Blame Is a Crutch. Conversation Is a Cure.
- Stephanie Carley
- Oct 1
- 4 min read
In law, government, and public life, blame is never in short supply. When a project stalls, a deal falls apart, or a community dispute erupts, the first instinct is often to find someone to point to: the other side, the prior administration, “the lawyers,” “the neighbors,” “the board.”
It’s human. It’s also deeply unproductive.
In his reflection Blame Is a Crutch. Conversation Is a Cure., Vasselli Law founder James Vasselli argues that how we respond to conflict matters as much as the conflict itself. The phrase isn’t just a memorable line—it captures a practical way to approach decision‑making and leadership in municipal and real‑estate matters.
Blame offers a quick hit of relief.
If the problem is “them,” then it isn’t us. We don’t have to examine our own choices, assumptions, or communication.
But as James notes, blame can become a kind of fraud. It creates the illusion of control while avoiding responsibility. The more someone leans on accusation, the less credibility they carry over time. People stop listening—not because the facts are wrong, but because trust has eroded.
In public settings, that erosion is costly:
Boards become divided into “sides” instead of partners.
Residents lose confidence that their concerns will be heard.
Transactions turn adversarial when they don’t need to be.
Small misunderstandings grow into full‑blown disputes.
Blame distances. It pushes people apart at the exact moment they most need to work together.
When Blame Is a Crutch, Conversation Is a Cure
Conversation asks more of us. It requires humility, patience, and a willingness to be uncomfortable. But it also does what blame never can: it restores.
A conversation‑first approach looks like:
Confronting issues directly, not through whispers. If there is a concern about a project, a contract term, or a process, it is raised in the room with the people who can address it.
Asking questions before assigning guilt. “Help me understand how we got here.” “What constraints were you working under?” “What information was missing?”
Clarifying expectations instead of assuming motives. Many conflicts are less about bad faith and more about unclear roles, timelines, or authority.
Focusing on solutions, not score‑keeping. The goal shifts from “who’s at fault?” to “how do we fix this and prevent it next time?”
This is what it means, in practice, to treat conversation as the cure: not avoiding hard truths, but delivering them in a way that invites progress rather than paralysis.
In Practice—Law, Leadership, and Local Government
At Vasselli Law, we see this tension every day where law meets leadership:
Municipal boards wrestling with contentious zoning decisions.
Developers and municipalities trying to align on infrastructure, timelines, and community impact.
Public bodies navigating open meetings, public comment, and media scrutiny.
In each of these contexts, blame is easy. Conversation is harder—but far more effective.
A few examples of the difference:
When a project runs over budget, a blame mindset asks, “Who dropped the ball?”
A conversation mindset asks, “What did we miss in our assumptions, and how do we adjust the process going forward?”
When residents are upset about a development, blame says, “They don’t understand the process.”
Conversation says, “What haven’t we explained clearly? How can we listen better and respond within the legal framework we have?”
When negotiations stall, blame says, “The other side is unreasonable.”
Conversation says, “Where are our interests actually aligned, and what options haven’t we explored yet?”
The law sets the boundaries. Conversation determines whether we make the most of the space inside those boundaries.
Responsibility Without Self‑Destruction
Rejecting blame doesn’t mean accepting fault for everything. It means owning what is ours to own—and being honest about what isn’t.
That balance matters for:
Elected officials and staff, who must be accountable without becoming scapegoats.
Private parties, who need to protect their interests while still moving deals forward.
Communities, who deserve transparency without being promised what the law cannot deliver.
Conversation allows for nuance. It lets us say, “Here is what went wrong, here is what we can do differently, and here is what we simply cannot change.” That clarity builds trust even when outcomes are difficult.
A Culture of Dialogue, Not Accusation
The image at the top of this article—two empty chairs facing a calm horizon—captures the invitation. Blame shouts from a distance. Conversation sits down, face‑to‑face, and does the work.
For Vasselli Law, embracing this mindset means:
Making space for questions before positions harden.
Translating complex legal issues into plain language so everyone can engage.
Encouraging clients, partners, and public bodies to talk early, not only when conflict peaks.
Treating every matter as both a legal challenge and a leadership moment.
Blame fractures community. Dialogue repairs it.
When You’re Facing Conflict
If you’re a municipal leader, board member, or party to a real‑estate or public‑sector matter and you feel the pull toward blame, that’s a signal—not to double down, but to start a better conversation.
Sometimes that begins with a simple step: bringing the right people into the room, with clear information and a shared commitment to move forward.
Vasselli Law helps clients do exactly that—grounding difficult conversations in law, respect, and practical solutions.
In the end, blame is a crutch, conversation is a cure.
About This Article
This piece is adapted from James Vasselli’s original reflection on leadership and responsibility, “Blame Is a Crutch. Conversation Is a Cure,” first published on Medium. You can read the original article here.
Comments