Accountability vs. Blame in Safety Management: Key Differences & Impact
Understanding Their Roles in Safety Management
Accountability and blame are two closely related concepts in safety management. Both relate to how people respond after an event. To be blamed or held accountable for something implies that it has already happened, and humans are notorious for hindsight bias—the tendency to use newly acquired knowledge of an outcome to criticise past decisions.
ISO 45001 loosely defines accountability as "who will be asked about something", whether it was completed or not. This may or may not be the person responsible for the task or even the individual assigned to it—it simply refers to the person who will ultimately have to answer for it.
Blame, on the other hand, requires no formal definition. It is the act of directing fault where people choose. Even children understand blame, having experienced it from siblings, friends, teachers, and even parents.
Both accountability and blame, along with how they are used, misused, or abused, have significant implications for safety management systems and the well-being of those operating within them.
This article explores the use, misuse, and consequences of accountability and blame in safety management.
The Hidden Risks of a Blame Culture in Workplace Safety
Most people will experience blame throughout their careers due to the combination of their propensity to err and the inclination of others to assign blame. When mixed with the prevalence of hindsight bias, there is an opportunity for blame in nearly every situation.
In safety management, blame is most prevalent in the aftermath of accidents and losses. This is when the urge to point fingers is strongest, driven by a widespread belief that every accident must have someone to blame. If individuals do not shift the blame onto someone else, they fear it will be directed at them. As a result, accidents often trigger a frantic cycle of finger-pointing.
The rise of Blame-free culture highlights the negative impact that blame has on morale and, ultimately, on safety and well-being. However, it fails to acknowledge that the broader legal and regulatory framework remains inherently blame-centric.
The plea options available to defendants in legal cases are binary—guilty or not guilty. Laws and regulations are similarly structured to allow for clear-cut interpretations—complied or not complied. Although legal teams engage in detailed analysis of events and contributing factors, trials ultimately result in a binary verdict—guilty or not guilty.
The introduction of legislation that holds company directors personally liable in cases of major accidents and fatalities further reinforces the perception that the legal system operates within a blame-centric framework. Meanwhile, safety practitioners within organisations promote the virtues of blame-free cultures.
Expecting senior managers to uphold a blame-free internal culture while their organisation operates in a legal and media environment that thrives on assigning blame—often under the threat of personal legal consequences—is a contradiction that the industry has yet to reconcile.
Blame is often reactionary, negative, applied with hindsight bias, and rarely solves underlying issues. Yet, its use is deeply ingrained at both the personal and societal levels.
Why Accountability Drives Safer Workplaces
Accountability, on the other hand, can sometimes be mistaken for blame, but it is typically a fair and predefined allocation of responsibility. To be accountable for something means to be answerable for its completion or failure.
Accountability is a powerful motivator for action, especially when paired with adequate authority and the necessary resources to deliver results.
This is why accountability is central to the ArchDAMS approach pioneered at SafetyRatios. The ArchDAMS Approach ensures that every operation is overseen by Dutyholders endowed with clear Accountability and equipped with the appropriate Means to excel in every Sphere of operations. ArchDAMS establishes a solid foundation for safety excellence, creating robust barriers that control Hazards, mitigate Risks, and prevent Accidents, while subtly nurturing a beneficial Cultural flow.
It is not uncommon for the consequences of being held accountable to resemble those of being blamed. When an organisation is held accountable for breaching specific regulatory requirements, it incurs penalties as stipulated by the regulation.
Penalties also arise from blame, but the key difference is in the process. Penalties resulting from blame are often perceived as unfair because blame is typically assigned without a structured or transparent process. In contrast, the penalties associated with accountability are generally fair, as the process leading to them tends to be structured, positive, and just.
Accountability is usually pre-defined and transparent. As the saying goes, to be forewarned is to be forearmed. Holding someone accountable may result in similar consequences to blaming them, but without the negative connotations of an unfair or arbitrary process.
The similarity between accountability and blame is the primary reason they are often conflated. In practice, many safety management systems lack clearly defined accountabilities, which is one of the central reasons why accidents are notoriously difficult to investigate. Investigators often struggle to identify root causes within a system where responsibilities and accountabilities are poorly delineated and weakly interconnected with actual operations.
Building a Transparent and Ethical Safety Culture with ArchDAMS
For safety management systems to be effective, they must be designed with transparency, enabling the collection and sharing of operational data that drives continuous improvement. However, transparent data carries the risk of blame, increased scrutiny, and potential prosecution. Yet, in the absence of such transparency, these risks only grow.
The prevailing industry approach often prioritises concealing the true scale of minor issues, driven by fear of scrutiny, additional workload, and associated costs. While this method may seem effective in the short term, it ultimately fails—exposing an unethical reluctance to address small vulnerabilities before they escalate into major accidents.
The ArchDAMS approach takes a bold stance by actively identifying and addressing minor failures before they evolve into serious risks. It achieves this through technology that enhances identification and analysis, making insights accessible and ensuring that the benefits of corrective action are visible to strategic decision-makers.
In essence, accountability is a cornerstone of effective management systems, fostering structured operations and continuous improvement. Blame, on the other hand, is an unwelcome force in the workplace—eroding trust, discouraging open reporting, and fostering a culture where minor issues are concealed in the hope of preventing major accidents. When accountability is imposed without the necessary authority and resources, it effectively becomes blame. And when blame is disguised as accountability, it remains blame.
At SafetyRatios, we explore norms in safety management and redefine safety metrics to drive meaningful change. This article examines the role of accountability and blame in shaping safety culture as part of our focus on safety norms. For data-driven approaches to safety performance, explore our Solutions Page and discover our metrics-based tools with a free trial.