Why we Make Excuses?

We're all familiar with the justifications. Making excuses appears to be a pervasive behavior for numerous individuals. In fact, taking responsibility has become so infrequent that when someone genuinely acts responsibly, we find ourselves eager to commend that individual. What makes it challenging for people to break free from the habit of making excuses?

According to Lepsinger, Studies on the phenomenon of making excuses identify four key factors that shed light on why, in the face of adversity, many individuals tend to distance themselves from responsibility, shift blame onto others, or rationalize why circumstances were beyond their influence. A comprehension of these factors, namely, the preservation of one's self-image, the level of identifiability, unforeseen consequences, and the locus of control, serves as the cornerstone for proficiently handling accountability, both within ourselves and among others.

Discussing about preserving self-image, individuals resort to making excuses as a means of safeguarding their self-image. They believe that by offering excuses, they can deflect blame and, in turn, safeguard their reputation in the eyes of others.

Social loafing is a psychological phenomenon that occurs when individuals within a group or team exert less effort or productivity when working collectively compared to when working individually. In other words, it's the tendency for people to slack off or contribute less to a group task than they would if they were solely responsible for the same task. Social loafing can happen for various reasons, such as a reduced sense of personal accountability when working in a group or a belief that others will pick up the slack. This phenomenon highlights the importance of team dynamics and individual motivation in group work settings.

Lepsinger quotes making excuses for unforeseeable consequences can be a natural human reaction when faced with unexpected and challenging situations. While it's important to acknowledge that not all consequences can be foreseen or controlled, making excuses in such cases should be approached with caution. It is human nature to want to explain unforeseeable consequences, it's often more productive to approach these situations with transparency, problem-solving, and a willingness to learn. This approach not only helps individuals adapt to unforeseen challenges but also contributes to personal and professional development.

Excuses and the locus of control are interconnected psychological concepts that relate to how individuals attribute the causes of events, whether positive or negative, in their lives. The locus of control refers to the degree to which individuals believe they have control over the outcomes and events in their lives. It can be categorized into two main types. Internal Locus of Control: People with an internal locus of control tend to believe that their actions, decisions, and efforts have a direct influence on the outcomes they experience. They take responsibility for both their successes and failures, attributing them to their own abilities and choices. External Locus of Control: Individuals with an external locus of control tend to attribute their life events, both positive and negative, to external factors beyond their control. They may believe that luck, fate, other people, or circumstances dictate the outcomes of their lives.

Who is Accountable?

Many people think accountability is only when something goes wrong or when someone else is trying to pinpoint blame. Actually, accountability has far broader implications. Lack of accountability creates and reinforces a culture of blame which, in turn, generates other problems.

As per Lepsinger, ''Blamestorming'' sessions proliferate, creating a cycle of blame that ultimately shuts down communication. Employees take fewer risks (or stop taking them altogether) because no one wants to be blamed if something goes wrong. We've all heard the excuses. Excuse making, it seems, is a way of life for many people. We try to justify. Acknowledgment of accountability has become such a rare event. If we expect acknowledgment while good, why not accountability while wrong. Why is it so tough for people to kick the excuse habit?

How can it be managed?

The ultimate key is the Accountability Boosters! Take boosters as the positive doses! Fixing the problem! It will help in minimizing the excuses and justifications. Maximize the level of accountability to fix things. As a leader, avoid certain accountability busters:

• Talking about an idea, but not agreeing to actions and accountability by people's names, and people thus assuming someone else is going to do something.
• Agreeing on an action, but without any discussion of a completion date, so the end date is open to interpretation and differing opinions.
• Waiting until the completion date to check on the results, or not even checking in at all.
• Not holding people accountable for missed commitments after the fact.

A leader should focus on accountability boosters as follows:

• Help the team members.
• Encourage people to take responsibility right away.
• Focus on problem solving.
• Make it a learning experience.

Follow the ATC Model. The acronym ATC (air traffic control) can help you remember the technique.

• Action- This is the starting point both for setting people up for success and for being able to hold them accountable after the fact, it is critical to get it right. This is where you clarify expectations.
• Timetable- Establishing an agreed-on due date is critical to ensuring everyone is on the same page. Due dates like ''as soon as possible'' and ''by next week'' lay the foundation for misunderstandings. In addition, commitments that don't have a time frame frequently do not receive attention and usually fall by the wayside. The simple, yet powerful, solution is to establish periodic progress checkpoints before the due date that will simultaneously solve both problems: the implied lack of trust and the micro-managing.
• Checkpoints- One of the biggest mistakes people make is waiting to check in until the action or deliverable is due, waiting until the due date to check in does not leave time for problem-solving.

After-the-Fact Accountability Boosters

When this happens, there are two strategies suggested by Lepsinger you can use to increase accountability: asking three accountability questions and reducing defensiveness. There are 2 responses to missed targets:

Asking Three Accountability Questions

• How to contribute to the current situation?
• What can one do to get things back on track?
• How to prevent it from happening again?

You can also ask these questions in 3 ways to manage your own accountability. The 3 ways are Present, Future & Past. At present, one should think, "What can I do to get back on track?" In the future, one should ponder, "What can be done to prevent the reoccurrence of this problem?" While reflecting on the past, "What could have been done to prevent the problem? & also, how can I recognize the mistakes that I have made in the past, that might have contributed to this problem?"

Beware of Defensiveness

As per Lepsinger defensiveness kills accountability. People are image-conscious and in order to avoid negative consequences, they become defensive and avoid accountability. To exemplify, A sales employee did not meet his sales for the month, and they started blaming the product and the market conditions for the same. Hence, they become defensive and kill accountability.

Methods to combat defensiveness

• It provides a stage for clear conversation and ensures proper time is there to solve the problem, making course corrections before the deadline.
• The 3 accountability questions help us to get at the root cause of the problem without being overly critical or resorting to assigning blame. For example, If a salesperson is unable to meet this monthly target, the employer must not blame him. Instead, they should ask accountability questions and look towards a solution for the problem at hand and motivate them to do better in the future. This would boost his self-esteem and elevate his competence in the work.
• Demonstrating empathy is also deemed to be important. A true leader is one who remains calm in situations where an employee causes problems. Calling the person's attention to his defensive response and demonstrating your understanding of the reasons for it, help diffuse the feeling and enable both of you to focus on solutions. Statements one can say in order to defuse the situation could be: "Look, we agreed on the objective, and you agreed to take the point on the project. That's the past; now we must just focus on fixing it." "I know you're as concerned as I am about this, and I realize it's not the way you wanted things to turn out. This conversation is not about assigning blame. It's about solving the problem and ensuring that we keep it from happening again."
• If the employee cannot focus on identifying the problem, he/she could want to use the 24-hour Rule. Suggest taking a break until the next day. This gives him/her a chance to think and cool down and come back to it later when he/she is ready.

Fostering a Culture of Initiative and Responsibility

• High accountability is equal to initiatives This leads to the success of a project, predicting the possible risks and constructing an action plan against it.
• Be One Trial Learner.They are those people who understand to alter their behavior after their first encounter with someone/something.
• There is hesitation due to Lack of Clarity. Having clarity is important in order to understand in whose hand the accountability lies.
  • Having clarification of expectations. When the expectations are set in advance, it helps to avoid the need to make excuses because problems are identified and solved before the due date.
  • Accountability Questions are more reliable than pinpoint blame. This approach helps minimize the threat to the person's self-image.

Above given text is presentation given a student and below given is a reply to the above presenation by another student.

reply to above presenation by a student:

Hi Congratulations for an innovative presentation on why people make excuses and and how to approach the factors contributing. i would like to comment that accountability is not independent of the person occupying a position of responsibility, nor of the context (Sinclair, 1995). In general, accountability requires someone to be answerable to someone else for the carrying out of specified tasks with commensurate authority and resources (Wallis & Gregory, 2009). There is still a long way to go on the subject because studies in business and economics, especially, organizational context, are sparse compared to other organizational fields, like education (school administration). So, the trend is to produce more studies that promote ethical practices as an organization's strategic asset. The increase of ethical behaviour and its perception in business context, can contribute to the emergence of sustainable competitive advantages. While on the contrary, it's absence can lead to dysfunctional consequences. Studies show that there is a direct relationship between leadership and accountability, particularly in the promotion of best practices and behaviours that provide more effective and efficient organizations. We have only begun to piece together the complex nature of the relationship between leadership and accountability (Hall et al., 2017). Business ethics also play a key role in the relationship between leadership and accountability. For example, ethical behaviours such as integrity, reputation and guilt, or unethical behaviours such as self-serving behaviour and display disapproval have an impact on perceiving justice by other organization members (e.g. Chen et al., 2016; Rus et al., 2012).

can you please provide reply to the above reply given by a student to the presetation.can you please add some suggestions and feedback to the above reply given a student