This is not a good thing. In the context of the article it seems more like a defense mechanism than anything else. Yes, it's good to take responsibility and people don't do it as often as they should but to take on the mentality that everything is your fault is unhealthy. In this context it looks like it stems from a need to be powerful and in control all the time.<p>The truth is, we can only control efforts, not outcomes. Sometimes things aren't your fault, you are the victim and while believing its your fault may shield you from feeling bad about it, it ultimately sets you up for failure. When you believe everything is within your control you're in for a rude awakening because a lot of bad random shit will end up happening. Once enough bad things pile up and you're still thinking its your fault, those feelings you're trying avoid by pretending you're all powerful will begin to bubble up and then you think "not only is everything my fault, but no matter how much I learn I just can't get most things right. So now I'm in control and suck at it".<p>This is classic avoidance. A defense mechanism. A more healthy attitude would be to identify what is in your control as well as realize and admit the things that are out of your control and cope with them as they come. By all means, take responsibility and he in control of your life because lord know most people aren't but also remember that there's no shame in admitting some bullshit happened that was out of your control and subsequently feeling bad about it.<p>What happens if there's a natural disaster? It's your fault you didn't predict it and lived or worked in a certain place? What about a key figure in your business dying suddenly? Are you at fault for not keeping good enough watch? The example of someone being rude right in the article is a great one! Of course it isn't your fault if someone is rude (at least not always)! Sometimes people have shitty days or attitudes and it has nothing to do with you! Besides being a defense mechanism you could argue that this attitude may stem from egomania.
This is a great attitude because it moves the locus of control from outside of yourself ("I'm a helpless victim of everyone else") to inside ("this is my fault"), which is generally a more productive mindset since it puts you in control of your life. Obviously if you then translate that control into guilt, it breaks down badly, but I don't think that's what he's advocating.
I've found this attitude very useful, especially in social and personal situations. My reaction to everything that doesn't go my way is to examine myself first - what did I do wrong, or what didn't I do, or what could I have done different.[1]<p>This normally yields useful insight, understanding, and actionable ideas. Blaming others or the situation normally does not.<p>At it's core, this is about accepting and embracing agency - you have the power to effect changes. I think that so many people in the modern world suffer from learned helplessness[1], where they think that the situation leaves them with no ability to impact events. This is false. Something went wrong? Try something else!<p>[1] Important Note: This is about things that I <i>do</i>, not things that I <i>am</i>. If you blame yourself innately, that's bad and leads to low self-confidence. It's not yourself, it's your actions - and actions are changeable.
[2] <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Learned_helplessness" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Learned_helplessness</a>
Something like this appeared in <i>Good to Great</i>. In a study of CEOs who lead their companies to significant improvement that lasted after the CEO stepped down, they found a common personality characteristic. The best CEOs constantly were watching for problems, took responsibility (aka fault) for everything that went wrong, credited everything good to others, and then anything that could not be credited to someone they said was luck.<p>This is a useful attitude. As news goes up the corporate ladder, it inevitably is colored in the most positive possible light. (<a href="http://www.davar.net/HUMOR/JOKES/SHIT.HTM" rel="nofollow">http://www.davar.net/HUMOR/JOKES/SHIT.HTM</a> is a funny, but true, take on this phenomena.) You need a constant vigilance for problems at the top to counteract it. And the common willingness to rest on your laurels and deflect blame elsewhere is not going to lead to that willingness.
No, it's not your fault. And this is just a mechanism of deflection.<p>Step back from your solipsistic convictions for five minutes and realize that your rationalizations here only serve the purpose of avoiding forgiveness. You have decided that not only are you not a victim but in fact you and you alone are responsible for everything and therefore you don't ever need to forgive anyone. Moreover you have now implicitly made the rest of the world victims. Hm...
"Everything is my fault" is entrepreneurs' wishful thinking so that they can believe they can fix whatever situation they're in. However, not everything is under their control, no matter how hard they try to believe.<p>You don't control the weather, the people in the streets, the companies sending you checks, the currency exchange rates, etc.
Taking responsibility for most every occurrence in one's life is a common theme in successful people.<p><a href="http://www.chuckrylant.com/it-is-your-fault/" rel="nofollow">http://www.chuckrylant.com/it-is-your-fault/</a><p>No need to get carried away though...
Taking the blame sure beats blaming others (see tragic case of Philip Greenspun's ArsDigita <a href="http://rura.org/blog/category/businesscompaniesarsdigita/" rel="nofollow">http://rura.org/blog/category/businesscompaniesarsdigita/</a> )<p>Having said that, and realizing this is a motivational piece "It's my fault" is a complex statement (combining loaded notions of Self & Fault), and some interpretations allows (you or others) to sweep real issues under the carpet.<p>When sh*t happens the real thing to do is to admit that there was a failure instead of denying it and have a frank conversation about it with the parties involved instead of blaming others. (Note: sometimes the same person may take both parts of this conversation.) Sometimes it helps to separate Responsibility from Accountability, and assessing "fault" usually is counter-productive in this regard. In contrast, the Truth and Reconciliation movement in South Africa is a prominent example of coming to peace without placing blame. There, they separate concerns which gives room to people to more easily admit their mistakes.
<i>So do you want to know the real reason I cut those chapters?...I this...I that...I something else...(I could list another 20 of these, but you get the idea.)</i><p>Lots of good stuff here, but I never found the reason I would most hope for: No one gives a shit.<p>In business, we all see it every day: who did this, who did that, who said what, who was right, who was wrong, who is hurt, who is angry, blah, blah, blah. The gossip part of our brain wants to hear more, but the business side doesn't; it just sounds like a whole bunch of played out drama.<p>Better to just shut and move on. Glad you did. Just not sure I'm glad why you did it.
<i>This is way better than forgiving. When you forgive, you’re still playing the victim, and they’re still wrong, but you’re charitably pardoning their horrible deeds.</i><p>That's <i>NOT</i> forgiving. That's playing the victim, them being wrong and charitably pardoning their horrible deeds mumbojumbo. "And then they bitterly stabbed each other again..."<p>Forgiving means deciding to let go of what has happened; letting go as in not letting what has happened influence your future life and decisions, and forgiving starts from yourself. The act of forgiveness is to <i>free yourself</i> from the past events. It goes like first realizing that past is past, you can't change it and nobody else can change it either, and that ultimately the suffering seeps not from what had happened but from the way how you still take it, and eventually realizing that generally you're just so much better off not thinking about it anymore, regardless of if you win or lose the corresponding power struggle inside of your head.<p>When you've already removed yourself from any emotional entanglements it's basically a no-op to forgive someone else because at that point you no longer care about what s/he has done. It's good to forgive others to encourage <i>them to let it go</i> but it's not necessarily for your own recovery.
I personally take a proactive view of my environment, but Derek's post is lacking moderation.<p>From the description of Battered Person Syndrome [1]:<p><pre><code> - The abused thinks that the violence was his or her fault.
- The abused has an inability to place the responsibility
for the violence elsewhere.
</code></pre>
[1] <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battered_person_syndrome" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battered_person_syndrome</a>
"I’ve playfully decided to apply this “EVERYTHING IS MY FAULT” rule to the rest of my life."<p>There is a name for this, which is "martyr complex": <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martyr_complex" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martyr_complex</a><p>I personally have a lot of guilt and beat myself quite a bit, but I also realize constantly being the martyr and assuming I have control means my ego is as big as it is when I always blame others.<p>While blame can be placed and responsibility can be taken, that is a trap. It happens to be a trap that most of the country is in. It is Bush's fault. It is Obama's fault. Sound familiar? Instead we should be saying "How can we work together to make things better?" Sometimes feelings run too deep to switch into a Kanban philosophy where life is a constant process of potential and realized amelioration. We don't have to be liberals, conservatives, or martyrs to do that.<p>That said, Derek, I think realizing the leader should take responsibility is a great lesson for all. It is a step towards enlightenment.
For those who note that this is not literally true, here's the weaker version that's both true and useful:<p>'What could I have done to make the situation better?'<p>Almost all situations are <i>influenceable</i>.
This seems like something directly out of Dale Carnegie's "How to Win Friends and Influence People," and it plays into what Dr. John Dewey referred to as human's basic desire to be important. Any time a person takes responsibility for someone else's actions, they feel a sense of power over that person. Whether this is good or bad depends on how they intend to use that power. In this case, it's being used in a way that affects a positive outcome for both the author and the people around him. In other cases, this increased sense of power can lead people to believe they have power over others which can lead to corruption (you know, 'absolute power corrupts absolutely').<p>In general, this seems like something that should be done in moderation. A willingness to accept responsibility for some things and be proud that you aren't blaming someone for an outcome you created is healthy. At the same time, feeling as if you have the power to affect everything is not healthy. Some things are just outside of your control.
"Its all my fault but I'm not going to beat myself up about it" is probably a slightly better mindset.<p>If you have a propensity to blame life and everything else in it for your woes then this is a great mindset.<p>A lot more of your life is under your control than you think. This attitude of "Its my fault" will let you discover a lot of those things.
This touches on an important way of looking at life but the wording (and some of the examples) are throwing people off the scent of the good advice.<p>It's not that everything is my fault, it's that how my life goes is my responsibility. Born poor? That sucks, but what are you going to do about it? Even if you could find someone to blame for it, what good would it do? What possible effect could it have to find someone to point a finger at? If the answer is "no effect what so ever" then you're better off just taking responsibility for your situation and trying to do something about it.<p>In contrast, I have friends/family members who, no matter what experience based advice I might offer, have someone or something to blame for why they won't be able to take it and why they'll have to just remain miserable. And their situation doesn't change (maybe changing it really is outside of their power, but if so they certainly don't articulate this well). So I just don't see an advantage of their strategy.<p>No, it's not my fault if e.g. my country suddenly slaps a ridiculous tax on new businesses making my venture a negative value proposition over night. But I can still have some response other than just pointing my finger.
This attitude works well in social situations where you have some advantage (parent, boss) or are roughly on equal footing. It works less well in non-social settings (the natural disaster example other people are giving) or if you are at a serious disadvantage. For the example he starts with, where he was an embittered boss who felt screwed over, he is absolutely right: "Forgiving" others requires you to first blame them. Blaming them when you had the power over them is petty and asinine. Embracing your own power is far healthier, more effective and feels tons better. And it leads to future outcomes where you stop and wonder what you could do differently to not set your people up for failure.<p>Though I think it is a tad unfortunate that some remarks here are taking it too literally when it was clearly intended as lighthearted and tongue-in-cheek.
Sorry, I did not like this one.<p>I respect Derek Sivers a lot, for a lot of things. But I honestly think, this one lacks the punch of some of his other (earlier) writings. For example, he was at his insightful best in 'ideas are just a multiplier of execution'. When I read that, I was blown away, "what clarity!" I thought. And it seemed like a genuine outpouring of a <i>Doer</i>.<p>But this one is ambivalence at its peak. Sort of <i>Chicken-soupish</i>. It lacks the <i>balance</i>, and is a bit extremist. Any very unlike the writings of a stoical mind (And please-please, I am not pulling any punches at all. I hold Derek Sivers, in high esteem. But even gurus, need some candid feedback at times), which I am sure he is, most of the times.
I have been doing roughly this for a few years now. It isn't always possible to achieve, but it is incredibly effective if you can get beyond thinking about who is at fault, who is guilty, who has wronged you.<p>Looking at my own behavior, it is almost always possible to find something I could have done differently that would have avoided an undesirable outcome. Over time this has improved my intuition of whether certain actions are better avoided, even if doing them is theoretically something that should be just fine.<p>Concrete example: you could complain about getting hit by a car yesterday, or you might re-examine what was so important that you decided that driving two hours a day was a good idea.
I share this point of view. If I've learned something after watching Mortal Kombat movie a dozen times is that every man is responsible for his own destiny. We usually blame other people for bad things that happens to us because is more confortable than assuming that even after many years on this planet we still make a lot of mistakes.<p>To accept the obvious truth is really liberating. It takes away all bad feelings you had for people involved on situations where you've felt the victim. And it also makes you see that if you're responsible for your mistakes, you're also responsible for your success. There's no luck, it's your responsability to make things right.
The article only recommends accepting blame for things that you are involved in. I would go a bit further than the article and accept the blame for things that had nothing to do with me.<p>Choose the moments to accept the blame carefully, like when no one else will accept it. In my experience, the consequences have never been bad and most people kind-of know you're taking one for the team and respect it. It defuses issues quickly and everyone can get on with fixing the problem.<p>I think this is what some Americans might refer to as being a stand-up guy. The only thing that surprises me is that this is news to anyone.
Nothing is really anybody's fault. People only do abusive things because somebody else previously did something abusive to them. This is not likely provable, it's just a belief I have. Of course victims still need to express their anger and abusers need to be held accountable, but it's also important to ask, "How can I not be an abuser or a victim in the future?"<p>Of course a complete apology feels good, it provides absolution. It will feel even better if forgiveness is tendered by the employees. But to reiterate the real challenge is not getting into situations like this in the future.
The only drawback i personally see is in fact that, when you realize that "everything is your fault" ie, that you can influence things, people around you to obtain the desired result, is in fact manipulation.<p>And I don't like manipulating people. Yes, it's a lot easier. yes, leaders do that non-stop. But personally I can't get around to doing that.<p>Also, if everyone was doing it, we'd probably play a much higher level of "manipulation game" and feel fake about everything we do.
I wouldn't call it "fault" as so much as it is "responsibility". Of course, he's looking at it from the negative, but otherwise the initial success and growth of his company was to his own credit. Owning up to what you have control over is freeing, yet burdensome. One also has to realize that one does not have control over everything, and when others take away from what one has done, forgiveness is still a necessary process do undergo.
It's impossible to live like that! Taking responsibility of ones actions - sure, but taking the blame even for random events is useless.
Why does it matter whose fault it was, as long as you can learn from it? You don't need to feel guilty in order to spot the errors. It looks like making me feel worse about myself without any good reason. Guilt is a powerful mechanism and abusing it like that might lead bad consequences.
The power in this article is not in accepting responsibility in general, but in accepting that a degree of self-interested rationality governs the actions of all people, including those on your team whose efforts run counter to yours, undermine you, or betray you, and that as a person with authority, you are responsible for the environment in which this rationality will play out.
This reminds me of the idea that leaders share the credit when things go right & take the blame when things go wrong. I've personally found it to be a far more productive way to live. Instead of looking to blame others, I try to look at myself and ask what I could have done better. It focuses my attention on the one person I have the greatest power to change... me.
This attitude is as bad as “nobody's fault”. It portraits the same thing, but differently.<p>The truth is that is everybody's fault when a bad thing happens. A more in depth view can be found at <a href="http://lucianmarin.com/archive/everybody-fault" rel="nofollow">http://lucianmarin.com/archive/everybody-fault</a> — I don't want write it twice, so sorry for the link.
I'm not an expert on psychology, but just skimming Kahneman's book will tell you that focusing on negatives will be detrimental to your mental health and long-term performance. Flogging yourself may ease your pain but is not that different from teenagers cutting their body to occupy themselves with pain instead of facing the problems.
This might be good advice for business relationships, but it is terrible advice for your personal life.<p>Take a look at the happiest couple you know. They aren't happy because they are perfect for each other and always have the same opinion, but rather because they are forgiving of each other's faults.
No, not everything is your fault.<p>A short amount of therapy has taught me that I was always searching myself to blame for everything. This is inherent to very insecure people.<p>I felt very much happier when I realized that some things really are <i>not my fault</i>.<p>As with almost everything, you have to find a right balance for this.
A lot of times you and your behavior are the only variables you have to work with. Something might actually be mostly due to someone else, but you can't control that someone else very well, so changing yourself is better to work on even if it would have less result.
A wonderful book that is similar in concept to this post is "Leadership and Self-Deception". I think the first part of the book: "Self-deception and the Box" is what Derek is describing here and he's working on getting out of the box.
"Only when one recognizes the fault as a fault
can one be without fault"
I say don't blame yourself or anybody else because it's a negative approach. Learn what you can, embrace it and move on.
This is my philosophy as a sysadmin: Everything is my fault, and the direct result of my ignorance. If you believe this, then the solution to all sysadmin problems becomes obvious.
While it is generally a good idea to be open to the idea of taking responsibility rather than fobbing it off on someone else... I can't say I agree in this case.<p>You had terrible, awful expectations. You expected your employees to be dedicated to the benefit of your clients rather than themselves? This is capitalism. People have jobs because those jobs provide THEM a benefit. Especially today, where you as an employer make ABSURD margins of profit off of everything your employees do (as worker productivity is astronomically high thanks to computers and such - just ask yourself how productive your company would be if you banned any technology produced after 1980. Couldn't survive, could you? Yet, companies did. And they paid their employees the same average wages you are paying now. You're just getting far more benefit.)<p>Pick up a book on capitalism. It's likely not what you think it is. It is not workers making as little as possible sacrificing everything for corporate praying that one day they'll win the lottery and become CEO. That's not capitalism. Capitalism is based on free exchange to mutual benefit of both parties. Your clients use your business because it benefits them. You tend to your clients because it benefits you. Win-win. Your employees work for you exclusively and only because it provides them substantial benefit, and you provide them that benefit because you make profit off of them. Win-win.<p>Expecting a worker to be dedicated to your company above their own interests is disgusting. You would not in a thousand years consider cutting your projected profits in order to improve their salaries, so there is no reason whatever for them to display any loyalty to you. Workers do not exist to work. They are human beings who exist to seek their own enjoyment, and if you as an employer fail to provide adequate pay/benefits/etc they will leave you to fail on your own. That is how it should be.<p>There is an escape. If you really do want to build an organization with invested, loyal coworkers, you can. The first step is to read a book on capitalism. Understand what a persons compensation is supposed to be based upon. It is not supposed to be based upon market average rates. It is supposed to be based upon the value of the work being done. If one employee earns a million dollars for the organization, that employee deserves most of it. If you want people to be invested, you have to actually make it in their best interests to do so. Right now, it is explicitly AGAINST their interests to be productive for you. It can't help them, and can only cost them. You'll cap them out at what they can make based on 'market rates'. And the chance of them rising to senior management is an invitation to self destruction with no payoff.<p>Employees are not going to be dedicated to the poisonous cesspit modern business has become. Just not going to happen. It's not your fault, and it's not theirs. And you cannot fix it while maintaining the kind of absurd growth figures and profit margins that modern businesses are taught to expect.
Why can't the fault lie in several places? This just shifts one easy answer to another easy answer. Proper root cause analysis is better than 'everything is my fault'.