I read a fascinating article written by Sagasaki, the VP of Corporate at Acompany. In this post, I’d like to walk through some of the key points and share a few of my thoughts.

Self and System

Here’s my free translation and summary of the original article.

Acompany has a guiding principle (or guardrail) that encourages “taking responsibility rather than blaming others.”

The issue, I think, is when people blame others for everything and stop reflecting on themselves.

When someone is told things like “This is your responsibility” or “You need to own this,” and it’s coming from just one side, it can push them to internalize the blame and experience intense self-reproach. In such cases, this is actually a form of other blame that uses the language of self-responsibility.

The phrase “Take responsibility” may appear to promote autonomy and personal growth. But in reality, “taking responsibility” should be an individual’s internal realization. The irony is that telling someone to “take responsibility” can, in itself, end up shifting the blame onto them.

It’s easy to see “self-responsibility” as always being positive, and “blaming others or external factors” as always being negative. But in truth, achieving a proper balance between these two is essential.

Taking responsibility encourages introspection and personal growth. Furthermore, recognizing external causes enables a more accurate understanding of systemic and environmental factors, thereby helping to prevent the burying of organizational issues.

So where do I stand? Well, I agree with the author, his points offer brilliant insights, for sure.

Self-responsibility is often seen as a virtue in many workplaces, yet this ideal can sometimes lead to unintended consequences.

Interestingly, the article highlights that “self-responsibility” alone is insufficient and emphasizes the importance of recognizing external factors as well. Why, then, is finding this balance so crucial?

At the same time, what’s being suggested is that hyper-responsibility (i.e., excessive self-blame) can obscure underlying organizational issues.

But how exactly does that even happen? Let’s discuss this further.

Axes of Agency

But before we dive further into how hyper-responsibility can mask organizational issues, let’s revisit a basic premise.

I want to consider not only the distinction between self-responsibility and blaming others, but also the dimension of whether the thinking is solution-oriented or not.

Doing so can make it easier to uncover deeper insights into the underlying issues. In addition, I’d like to introduce systemic awareness as a contrasting concept to self-responsibility in this context.

Systemic awareness, in this sense, means stepping back and seeing the bigger picture. That is, how outcomes are shaped not only by individuals, but also by the systems and structures they operate within.

So with that framing in mind, here’s a rough sketch of a simple four-quadrant view.

The quadrant names are ones I coined to reflect their roles. The Growth-Minded Actor in (1) is preferable to the Over-Responsible Thinker in (2), but they face a risk of burnout from excessive self-reflection.

The Constructive Challenger in (4) is also a desirable state because they focus on resolving issues, whatever the root cause may be.

Like (2), the Disempowered Observer in (3) is undesirable as it does not lead to problem resolution.

So, where do you stand currently?

Reflecting on your position, particularly if you often lean towards excessive self-responsibility, can introduce risks in high-stakes environments.

And that’s where it connects to the concept, often discussed in organizational behavior (organizational psychology), known as the Fraud Triangle.

Fraud Triangle

In high-pressure, over-responsibilized environments, people may begin to rationalize their actions with internal thoughts such as “If I don’t do it, who will?” or “If someone has to fix this, it’s going to be me.”

In this way, an overemphasis on self-responsibility can quietly ignite all three elements of the Fraud Triangle: pressure (motive), opportunity, and rationalization.

Over time, several researchers have proposed extensions to the Fraud Triangle. These include the Fraud Diamond (Wolfe & Hermanson, 2004), adding “Capability” to the Fraud Triangle, the Fraud Pentagon (Jonathan T. Marks, 2009), adding “Arrogance” to the Fraud Diamond, and Doug Boyle’s revised Fraud Triangle (2015), among others.

This basic triangle can form quietly, at any time, in any organization. One such case is the Daihatsu scandal that came to light in 2023. Internal pressure to meet expectations, combined with a lack of oversight and a culture of hyper-responsibility, created conditions where misconduct could take root.

When blame dominates a work culture, it undermines not just ethics but also learning and improvement. In a different article by Barry Overeem, “What If A Team Doesn’t Want To Improve?”, he notes that removing blame is one of the factors that allows teams to consider improvement without feeling pressure.

Perspective Shift

The primary takeaway from what we’ve covered is the importance of objectively identifying your position within the four-quadrant model. If you notice that you tend to be highly biased towards one end of either axis, try to adopt a contrasting perspective.

Examining the issue from the contrasting quadrant within the model (either the opposite end of an axis or even a diagonally opposite quadrant) is likely to help prevent problems from escalating. If you’re uncertain where you are, consider asking a colleague for their perspective.

What does healthy responsibility mean for you, and for the organization you’re part of?

A quick word of thanks: I’m very grateful to Matthew Cherry for his help in proofreading my posts.