Blame The Manager

Most failures in software development can be either directly traced to mismanagement, or more frequently indirectly traced by management's failure to foresee problems and take actions to prevent failure, or even more likely by management's failure to CreateTheEnvironment -- to create an environment positive and productive for software development.

So, either the manager did something wrong, or if someone else did something wrong, it's still the manager's fault for not spotting it, or if no-one can be fingered as doing it wrong, then blame the environment (and the manager for not getting that right)?

Managers should be accountable and responsible, but that's different from being blamed

Generally, society uses blame to punish people for acts that they should be held responsible for, so as to encourage proper behavior (not necessarily by the perpetrator, as you can't change the past, but rather to discourage future mismanagement). The reason to blame managers is because we allocate to them considerable authority, and with this authority comes the parallel allocation of responsibility. The manager has the authority to change the environment, culture, work ethics, and pay scale. He therefore carries the burden of responsibility for the software project to succeed. We thus blame him when it fails.

''There's a classic Dilbert which ends with "You do know responsibility means blame around here?".

The manager has the authority to change the environment,

Maybe. Often only in small ways

culture,

Not really. It's not something you can just legislate for

work ethics,

In his/her own behavior and the standards expected of the people he or she manages. Probably not more widely, and can't really go against the wider standards of the organization.

and pay scale.

Hardly ever. Most managers do not have authority over payscales (they probably do recommend where on the scale new people should be, and suggest or set pay review increments and bonuses)

Which is not to say managers shouldn't be responsible. But blame is often a way of denying your part in the outcome....

In other words I don't think "being blamed for" is synonymous with "being responsible and accountable for". If an employee commits fraud, they're to blame, and their manager is not - but the manager may still be responsible for the failure to prevent it.

It is important for people who have the responsibility to get something done to also have the authority to make whatever changes, decisions, etc. are necessary for the something to get done. Suppose upper management gives your middle manager the responsibility for completing a project on time, but does not give them the authority to hire, adjust pay scales, change or make exceptions to company policies, etc. Then they have set your manager up for failure, and it would be unfair to blame him.

Of course, if it's your manager requiring you to get something done under impossible or unreasonable conditions, then blame away :)

After a few years, many companies actually develop a culture that specifically supports BlameAvoidance. Managers make important decisions in group meetings, not so much as to gather together useful experience, but rather to defray culpability. I've walked into some companies where more than half of what everybody did was to "cover their butts" so as to avoid blame. Perhaps we should add BlameAvoidance as an AntiPattern.

And that culture is encouraged by the habit of blaming someone when things go wrong (rather than looking for things to change to prevent the error happening again). If you know the reaction to error is to look for a ScapeGoat, then you will try to make sure you can't be that ScapeGoat.