Must Heads Roll? A Critique of and Alternative Approaches to Swift Blame
Why is this work in the frame?
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Full frame distilled prediction
Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
- Candidate categories
- none
- Consensus categories
- none
- Domain
- Candidate signal: noneConsensus signal: none
- Study design
- Candidate signal: ObservationalConsensus signal: none
- Genre
- Candidate signal: EmpiricalConsensus signal: Empirical
- Teacher disagreement score
- 0.922
- Threshold uncertainty score
- 0.600
- Validation status
machine_predicted_unvalidated·codex-gemma-dda1882f352a
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
- Teacher spread
- 0.225 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
- Validation status
score_only:v0-immature-baseline· verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it
Abstract
When mistakes or perceived wrongdoings occur in the workplace, managers—like most human beings—demonstrate the tendency to locate someone to blame, including assigning responsibility and sanctioning perceived wrongdoers for their actions. We highlight that although this response can be motivated by organizational, legal, and psychological factors, blame can be detrimental to the organization and its employees when it occurs in a spontaneous and nondeliberative manner, which we label swift blame. We argue that swift blame can involve distorted perceptions and judgment, exacerbate conflict, erode employee engagement, and stifle organizational learning. We further argue that managers have a special responsibility to thoughtfully and carefully consider how they react to perceived wrongdoings. Drawing from dual processing theory of cognition, we propose that managers can respond more effectively by adopting perspectives that slow down these tendencies and promote more thoughtful reactions. To this end we highlight research opportunities for three alternatives to swift blame: (a) a no-blame approach, (b) systems of inquiry and accountability, and (c) mindfulness training.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
The record
- Venue
- Academy of Management Perspectives
- Topic
- Job Satisfaction and Organizational Behavior
- Field
- Business, Management and Accounting
- Canadian institutions
- Simon Fraser UniversityUniversity of British Columbia
- Funders
- not available
- Keywords
- BlameAccountabilityPerceptionMindfulnessSocial psychologySwiftPsychologyPublic relationsSociologyPolitical scienceLawComputer science
- Has abstract in OpenAlex
- yes