Understanding Set-Up-To-Fail Syndrome

Signs and Symptoms of Set-Up-To-Fail Syndrome

Employees classed as belonging to the out group are treated differently, and assumptions are formed which class the individual as a weak performer. The manager is likely to adopt the following approaches towards members of the out group:

• Close monitoring, as the manager worries that performance is not satisfactory.
• Micro-managing the employee’s work.
• Asking to approve decisions that the employee would normally make themselves.
• Delegating routine assignments only while the more interesting, challenging work goes to the in group.
• Limiting conversations to work topics only, while initiating personal conversations with the in group.

As the syndrome takes hold, the employee begins to doubt their own performance, and sees the increased supervision as a lack of confidence and trust from their manager.

A Self-Reinforcing Cycle

Over time, the employee loses confidence in their work quality and ability to make autonomous decisions. The manager interprets this as proof of the employee’s underperformance, and feels justified in continuing the self-reinforcing cycle of close supervision and intervention. The authors describe a situation where the employee is paralyzed into inaction by the manager, who spends a disproportionate amount of time and effort monitoring the employee’s activity.

The Costs of Set-Up-To-Fail Syndrome

The authors highlight negative consequences resulting from Set-Up-To-Fail syndrome in four main areas - for the perceived poor performing employee, for members of the wider team, for the manager themselves and also for people who may be managed by the perceived poor performer in the future:

1. The manager may spend a great deal of time and effort on micro-managing underperformers. Not only is this time-consuming and frustrating, it prevents them from focusing on other important aspects of their job. The manager’s reputation and effectiveness may be called into question, particularly if their treatment of the employee is felt to be unsupportive or unfair.
2. When considering the impact on the wider team, the manager’s lack of confidence in some employees can be manifested in increased workloads for perceived stronger performers. This can cause resentment, and affect morale across the team.
3. For the perceived poor performer, the costs are considerable. They can suffer from a lack of confidence in their own abilities and reduced self-esteem. They also stop volunteering ideas and information, and they refrain from asking for help when they need it. They become increasingly defensive and avoid contact with their manager wherever possible. Consequently, the organization fails to get the best performance from these employees.
4. The costs of Set-Up-To-Fail syndrome can also potentially influence how perceived poor performers go on to manage their own teams in the future. People classed as members of the out group often go on to manage their teams in the same way, micro-managing employees and failing to recognize good performance.

Preventing Set-Up-To-Fail

To stop Set-Up-To-Fail syndrome from taking hold in a team in the first place, it is important that managers adopt a consistent approach to performance management. They should also try to engage in regular self-reflection to identify negative assumptions or prejudices they may have subconsciously developed about particular employees. Key positive approaches also include:

• Establishing performance expectations with new members of the team at an early stage, and gradually giving employees more autonomy and responsibility as their performance improves.
• Regularly challenging assumptions about each employee’s performance, and asking questions like ‘What are the facts that support my view of this employee’s performance?’ or ‘Is this employee’s performance really as poor as I perceive it to be?’
• Having an approachable, honest management style, where team members know they can discuss issues openly, and challenge opinions where appropriate.

Counteracting Set-Up-To-Fail

A more likely scenario is that that many managers will have already contributed to the development of the syndrome within their existing teams. Managers of these teams have the challenging task of reversing it. To counteract it, the authors propose a five step framework which aims to raise the employee’s performance while reducing the supervision and involvement of the manager.

This framework should form the underlying basis of a series of candid, open conversations between the manager and their employee, to help untangle the negative dynamics of their working relationship. Although the framework is presented as five steps, the authors say that a flexible approach is needed to ensure that the manager can fully engage with the employee, rather than following a structured ‘script’.

Step 1. Choose a neutral place to have a meeting with the employee, where you can have an open discussion about the nature of your relationship, what has gone wrong in the relationship, and where current tensions exist and the employee’s performance as a whole. In setting the context for the meeting, it is important that the manager acknowledges that the conversation should be two-way, and that they may have had a part to play in contributing to the current situation. The behavior of the manager, as well as the employee, should be discussed at the meeting.

Step 2. As part of the conversation, it is essential that the employee and their manager reach a shared agreement of the employee’s strengths and weaknesses. The idea here is that before starting work to improve performance, both parties must have a clear understanding of the specific areas that give the manager cause for concern. It is highly unlikely that the employee is ineffective in all aspects of their job, so as part of the discussion they should be allowed to defend their performance where appropriate, and ask the manager to provide clear evidence to support perceived areas of underperformance.

Step 3. Once agreement has been reached on the area(s) where performance needs to improve, the discussion should move towards identifying the underlying reason(s) for it. For example, does the employee have limited knowledge or skill in a particular area, or do they perhaps need help with managing their time? At this point it is essential that the manager asks the employee for feedback and insight into his or her own performance, and how this helps or indeed hinders the performance of the employee. To do this, the manager might ask ‘What could I personally do to reduce pressure on you?’, or ‘How could I support you better in your role?’ [4]

Step 4. Next, both parties should agree upon some relevant performance objectives, as well as making a positive commitment to move the relationship forward. As part of this, the employee and the manager should discuss the nature of future supervision. Rather than adopting an intense, close scrutiny of the employee’s work, supervision should ideally be from a coaching perspective, with a focus on sharing knowledge and expertise to improve the employee’s overall performance.

Step 5. The last part of the process involves both manager and employee agreeing to communicate more openly in future. This is particularly important when it comes to highlighting elements of behavior (on both sides) that may exacerbate the problem.

Possible Outcomes

According to the authors, tackling Set-Up-To-Fail syndrome will result in one of three potential outcomes:

1. The first and best case scenario is that the manager’s intervention leads to an improved relationship between the employee and the manager. This is combined with a tailored program of training, coaching and skills improvement. The employee’s performance improves considerably and the manager stops the negative behaviors and actions associated with the syndrome.
2. The second best scenario is that the employee’s performance improves, but only marginally. The relationship between the two becomes more productive, and both parties have a clearer understanding of the areas of the job in which the employee performs well, and not so well.
3. The third potential outcome is that the employee’s performance does not improve, and the relationship with the manager remains fractured. Sometimes the employee may lack the abilities required to improve their performance, or their personal differences with the manager are irreconcilable.

Conclusion

The authors admit that the road to improvement, particularly where Set-Up-To-Fail syndrome has already taken hold, can be extremely difficult. They argue that preventing the syndrome from taking hold within a team is a far more effective approach than trying to minimize damage once it has already taken hold. It is also important to recognize that the steps outlined above require a great deal of time and emotional investment from the manager in order to effectively engage with the employee, to win back their trust and help them reach their full potential. However, the benefits of doing so will be realized not only in terms of improved performance for the individual, but also across the wider team and the organization.