When a new hire joins your company, expectations for success are high. But what happens when, over time, an employee’s performance doesn’t turn out to be what you’d hoped? Is someone in the company at fault?
Spoiler alert: The responsibility may not lie with the employee.
About three decades ago, Harvard Business Review introduced a new concept called set-up-to-fail syndrome. It suggests that employees aren’t entirely to blame for poor performance. In fact, it can largely be attributed to the employee’s supervisor.
RELATED: Leading the Next Generation - 6 Best Practices for Managing Gen Z >>
The Harvard Business Review describes set-up-to-fail syndrome as 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.”
HBR’s analysis shows how a lukewarm relationship or miscommunication between manager and subordinate can trigger a major performance issue. Set-up-to-fail syndrome establishes a self-fulfilling prophecy: the employee’s poor performance is created by an expectation of poor performance.
The syndrome usually creeps into the workplace quietly and slowly. It may start with a worker making a mistake that plants a seed of doubt in the supervisor’s mind, like misinterpreting direction a customer has given or not following through on an assignment.
It also can take root because the supervisor and employee approach work and life differently from each other and the boss questions the effectiveness of the employee’s thinking.
Here's how set-up-to-fail at work can manifest*:
Some event takes place – and it may be minor – between manager and team member. It could be character incompatibility, a performance misstep, differences in approach to work or just miscommunication.
The supervisor starts hovering over the employee, giving more detailed instructions and checking more often than usual that assignments are being carried out as the boss sees fit.
The employee starts to feel the manager’s lack of trust and, hesitant to address it openly, begins pulling back emotionally. At the same time, the employee may try to prove their capabilities by taking on more visible work or working longer hours.
The team member may end up overstepping, taking on more work than could be effectively achieved or trying to lead projects that are beyond their skills and training. That, of course, makes the situation worse.
Noticing this behavior and interpreting it as confirmation that the employee isn’t a strong performer, the manager looks over the employee’s shoulder even more and starts to verbalize concerns about the employee’s ability. If the employee achieves success on a project, the manager discounts it.
Now experiencing constant micromanagement, the employee feels like a prisoner in the job. A worker in this situation may say things like, “No matter what I do, it’s never right!” or “My manager is impossible to please.” The subordinate starts operating from a defensive position, loses motivation and disengages from work and the company.
The supervisor is now certain the employee is not capable of performing in the position and regularly expresses that discontent.
The set-up-to-fail syndrome can be extremely damaging because it erodes an employee’s self-confidence and self-determination. Autonomy is slowly replaced with increased micromanagement and constant over-evaluation. The employee’s relationship with all company leaders is diminished because of the increased distance between the two people involved.
Set-up-to-fail syndrome has negative impacts beyond the manager and the team member, too. Co-workers can see what’s happening, feel at risk themselves and begin to lose trust in the boss.
It’s extremely difficult for a manager to shift out of a set-up-to-fail mindset once it has taken hold. It can be done, but the manager must be both self-aware and willing to deeply and thoroughly examine whether their perceptions of an employee’s “poor” performance are accurate.
Here are steps to stop set-up-to-fail at work:
Managers need to reflect on their biases toward the people they supervise. If a relationship has begun spiraling downward, the manager must be willing to recognize and accept that the responsibility for the change may be theirs.
The supervisor’s feelings toward an employee’s mistakes or perceived poor performance, for example, can keep them from coaching the worker through the situation. The manager needs to double-check that an emotional response isn’t causing them to give up on the team member when additional feedback and development is what the employee needs to succeed.
Second – and third and fourth – opinions are vital for giving the supervisor a clear perspective on the situation. The manager should bring others into the discussion, getting external opinions and data to avoid getting locked into subjectivity.
The manager needs to share performance concerns with the employee, rather than avoiding the conversation and becoming emotionally distant. Sometimes early enough communication can keep set-up-to-fail syndrome from happening altogether.
A conversation that clarifies both people’s positions will help to ease frustrations and put the relationship back on track.
RELATED: Open Door Policy - Navigating 4 Common Pitfalls >>
Managers have the incredibly rewarding job of helping employees turn their mistakes into learning opportunities that can forever shape their futures. Getting to know an employee as a person and consciously looking for positive attributes, actions or results allows the supervisor to understand the employee’s skills more clearly.
The manager may find that the worker would perform better in a different role in the company, has a hidden talent that could contribute to the team in an unexpected way or is going through a personal difficulty that has temporarily affected performance.
Building a positive relationship with the worker – even if the manager and employee are wired differently – starts with the manager. A good relationship creates trust and will boost the employee’s confidence, which, in turn, is likely to result in improved performance.
RELATED: The Breakdown of Trust in the Workplace - 4 Damaging Behaviors >>
Supervisors whose teams seem to be underperforming as a whole need to take a look at their own expectations. Does the manager feel pressure to push for 100% perfection from the team? Is micromanagement causing inaction because the team feels afraid that every move will be second-guessed?
Falling short of perfection is not equivalent to failure. Most people learn by experience, so managers need to allow workers to make minor mistakes and should use those errors as teaching or coaching opportunities that spur employee performance improvement.
For a manager’s superiors, it’s important to note that, when teams have consistent performance struggles, their supervisor may need coaching to manage more effectively.
Suppose your small or mid-sized business is running up against employees who don’t seem to be living up to your company’s standards of success. If that's the case, Axcet HR Solutions can help you develop performance management processes that are clear-eyed and effective. All you have to do is schedule a consultation.
*Content paraphrased from Harvard Business Review article.