# Who's at fault?



## ENTJam (Nov 15, 2010)

Hey ya'll!

So... I need some help. Throughout my life, I know to have offended some people by my word choice. Sometimes I can help, sometimes I can't.

On one recent situation, I was of the opinion that the fault to a particular situation was on the shoulder of one person (the person in charge) rather than all the other people who did not comply with the instructions sent by the person in charge (except for one person who did comply).

On my little research to figure out who was wrong - no names were named, no fingers were pointed, I am just thinking of a generic situation in which a person in charge (as in, same position as his/her peers, NOT SUPERIOR) fails to rally more than one person out of 7. I do not understand the reason behind it. I was just thinking: if I was to judge that person (as a superior), whose fault would it be for the lack of compliance: the person in charge or all the people who did not show up?

This is just some information gathering - I believe I might be suffering from a lack of bottom-up perspective.

Thanks!


----------



## downsowf (Sep 12, 2011)

I think everything is context dependent so I couldn't personally provide such a black and white answer to a general question. Generally, if you take on a leadership duty, it is your responsibility to delegate tasks to the right people, see where everyone is progressing in their work, and engage personally with your peers as well. I generally think of a leader as someone who lays out the vision, is good at finding the right people (managerial, technical, etc..) to make sure the vision succeeds, and ultimately bares responsibility for its failure while shares responsibility for its success. Not sure if this was relevant to question, but wasn't exactly sure what you were asking.


----------



## ENTJam (Nov 15, 2010)

downsowf said:


> Not sure if this was relevant to question, but wasn't exactly sure what you were asking.


It is relevant, thanks.

Let me clarify the situation: there are a group of peers (read: no one is superior to another). A superior assigns a task to be completed by the subordinates (peers), and assigns person A to be in charge of the duty (read - person A is not "superior" to his/her peers, but rather is in CHARGE of the task: he or she is supposed to see that such task is accomplished in time). Such person communicates (or claims to have communicated) all his/her peers about a meet-up location to perform such task, but only one person shows up.

MY perspective is: even if the person is not superior to others, and is not really a _leader_ and has no authority over the others (especially no punishment/coercive "weapons"), I believe that person _is_ responsible for the people who accomplish the task. THE TASK WAS ACCOMPLISHED, but at a slower pace than it would've if other people helped (because then fewer people were working, therefore the task took longer to be accomplished).

What everyone else's perspective seems to be: the people who failed to show up are at fault. The person in charge did communicate the meeting spot (or so he/she claims).

I would agree with the latter perspective if, say, half of the people showed up (like, 3 or 4 out of 7/8). But only 1 showed up. There seems to be something wrong...


----------



## MuChApArAdOx (Jan 24, 2011)

Everyone is at fault. Poor communication , everyone need to be on the same page.


----------



## Razor (Aug 26, 2012)

Why didn't the people show up?

If they were being lazy/disrespectful/irresponsible, it's their fault.

If they were *legitimately* not aware of the meeting, and the fact that they weren't aware wasn't their own fault (aka they didn't just stop checking their emails/phones irresponsibly), then it would be the arranger's fault.


----------



## downsowf (Sep 12, 2011)

Poor communication stemmed from the lack of direction and confusion which, ultimately, the "team leader" was responsible for. While I think it's unfair to burden the leader with all of the blame it is quite obvious that he didn't effectively communicate his message clearly. And unless there was a conspiracy where all the peers except you decided to sabotage the task by slowing it down, it doesn't seem like they should be blamed given the circumstances. On the other hand, as he was not a leader who possessed any superiority, I do think your peers should have stepped up and been more assertive. Just because you aren't designated a leader, this does not prevent you from actually being a leader, taking steps to seeing your task succeed.


----------



## ENTJam (Nov 15, 2010)

Razor said:


> If they were being lazy/disrespectful/irresponsible, it's their fault.


I don't know why people didn't show up. But I would agree with the quoted part _if_ more than _one_ person showed up (say... if half showed up). Things is, only ONE showed up.


----------



## Razor (Aug 26, 2012)

You're part of the group of people who didn't show up, and you're looking for other people to help you place blame on the guy you ditched.

It's your fault, bro.


----------



## ENTJam (Nov 15, 2010)

Razor said:


> You're part of the group of people who didn't show up, and you're looking for other people to help you place blame on the guy you ditched.
> 
> It's your fault, bro.


I'm the only one who showed up.

Now, please do explain your reasoning: why, if I was in the group of people who didn't show up, I/we would be at fault? That's what I'm trying to figure out.


----------



## Razor (Aug 26, 2012)

ENTJam said:


> I'm the only one who showed up.
> 
> Now, please do explain your reasoning: why, if I was in the group of people who didn't show up, I/we would be at fault? That's what I'm trying to figure out.


Haha, I was going to say either that or you're the only guy who showed up.

You would be at fault because it was your responsibility to get the project done. The superior designated someone to assign a date for the meeting, that person did, and then you didn't show up. That's your fault. Unless there are extenuating circumstances, which I outlined earlier.

Don't think of it as a failing to rally, think of it as a failing to listen to someone designated as the organizer.

It wasn't his responsibility to force you to participate in the project, that was your choice, he was only supposed to organize it.


----------



## ENTJam (Nov 15, 2010)

Razor said:


> Don't think of it as a failing to rally, think of it as a failing to listen to someone designated as the organizer.


Sorry to keep hitting this button again and again. Again, I agree with what you are saying. It makes sense. But my dilemma is: only ONE person showed up. Is it possible _everyone else_ was "irresponsible"? Seriously? That's my dilemma.


----------



## Razor (Aug 26, 2012)

ENTJam said:


> Sorry to keep hitting this button again and again. Again, I agree with what you are saying. It makes sense. But my dilemma is: only ONE person showed up. Is it possible _everyone else_ was "irresponsible"? Seriously? That's my dilemma.


Was it a group of people who know each other? Then yes, it's very possible; especially so considering this sounds like a school project wherein people are more likely to be immature/irresponsible/susceptible to group-think. Fe types will follow each other around like sheep once one of them makes a decision, especially young ones.

But really, the fact that you have literally no idea whether or not the other people were notified of the meeting means you don't have enough information to make a judgment call.


----------



## Lotan (Aug 10, 2012)

If the communications were unclear, then it's the leader's fault. Otherwise, it's the fault of everyone who didn't show up. There's only so much you can do to get people to come to a meeting if you have no actual authority to punish them, short of dragging them there yourself.

To be honest, I think putting one peer in charge of the others is a bad idea to begin with, though. From what I have seen, people are generally less respectful of an "in-charge" peer than an actual authority. I've been in this position and it's hell having to wrangle your lazy peers if you get stuck with a bad group. A lot of people also see it as an easy way to get out of doing work, because it's easy to blame the designated leader when things go wrong.

In my opinion, the actual superior should have designated specific roles to each peer instead of putting one of them in charge. That way, everyone has something they are responsible for and anyone not pulling their weight can be easily identified. I'd say it's unlikely that out of 7 people, 6 of them would be so irresponsible, but it can happen (especially if the group was a group of students - good luck getting everyone in a randomly assigned student group to show up to a meeting), so it might not be due to a flaw of the person in charge.


----------



## Thomas60 (Aug 7, 2011)

Person A was at fault. The fault should have little consequences if the means for achieving a result we're unavailable or untrained in Person A. The colleagues are at a teamwork fault to the extent the workplace emphasizes teamwork and their belief in the value of the task.

Lastly, the person in charge is at fault for everything, but should be held accountable to his diligence in light of other responsibilities.


----------



## Lotan (Aug 10, 2012)

Thomas60 said:


> Person A was at fault. The fault should have little consequences if the means for achieving a result we're unavailable or untrained in Person A. The colleagues are at a teamwork fault to the extent the workplace emphasizes teamwork and their belief in the value of the task.
> 
> Lastly, the person in charge is at fault for everything, but should be held accountable to his diligence in light of other responsibilities.


A couple questions for you and anyone who agrees:

1. If Person A had no actual authority, and thus could not punish people for not showing up, in which way were they supposed to ensure that the other group members showed up? It's great if a leader is a great motivator and someone who can get people excited for a project, but do the teammates really bear no responsibility for choosing to skip a meeting because the designated leader didn't get them excited enough about it?

2. Does it not encourage the teammates to be irresponsible if the blame is placed squarely on Person A for their failure?

I've attended many work meetings I haven't been excited about. There's some work that, while necessary, just isn't very exciting. A boss is going to have a hard time getting anyone excited to come in at 6 am and watch a new instructional video, but either you show up or you get written up or worse, suspended or fired.

The mistake here was that Person A could not punish. Thus, they were in the position of either getting their teammates to WANT to do the work, or to care about the possible consequences for Person A if they fail to show up. If someone is to be held responsible for an entire team, that person needs to be empowered to reprimand the people who don't show up, rather than just be expected to rely on positive motivation.


----------



## downsowf (Sep 12, 2011)

> . If Person A had no actual authority, and thus could not punish people for not showing up, in which way were they supposed to ensure that the other group members showed up? It's great if a leader is a great motivator and someone who can get people excited for a project, but do the teammates really bear no responsibility for choosing to skip a meeting because the designated leader didn't get them excited enough about it?


It depends whether Person A communicated the message effectively, the other peers were aware of the meeting, and the peers having actual knowledge of the meeting chose to skip anyway. However, the leader should be assertive about making sure his peers are cognizant about the importance of coming to the meeting. In a sense, I would say the leader bares a responsibility in stressing why it is imperative the peers come. And coming up with a strategy where all the peers can become involved is important. So even if the peers could not be physically present, it would still be beneficial to open lines of communication via email or some other way. In the OPs situation- no one was on the same page. 



> Does it not encourage the teammates to be irresponsible if the blame is placed squarely on Person A for their failure?


Yes it does. That's why it would have been a better strategy to initially give certain peers particular roles, designated by the leader, making them bare more responsibility since their role is individually defined.

So that's where being a leader comes in. A leader sets the path, delegates roles, and this will hopefully encourage individuals to make more of a commitment in the project. This way it is also clear who did and did not do their delegated role. And it also clears up any misunderstandings of who was supposed to do what and pawning the blame on someone else.


----------



## Thomas60 (Aug 7, 2011)

I want to distinguish my terms:
Duty: To do all actions that are reasonable of your skill-set towards your responsibility.
Failure: To fail to achieve a satisfactory result.
A person can be at fault to the result, yet still fulfill their duty. (Meaning the goal set was unreasonable)... but I will still say 'they are at fault' in the sense of the result. If they fulfill their duty however, there is no punishment.



Lotan said:


> A couple questions for you and anyone who agrees:
> 
> 1. If Person A had no actual authority, and thus could not punish people for not showing up, in which way were they supposed to ensure that the other group members showed up? It's great if a leader is a great motivator and someone who can get people excited for a project, but do the teammates really bear no responsibility for choosing to skip a meeting because the designated leader didn't get them excited enough about it?


In any way possible... (motivation, conducive situation planning, communication of business agenda, requesting leverage/powers from higher authority etc)
Teammates bear the responsibility of acting in line with company emphasis on teamwork (HR, Performance related pay, culture etc) for the sake of company agendas. Person A does not need his/her own authority to communicate duty.



Lotan said:


> 2. Does it not encourage the teammates to be irresponsible if the blame is placed squarely on Person A for their failure?


Person A's failure was to his given responsibility. Teammates failure was in their duty to team-ethics -> 'Duty' determined by culture, related-pay, communicated job expectations etc... _so if there are no incentives or communication of 'Duty', then they have no duty (in such case, Person A is the only one at fault. BUT when he is held accountable to performance a lot is accounted for with the unreasonable goals clause)._



Lotan said:


> The mistake here was that Person A could not punish. Thus, they were in the position of either getting their teammates to WANT to do the work, or to care about the possible consequences for Person A if they fail to show up. If someone is to be held responsible for an entire team, that person needs to be empowered to reprimand the people who don't show up, rather than just be expected to rely on positive motivation.


Assuming punishment or commandment is needed. You don't need your own authority in order to deliver authority. Likewise, you don't need the ability to punish others yourself in order to communicate that discipline is needed to those who have power. That is sufficient to fulfill your duty.


----------

