Setup to fail syndrome

Do the boss and the subordinate agree on their priorities? Maybe the subordinate has been paying less attention to a particular dimension of his work because he does not realize its importance to the boss.

Does the subordinate become less effective under pressure? Does he have lower standards for performance than the boss does? The boss might even try to describe the dynamics of the set-up-to-fail syndrome. Many misunderstandings start with untested assumptions. In medicine, a course of treatment follows the diagnosis of an illness. Things are a bit more complex when repairing organizational dysfunction, since modifying behavior and developing complex skills can be more difficult than taking a few pills.

Still, the principle that applies to medicine also applies to business: boss and subordinate must use the intervention to plot a course of treatment regarding the root problems they have jointly identified. The contract between boss and subordinate should identify the ways they can improve on their skills, knowledge, experience, or personal relationship.

It should also include an explicit discussion of how much and what type of future supervision the boss will have. Most subordinates can accept temporary involvement that is meant to decrease as their performance improves. The problem is intense monitoring that never seems to go away. Our research suggests that interventions of this type do not take place very often.

Subordinates are reluctant to trigger the discussion because they are worried about coming across as thin-skinned or whiny. Bosses tend to avoid initiating these talks because they are concerned about the way the subordinate might react; the discussion could force the boss to make explicit his lack of confidence in the subordinate, in turn putting the subordinate on the defensive and making the situation worse.

As a result, bosses who observe the dynamics of the set-up-to-fail syndrome being played out may be tempted to avoid an explicit discussion. Instead, they will proceed tacitly by trying to encourage their perceived weak performers.

That approach has the short-term benefit of bypassing the discomfort of an open discussion, but it has three major disadvantages. The subordinate, in particular, would not have the benefit of observing and learning from how his boss handled the difficulties in their relationship—problems the subordinate may come across someday with the people he manages.

Finally, bosses trying to modify their behavior in a unilateral way often end up going overboard; they suddenly give the subordinate more autonomy and responsibility than he can handle productively. We are not saying that intervention is always the best course of action. Sometimes, intervention is not possible or desirable. There may be, for instance, overwhelming evidence that the subordinate is not capable of doing his job.

He was a hiring or promotion mistake, which is best handled by removing him from the position. In other cases, the relationship between the boss and the subordinate is too far gone—too much damage has occurred to repair it. And finally, sometimes bosses are too busy and under too much pressure to invest the kind of resources that intervention involves.

When a boss believes that a subordinate is a weak performer and, on top of everything else, that person also aggravates him, he is not going to be able to cover up his feelings with words; his underlying convictions will come out in the meeting.

That is why preparation for the intervention is crucial. Before even deciding to have a meeting, the boss must separate emotion from reality. Was the situation always as bad as it is now?

Is the subordinate really as bad as I think he is? What is the hard evidence I have for that belief? Could there be other factors, aside from performance, that have led me to label this subordinate a weak performer? He must have displayed above-average qualifications when we decided to hire him.

Did these qualifications evaporate all of a sudden? The boss might even want to mentally play out part of the conversation beforehand. If I say this to the subordinate, what might he answer? Yes, sure, he would say that it was not his fault and that the customer was unreasonable. Those excuses—are they really without merit? Could he have a point? Could it be that, under other circumstances, I might have looked more favorably upon them?

It will be easier for the boss to be open if, when preparing for the meeting, he has already challenged his own preconceptions. Even when well prepared, bosses typically experience some degree of discomfort during intervention meetings. That is not all bad. The subordinate will probably be somewhat uncomfortable as well, and it is reassuring for him to see that his boss is a human being, too.

But when it is, it results in a range of outcomes that are uniformly better than the alternative—that is, continued underperformance and tension. Finding and training replacements for perceived weak performers is a costly and recurrent expense. So is monitoring and controlling the deteriorating performance of a disenchanted subordinate.

In other words, it makes sense to think of the intervention as an investment, not an expense—with the payback likely to be high. How high that payback will be and what form it will take obviously depend on the outcome of the intervention, which will itself depend not only on the quality of the intervention but also on several key contextual factors: How long has that relationship been spiraling downward?

Does the subordinate have the intellectual and emotional resources to make the effort that will be required? Does the boss have enough time and energy to do his part? We have observed outcomes that can be clustered into three categories.

Boss and subordinate develop a better understanding of those job dimensions the subordinate can do well and those he struggles with. If the subordinate moves to a new job within the organization that better suits him, he will likely become a stronger performer.

His relocation may also open up a spot in his old job for a better performer. The key point is that, having been treated fairly, the subordinate is much more likely to accept the outcome of the process.

Sometimes this happens: the subordinate truly lacks the ability to meet the job requirements, he has no interest in making the effort to improve, and the boss and the subordinate have both professional and personal differences that are irreconcilable. This dynamic is even more impactful if the employee that is affected is also a manager of other people: its effect multiplies down.

The reason why the set-up-to-fail syndrome is so impactful is because it impacts the people sense of self-determination :. 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.

When a boss believes that a subordinate is a weak performer and, on top of everything else, that person also aggravates him, he is not going to be able to cover up his feelings with words; his underlying convictions will come out.

For this reason, another strategy, if possible, is as hinted before organizational. What's included: Educator Copy. Not teaching at a university? Register as a student Register as an individual. Overview Included Materials Related. Learning Objectives To understand how a manager's mistrust of an employee's abilities can erode the person's performance, and to learn how to prevent this dynamic from arising and to reverse it if it does arise.

Details Pub Date: Mar 1, He then takes what seems like the obvious action by increasing the time and attention he focuses on the employee. But rather than improve the subordinate's performance, the increased supervision has the reverse effect. The subordinate, in perceiving the boss's lack of confidence in him, withdraws from his work and from the boss.

And the relationship spirals downward.