Week 11: Are we setting some employees to fail?

Week 11: Are we setting some employees to fail?

Continuing my musings on the impact all external factors have on employee performance, today we deep dive into the significant part played by the manager. When an employee fails—or even just performs poorly—managers typically do not blame themselves. The employee doesn’t know or understand the work, is not driven to succeed, can’t set priorities, or won’t take direction - are the general reasons given by the managers. Whatever the reason, the problem is assumed to be the employee’s fault—and the employee’s responsibility. While this may be true in some cases but in some other cases, the employee’s poor performance can be directly attributed to his boss!

By creating and reinforcing a dynamic that essentially sets up perceived under-performers to fail, bosses are often complicit in an employee’s lack of success. If the Pygmalion effect describes the dynamic in which an individual lives up to great expectations, the set-up-to-fail syndrome explains the opposite. It describes a dynamic in which employees perceived to be mediocre or weak performers live down to the low expectations their managers have for them. The result is that they often end up leaving the organization—either of their own volition or not.

Several studies have shown that compatibility between boss and subordinate, based on similarity of attitudes, values, or social characteristics, can have a significant impact on a boss’s impressions. When the employee lands in the out-group of the boss, the boss begins to worry that the employee’s performance is not up to par.

He will then take what seems like the obvious action in light of the subordinate’s perceived shortcomings: he increases the time and attention he focuses on the employee. He requires the employee to get approval before making decisions, asks to see more paperwork documenting those decisions, or watches the employee at meetings more closely and critiques his comments more intensely.

These actions are intended to boost performance and prevent the subordinate from making errors. Unfortunately, however, subordinates often interpret the heightened supervision as a lack of trust and confidence. In time, because of low expectations, they come to doubt their own thinking and ability, and they lose the motivation to make autonomous decisions or to take any action at all. The boss, they figure, will just question everything they do—or do it himself anyway.

This starts a downward spiral. Employee withdraws and boss considers that withdrawal as proof of further dipping performance. Boss then increases the pressure and review and supervision multifolds, watching, questioning, doubting everything the employee does. The employee eventually gives up the dream of making any meaningful contribution.

More on this and how can managers improve and not fall into this trap, in the next week’s post..