Thursday, June 19, 2025

Scapegoating in Small Teams: How to Identify, Prevent, and Resolve It

In high-pressure situations, particularly in small teams, interpersonal dynamics can take unexpected and damaging turns. One such dynamic is scapegoating — the unfair blaming of a single person for problems that are usually systemic or collective. In small teams, where every individual’s contribution and behavior is magnified, scapegoating can be particularly corrosive. Understanding its causes, signs, and solutions is essential for any project manager or team leader who wants to build a resilient and fair project team.


What Is Scapegoating?

Scapegoating is a psychological and social phenomenon where one person (or a small group) is blamed for a problem, failure, or dysfunction in a team — even when they are not primarily responsible. The scapegoat becomes the focus of frustration, anxiety, or anger that would otherwise have no clear target.

In small teams, scapegoating can escalate quickly due to the intimacy of working relationships and the limited number of roles, which heightens the visibility of any mistake or conflict.


Common Causes of Scapegoating in Small Teams

1. Ambiguity in Roles or Responsibility

When it’s not clear who owns a task or outcome, failure often leads to finger-pointing. Scapegoating fills the vacuum of lack of accountability.

2. Leadership Avoidance

Team leaders who fail to take responsibility or manage conflict may allow (or even subtly encourage) the team to project blame onto someone else to avoid addressing deeper problems.

3. Group Stress or Threat

Under high stress — such as tight deadlines, resource constraints, or external scrutiny — teams instinctively look for a pressure release. The scapegoat becomes a sacrificial outlet for collective anxiety.

4. Cognitive Biases

Teams often unconsciously single out individuals who are different in communication style, personality, or background. Implicit biases (e.g., gender, age, race, or neurodiversity) can shape who gets blamed.

5. Conflict Avoidance

Rather than engage in difficult but necessary conversations about underperformance, strategy misalignment, or leadership flaws, teams may converge on a single “problem person” to avoid addressing more systemic or interpersonal issues.


How to Identify Scapegoating

Behavioral Indicators:

  • Disproportionate Blame: One person is repeatedly blamed for problems even when they are tangentially involved — or not involved at all.

  • Isolation: The scapegoated individual is left out of informal communications or collaboration.

  • Narrative Rigidity: The team forms a fixed narrative about the scapegoated person ("They're not a team player", "They always mess things up"), regardless of recent behavior.

  • No Recovery Path: Even when the scapegoated person performs well, the perception of blame persists.

  • Passive Leadership: Team leaders consistently fail to correct unfair narratives or defend the team member.

Emotional Signals:

  • Anxiety or Fear: The scapegoated individual shows signs of anxiety, defensiveness, or withdrawal.

  • Group Smugness or Moral Superiority: The rest of the team shows a shared self-righteousness or unity that is dependent on contrasting with the scapegoat.


How to Prevent Scapegoating

1. Establish Clear Accountability Structures

Define who is responsible for what, and ensure that failures are reviewed in terms of process, not personality. Tools like RACI matrices and postmortem templates can institutionalize this.

2. Encourage Psychological Safety

Teams that feel safe discussing mistakes openly are less likely to default to blaming. This includes setting norms for respectful feedback, admitting leadership mistakes, and modeling vulnerability.

3. Monitor Narrative Drift

Project managers should actively listen for consistent patterns of negative talk about a single individual. Repeated scapegoating language should raise a flag even if it’s said “jokingly.”

4. Decouple Behavior from Identity

Train the team (formally or informally) to distinguish between behavior and character. Saying “John’s report missed the deadline” is different from “John is unreliable.”

5. Foster Cross-Team Empathy

Encourage job shadowing, pair work, or empathy-building exercises so people better understand each other’s constraints and strengths.


How to Stop Scapegoating Once It Starts

1. Conduct a Structured Intervention

Have a neutral third party (e.g., a coach, facilitator, or external manager) run a retrospective or facilitated dialogue to unpack team dynamics. Focus on process failures, not blame.

2. Publicly Reframe the Narrative

A project leader must step in and publicly clarify misunderstandings or misattributions. This might sound like:

“We’ve been unfairly associating our missed deadlines with Jordan’s work. The timeline issues were systemic. Let’s look at the real process gaps.”

3. Support the Target

Check in privately with the scapegoated person. Offer validation, invite feedback, and — if appropriate — restore their standing by explicitly valuing their contributions.

4. Address the Team’s Underlying Stressors

Often scapegoating is a symptom, not the disease. Audit the root causes: Is the team understaffed? Poorly aligned? Operating without clarity? Trying to achieve unreasonable timelines? Fix those to reduce the pressure that breeds scapegoating.

5. Institute Reflective Practices

Adopt weekly or bi-weekly rituals (e.g., retros, after-action reviews) where team members are encouraged to name tensions and patterns, reducing the buildup that leads to groupthink and scapegoating.


Final thought

Scapegoating is a failure of collective responsibility. In small teams where interpersonal dynamics are magnified, it can be especially damaging. Left unchecked, it poisons team culture, drives out talent, and obscures the real causes of team dysfunction. But with proactive awareness, clear accountability, and a commitment to psychological safety, teams can prevent and recover from this toxic pattern.

If your team is struggling with scapegoating, before jumping to the conclusion to replace the targeted team member, use the above outline to determine what the root causes are and how to fix them.

Unpacking Job Motivation: How Core Work Characteristics Drive Engagement and Performance

Why do some jobs and projects feel deeply satisfying while others lead to burnout or disengagement—even when the pay is good? The answer often lies not in external rewards such as salary and monetary bonuses, but in the internal structure of the work itself. Organizational psychology research, especially Hackman and Oldham’s Job Characteristics Model (JCM), identify key motivational drivers, such as skill varietytask identitytask significanceautonomy, and feedback from the work itself.

These five core job characteristics influence three critical psychological states—experienced meaningfulnessexperienced responsibility, and knowledge of results—which in turn drive motivation, satisfaction, and performance.

This blog post breaks down each component, how they interrelate, and provides practical insights for project managers and team leads.


1. Skill Variety

Definition: The extent to which a job requires a range of different skills and talents.

Why It Matters:

  • Prevents boredom and monotony.

  • Encourages learning and professional development.

  • Increases engagement by using the employee’s full range of abilities.

Example: A marketing role that combines content creation, data analysis, and client interaction is more motivating than one limited to writing emails.

Design Strategy:

  • Combine tasks requiring different competencies.

  • Rotate roles or offer cross-training opportunities.


2. Task Identity

Definition: The degree to which a job requires completion of a whole, identifiable piece of work.

Why It Matters:

  • Helps employees see the tangible outcome of their efforts.

  • Builds pride in work and fosters ownership and individual accountability.

Example: A bench scientist running an entire experiment from design through to results interpretation experiences more task identity than one who only aliquots needed reagents or runs the assay on whatever is given to them by other scientists and hands back results without knowing the interpretation.

Design Strategy:

  • Assign complete projects to individuals or small teams.

  • Minimize fragmentation of work across too many roles.


3. Task Significance

Definition: The perceived impact of a job on others inside or outside the organization.

Why It Matters:

  • Enhances a sense of purpose and contribution.

  • Links personal effort to broader organizational or social outcomes.

Example: A nurse or clinician typically feels strong task significance because their work directly affects others' well-being.

Design Strategy:

  • Communicate the “why” behind roles.

  • Share testimonials, user stories, or patient outcomes to reinforce impact.


4. Autonomy

Definition: The degree of freedom, independence, and discretion employees have in scheduling their work and determining procedures.

Why It Matters:

  • Boosts ownership and intrinsic motivation.

  • Supports creativity and self-regulation.

  • Builds trust between employer and employee.

Example: A software engineer who decides how to implement a feature has more autonomy than one given step-by-step instructions.

Design Strategy:

  • Set clear goals but allow flexible execution.

  • Decentralize decision-making wherever possible.


5. Feedback from the Work Itself

Definition: The degree to which carrying out work activities provides direct, observable information about performance effectiveness.

Why It Matters:

  • Enables real-time learning and self-correction.

  • Reinforces competence and achievement.

  • Reduces reliance on external supervision for evaluation.

Example: A person creating a powerpoint slide for a meeting knows immediately if the slide is finished or not; a researcher may not know for months if their experiment worked or their work is impactful.

Design Strategy:

  • Redesign tasks to produce inherent feedback (e.g., dashboards, short term milestones and deliverables).

  • Decrease lag between action and consequence.


Psychological Outcomes

The five core job characteristics shape three critical psychological states, which mediate motivation and performance:

Core Job CharacteristicPsychological State
Skill Variety + Task Identity + Task SignificanceExperienced Meaningfulness of the work
AutonomyExperienced Responsibility for outcomes
Feedback from the workKnowledge of the actual results

These psychological states in turn affect:
  • Intrinsic motivation

  • Job satisfaction

  • Work quality

  • Low absenteeism and turnover


Practical Implications for Project Managers and Program Leaders

If You Want to Increase...Then Focus On...
Motivation and engagementSkill variety and task significance
Employee initiative and innovationAutonomy
Accountability and ownershipAutonomy and task identity
Learning and improvementFeedback from the work itself
Retention and moraleAll five job characteristics

Actionable Steps:
  1. Conduct a job diagnostic review to assess the current state of core characteristics.

  2. Redesign roles that score low in key areas (especially autonomy or feedback).

  3. Use enrichment, not enlargement—adding complexity and value, not just tasks.

  4. Have functional area managers provide real feedback and reinforce task significance regularly.


In summary

Motivation isn't just about perks and bonuses—it’s embedded in the design of the work itself. Jobs that challenge people, allow them to see their impact, give them autonomy, and provide feedback naturally generate deeper engagement and satisfaction. By understanding and applying the principles of the Job Characteristics Model, project managers can build work environments that not only retain talent but help the team thrive.

Understanding the ASA Model: How Culture Shapes Organizations Through Attraction, Selection, and Attrition

The ASA model—short for Attraction, Selection, Attrition—is a foundational concept in organizational behavior that explains how company cultures form and solidify over time. Proposed by Benjamin Schneider in the 1980s (see reference at the end of this blog post), this model helps understand why organizations often become culturally homogeneous and how their internal dynamics influence everything from employee fit to long-term performance.

This post breaks down the components of the ASA model, examines its implications for organizational culture and human resources, and suggests actionable strategies for project managers to manage its effects.


The ASA Model Explained

1. Attraction

Core Idea: People are attracted to organizations that reflect their own values, personalities, and goals.

Mechanism: Candidates self-select into application pools based on their perception of an organization's identity. For example, an individual who values hierarchy and structure may gravitate toward a traditional corporation like a large global pharma company, while someone who thrives in ambiguity may be drawn to startups and small biotech firms.

Key Influencers:

  • Employer branding

  • Mission statements

  • Social media presence

  • Word of mouth (e.g., Glassdoor, LinkedIn, friend/colleague reviews)

Implication: Even before selection, organizations are already filtering their talent pool through the messages they send, intentionally or unintentionally.


2. Selection

Core Idea: Organizations choose employees who they believe fit best with the culture and job demands.

Mechanism: HR practices (e.g., structured interviews, personality assessments, values-based questions) are designed to identify "fit"—not just in skills but also in attitudes, work style, and cultural alignment.

Implication: Hiring decisions reinforce existing organizational norms. Over time, this leads to cultural amplification, where each new hire strengthens the dominant values.

Hidden Risk: Over-reliance on cultural fit in hiring can reduce cognitive diversity and innovation, especially if "fit" becomes synonymous with sameness. This is especially a risk if hiring managers select for similarity to themselves (ex. same school, same race/ethnicity, similar age, etc.)


3. Attrition

Core Idea: Employees who do not fit the culture will tend to leave—either voluntarily or through termination.

Mechanism: Poor fit can lead to dissatisfaction, lack of engagement, underperformance, or interpersonal friction. Eventually, either the employee chooses to exit or the organization facilitates their departure.

Implication: The attrition stage acts as a corrective filter. It ensures that only those who align with the organizational environment remain, further entrenching the prevailing culture.

Strategic Angle: Monitoring reasons for attrition (via exit interviews, surveys) can serve as a feedback loop to assess how inclusive or adaptable the organizational culture truly is.


System Dynamics of ASA

ASA is not a linear model but a feedback loop:

  • Attraction determines who applies.

  • Selection determines who gets in.

  • Attrition determines who stays.

As this cycle repeats, the organization becomes increasingly homogeneous. The resulting culture affects future attraction, which makes the system self-reinforcing.


Strengths and Risks of ASA

StrengthsRisks
Strong cultural cohesionRisk of groupthink and reduced innovation
High organizational commitmentResistance to change
More predictable internal dynamicsChallenges with diversity and inclusion
Simplified onboarding and communicationInflexibility in turbulent environments

Practical Applications

For Project and Program Leaders and Managers:

  • Intentionally manage your employer brand to attract the right candidates.

  • Broaden your definition of “fit” to include complementary traits rather than clones. Make sure you are prioritizing "fit" for success in the role rather than "fit" because this person has similar traits that you do that may not be true success factors for the role.

  • Use structured hiring frameworks to reduce unconscious bias and increase diversity of thought.

For HR:

  • Conduct regular cultural audits to identify mismatches between stated and actual values.

  • Track attrition patterns and identify if high-performers are leaving due to misalignment or systemic issues. Avoid the "bozo world" phenomenon where high performers leave because low performers are not held accountable for performance resulting in an increased percentage of the employee base being low performers which puts more stress on high performers leading to their leaving... and on and on towards the negative cycle downward to "bozo world".

  • Design onboarding programs that bridge cultural gaps without erasing individuality.


In summary

The ASA model provides a powerful lens to view how organizational cultures are not just built but self-replicate. While this can lead to a strong, unified culture, it also carries the risk of cultural stagnation and homogeneity. Project managers who understand the ASA cycle can be more aware of their company and team culture and implement checks to maintain flexibility, diversity, and long-term adaptability.

Further Reading:

  • Schneider, B. (1987). The people make the place. Personnel Psychology.

Follow me on Twitter!

    follow me on Twitter

    Blog Archive