The Set-Up-To-Fail Syndrome
The Set-Up-To-Fail Syndrome
The Set-Up-To-Fail Syndrome
1. In most organizations supervisors deal with some employees that are unhappy or
unfulfilled. What if these employees were not really the problem employees and it was
the supervisor that created the performance problem? It is often the supervisor's
behaviour towards the perceived weaker performers that ends up doing just the
opposite, triggering a vicious circle of worsening performance and growing alienation.
Basically, many employees fail because of their supervisor's efforts and this may be
called a dysfunctional boss-subordinate relationship.
2. These erroneous first impressions may start by a specific event such as a missed
deadline, a negative interaction with a patron or a bad presentation in public. Then the
initial reaction following this event would be to start to pay attention to the employee's
work. The employee reacts by feeling frustrated and not appreciated and begins to limit
their involvement with their supervisor. This in turn signals to the supervisor that indeed
they are a weak performer and begins to increase their involvement in the employee's
work. Thus, the vicious cycle begins and ultimately the entire work unit will suffer as well
as the library as a whole.
3. It is a dramatic process that occurs every day in our lifes. Yet, it is costly as it
ends up terminating the potential contribution of what are, in most cases, good
employees. The authors' 15 years of research reveals that the syndrome is a common
pattern among supervisors. Here, are a few highlights of their research:
5. The manager then notices only evidence supporting his categorization, while
dismissing contradictory evidence. The boss also treats the groups differently:
• “In” groups get autonomy, feedback, and expressions of confidence.
• “Out” groups get controlling, formal management emphasizing rules.
• Giving advice not asked for to the employee about their performance.
• Not asking for the employee's input and not acknowledging ideas offered.
• Pointing out the employee's faults in performance.
• Being skeptical of the employee's success.
• Tone of voice is harsher than with other employees.
Submitted by GP-IV