training team to demonstrate how the interview and drawing process should work. For the next hour, he invited the trainees to ask questions, as his two assistants filled in their small towns with names of company departments and employees, drew in small symbols to express their feelings, and added in arrows to show different types of interactions. When they finished, their diagrams were awash with colors, lines, and scrawls of text, which Dave thought were confusing, and afterwards the session continued with more discussion about what they had put in their pictures and why.

Finally, after Sam invited the trainees: "Now try it yourself," Dave and the other trainees paired up to take turns interviewing each other using the diagram. But not only did Dave find it awkward trying to draw and transport his everyday experience to the diagram, but he found it hard to create symbols to express his ideas. When he led the interview himself, he found it hard to frame the questions, as he thought about all he had to do to guide his partner through the drawing process. "So why not ask the questions you want to know directly?" Dave wondered. "Why create this imaginary small town to evoke their answers in the first place?"

Then, in the follow-up debriefing session to discuss the experience, Dave had even more questions, since the process seemed to contradict everything he had learned about good interviewing, such as interviewing people one at a time to develop a close rapport and to get them to share with you in confidence. He additionally felt all the equipment created a barrier, too, since normally, when photographs or films were needed to document an activity or interview, a photographer came along to do that, so the researcher could concentrate on the research. Or if the researcher took his or her own photos, such as to make a presentation of research results, he came back later to take the photos, so as not to interfere with the process of interviewing and observing. But now he was expected to do it all at the same time—conduct the interview, photograph the interviewees, and record some of the interviews on videotape. In short, the whole research protocol that Sam was presenting didn't seem to make sense, though the director of the research department, Frank, had presented Sam as a highly regarded expert.

Thus, in the debriefing process, Dave raised some of questions about the research process. "Why are we doing two interviews at a time? How did you happen to develop the small town model? Why can't we take the photos after the interview or have someone else come in to take them?" Some of the reasons Sam gave were: because of budget considerations, to get at deeper information, or to make the interview process fun, though Dave still remained quietly skeptical. Even so, he was determined to do the interviews as best he could. After all, this was his job.

But after the session broke up, Frank, the research department director, asked him to come into his office. Somberly, he closed the door, sat down behind his desk, looked straight at Dave, and told him: "Look, I'm sorry but you're off the employee interview project." Dave was dumbfounded and nearly speechless. "But why what's wrong?" he stammered.

"Because this project just doesn't seem to be a good fit for you."

"But why? How? Is it because I asked too many questions?" Dave wondered.

"No, no," Frank tried to reassure him. "This project just calls for quite a bit of flexibility and being part of a team." With that, Frank opened the door, so Dave could leave and return to his usual research work.

As he left, Dave felt disappointed and crushed that Frank wasn't even willing to consider his questions about any problems with the research design and instead blamed him for not being a good fit. Plus now, given what happened, he felt he would be out of the running for any chances for a promotion to a project manager. He had felt so sure there was something wrong with the proposed interview process, but now he questioned his own abilities and wondered about his future with this company. So what should he do?

What Should Dave Have Done and What Should He Do Now?

Here are some possibilities. In Dave's place, what would you have done or do and why? What do you think the outcomes of these different options would be?

• Get with the program no matter what you think of it. Questioning your boss or the experts isn't the way to get ahead.

• Stay silent at the training, but raise your concerns with your boss afterwards. This way he may be more likely to listen, since he isn't worried about saving face in front of the group because of doubts expressed at the training itself.

• Raise your concerns about the project, and if they aren't addressed and you're blamed for raising these issues, leave the company.

• Just listen and observe at the training, and be ready to troubleshoot and propose another research design when problems arise, to show off your skills.

• Tell Frank's boss that the research program isn't working, and be ready to take the consequences for going over Frank's head if his boss doesn't listen. It may become more difficult to work with Frank if you stay, and you may find yourself out of a job.

• Other?

Unfortunately, Dave's story illustrates what happens when a myopic management is committed to a particular approach and doesn't want to hear any input that something could be wrong with their planned initiative. Here it was a research program, but it could be any kind of plan. The problem is that instead of welcoming possible criticisms in the early stages to make changes and avoid problems down the road, Frank was already committed to the program. So he had on his blinders by placing his confidence in the know-how of an outside expert. Instead, he would have gotten better insight had he sought input to assess for himself how the new research plan might work and be prepared to make any needed changes and improvements.

In a sense, Dave's difficulties with the research protocol and his questions pointed to problems with that research design, though Frank didn't see it and instead blamed Dave for not being a good team player who would participate in the project. Most likely, his quick decision to place the blame on Dave was his way of shutting out any consideration that the plan might be wrong; this way he could stick to the plan without having to face any further concerns about it from Dave.

So what about Dave? And what should anyone do in a similar situation where those in power appear to be committed to a program that seems to be flawed in design? Unfortunately, those with the most knowledge don't always have the most power to implement that knowledge, though ideally a more enlightened management would encourage those in the know to come forward. They would welcome and invite such questions, see any objections and concerns as an early warning sign of problems ahead, and make the changes.

But if they don't, the question becomes what to do if you are faced with a myopic management. Do you play the office politics game and remain quiet to get ahead? Or do you ask questions and reveal your reservations like Dave did? There is no one answer, since it depends on your personal values and practical considerations, such as whether you can find another job in a tight market.

If you have to go along to get along, it may be wise to do the best you can to participate in a project, even if the design is flawed, and go with the flow as problems arise, so that the project has to be either changed or canned. Sometimes it makes the most sense for you to play the game, even if the game itself is poorly designed, if you want to get ahead and avoid getting blamed for something that's not your fault, such as when good jobs are few and far between.

On the other hand, if you can, it may be much better to find another game to play with another, better designer, which is what Dave eventually did. After thinking about what happened, he realized he needed to trust what he already knew about good research and interviewing design, not rely on what he perceived as an error by his boss and outside expert. Rather than taking the undeserved blame which dimmed his prospects in a company with a manager who blamed him rather than the new program, he decided it was time to leave. Despite the tight job market, he had saved up enough to take a year to look for a job and try doing some freelance research assignments. He left the company, leaving the blame game behind to find another game where he had a better chance to win. Meanwhile, over the next few weeks the research project ran into the kinds of problems that Dave had raised questions about, leaving Frank to find someone else to blame if he could, rather than taking the blame himself.

Conclusion

• Before you take the blame in the blame game, consider whether you really deserve it. Maybe it belongs to someone else.

• Just because you don't have the position or the power doesn't mean you aren't right.

• If someone has trouble getting with a new program, it maymean the problem is with the program—not with the person.

• Before you place blame on someone for doing somethingwrong, consider why he or she is doing it wrong. Maybe there's something wrong with the way you are giving instructions or with the instructions themselves.

• If you raise your objections, but no one listens, rather than ex-pecting a raise where you are, think about how to raise yourself up and out to somewhere else. But take your time to make the climb to another mountain—there's no need to try to climb too quickly, or you may fall off