Have you ever wondered how some of us instinctively take responsibility for everything that happens, while others constantly look outward for explanations? I have found myself returning to this question quite often - —in relationships, at work, and in moments of personal reckoning. Psychology offers a useful lens to understand this difference: locus of control (LoC), a concept introduced by Julian Rotter in 1954.
At its core, locus of control describes where we locate the cause of life’s outcomes. Those with an internal locus of control tend to attribute events to their own actions, choices, or effort. Those with an external locus of control are more likely to see outcomes as shaped by fate, luck, systems, or other people. While this framework has been widely explored in individual psychology and workplace behaviour, I find its implications for relationships—both personal and professional intriguing and something worth exploring.
Relationships require shared accountability. And when different locus-of-control orientations meet, the consequences can be subtle, cumulative, and deeply impactful.
When one person leans strongly internal and the other external, a quiet imbalance can form. One partner or team member keeps introspecting, doing the “self-work,” and trying to repair what feels broken. The other explains difficulties away through circumstances, external stressors, or other people. Over time, the emotional labour of holding the relationship together rests disproportionately on one side.
This dynamic becomes even more concerning when gaslighting enters the picture. When blame is consistently externalised, the person with an internal locus of control may begin to doubt their own memory, judgment, or reality. Accountability turns inward in unhealthy ways, leading to self-blame, erosion of confidence, and, eventually, learned helplessness.
When both individuals have a predominantly external locus of control, conflict often spirals into cycles of blame-shifting. Nothing moves forward because responsibility is always located elsewhere. Resolution is postponed indefinitely, waiting for conditions to change, systems to improve, or someone else to act. The relationship or the team stagnates.
On the other end of the spectrum, when both individuals hold a strong internal locus of control, the cost looks different. Accountability becomes excessive. Guilt accumulates. Burnout follows. There is little space to acknowledge structural constraints, power dynamics, or contextual limitations, because the reflex is always to ask, what did I do wrong? What more could I have done?
What I have come to realise is that the locus of control is not fixed. It can also shift, through awareness, therapy, reflection, and sometimes through experiences that leave no choice but to look inward.
I speak from lived experience here. I have largely operated from an internal locus of control, while my partner and I initially held different ways of making sense of responsibility and causality. That difference, at times, created emotional turbulence not because either approach was wrong, but because we were interpreting the same situations through different lenses. The turning point came when we were both able to step back and notice what was unfolding between us, and how our respective patterns were shaping the relationship. What followed was not a one-sided change, but a shared process of inner work. My partner began to gently explore how his tendency to externalise was connected to past traumatic experiences, while I, in parallel, had to learn something equally challenging: to stop carrying disproportionate self-blame, to acknowledge contextual influences, and to create clearer boundaries. This mutual movement towards greater self-awareness, balance, and compassion shifted the quality of our relationship. It became more honest, grounded, and emotionally mature. The love and deep care we hold for each other played a central role in making that transformation possible.
Similar patterns show up in workplaces as well. We see that individuals with an internal locus of control tend to be more accountable, they seek feedback and take initiative. Those with a predominantly external locus may struggle with ownership. Teams dominated by external LoC orientations can slide into dysfunction low accountability, finger-pointing, and a slow erosion of trust.
Yet the opposite extreme is equally familiar, especially in the development sector. Teams full of highly internalised professionals often take on far more responsibility than is sustainable, personalising systemic failures and structural gaps. Burnout becomes normalised.
What becomes clear is that balance matters, the ability to hold personal agency and contextual reality at the same time.
While locus of control is not a new concept, its interactional effects how different orientations collide, reinforce, or soften each other remain underexplored. Paying attention to these dynamics can reshape how we show up in relationships, how teams function, and how we approach problem-solving more broadly.
Perhaps the real work lies not in shifting entirely inward or outward, but in cultivating awareness: knowing where we tend to locate control and choosing consciously and compassionately when to claim responsibility, and when to name the system. Discernment is the key, and that is where we need to invest in relationships - both personal and professional for thriving to become possible.
About the Author
Pallavi Kulshrestha, Associate Director – National Partnerships, Dream a Dream, India
Pallavi Kulshrestha works closely with central agencies to drive systemic shifts in education by integrating SEL and life skills education. With nearly 15 years of experience in education, disability inclusion, and advocacy, Pallavi has contributed to diverse initiatives aimed at empowering marginalized communities. Her work spans advocacy, counseling, teacher training, project and policy planning, curriculum development, and inclusion. She has collaborated with organizations across India, working to create holistic, equitable learning environments.
Currently pursuing a PhD in Psychology with a focus on the deaf population in India, Pallavi brings a deep understanding of the intersection between education, mental health, and accessibility. She holds a B.Ed. in Special Education (Hearing Impairment), an M.A. in Psychology, and a Postgraduate Diploma in International Humanitarian Law. Fluent in English, Hindi, and Indian Sign Language (ISL), Pallavi is passionate about reimagining education to ensure every young person—regardless of background—has the opportunity to thrive.
LinkedIn : https://www.linkedin.com/in/pallavi-kulshrestha888/