
Everything is my fault - ncremins
http://sivers.org/my-fault
======
bpatrianakos
This is not a good thing. In the context of the article it seems more like a
defense mechanism than anything else. Yes, it's good to take responsibility
and people don't do it as often as they should but to take on the mentality
that everything is your fault is unhealthy. In this context it looks like it
stems from a need to be powerful and in control all the time.

The truth is, we can only control efforts, not outcomes. Sometimes things
aren't your fault, you are the victim and while believing its your fault may
shield you from feeling bad about it, it ultimately sets you up for failure.
When you believe everything is within your control you're in for a rude
awakening because a lot of bad random shit will end up happening. Once enough
bad things pile up and you're still thinking its your fault, those feelings
you're trying avoid by pretending you're all powerful will begin to bubble up
and then you think "not only is everything my fault, but no matter how much I
learn I just can't get most things right. So now I'm in control and suck at
it".

This is classic avoidance. A defense mechanism. A more healthy attitude would
be to identify what is in your control as well as realize and admit the things
that are out of your control and cope with them as they come. By all means,
take responsibility and he in control of your life because lord know most
people aren't but also remember that there's no shame in admitting some
bullshit happened that was out of your control and subsequently feeling bad
about it.

What happens if there's a natural disaster? It's your fault you didn't predict
it and lived or worked in a certain place? What about a key figure in your
business dying suddenly? Are you at fault for not keeping good enough watch?
The example of someone being rude right in the article is a great one! Of
course it isn't your fault if someone is rude (at least not always)! Sometimes
people have shitty days or attitudes and it has nothing to do with you!
Besides being a defense mechanism you could argue that this attitude may stem
from egomania.

~~~
ivosaurus
The mindset isn't simply about seeing yourself as the sole cause of all your
problems, and going crazy there after.

That's the literal view of Derek's post, and it's completely naive one.

The opposite view is just as unhealthy - seeing yourself as the constant
victim; it will equally get you nowhere. Civers is not a dumb enough guy to
advocate either of these extremes.

It's about creating a mindset that enables you take to take more action in
dealing with your own problems. Expanding your own view of your sphere of
influence to its maximum potential.

TL;DR - the view isn't solely about anyone's fault, or some strategy of how to
dole out blame; it's about maximising your own ability to make a difference.

~~~
bpatrianakos
I can agree with you, and the text supports your argument when he says:

"It's one of those base rules like “people mean well” that's more fun to
believe, and have a few exceptions, than to not believe at all."

That part makes it seem alright but the way he talks about power and choosing
this over forgiveness and the emphasis he places on having power as well as
the importance he places on thinking of a situation in such a way that it
avoids the realities of disappointment make it seem like its coming from an
unhealthy place.

It's almost as if he's saying "I've found a way to avoid feeling bad about any
negative thing that's out of my control" rather than what you're saying he
means which would be something like "if you think of everything as being in
your control then you'll find you actually do have more power over certain
things than you think".

You can take either from this piece and I don't think it's naive at all to
find an unhealthy attitude in this. It is very likely that he meant it in the
way you say and that part I quoted backs that up. However, besides that one
line, his tone and everything else he says in this piece comes off to me as
someone training themselves to be avoidant in such a way that it can be
construed as a virtue.

------
paul
This is a great attitude because it moves the locus of control from outside of
yourself ("I'm a helpless victim of everyone else") to inside ("this is my
fault"), which is generally a more productive mindset since it puts you in
control of your life. Obviously if you then translate that control into guilt,
it breaks down badly, but I don't think that's what he's advocating.

~~~
tossacct
You offered two possible attitudes: "nothing is my fault" and "everything is
my fault", then stated that the second was a "generally more productive
mindset". It doesn't matter, because the most productive mindset is this:

step 1 - Here is a problem. [goto 2]

step 2 - Do we need to assign blame at this moment? If yes [goto 3]. If no
[goto 4]

step 3 - Assign blame [goto 4]

step 4 - Is this a problem I should be involved in solving? If yes [goto 5].
If no [goto 6]

step 5 - Help solve problem [goto 6]

step 6 - Problem does not exist. Do we need to assign blame at this moment? Go
right ahead.

All of this should go without saying, since this is the essence of the
engineering and hacker ethos, and we can therefore make the assumption that at
a website called "Hacker News", everyone understands this intuitively. But if
you look downthread, you will see that some people legitimately don't think
like problem solvers yet.

~~~
mikle
Actually a pragmatic will see step 3 as unnecessary - you get to step 4 faster
if you skip it, and assigning blame doesn't help solve the problem. After the
problem is solved you have all the time in the world to think about the meta-
things like assigning blames and congratulations.

~~~
tossacct
I think that when speaking about small teams or individuals you are generally
correct - it is generally faster to skip step 4, and always branch from step 3
to step 5. But like everything, there are edge cases: sometimes assigning
blame actually does "help solve the problem". I would totally agree with your
comment without question if you had written the first sentence like this:

FTFY>>>Step 3(assign blame) is unnecessary if and only if assigning blame
doesn't help solve the problem. A pragmatic will realize this, and skip step 3
when it is unnecessary to assign blame at that point in the process- you get
to the solution on step 5 faster.

Upon careful reading of your comment, I imagine that this is what you meant,
but some people will read your version and imagine that you are saying that
"assigning blame generally doesn't help solve the problem". It's the problem
of [logical AND &&] vs the English construction [ , and ] which can mean the
start of a new semi-related clause. Note that I did try to hint at this in my
description of (step 2) - Do we need to assign blame "at this moment"?

Completely agree with your second sentence.

One specific edge case for small teams or for individuals - the process of
assigning blame can reveal toxic team members (one of which could be you).
Getting rid of a bad team member has the potential to speed things up
radically.

In large organizations, assigning blame can often be done in parallel with
fixing the problem. I would imagine that the benefit of the fix would
generally outweigh the benefit of the blame. However there can be good reasons
for management to demand that you offer up the scapegoat(as opposed to a
sacrificial lamb) before your team gets permission to fix a problem. One of
them is the small team edge case that I mentioned.

------
NickPollard
I've found this attitude very useful, especially in social and personal
situations. My reaction to everything that doesn't go my way is to examine
myself first - what did I do wrong, or what didn't I do, or what could I have
done different.[1]

This normally yields useful insight, understanding, and actionable ideas.
Blaming others or the situation normally does not.

At it's core, this is about accepting and embracing agency - you have the
power to effect changes. I think that so many people in the modern world
suffer from learned helplessness[1], where they think that the situation
leaves them with no ability to impact events. This is false. Something went
wrong? Try something else!

[1] Important Note: This is about things that I _do_ , not things that I _am_.
If you blame yourself innately, that's bad and leads to low self-confidence.
It's not yourself, it's your actions - and actions are changeable. [2]
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Learned_helplessness>

~~~
slewis
Totally. Regardless of whose fault it actually is, you can almost always find
something that you can do differently next time.

------
btilly
Something like this appeared in _Good to Great_. In a study of CEOs who lead
their companies to significant improvement that lasted after the CEO stepped
down, they found a common personality characteristic. The best CEOs constantly
were watching for problems, took responsibility (aka fault) for everything
that went wrong, credited everything good to others, and then anything that
could not be credited to someone they said was luck.

This is a useful attitude. As news goes up the corporate ladder, it inevitably
is colored in the most positive possible light.
(<http://www.davar.net/HUMOR/JOKES/SHIT.HTM> is a funny, but true, take on
this phenomena.) You need a constant vigilance for problems at the top to
counteract it. And the common willingness to rest on your laurels and deflect
blame elsewhere is not going to lead to that willingness.

~~~
killahpriest
Reminds me of Kevin Rose blaming Digg's failure on waking up one day to
realize that everybody in his company was a B/C employee.

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2352521>

~~~
te_chris
So he collectively blames all his staff for his failure? Nice, really nice.

~~~
daeken
No, that's missing the point. The quality of your staff is 100% your
responsibility as a CEO; if you realize that everyone is B or C level, then
you've failed as CEO.

~~~
te_chris
No, it's not. It's a false rationalization of your (lack of?) ability as a CEO
to motiviate the best performance out of your staff to write off all your
staff as 'B' and 'C' players.

------
llambda
No, it's not your fault. And this is just a mechanism of deflection.

Step back from your solipsistic convictions for five minutes and realize that
your rationalizations here only serve the purpose of avoiding forgiveness. You
have decided that not only are you not a victim but in fact you and you alone
are responsible for everything and therefore you don't ever need to forgive
anyone. Moreover you have now implicitly made the rest of the world victims.
Hm...

~~~
SoftwareMaven
The real world is somewhere in the middle. Many people do excuse their own
weaknesses by becoming the victim of everybody else's evil. It is important to
recognize when you really are a contributing factor. Sometimes, you really are
at fault.

On the other hand, I read this part and realized the OP had jumped the shark:

 _Someone was rude to me today? My fault. I could have lightened their mood
beforehand._

It's your fault if you aren't psychic? It's your fault if others can't have
common decency? No, at that point, you are looking for a way to say that you
control the entire world. I completely agree with my parent's choice of
wording: solipsism.

Spend time meditating and introspecting. Talk with objective third parties. It
is important for you to learn when you screwed up and how to not screw up in
the future.

But don't forget that people are agents unto themselves. Sometimes they do
stupid, mean, and ignorant things. If you don't learn to forgive those
actions, you will either carry a lot of guilt (How could I let my friend be
mugged because I didn't catch an earlier flight home? It's my fault!) or a lot
of anger (All muggers must die!). There is a peaceful middle ground that
enables you to work on solving the systemic problems without idealizing away
the smaller percentage of outright bad actors.

So, no, it's not your fault.

~~~
PieSquared
I think interpreting these posts in the literal manner that you and the
grandparent are doing is a bit misleading. If you read what the OP wrote in
the most literal manner, he sounds like a nutjob. You're right - there's no
way to say that it's _his_ fault that everything happens. What if a stranger
had a bad day for his own reasons, and decided to use that as an excuse to be
rude to the OP? Or someone broke into his house and stole something? There's
plenty of scenarios where logically it _cannot_ be his fault that something
happened. ("Global warming! It's all my fault!")

But that's not what he means, and not really what he's writing about. The way
I read this, he's proposing a shift in world view. People are difficult and
unpredictable creatures, but, _if_ I were smart enough, I would understand how
they work. I _could_ have been smart enough or empathetic enough to realize
this stranger had a bad day, and say something nice to him to cheer him up. I
_could_ have been smart enough to get a better security system for my house.
If I _really_ cared about global warming, I could try to become a U.S. senator
(or some other powerful politician) and try to change it.

By saying, "It's my fault", what the OP means is, "If I really cared about
this, and was smart/strong/etc enough, I could have worked to fix/prevent
this". This isn't about "[controlling] the entire world". It's about believing
that you have control over your life, and about realizing that blaming others
(whether in an angry or forgiving sense) is entirely useless in terms of
practicality. If you blame others for anything, you're saying that there's
nothing you could've done, and letting others determine your life.

I understand that in some regards, this is a bit silly. It's not my fault that
someone had a bad day, and it's not my fault that I don't know them well
enough to make them feel better. It's not my fault they were rude to me. But
I'd rather pretend it's my fault and think about ways that I could handle the
situation better in the future than just blame it on external forces and allow
myself to repeat the same mistakes.

~~~
stdbrouw
I used to feel and act exactly like Derek: let's just pretend everything is my
fault because that's how I will learn to be better regardless of whether other
people could have been better too.

What I've started noticing, though, is that after doing this for a couple of
years, when it's become automatic, it gets difficult to differentiate between
"for the sake of learning, let's assume this is my fault" and "this is
actually my fault". And at that point, it's hard not to get depressed in the
face of adversity... after all, it's all your fault.

I've started blaming other people more – mind you, from a baseline of never
doing so – and it has done wonders for my well-being and self-esteem.

So, yeah, it's a good trick, but do your very best to keep in mind it's only a
trick.

Also, it's interesting to compare Sivers' heuristic with that of Martin
Seligman ("Learned Optimism") who recommends that while you shouldn't
necessarily avoid taking blame, you should try to compartmentalize it as much
as possible and never assume your failings are due to some fundamental flaw in
your character.

~~~
drumdance
I think it comes down to "failure" vs. "feedback." I don't look at a negative
encounter as a failure. It's just feedback.

I ask myself, in a non-judging way, "what could I have done differently?"
Sometimes the answer is "nothing" - you just caught someone on a bad day. But
sometimes there are some things I can change about my behavior. If so, I try
to incorporate that and go forward.

Whatever happened has already happened. You can't go back and change it, so
there's no point in ruminating on it. But you can change how you behave in the
future, and that's what a lesson is for.

------
pestaa
"Everything is my fault" is entrepreneurs' wishful thinking so that they can
believe they can fix whatever situation they're in. However, not everything is
under their control, no matter how hard they try to believe.

You don't control the weather, the people in the streets, the companies
sending you checks, the currency exchange rates, etc.

~~~
arbuge
Quite so, but most people can control more than they give themselves credit
for. Think again before you give up on some things.

You can effectively control the weather you get by moving to another
city/country. The companies sending you checks are 100% in your control - it's
your career choice.

Not sure why you'd want to control the people in the streets - sounds a wee
bit tyrannical :-)

~~~
smsm42
Actually, most of what we understand by "politics" is exactly that - people
banding together to control other people - on the streets or sometimes even in
the privacy of their homes (like drug laws, occupational licenses, etc.) It
may sound tyrannical but it is not only natural - it is one of the most common
things out there.

------
hwallace
Taking responsibility for most every occurrence in one's life is a common
theme in successful people.

<http://www.chuckrylant.com/it-is-your-fault/>

No need to get carried away though...

~~~
jasonlotito
Agreed. It was like reading a part of the 7 Habits book.

------
pixxa
Taking the blame sure beats blaming others (see tragic case of Philip
Greenspun's ArsDigita
<http://rura.org/blog/category/businesscompaniesarsdigita/> )

Having said that, and realizing this is a motivational piece "It's my fault"
is a complex statement (combining loaded notions of Self & Fault), and some
interpretations allows (you or others) to sweep real issues under the carpet.

When sh*t happens the real thing to do is to admit that there was a failure
instead of denying it and have a frank conversation about it with the parties
involved instead of blaming others. (Note: sometimes the same person may take
both parts of this conversation.) Sometimes it helps to separate
Responsibility from Accountability, and assessing "fault" usually is counter-
productive in this regard. In contrast, the Truth and Reconciliation movement
in South Africa is a prominent example of coming to peace without placing
blame. There, they separate concerns which gives room to people to more easily
admit their mistakes.

------
edw519
_So do you want to know the real reason I cut those chapters?...I this...I
that...I something else...(I could list another 20 of these, but you get the
idea.)_

Lots of good stuff here, but I never found the reason I would most hope for:
No one gives a shit.

In business, we all see it every day: who did this, who did that, who said
what, who was right, who was wrong, who is hurt, who is angry, blah, blah,
blah. The gossip part of our brain wants to hear more, but the business side
doesn't; it just sounds like a whole bunch of played out drama.

Better to just shut and move on. Glad you did. Just not sure I'm glad why you
did it.

~~~
j_baker
I agree implicitly. I've seen all kinds of drama play out, and at the end of
the day, it never really matters. I've learned to just tune it out. It's best
just to accept that you approached the situation the best you could, and
figure out where to go next.

------
staunch
I shouldn't have been wearing such sexy clothes or walking alone in the park
at night. It's my fault.

~~~
mhb
_It's one of those base rules like “people mean well” that's more fun to
believe, and have a few exceptions, than to not believe at all._

This quote from his essay makes it clear that he isn't a dogmatic adherent to
this principle. Instead, it's a productive default way of approaching a
situation.

He's not saying to let everyone out of jail. But you knew that.

------
yason
_This is way better than forgiving. When you forgive, you’re still playing the
victim, and they’re still wrong, but you’re charitably pardoning their
horrible deeds._

That's _NOT_ forgiving. That's playing the victim, them being wrong and
charitably pardoning their horrible deeds mumbojumbo. "And then they bitterly
stabbed each other again..."

Forgiving means deciding to let go of what has happened; letting go as in not
letting what has happened influence your future life and decisions, and
forgiving starts from yourself. The act of forgiveness is to _free yourself_
from the past events. It goes like first realizing that past is past, you
can't change it and nobody else can change it either, and that ultimately the
suffering seeps not from what had happened but from the way how you still take
it, and eventually realizing that generally you're just so much better off not
thinking about it anymore, regardless of if you win or lose the corresponding
power struggle inside of your head.

When you've already removed yourself from any emotional entanglements it's
basically a no-op to forgive someone else because at that point you no longer
care about what s/he has done. It's good to forgive others to encourage _them
to let it go_ but it's not necessarily for your own recovery.

------
klochner
I personally take a proactive view of my environment, but Derek's post is
lacking moderation.

From the description of Battered Person Syndrome [1]:

    
    
        - The abused thinks that the violence was his or her fault.
        - The abused has an inability to place the responsibility
          for the violence elsewhere.
    

[1] <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battered_person_syndrome>

~~~
joezydeco
I honestly think Derek's article slips into sarcasm at the midpoint and nobody
is picking up on that:

 _Someone was rude to me today? My fault. I could have lightened their mood
beforehand._

At least when I read this, the message I got is that it's easy to blame
yourself when overthinking failures, but in reality it takes two to tango.

Your girlfriend dumped you out of the blue? Where was _her_ communication?
That guy that stole $9,000? He's still a thief. Those are things out of your
control.

~~~
sivers
Yep. You're right. It was supposed to be a light-hearted and fun point,
delivered with a smile. I guess that didn't come across. My fault, again. :-)

------
sfdkfdsakl
"I’ve playfully decided to apply this “EVERYTHING IS MY FAULT” rule to the
rest of my life."

There is a name for this, which is "martyr complex":
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martyr_complex>

I personally have a lot of guilt and beat myself quite a bit, but I also
realize constantly being the martyr and assuming I have control means my ego
is as big as it is when I always blame others.

While blame can be placed and responsibility can be taken, that is a trap. It
happens to be a trap that most of the country is in. It is Bush's fault. It is
Obama's fault. Sound familiar? Instead we should be saying "How can we work
together to make things better?" Sometimes feelings run too deep to switch
into a Kanban philosophy where life is a constant process of potential and
realized amelioration. We don't have to be liberals, conservatives, or martyrs
to do that.

That said, Derek, I think realizing the leader should take responsibility is a
great lesson for all. It is a step towards enlightenment.

------
graeme
For those who note that this is not literally true, here's the weaker version
that's both true and useful:

'What could I have done to make the situation better?'

Almost all situations are _influenceable_.

------
fatbird
I wouldn't phrase it as "fault", but if you put it as "I have a part to play
in every outcome in which I'm involved", it just seems kind of obvious.

------
bcasey
This seems like something directly out of Dale Carnegie's "How to Win Friends
and Influence People," and it plays into what Dr. John Dewey referred to as
human's basic desire to be important. Any time a person takes responsibility
for someone else's actions, they feel a sense of power over that person.
Whether this is good or bad depends on how they intend to use that power. In
this case, it's being used in a way that affects a positive outcome for both
the author and the people around him. In other cases, this increased sense of
power can lead people to believe they have power over others which can lead to
corruption (you know, 'absolute power corrupts absolutely').

In general, this seems like something that should be done in moderation. A
willingness to accept responsibility for some things and be proud that you
aren't blaming someone for an outcome you created is healthy. At the same
time, feeling as if you have the power to affect everything is not healthy.
Some things are just outside of your control.

------
keeptrying
"Its all my fault but I'm not going to beat myself up about it" is probably a
slightly better mindset.

If you have a propensity to blame life and everything else in it for your woes
then this is a great mindset.

A lot more of your life is under your control than you think. This attitude of
"Its my fault" will let you discover a lot of those things.

------
brokenparser
Quick, someone grab his wallet while he's still convinced he's a superhero.

------
flyinRyan
This touches on an important way of looking at life but the wording (and some
of the examples) are throwing people off the scent of the good advice.

It's not that everything is my fault, it's that how my life goes is my
responsibility. Born poor? That sucks, but what are you going to do about it?
Even if you could find someone to blame for it, what good would it do? What
possible effect could it have to find someone to point a finger at? If the
answer is "no effect what so ever" then you're better off just taking
responsibility for your situation and trying to do something about it.

In contrast, I have friends/family members who, no matter what experience
based advice I might offer, have someone or something to blame for why they
won't be able to take it and why they'll have to just remain miserable. And
their situation doesn't change (maybe changing it really is outside of their
power, but if so they certainly don't articulate this well). So I just don't
see an advantage of their strategy.

No, it's not my fault if e.g. my country suddenly slaps a ridiculous tax on
new businesses making my venture a negative value proposition over night. But
I can still have some response other than just pointing my finger.

------
Mz
This attitude works well in social situations where you have some advantage
(parent, boss) or are roughly on equal footing. It works less well in non-
social settings (the natural disaster example other people are giving) or if
you are at a serious disadvantage. For the example he starts with, where he
was an embittered boss who felt screwed over, he is absolutely right:
"Forgiving" others requires you to first blame them. Blaming them when you had
the power over them is petty and asinine. Embracing your own power is far
healthier, more effective and feels tons better. And it leads to future
outcomes where you stop and wonder what you could do differently to not set
your people up for failure.

Though I think it is a tad unfortunate that some remarks here are taking it
too literally when it was clearly intended as lighthearted and tongue-in-
cheek.

------
rehack
Sorry, I did not like this one.

I respect Derek Sivers a lot, for a lot of things. But I honestly think, this
one lacks the punch of some of his other (earlier) writings. For example, he
was at his insightful best in 'ideas are just a multiplier of execution'. When
I read that, I was blown away, "what clarity!" I thought. And it seemed like a
genuine outpouring of a _Doer_.

But this one is ambivalence at its peak. Sort of _Chicken-soupish_. It lacks
the _balance_ , and is a bit extremist. Any very unlike the writings of a
stoical mind (And please-please, I am not pulling any punches at all. I hold
Derek Sivers, in high esteem. But even gurus, need some candid feedback at
times), which I am sure he is, most of the times.

------
delackner
I have been doing roughly this for a few years now. It isn't always possible
to achieve, but it is incredibly effective if you can get beyond thinking
about who is at fault, who is guilty, who has wronged you.

Looking at my own behavior, it is almost always possible to find something I
could have done differently that would have avoided an undesirable outcome.
Over time this has improved my intuition of whether certain actions are better
avoided, even if doing them is theoretically something that should be just
fine.

Concrete example: you could complain about getting hit by a car yesterday, or
you might re-examine what was so important that you decided that driving two
hours a day was a good idea.

------
elomarns
I share this point of view. If I've learned something after watching Mortal
Kombat movie a dozen times is that every man is responsible for his own
destiny. We usually blame other people for bad things that happens to us
because is more confortable than assuming that even after many years on this
planet we still make a lot of mistakes.

To accept the obvious truth is really liberating. It takes away all bad
feelings you had for people involved on situations where you've felt the
victim. And it also makes you see that if you're responsible for your
mistakes, you're also responsible for your success. There's no luck, it's your
responsability to make things right.

------
stkni
The article only recommends accepting blame for things that you are involved
in. I would go a bit further than the article and accept the blame for things
that had nothing to do with me.

Choose the moments to accept the blame carefully, like when no one else will
accept it. In my experience, the consequences have never been bad and most
people kind-of know you're taking one for the team and respect it. It defuses
issues quickly and everyone can get on with fixing the problem.

I think this is what some Americans might refer to as being a stand-up guy.
The only thing that surprises me is that this is news to anyone.

------
georgeorwell
Nothing is really anybody's fault. People only do abusive things because
somebody else previously did something abusive to them. This is not likely
provable, it's just a belief I have. Of course victims still need to express
their anger and abusers need to be held accountable, but it's also important
to ask, "How can I not be an abuser or a victim in the future?"

Of course a complete apology feels good, it provides absolution. It will feel
even better if forgiveness is tendered by the employees. But to reiterate the
real challenge is not getting into situations like this in the future.

~~~
neilk
> People only do abusive things because somebody else previously did something
> abusive to them. This is not likely provable, it's just a belief I have.

I used to think the way you did, and then I discovered sociopathy was real.
There are people who quite like hurting others, and there's no point in
appealing to their empathy because they don't have any.

The best that can be done with these people is to give them incentives to
cooperate.

If one accidentally ends up with one of these as an employee or a boss, one
could fairly blame them... unless one also takes responsibility for
sociopathy-detection.

~~~
georgeorwell
I know that there are sociopaths and psychopaths, I just don't believe that
they're purely genetic conditions, but rather ones that develop due to being
the victim of abuse. There may be genetic predisposition, I wouldn't be
surprised. I also don't believe they're fundamentally incurable conditions.
I'm not saying that blaming or getting angry at an abusive boss makes no
sense, but rather that going forward the best thing to do is either resolve
the conflict or run away from it gracefully.

------
zobzu
The only drawback i personally see is in fact that, when you realize that
"everything is your fault" ie, that you can influence things, people around
you to obtain the desired result, is in fact manipulation.

And I don't like manipulating people. Yes, it's a lot easier. yes, leaders do
that non-stop. But personally I can't get around to doing that.

Also, if everyone was doing it, we'd probably play a much higher level of
"manipulation game" and feel fake about everything we do.

------
mlady
I wouldn't call it "fault" as so much as it is "responsibility". Of course,
he's looking at it from the negative, but otherwise the initial success and
growth of his company was to his own credit. Owning up to what you have
control over is freeing, yet burdensome. One also has to realize that one does
not have control over everything, and when others take away from what one has
done, forgiveness is still a necessary process do undergo.

------
sokolski
It's impossible to live like that! Taking responsibility of ones actions -
sure, but taking the blame even for random events is useless. Why does it
matter whose fault it was, as long as you can learn from it? You don't need to
feel guilty in order to spot the errors. It looks like making me feel worse
about myself without any good reason. Guilt is a powerful mechanism and
abusing it like that might lead bad consequences.

------
iand
Life in general is not one of polar opposites. It's not victim or martyr, it's
something in between. He needs to get some balance in his life.

------
mcgwiz
The power in this article is not in accepting responsibility in general, but
in accepting that a degree of self-interested rationality governs the actions
of all people, including those on your team whose efforts run counter to
yours, undermine you, or betray you, and that as a person with authority, you
are responsible for the environment in which this rationality will play out.

------
joshfraser
This reminds me of the idea that leaders share the credit when things go right
& take the blame when things go wrong. I've personally found it to be a far
more productive way to live. Instead of looking to blame others, I try to look
at myself and ask what I could have done better. It focuses my attention on
the one person I have the greatest power to change... me.

------
lovamova
This attitude is as bad as “nobody's fault”. It portraits the same thing, but
differently.

The truth is that is everybody's fault when a bad thing happens. A more in
depth view can be found at <http://lucianmarin.com/archive/everybody-fault> —
I don't want write it twice, so sorry for the link.

------
polskibus
I'm not an expert on psychology, but just skimming Kahneman's book will tell
you that focusing on negatives will be detrimental to your mental health and
long-term performance. Flogging yourself may ease your pain but is not that
different from teenagers cutting their body to occupy themselves with pain
instead of facing the problems.

------
brnstz
This might be good advice for business relationships, but it is terrible
advice for your personal life.

Take a look at the happiest couple you know. They aren't happy because they
are perfect for each other and always have the same opinion, but rather
because they are forgiving of each other's faults.

------
jvdh
No, not everything is your fault.

A short amount of therapy has taught me that I was always searching myself to
blame for everything. This is inherent to very insecure people.

I felt very much happier when I realized that some things really are _not my
fault_.

As with almost everything, you have to find a right balance for this.

------
lnanek2
A lot of times you and your behavior are the only variables you have to work
with. Something might actually be mostly due to someone else, but you can't
control that someone else very well, so changing yourself is better to work on
even if it would have less result.

------
josh33
A wonderful book that is similar in concept to this post is "Leadership and
Self-Deception". I think the first part of the book: "Self-deception and the
Box" is what Derek is describing here and he's working on getting out of the
box.

------
guitarhacks
"Only when one recognizes the fault as a fault can one be without fault" I say
don't blame yourself or anybody else because it's a negative approach. Learn
what you can, embrace it and move on.

------
haroldp
This is my philosophy as a sysadmin: Everything is my fault, and the direct
result of my ignorance. If you believe this, then the solution to all sysadmin
problems becomes obvious.

------
vacri
Why can't the fault lie in several places? This just shifts one easy answer to
another easy answer. Proper root cause analysis is better than 'everything is
my fault'.

------
nathell
This is slippery. It does read coherent, but blaming oneself for everything is
an excellent fodder for depression. BTDT.

------
otakucode
While it is generally a good idea to be open to the idea of taking
responsibility rather than fobbing it off on someone else... I can't say I
agree in this case.

You had terrible, awful expectations. You expected your employees to be
dedicated to the benefit of your clients rather than themselves? This is
capitalism. People have jobs because those jobs provide THEM a benefit.
Especially today, where you as an employer make ABSURD margins of profit off
of everything your employees do (as worker productivity is astronomically high
thanks to computers and such - just ask yourself how productive your company
would be if you banned any technology produced after 1980. Couldn't survive,
could you? Yet, companies did. And they paid their employees the same average
wages you are paying now. You're just getting far more benefit.)

Pick up a book on capitalism. It's likely not what you think it is. It is not
workers making as little as possible sacrificing everything for corporate
praying that one day they'll win the lottery and become CEO. That's not
capitalism. Capitalism is based on free exchange to mutual benefit of both
parties. Your clients use your business because it benefits them. You tend to
your clients because it benefits you. Win-win. Your employees work for you
exclusively and only because it provides them substantial benefit, and you
provide them that benefit because you make profit off of them. Win-win.

Expecting a worker to be dedicated to your company above their own interests
is disgusting. You would not in a thousand years consider cutting your
projected profits in order to improve their salaries, so there is no reason
whatever for them to display any loyalty to you. Workers do not exist to work.
They are human beings who exist to seek their own enjoyment, and if you as an
employer fail to provide adequate pay/benefits/etc they will leave you to fail
on your own. That is how it should be.

There is an escape. If you really do want to build an organization with
invested, loyal coworkers, you can. The first step is to read a book on
capitalism. Understand what a persons compensation is supposed to be based
upon. It is not supposed to be based upon market average rates. It is supposed
to be based upon the value of the work being done. If one employee earns a
million dollars for the organization, that employee deserves most of it. If
you want people to be invested, you have to actually make it in their best
interests to do so. Right now, it is explicitly AGAINST their interests to be
productive for you. It can't help them, and can only cost them. You'll cap
them out at what they can make based on 'market rates'. And the chance of them
rising to senior management is an invitation to self destruction with no
payoff.

Employees are not going to be dedicated to the poisonous cesspit modern
business has become. Just not going to happen. It's not your fault, and it's
not theirs. And you cannot fix it while maintaining the kind of absurd growth
figures and profit margins that modern businesses are taught to expect.

------
general_failure
What crap

------
MightyKlong
Isn't this just another version of the blame game? Why must anyone be blamed?
These are experiences. Live and learn.

