 |
|
 |
 |
FROM
THE HEADLINES
MANAGING FOR UNDERPERFORMANCE:
THE “SET-UP-TO-FAIL" SYNDROME
by Janice Molloy
From THE SYSTEMS THINKER
Volume 10, No. 10, December 1999/January 2000
View in Acrobat
Reader
|
“Our
research strongly suggests that bosses—albeit accidentally and
usually with the best intentions—are often complicit in an employee’s
lack of success.”
—“The Set-Up-to-Fail Syndrome” by Jean-François Manzoni and
Jean-Louis Barsoux, Harvard Business Review, March–April
1998.
One of the most compelling insights of systems thinking is that
our perceptions can create our reality. How empowering—and humbling—
to realize that what we take as a “given” may be the result
of processes that we ourselves have set into motion. So it is
with the “syndrome” cited above, in which a manager inadvertently
initiates a dynamic that leads to eroding employee performance.
In a time when worker turnover is so costly, the thought that
employers might actually be creating personnel problems
instead of solving them is sobering.
Winners Versus Losers
How can a manager unintentionally undermine an employee’s success?
According to Manzoni and Barsoux, the process generally begins
with a simple trigger—a missed deadline or certain personal
style—that confirms a boss’s preconception of a particular subordinate
as an underperformer (see R1 in “Set-up for Failure”).This perception
causes the manager to focus more attention on that employee’s
work. Although these actions are meant to help the worker improve
his performance, they actually undermine his sense of mastery
over his job. Stripped of his self-confidence, the employee
loses his ability to make autonomous decisions. This passivity
confirms the boss’s assessment of the employee’s abilities,
leading her to be even more vigilant.
At the same time, another employee thrives under the tutelage
of the same manager (R2). Success on one project leads to more
challenging assignments. Despite possessing the same skills
as the low performer, this individual far outshines his colleague,
ending up on the fast track for promotion. This dynamic is a
variation of the classic “Success to the Successful” archetypal
structure.
How do managers come to consider some workers as “winners” and
others as “losers”? These categorizations often have less to
do with performance than with personal biases. Once we’ve judged
someone in a certain way, we’re more likely to focus on details
that confirm that assessment—and less likely to take into account
new information. With one preconceived notion, we subtly shift
certain people to the “B” team.
Compounding the problem is that, according to Manzoni and Barsoux,
“research shows that bosses tend to attribute the good things
that happen to weaker performers to external factors rather
than to their efforts and ability (while the opposite is true
for perceived high performers: successes tend to be seen as
theirs, and failures tend to be attributed to external uncontrollable
factors).” So, in the face of this unfortunate human tendency,
how can we maintain a sense of objectivity in dealing with the
people we manage?
Eternal Vigilance
First, it’s generally easier to prevent a reinforcing process
from starting than to stop it once it’s been set in motion.
To do so, Manzoni and Barsoux recommend that managers clearly
communicate expectations with all new hires. They also suggest
that bosses and workers maintain ongoing discussions about performance
and relationship issues. Finally, the authors exhort managers
to continually challenge their assumptions about individual
employees. By avoiding simplistic categorizations and comparisons,
we can help to assure that all workers have equal opportunity
to contribute to an organization’s success.
Janice Molloy is managing editor of THE SYSTEMS THINKER. |
| |
|
|
|
|
