CLUE AND THE SPREAD OF RESPONSIBILITY

Was it Colonel Rubio in the billiard room with the wrench? Was it Mrs. Celeste in the library with the candelabrum? Or perhaps Father Prado? Clue is an addictive mystery game that activates our inner detective. Created in 1948, its goal is to deduce who committed the crime, where, and with what tool. Let's talk about the diffusion of responsibility.

There are moments in teams when we feel like we are in a game of Clue. We have in front of us the fantastic team of a company that hasn't been performing well lately. After working on a project, they find themselves in the following scenarios: the results are below expectations; the objectives have not been met; and/or the procedures have not been followed correctly. It is then that the team faces "the meeting," the moment for feedback, the moment to
evaluate what has happened; the moment when the game begins.

The Dance of Suspects

Each member becomes a player with the mission of avoiding being accused, avoiding being the culprit of that situation. Thus, in the face of unfavorable results, evaluation meetings can turn into a game of Clue. This is because, in both cases, two psychosocial effects come into play.

The first is the diffusion of responsibility effect (Darley and Latané, 1968), which tells us that individual involvement in a project will go more unnoticed the greater the number of people involved. In these cases, when unpleasant consequences are expected, it is easy for individuals not to take responsibility for their actions, leaving them hidden in the plurality.

Working with several people means that individual responsibility becomes blurred in collective responsibility; that the work is a collective result in which individual contributions are not visible. It is a perfect Clue scenario where, when there is no good news, we play to decipher responsibilities: who did what, where, and when.

The second effect, derived from the diffusion of responsibility but with different nuances, is the bystander effect, where the presence of more people decreases the motivation to intervene in the face of injustice or a request for help. In other words, when it comes to team management, part of the responsibility attributed to a single team member is not assumed.

The person remains a bystander while a colleague is overburdened with responsibility. Because when one is accused, the rest have a greater chance of winning the game; although in this case, victory is not about winning; but about avoiding losing, avoiding being the culprit.

From Blame to Responsibility

In this hidden dynamic of teams, we find two pre-existing beliefs that we should rethink. One is the belief in blame, which generates an immediate association when we talk about guilt: that behind unfavorable results, there is a culprit, and we must find them. If we set up a game scenario, we are inviting play, so let’s avoid it. If we talk about “blame” we invite the game of “finding the culprit.” By changing “blame” to “responsibility,” we are already turning the rules of the game and the direction of the discussion around: while “blame” seeks to point fingers at others; “responsibility” invites us to assume and share.

Another belief that haunts us is the tendency to spread negativity and maximize it: “since we are getting poor results; we are in a bad moment; and having a feedback meeting is bad.” But that is not the case; there are group development models that emphasize that in the face of a feeling of threat, teams cohere and build a shared identity (Worchel, 1996). That is, in the face of difficulty; once the team overcomes it, the interdependence of the team is reinforced.

But this will only happen if the team takes the necessary effort to make responsible use of individuality and collectivity for the benefit of all. Because sometimes, being in the interest of the team means putting individual interests aside; and at other times, bringing them to the table. In the team, one must demonstrate presence, both on sunny days and rainy ones; and that fact is what makes an individual's commitment perceived within the team. When one is there for both the good and the bad.

Braver Teams

In crisis situations, we fear for our safety. The feeling of threat activates a survival instinct that prioritizes unilateral benefit. But it is precisely at that moment when the greatest effort must be made towards group benefit. Clue is a game of implicit competition, so we cannot afford to include it in our teams' dynamics because it goes against the cooperative effort necessary to face difficulties.

Let’s forget about the diffusion of responsibility. Let’s value to give value. Let’s appreciate individual efforts to tell each person how important they are to the team. Let’s value the collective result to tell the team that they are a team. Because only by valuing the actions; will the team have the necessary courage to turn difficulty into an opportunity for improvement, negotiation, and unity. There are bad games, indeed. However, let’s use them to learn how to play better.

GAME OVER

Resources:

Darley, J. M., and Latané, B. (1968). Bystander intervention in emergencies: Diffusion of responsibility. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 8, 377-383.

Worchel, S. (1996). The stages of group life and their impact on intergroup behavior. in J.F. Morales et al. (eds.), Social Identity, Valencia, Promolibro.

Arón Alma Beardo
Leadership, Innovation, and Team Management
Challenge and Progress