Concept
Contribution, not blame
Blame asks who caused this and looks backward; contribution asks how each of us, including me, contributed to the situation and what we do next. The shift removes the trigger for defence, because being blamed is being judged and contributing is just being involved.
Stone, Patton and Heen observe that almost every workplace problem has contributions from both sides, and that the person who names their own first makes the other person's sayable. This is not taking the blame; it is describing the system that produced the result. It pairs with separating intent from impact. You know your own intent but only the impact of their actions; they know their intent but only your impact. So 'you meant to undermine me' is a guess about intent made from an impact. Say the impact on you, ask about their intent, and describe your own contribution before asking about theirs. The conversation then has somewhere to go, which blame never does.
A real-life example
An accounting team lead is about to discuss a colleague's month-end figures, wrong for the second time. He names his own contribution first: he never checked the spreadsheet link she relies on either, and he scheduled the month-end close for the day after the bank's data feed changes. Her contribution follows in a sentence, and the fix is a shared one.
How to use it
- 1Replace 'who is to blame' with 'how did each of us contribute' in your notes.
- 2Say your own contribution first, honestly and specifically.
- 3Describe the impact on you and ask about their intent rather than guessing it.