Beyond Blame, Toward Culture
Credit: Photo by Jeremy Perkins on Unsplash
How Charlie Kirk's death has encouraged reflections on tragedy, incentives, and the kind of workplace — and country — we’re building
I found myself deeply shaken by the death of Charlie Kirk.
While I vehemently disagreed with many of the ideas, opinions, and commentary he championed, there was also a part of me that admired his courage to say them out loud and put himself in positions to be challenged by them. I particularly enjoyed seeing him get defeated in debates when his arguments were dismantled, but the point was: I appreciated that he was there.
At the same time, many of his words cut deeply through me — leaving me feeling less than, dehumanized, and even afraid. There were moments I felt deep rushes of fear when I’d come to the realization that some of the things he said were not just fringe opinions, but beliefs held by many, who sometimes acted upon it in ways that caused real harm in the lives of many.
And yet, as a Christian, I can’t dismiss that he also brought people to Christ, that perhaps through his witness some found faith, and in that sense, maybe even life.
I feel a real heartbreak that in part of what makes me so proud to be American has always been our collective pursuit of nonviolence and our reverence for free speech. I didn’t always like what Charlie Kirk said, but I had a respect for the space he created for disagreement and believe we need to create more spaces where respectful disagreement can flourish, and stories of different lived experiences can be exchanged and better understood.
The Incentives of Blame
We live in an environment where news and commentary are someone’s work output. That output is tied to incentives: clicks, views, and engagement. The incentive is not always peace, unity, or clarity. It is speed and sometimes conflict. When we conflate “what gets published” with “what is true,” we risk letting the incentive structures of others shape our sense of meaning.
From an HR perspective, I think about rewards and recognition. What gets rewarded gets repeated. In organizations, if we only reward quick wins, we get short-term thinking. If we reward collaboration and accountability, we get healthier cultures. Shouldn’t we ask the same of our political culture? What are we recognizing, rewarding, and reinforcing?
Why do we do this?
Blame protects our identity. If the violence comes from “my side,” I minimize it. If it comes from “your side,” I amplify it. Either way, it shields us from looking inward.
Blame gets clicks. Outrage sells faster than complexity. And we shouldn’t forget: when we open the news or scroll our feeds, we are consuming someone’s work output — work tied to incentives. The incentive is not always peace, unity, or clarity. It is speed, conflict, and engagement.
Blame rallies a base. Leaders know the first interpretation sticks. Mobilizing outrage is easier than facing root causes.
In HR we say: what gets rewarded gets repeated. In politics, blame is often rewarded, this isn’t a new phenomenon. But it does perpetuate a cycle.
A Culture of Accountability
Leaders shape culture through words, behaviors and actions. In executive coaching, we often remind leaders that their language sets the tone for their teams. Over time, we've seen leaders internalize that as you no longer hear phrases like "Do as I do, not as a say". If rhetoric is always cast in terms of war, enemies, and domination, then what kind of “employee culture” is being built for America? Is it one of collaboration and problem-solving? Or one of fear and retaliation?
We all know from our workplaces that when blame becomes the loudest voice in the room, accountability rarely feels the need to force its way through the cracks. Instead of asking “what could I have done differently?” it becomes “who and what else can I blame?”
The Harder Conversations We Tend to Avoid
There are deeper, messier drivers of violence that I believe deserve more attention from all of us. Issues that touch both sides of the political aisle and issues we should care about collectively. I've captured some of those realities in the image below.
These are not easy conversations. They don’t produce immediate clicks or viral soundbites. They point back at all of us, not just at “them
Who Gets Blamed and Who Escapes
There is also a pattern in who gets blamed after tragedies. Marginalized groups, often with fewer resources to fight back, are cast as villains. Meanwhile, those with privilege, money, and power — the very executives or leaders whose platforms and policies may bolster the environments for incendiary rhetoric to occur — often emerge untouched. They are quiet in the aftermath while the rest of us argue among ourselves.
Perhaps this is where our energy could shift: away from blaming communities, directions and sides, and instead, begin to look towards holding accountable those who benefit most from division.
An Invitation Towards Humanity
The path ahead may not be about winning or losing, but about choosing to see each other’s humanity, even in disagreement. As humans, I believe we all want similar things: love, dignity, agency, security, belonging, family, hope, etc.. Where we differ is in how we believe those things are achieved. The opportunity is not in defeating one another, but in understanding, collaborating, and finding a middle ground where learning can finally be extracted and something different can emerge.
Violence is never the answer. I hope Charlie rests in peace - No one deserves to die that way. Perhaps the best way to honor his life — and our own humanity — is to make sure disagreement never again requires violence, anywhere.
Written By: Jessica Mensah | Behavioral Economist - People Strategist - Org & Transformation Architect
