If you're interested on the topic, you can start by reading up on "disagree and commit".
To weed out sociopaths, Amazon even went to the extent of coining their leadership principle "have backbone - disagree and commit". The emphasis on having backbone underlines how they explicitly target people throwing others under the bus.
To me it's just something that for example someone only got motivated during the commitment line. Maybe they were lazy, had other priorities or just didn't come to realize a key piece of information due to the complexity of the project. What does this have to do with sociopathy?
Also doesn't that value instead mean that you can disagree before hand, but even if you keep disagreeing you still have to commit once everyone decides on it. So you might have been critical before hand and also still disagreed, but in order to at least go some direction you have to still commit.
From Wikipedia:
> Disagree and commit is a management principle that individuals are allowed to disagree while a decision is being made, but that once a decision has been made, everybody must commit to implementing the decision. Disagree and commit is a method of avoiding the consensus trap, in which the lack of consensus leads to inaction.
It's about avoiding a case where things can't move on because people are disagreeing.
Are you really asking what sociopaths have to do with setting up their team member for failure by intentionally steering them into a wrong path so that they could throw them under the bus?
> Also doesn't that value instead mean that you can disagree before hand, but even if you keep disagreeing you still have to commit once everyone decides on it.
That's the whole point. If you are asked to provide your input, whatever it might be, once the decision is made to push the initiative onward then not only are you expected to support the project but you also lose the right to pretend you had no say or responsibility in it's outcome. You cannot suddenly throw everyone under the bus by pretending you had no say or responsibility on the outcome.
I mean the value itself, but also I have never seen someone intentionally steering someone to a wrong path. And then this value to make sense as a way to counter that.
If there's a sociopath on your team who does things like that, then maybe remove them from the team rather than try to counter it with some odd methodology like that?
I'd imagine sociopath can find other means if they truly wanted to throw someone under the bus for whatever reason.
Do you mind sharing a concrete example?