set up to fail

7/29/2019 SET UP TO FAIL

1/36

SET UP TO FAIL: How BOSSES CREATETHEIR OWN POOR PERFORMER Sby

J. F. MANzom*an dJ . L. BARsoux**

% /9 0 /A C /OB(Revised version of 96/ 14/ AC/OB)

* Assistant Profess or of Accounting and Control , at INSEAD, Boulevard de Constan ce, Fontaine bleau77305 Cede ; France.** Senior Research Fellow, at INSEAD, Boulevard d e Constan ce, Fontaine bleau 77 305 Ced e; Fran ce.A working paper in the INSEAD Working Paper Series is intende d as a m eans wh ereby a faculty researche r 'st hough t s and f i nd i ngs m ay be commu n i ca ted t o in t e r e s t ed r ead e r s . The p ape r sh ou ld be cons i de r edprel iminary in n ature and may require rev is ion.This version of the paper is intended for a pract i t ioner audience .Printed a t INSEAD, Fontain ebleau , France.


2/36

1

Set up to fa i l :How b o s s e s c r e a t e th e ir ow n p o o r p e r fo rm e r s

Jean-Francois Manzoni and Jean-Louis Barsoux

Abstract: This paper explores how managers behave differentlyt owa r d s p e r c e iv e d h i gh e r an d l owe r p e r f orme r s - an d h ow a manag e r ' se x p e c t a ti on s o f s ubo r d i n a t e p e r f o rman c e t e n d t o g e t a c t e d ou t b y t h esub o rd i na t e s . It fo cuses p a r t icu la r l y on the w ay boss b ehav i or t ow a rds"l owe r pe r fo rmers ", w h i l e intended t o i n c r ea se pe r f o rmance , o ft en en dsup discouraging and alienating these subordinates. The boss andpe rc e i v ed l owe r p e r f ormer become en t rappe d i n a v i c i ous c i r c le w h i ch i scos t l y f o r the bosses , the sub ord inates , t eam an d the w ide r o rgan izat ion .The pape r cons i de r s h ow t o re cogn i ze such a d ynam i c and how t o b r eakout o f the v i c ious c i r c l e .

Stev e ' s s toryS te v e i s a man u fa c tur in g su pe r v i so r f o r a For tun e 10 0 compan y . He comesacross as highly motivated, energetic, and proactive. He is on top of hisoperation, monitoring problems and addressing them quickly. His bossexp r e s s e s g r ea t con f i d en ce in h im an d ra t e s h i s p e r f orman ce a s " exce l len t ".Due to these qualities Steve is chosen to lead a new production line,cons id e r ed to be e s sen t ia l to the fu tu re o f the p lan t .A year later, Steve is less enthusiastic about his job; he almost looksde p r e s s ed . He exp l a in s tha t h e s t il l l ov e s th e job i ts e l f , bu t h i s en thus ia smfor i t h a s b e en dam pen ed b y h i s r e la t ion sh i p w i th J e ff , h i s n ew bo s s . St e v ef e e ls d e p r i v e d o f fe e db a ck an d l a c k i n g i n au t onomy .For h i s par t , Je f f des cr ibes and ra t e s Steve as ra the r p ass i v e comp ared to theo the r sup e r v i so r s in th e t eam. In p a r t icu l a r , h e f e e l s tha t St e v e i s s l ow an di n con s i s t en t i n f ollow i n g up on p rob lem s . To h e l p S t e v e a c q u i r e d i s c ip l in ei n p rob lem -so lv i n g , J e f f a sk s h im t o exam in e m o r e t ho rough l y t h e q ua l it ycon t rol r e je c t ion s r e co rde d in h i s dep a r tmen t an d t o r epo rt th e r e su l ts backt o h im r egu l a r ly .St e v e wond e r s w hy h e shou l d r e p o r t to h i s b os s on s ome th i n g t h a t h e do e san yw ay . Pa r t ly t h rough la ck o f t ime , p a r t ly t o ho ld o f f wh a t h e r e g a rd s a si n t e r f e r ence b y h i s boss , St e v e in v e s t s l it tl e time in r e po r t in g th e con t en t o fh i s an a l y s e s . Th e d e l a y a n d a v e r a g e qu a l it y o f St e v e 's r e p o r ts r e i n f o r ce sJe f f's su sp i c i on tha t S te v e i s no t v e r y p roac t iv e . So he a sk s h im aga in , th i stime more forcefully. For Steve, this merely confirms that Jeff does nott ru s t h im . He p ro g r e s s i v e l y w i thd raw s f r om i n t e r a c t io n . As J e f f c on t inu e st o t r y to exe rc i s e g r ea t e r cont ro l , he m ee t s w i th inc r ease d p ass i v e r e s i s tance .Lik e man y m ana g e r s , J e ff a n d S te v e a r e l oc k e d in a n e g a t iv e p e r f orman c esp i ra l .


3/36

2

First imp ress ions lastStev e 's s t or y i s t rue . It i ll us t r a te s tha t ma na ge r s can un w i tt in g l y con t r ibu t et o th e d e t e r i or a t in g p e r f o rman ce o f c omp e t en t su bo rd i na t e s , w i th w ha t a r eintended to be corrective actions only serving to intensify the problem.This was not a case of Steve working successively for a supportive boss,t h en an un ca r in g bo s s . St e v e 's f ir s t bo s s had a l s o exp e r ien c ed p rob lems i nr e l a ti on s h i p s w i th su bo r d i n a t e s h e s aw a s l ow e r p e r f o rme r s . Con v e r s e l y ,Steve's new boss worked very well with the other managers whom hed e e med "mo r e p r o a c ti v e ".S lo tt in g sub o r d i n a t e s i n t o p e r f o rman c e - re l a te d sub -g r oup s i s a p e r v a s i v eph en omen on . Mos t bosses do i t more o r le s s c onsc i ous l y , of ten qu i te ea r l yi n t h e r e la t ion sh i p . Th e s e men t a l map s gu i d e t h e w a y bo s s e s su b s e qu en t l yb eha ve towa rd s th e i r subord ina t e s .For those perceived as 'better' performers this 'type-casting' can be verypos i ti v e , w i th h i gh exp e c t a t ion s l e ad i n g t o h i gh e r p e r f orman c e . Th i s s e lf -r e i n f or c in g p ro c e s s i s kn own a s t h e Py gma l io n ' e ff e c t and w as d e s c r i b ed i na c l a ss i c HBR a r t ic l e by J . St e r l in g L iv i ng s ton . 1 The real problem, whichLi v in g s t on r e ad i ly a ckn ow l ed g ed in h i s 1 9 88 commen ta r y on t h e r ep r i n t e darticle, lies with those dubbed 'lower performers', that is, people whoseoverall performance exceeds minimum standards but is seen as belowa v e r a g e . Once t h e p e r c e i v e d l ow p e r f o rme r s s t a r t to p ick u p t h e s i g na l s oft h e i r low e r s t a tu s i n r e l a t i on t o p e e r s , th e y o f te n b e com e l e s s c omm i tt e dand begin to show less initiative. In other words, they act out theexpectat ions o f the i r boss .The con s eq ue nc e s o f t h i s a li e na t io n a r e d ama g i n g f or th e s ubo rd i na t e s i nqu e s t i on , f o r t h e p e r f orma nc e o f t h e r e s t o f t h e t e am , an d i n s i d i ou s l y fo rthe wider organization. Moreover, in an environment wherep e r f o rma n c e , le a r n i n g an d em pow e rmen t a r e in c r e a s in g l y r e qu i r e d f roma l l l e v e l s of mana gem en t , th i s is an imp or tan t is su e f or man age r s .Th e r i g h t s tu ffNume r ou s s t u d ie s h a v e s h ow n t h a t mo s t ma na g e r s (s ome s t u d i e s c la imup t o 90 p e r c e n t ) t r e a t s ome s u bo r d i n a t e s a s m emb e r s o f a n "i n -g r oup "an d c on s i gn o th e r s t o an " ou t - g r oup ". Mem be r s o f th e "i n - g r oup " a r e th etrusted collaborators and receive more autonomy, more feedback, moreexp r e s s ion s o f con f i d en ce and more cons id e ra t e b eh av io r on th e pa r t o f t h e1 The Py gma l i on e f fe c t d e s c r i b e s t h e li n k b e tw e en e xp e c t a ti on s b y a " p owe r f u l o t h e r " (e .g .,bos s o r t e ache r ) and p e r f o rman ce o f the " sub j e c t s " ( subord ina t e s o r pu p i l s ). The e f f e c t wasf ir s t e s t ab li shed i n edu ca t iona l p s y ch o logy by Rosen tha l and Jacobson ' s (19 68 ) expe r imen tw i th p r e s ch oo le r s . Some t e a che r s w e r e l e d t o b e l i e v e t ha t t h e i r pu p i ls w e r e r e l a t iv e l y s l owl e a r n e r s , oth e r t e a ch e r s t ha t t h e i r pu p i l s had e x c e ll e n t i n t e l le c tua l a nd l e a r n i n g a b i li ty .Pupils of the second group of teachers learned much faster. Eden (1990b) provides anexhaustive review of evidence on the Pygmalion effect, including his own work with theIs ra e l i a rm y .


4/36

3

boss. The boss-subordinate relationship is one of mutual trust andr e c i p r o ca l i n f lu e n c e . Mem be r s o f th e "ou t -g r oup " , on t h e o th e r h an d , a r er e g a r d e d mo r e a s "h i r e d h a n d s " a n d a r e m a n a g e d i n a m o r e fo rma l ( le s spersonal) way, with more emphasis on rules, policies and formalauthority. Theere is evidence that managers tend to form these opinionv e r y e a r l y in th e r e l a t ion sh i p .2Our s tudy ( s e e App en d ix I) of 50 bos s - subo rd ina t e pa i r in g s con f i rmed th i s'categorization' on the part of bosses and addressed two importantque s t ion s : Wha t exac t ly a r e th e d i f fe r en c e s i n b oss b eh av i or t owa rds h i gh e rand lower performers? And to what extent are these differences inbehavior intentional? In order to help bosses send the right signals, wehave to figure out what they are actually doing to communicate high orl ow expec ta t ion s , and how mu ch o f i t is d e l ib e ra t e .Se v e r a l unm i s takab l e s i g n s i n d i c a te ( o r s ome t ime s b e t ra y ) t h e b o s s 's v i ewo f i n d i v i dua l s ub o r d i n a t e s . Th e s e b e h a v i or s a r e b e s t g r oup e d u n d e r tw oheadings: independence given an d way of communicating. Inevitably thec a t e go r i e s o v e r l a p t o s ome e x ten t , f or t h e s imp l e r e a s on t h a t th e l e v e l o fd i s c r e t i on a l low ed i s , in p a r t , exp l ic i t ly comm un ica t ed . Neve r th e l e s s , th es epa ra t i on i s us e fu l i n exp l or i n g c e r t a in con t ra s t s in boss b e hav i o r t ow a rdsh i gh e r an d l owe r p e r f orme r s .Subtle declarations of independenceBosses often do not spell out how much autonomy they are willing toa c co r d i n d i v i dua l s ubo r d i n a t e s . Subo r d i n a t e s le a r n h ow m uch d i s c r e t io nthey can expect from the boss's actual involvement in formulating,imp l eme n t ing o r co r r e c t ing i n i ti a ti v e s i n t he i r a r e a .The right to decide: the first signal of autonomy has to do with thepos s ib i li ty f o r subo rd in a t e s t o mak e o r pa r t ic i pa t e i n d e c i s i ons abou t t he i rw ork . To w ha t e x ten t a r e op e r a t ion a l d e c i s ion s l e f t i n t h e i r h an d s? Wh a td em a n d s o r c o n s t ra in t s a r e impo s e d o n t h em a n d h ow mu ch s p a c e d o e st h i s le a v e f or in d i v i d ua l ch o ic e?Pe rc e i v e d h i g h e r p e r f o rme r s g e n e r a l ly e n jo y m o r e s a y i n d e c is i on s . Ta k ef o r examp l e , th e f ou r bu s in e s s m ana g e r s r ep o r ti n g t o a p l an t man ag e r . Thetwo top performers both highlighted the latitude in decision making tha tthe plant manager was giving to them. They felt their boss gave equalw e i gh t t o h i s a n d t h e i r p o i n t s o f v i ew an d i n t e r e s t s . "He i s v e r y a t te n t iv eto our input", one of them said. " He sets the goals and then lets usd e t e rm in e h ow t o r e a ch t h em ".

2 In the first major study in this field, Dansereau, Graen and Haga (1975) detected differencesbetween the in-group and the out-group as early as one month into the superior-subordinaterelationship. Liden and Graen (1980) and Bass & Stogdill (1990) review several studieswith similar results.


5/36

4

This receptiveness to input did not appear to extend to the two "lowerp e r f o rm in g " subo r d i n a t e s . One o f th e m com p l a i n e d : "He ju s t n e v e r r e f e r sback t o my p roposa l . We on l y ta l k abou t h i s ." Th e i n f e r e n c e w as c l e a r : hedoes not find mine very good! For these two managers, the boss oftenexp r e s s e d s t ron g p r e f e r e n c e s on h ow op e r a t ion a l is sue s shou l d b e h and le d ,s ome t ime s e v en g e t t in g in v o lv e d i n r ou t i n e op e r a t i ona l d e c i s ion s .As th e y s aw i t, th e bo s s g en e r a l ly t e nd ed t o impose h i s so lu t ion in th e ca s eof disagreements and conflicts. "Imposing" does not necessarily implyhea v y h a nd e d d i ct a to r s h i p ; b o s s e s h a v e m o r e sub t le w a y s o f u s i n g t h e i ri n f lu en c e o r exp e r t is e t o en su r e t ha t t h e i r a pp ro a ch p r e v a i ls . Fo r in s t an c e ,r a th e r than 'd i r e c t in g a su bord ina t e t o "D o i t my w ay ! ", th e boss m ay s imp l yargue until the subordinate capitulates. Or else the boss may let thesubo r d i n a t e imp l emen t h i s or h e r ow n s o lu t i on , bu t th en g i v e f a in t p r a i s ehow ev e r s u c c e s s fu l t h e ou t come . Subo rd i na t e s qu i ck l y r e co gn i ze t ha t t h e yw i ll g e t mor e c r e d i t wh en t h e y u s e t h e bo s s 's i d e a s r a t h e r t h an t h e i r own .When addressing perceived lower performers, bosses often dress upi n s t ruc t i ons as ' ad v i c e ' i n o rde r to mak e a m ess age m ore pa l a tab le . Ye t thet enac i t y o f th e boss in pu sh ing a pa r t i cu la r ' sugge s t i on ' w i ll make i t c le a r t othe subordinate what is expected. The boss says, "This is only asu gge s t i on . ..". The b oss m ea n s , "I w ou ld really l ik e you to d o th i s . .. ". Th esub ord ina t e u nd e r s t and s , "jus t d o i t!".

Freedom of action: at t h e imp l emen t a ti on s t a g e , s u bo r d i n a t e in d e p e n d e n c ew i ll b e s i gna l l e d b y th e l e v e l o f on - go in g mon i to r in g an d th e t o le r an c e f o rd i v e r g en c e fr om th e p lan .Bo s s e s t y p i c a lly g i v e p e r c e i v e d h i gh e r p e r f orme r s mo r e cho i c e in h ow th e ygo abou t a ch i e v i n g t h e i r g o a ls . Ra th e r t han s y s t em a t ic a lly ch e ck i n g -up onth e su bo rd i na t e , t h e bo s s m ay on l y in t e r v e n e a t th e s ubo rd i na t e ' s r e qu e s t .As on e m an age r c on f i rmed : "I w ou ld i n v i te t h e t op p e r f orme r t o c ome an dge t me i n v o l v e d i f h e o r s h e n e e d s h e l p in s t e ad o f imp os in g m ys e l f. I t h i n kt ha t if y ou ha v e a g ood p e r f orme r , y ou n e ed t o g iv e t ha t p e r son a chan c e t osucce ed a l one . ""Weaker performers" are generally given less freedom to manoeuvre.They r ep o r t c l os e r m on i t or i n g o f t h e i r p e r f o rman ce an d sw i ft e r r e a c t ion st o e x c ep t ion s . A "w eak e r p e r f orme r " w ho r e p o r ts a p r ob lem ma y w e l l f in dtha t the b oss m on i tor s the s i tua t i on d a i ly un t il the p rob l em i s r e s o lv ed . Incon t r a s t , a "su p e r i o r p e r f o rme r " w i th th e s a me p r ob lem w ou l d ag r e e on asolution and be encouraged to "Come back to me if you need me." Theboss's next contact with the superior performer would be when theproblem was resolved. In relative terms, the "lower performer" is set upf or r e p e a t e d f a ilu r e , a s a c kn ow l e d g e d b y o n e b o s s : "A h i gh e r a nd a l ow e rp e r f orme r ma y h a v e f a ile d b y t h e s am e amoun t bu t b e c au s e y ou mon it oron e e v e r y d a y , t h e low e r p e r f orme r r e c e i v e s 20 f a i le d g r a d e s i n a m on t h ,an d t h e h ig h e r p e r f orme r o n l y o n e !"


6/36

5

Giving feedback: with respect to deviations from plan, be it budget or adead l in e , b o s s e s sh ow g r e a t e r r e a d i n e s s w i th "w eak e r p e r f o rme r s " t o f ocuson the negative rather than the positive. They also seem less open toc i r cum stan t ia l exp lan at ion s fo r un favo rab le r e su l t s .Th i s s e le c t iv e emp has i s on n ega t iv e r e su l t s is e v i d en t fr om th e con f lic t in gexperiences of two managers with the same boss. The perceived lowerpe r f orme r s a i d o f h i s bo s s : "We t y p i c a l ly c o v e r a n um be r o f is su e s d u r i n gme e t in g s . Bu t a t th e en d o f th e con v e r s a t io n , if w e h a v e n o t t a lk ed abou t ,say, returns from customers, he will throw out the zinger: 'The returnsfrom customers need to be corrected !' And that's the way the conversationen ds , it 's on a l ow n o t e r a th e r than a h i gh n o t e . So one w ay o r o th e r i t w i lla lways ge t a round to some th ing o f a n ega t iv e i s su e . "In sh a r p c on t r a s t , a me mb e r o f t h e bo s s ' s in -g r oup c omm en t e d : "Ra th e rthan dwelling on the failures in order to say: 'This is what I expect, this isthe standard to be met', i t c omes a c r o s s mu ch m o r e fr e qu en t ly a s : 'Ok ay, w ehave a problem, this is what we need to do to resolve it'; or 'How can weresolve it, what is the plan?'. But it always ends up with something to thee f fe c t th a t w e ha v e mad e p r o g r e s s and w e n e e d t o pu r su e t ha t p r o gr e s s ."Of cou r s e , th e f a c t t ha t "low e r p e r f o rme r " a tt r a c t mo r e n e ga t i v e f e e db ackmay s imp l y b e du e t o t h e la ck o f opp o r tun i ti e s t o cong ra tu l a t e t h em . Th i sw as ra r e l y th e ca s e in th e r e l a t ion sh ip s w e obse r v ed . In th e a bove ca s e , f orexample, the unit of the "weaker performer" showed significantimprovements on p r od uc t i v it y , to t a l c os t , in v en to r y , qua l i ty , an d on - t imed e li v e r y . In s t e ad , t h e p l an t m an ag e r ch o s e t o fo cu s on t h e one i n ad e qua t emeasure (returns from customers). Conversely, the area of the "toppe r f o rme r " w a s l a g g in g on s ome p e r f o rman ce me a su r e s , s o t ha t th e p lan tmanager certainly had the opportunity to pick on one dimension for theme mbe r s o f h i s i n -g roup .Not su r p r i s i n g l y , me mb e r s o f t h e " ou t -g r oup " a r e ap t t o e xp e r i e n c e th e i rbos s 's u s e o f p e r fo rmanc e m ea su r e s a s mo r e pun i ti v e a nd mos t ly d e s i gn edt o pu t p r e s su r e on t h em , w h e r e a s i n - g r oup mem be r s jud g e ' "l e a r n i n g andproblem solving" as the boss's main objective in using performancemeasure s .Bo s s e s a l s o t e n d t o s h ow mo r e l e n i e n c y t ow a r d " b e tt e r p e r f orme r s " wh enhanding out credit for success and blame for failure. The successes ofmembers of the "in-group" are more likely to be attributed to theindividual, and their failures to external factors such as unfavorablec i rcum s tanc e s . In con t r a s t , t h e succ e s s e s o f p e r c e i v e d w eak e r p e r f o rme r st end t o b e a t t r ibu t ed t o l uck o r f a vo rab l e s i tua t i ona l f a c to r s , wh i le f a i lu r e ss tem f rom the s ub ord in ates ' lack o f abi l it y or e f fo r t .3Take the example of the perceived lower performer whose unit reportedze ro cus tome r comp la in t fo r one m on th . The boss ' s r ea c t i on w as , "You go t3 These observations are consistent with the findings of Green and Mitchell (1979).


7/36

6

zero complaints this month? You really did? I don't believe that!" Thebos s ' s app a r en t i n c r e du l it y le f t t h e sub o r d i n a t e f e e li n g pu zz le d an d un de rapp rec ia t ed . At bes t , the b oss ' s comm en t wa s a joke th a t f e ll fl a t ; a t w ors t , i twas genuine incredulity that betrayed his evaluation of the individual.Eith e r w ay , it wa s n o t t h e r e a c t ion o f s pon t an eous p r a i s e t ha t h i s "b e t t e rp e r f orm i n g " c olle a gu e s w ou ld h a v e r e c e iv e d .In g e n e r a l , p r o b l ems r e p o r t e d b y " b e tt e r p e r f o rme r s " te n d t o s e t of f f ew e ra l a rm be ll s . The though t s t r ig g e r ed i n the b oss ' s m ind a r e : "i t's n o t he r/h i sfault and s/he can handle the problem." For the perceived weakerp e r f o rme r s , t h e imm ed i a te r e a c t i on i s o ft e n m or e a l on g th e l in e s o f , "s /h efou led up aga in , I'd b e t t e r g e t in v o lv ed ."

Communication: louder than wordsIn t e rac t i on p a t te rn s be tw een bosses an d su bo rd ina t e s a l so r e fl e c t the boss ' sv i ew o f t h e su bo r d i n a t e s . In ou r s t u d y w e f o und no s y s t em a t ic d i f fe r e n c ein the average amount of time bosses spend with higher versus lowerp e r f o rme r s . Some b o s s e s s p en d m or e t ime w i th "wea k e r p e r f o rme r s " ( e .g .,on monitoring, "coaching"), others spend less time (because they findinteracting with these subordinates rather difficult). One thing manybo s s e s d o a g r e e on i s th a t th e t ime t h e y s p e n d w i th "w e ak e r p e r f orme r s "c e r ta in l y feels l onge r !If there is no systematic difference in terms of average time spent with"higher" vs. "lower" performers, there are differences in terms of whoin i t ia t es con tac t , and s ty l e and con ten t o f exchan ges .

Initiating contact: with "higher performers" the contact can be initiatedindifferently by both parties. Perceived better performers show littlereluctance to approach their boss because they are confident thatannouncing a problem will not reflect on them personally. As a resultbo s s e s c an g iv e t h em mo r e spa c e an d d o no t f e e l c ompe l le d t o ch e ck up onth em a l l th e t ime .Re l a ti on s w i th "w eak e r p e r f o rme r s " , on t h e o th e r han d , show two d i s t in c tpa t t e r n s , bo th o f w h i ch a r e m o r e e xt r eme . In s ome c a s e s , th e s ubo r d i n a t et en d s t o w i thd r aw , le a v i n g t h e bo s s a s t h e ch i e f i n i t ia t o r of c on t a c t . Th i sw i thd r aw a l is d r iv e n b y th e su bo r d i n a t e 's f e a r th a t tak i n g a p r ob lem to th ebo s s w i ll me an r e c e i v i n g n e ga t iv e f e e d back a n d/ o r l os i n g con t r o l o v e r th eissue - with the boss either appropriating the problem or directing thesub ord ina t e t ow a rds a sp ec i fi c so lu t i on .At the other extreme, some perceived lower performers initiate veryfrequent contact to get detailed instruction on how to proceed. Thisbehavior is often triggered by half-hearted delegation on the part of theboss, who says "It's your decision" but, when news of the decisionpe rco la tes u p , says "Oh n o , that ' s no t r igh t ." Over t ime the s ub ord in ate ge tst ir e d o f ha v i n g d e c i s i on s o v e r tu rn ed a n d s t a r t s s o li c it in g t h e bo s s ' s v i ew s


8/36

7

for every petty decision. The reasoning is, "If I'm going to be overruledanyw ay , I may a s w e l l g e t t h e bos s ' s b le s s i n g i n ad van ce ."Style: "superior performers" generally report more consideration, morecoaching and more positive reinforcement from their boss than "weakerpe r f o rme r s " .For examp l e , th e "h i gh e r p e r f orme r s " i n on e g rou p d e sc r i b ed th e i r bos s a ss omeon e w ho t re a t s th em a s e qu a ls an d em pha s i z e s fr e qu en t in f o rma l andopen interactions. The group's perceived lower performers described amor e f orma l man ag e r , w i th w hom i n t e r a c ti on s w e r e o ft e n un com for tab l e ,and t h e y r e c a lle d i n c id en t s th a t mad e t h em f e e l le s s t h an e qua l s - su ch a st h e me e t in g w h i c h o n e m anag e r b e g an w it hou t wa i tin g f or h i s b e l a te d bo s san d a f te r w h i ch h e "g o t t h e s ch ool bo y le c t u r e abou t 'don't start a meetingwithout me here (banging on the table), and don't ever interrupt me again'( b ang in g ) . "The d i f fe r e n c e i n b o s s b eh a v i o r is t y p i c a l ly m o r e s ub t le t h an t h e "s ch oo lboy l e c tu r e " . In t e ra c t ion s f e a tu r i n g v e r y s im i la r con t en t s can com e a c ros s(a n d b e p e r c e iv e d b y s u bo r d in a t e s ) a s s upp o rt iv e o r pun i ti v e d e p e n d i n g o nt h e t one , t h e b ody l an gu age , t h e o v e r a l l "s t y l e " o f t h e b o s s . Fo r examp l e ,one manager explained that when discussing a specific performancemeasu r e , h is bos s "ha s v e r y s t r ong w o rd s t o sa y ; h i s d emean o r chang es , th eha r shn es s o f h is w o rd s chang es , h e b e comes v e r y d i r e c t."Ano th e r m an ag e r d i s cu s s e d t h e w ay h i s bo s s d e c i d e d t o r e v i ew t h e c li e n tbids put together by his area. The subordinate explained that he wasdisturbed not by his boss' involvement, but rather by the way the bossapp roached th e i s su e .

"What bothered me w as the negative approach he used. 'I don't believe you, Idon't believe your subordinate. I want to go through this in detail. Why didn't youdo it this way? Why did you overlook this? Why didn't you do it that way?' Itwas those k ind s of ques t ions r a th e r t h a n : 'Gee, I don't understand your businessand I need some help in understanding how you go about quoting these jobs. Canyou show me some examples?'.He could even have said, 'Because to be honest with you, we seem to be losingmoney on some of these quotes and I would like to understand why'. I would havefigured out very quickly anyway that he was testing me, and I don't mind beingtested. If there is something wrong, great! We found it together, we will go onfrom here and we won't make that mistake again. But I did mind being foundgu i lt y be f o r e t h e t r i a l s t a r t ed . "

The boss stopped reviewing the quotes after a while; they were beingpe r fo rmed co r r ec t ly .

Content: "h i g h e r " a n d "l ow e r " p e r fo rme r s c an a ls o b e d i s t in gu i sh ed b y t h ebr ead th o f c on tac t t h e y h av e w i th th e i r bo s s - o r wh a t m i gh t b e t e rmed th e'b an dw id th ' o f comm un i ca ti on .


9/36

8

For "l ow e r p e r f orme r s ", th e r an ge o f top i c s b roache d i s g en e r a l ly n a r r owe r .Exchanges are more predictable in content. There is more emphasis onp e r f o rman c e me a su r e s , ta r g e t s a nd d e a d l in e s . Th i s f ocus on t a s k r e l a t e di s sues le ad s t o d i s t in c t i v e t y p e o f qu es t ion in g . As on e boss exp l a in e d :"With lowe r pe r f orme r s , I wou l d a sk s ome v e r y s p e c i fi c , d e t a i le d qu e s t io n s ,like 'How are things going with this?', or 'What's happening with a, with b, withc? What is being done about a, b, and c? Are you satisfied that enough is beingdone?', the de ta i ls . 'Do you need any help with a, b, or c? And what is that help?'To t ry and encourage that pe rson to th ink on the i r own ."

Bosses typically engage in more cross-checking with "lower performers"and may even use "trick" questions, to test their understanding. As oneboss explained: "For lower performers, you may ask a question to makesu r e t h e p e r s on knows, b e cau s e t h e y 'r e c l os e r t o it a n d t h e y sh ou l d kn owmore ab ou t it tha n y ou do . If it tu rn s ou t tha t the y kn ow l e s s t ha n y ou do ,an d i t 's d i r e c t ly impa c t i n g t h e i r p e r f orman c e me a su r e s , th e n t h a t h a s a ni n f lu en c e on h ow w e l l y ou t h i n k t h e y a r e d o in g t h e i r job ."Th i s is i n s t a rk con t ra s t to th e t yp e o f qu es t i on s n o rma l l y a sk ed o f h i gh e rp e r f orme r s w h i c h t e n d t o b e m o r e op en e n d e d , a lo n g t h e l in e s , "How a r et h in gs go ing ? Any th in g you n eed ?". As one b oss exp l a in ed , "It w o u l d b e agen e r a l que s t ion , in v i ti n g t hem to comm un ica t e w i t h me . "4Another difference in boss communication with "higher performers" ist h e t e n d e n c y t o ta l k mo r e a bou t "t h e b i g p i c tu r e " . Th e bo s s i s mo r e l i k e l yt o a sk t h e i r o p i n i on s , to h e l p th e m un de r s t and t h e w i d e r imp li c a ti on s o fpa r t icu l a r ac t ions , th e imp l ica t i on be i ng " I t rus t your jud gm en t , so I w i llt e ll you abou t t h ing s t ha t go on , be yond your imme d ia t e a c t iv i ti e s , and a skyou how you t h ink we s hou l d .h an d l e t h in g s . "The bosses' view

The p r e v i ous s e c t i on s d i s cus s t h e p o i n t o f v iew o f subo r d i n a t e s : p e r c e i v e dsup e r i or p e r f o rme r s t end t o d e s c r i b e t he i r bo s s a s mor e con s i d e r a t e , mor epa r t i c ipa t i v e and mor e su pp o r ti v e . The s e d i ff e r ence s cou ld be r e a l - bo s s e s 'b eh a v i or c ou ld g e nu in e ly v a r y w it h t h e i r p e r c e p t io n o f t h e su bo r d i n a t e s 'performance. Or they could be simply a matter of perception; superiorp e r f o rme r s t yp i ca ll y r e c e iv e b e t te r p e r f o rmanc e r a t i n g s a n d mo r e r ew a r d sfrom the organization, which could lead them to interpret their boss'beh av io r in m or e po s i ti v e w ays . 5

4 Our obs e r va t ion s a r e con s i s t en t w i th G io ia an d S ims ' (19 86 ) fi n d in g tha t manage r s t end top r ob e f o r t h e c au s e s o f f a il u r e amon g "poo r p e r f o rme r s " b y a s k i n g why; wh e r e a s "h i g h e rpe r f o rme r s " a r e a sk ed "wh a t do you th ink " or "how" que s t i on s .5 A num be r o f s t ud i e s h a v e do cum en t e d t h is p r o c e s s a t th e g r oup l e v e l , w i t h mem be r s o fpe r ce i v ed h i gh p e r f o rmance g roup s a t t r ibu t in g m o r e fa vo rab l e cha ra c t e r i s t ic s to the i r g roupan d t h e i r le a d e r t han m em be r s o f (p e r c e i v e d ) low p e r f o rma n c e g r oup s . S e e , f o r e x amp l e ,Staw ( 1975 ) .


10/36

9

So w e a l s o n e ed t o exam in e h ow th i n g s l o ok f r om th e b o s s e s ' p e r sp e c t iv e .Do bosses agree with their subordinates' view? Are they aware ofd i f fe r en c e s i n t h e i r b eh a v i o r? And i f bo s s e s a r e aw a r e o f su ch d i f fe r en c e s ,are these differences intended by the bosses, or do they rather reflectimp l em en ta ti on e r ro r s ( an inab i l it y t o tr an s l a te i n t en t ion s in to a c t ion s )?Our research suggests that (a) most bosses are aware that they behaved i f fe r en t ly w i th p e op l e t h e y p e r c e i v e to b e su p e r i o r v s . wea k e r p e r f orme r s ,a n d (b ) man y b o s s e s r e p o r t mak in g d i ff e r e n c e s q u i te deliberately, b a s e d o ntheir view of fundamental differences in the behavior and capabilities ofthe i r sub ord ina t e s .In ou r i n i t ia l s tud y , fo r exam p l e , w e a sk ed b o s s e s w he th e r ( and i f s o , howand why) they behaved differently with people they perceived to besuperior vs. weaker performers (see Appendix I). The vast majority ofbo s s e s a c k n ow l e d g e d t h a t th e y d i d b e h a v e d i f fe r e n t l y . On e m an ag e r , f orexample, explained that he made a conscious effort to provide positivereinforcement to the "superior performers": "I want to make it clear tothem that I don't take their performance for granted. I need to keep ther e i n f o r cem en t go in g a l l t h e t ime ; my ap p r e c i a t ion , in c r e a s e d r e c ogn i t ion .In the other case, my behavior is more into counselling, how it can getbetter." Overall, he said, "I may act more like a teacher (to the weakerpe r f o rmer s ) , an d more a s a f a c i li ta t o r (w i th th e sup e r io r p e r f o rmer s ) ."Ano th e r m anage r w a s v e r y a r ti cu l a te a bou t t h e d i ff e r e n c e s i n h i s b eha v i o r .He explained that he had to behave differently because "adequatepe r f o rmer s " f a ll sho r t of supe r ior p e r f o rmer s on th r e e coun t s :

(a ) Sup e r io r p e r fo rme r s k n ow h ow t o g e t th i n g s d on e , th e y drive toex ce l le n c e . Ade qu a t e p e r f o rme r s t e n d t o a c c ep t th a t " th i n g s h app en "rather the challenging them. So they need to be pushed, to bes t r e tched .(b ) Weaker performers often spend more time trying to escapeaccoun tab i li ty - f ind ing e xcuses for f a i lu r e s o r r e s i s t in g s t r e t ch ta rge t s- than the y ac tua l ly s p en d t r y i ng t o ach i e v e t he t a r g e ts !(c ) Weaker performers generally do not ask for help before it's toolate; they allow themselves to get buried. "A high performer willask y ou f o r h e l p i f t h ey n e ed i t."

As a consequence, this manager consciously made the followingd i f f e r ences :


11/36

1 0

T o w a r d " w e a k e r p e r f o r m e r s "Ask more specific and detailedque s t i ons ,Ge t m or e s y s t ema t i c a lly i n v o lv e din the analysis and resolution ofun f a vorab l e v a r ian c e s ;

Follow up more frequently afterd i s cus s i on s t o mak e su r e t h a t th e"right" corrective actions areb e i n g imp l emen t e d .

T o w a r d " su p e r i o r p e r f or m e r s "Ask general questions such as"how a r e th i n g s go in g? "G i v e th em "a g r e a t e r oppo r tun i t yto succeed on their own",including more choice of thecourse o f act ion;Invite them to "come and get meinvolved" if they need help;otherwise leave things up tot h em .

In addition to these conscious and deliberate choices, several managersacknowledged that their behavior toward perceived weaker performerswas also influenced by more emotional considerations, including at end e ncy t o b e mo r e impa t i en t . One m ana g e r , fo r examp le , c onc ed ed : "an da s a h um an b e i n g , mayb e I f e e l b e t te r w h en ( a sup e r i o r p e r fo rme r ) ca l ls m et h an w he n th e o th e r p e r s on c a l ls me . In a c omp ar a t iv e s en s e , I ma y f e e l,"My God , w ha t d o e s h e w an t t h i s t ime? !"Another manager explained that, when discussing problems with a"weaker performer", he always started the conversation with goodcoa ch in g i n t en t io n s b u t some t imes r e so r te d t o "spoon f e e d t h e p e r son ju s ta little bit because they were not coming up with the idea". It's the timef ac to r ", h e s a i d , "tha t 's n o excus e , bu t i t i s a r e a l i ty o f l if e . If I h ad sp en tanother five or another fifteen minutes asking questions rather thant e lli n g t h e p e r s on w ha t I w an t ed t h em t o do , w ou ld t h e p e r son ha v e g o t i t?I hope so , bu t I don 't know f or sur e , an d th e r e a r e u su a l ly o th e r p rob l ems Ine ed to a tt end to ."6Ove r a ll , h ow e v e r , th e b o s s e s w e s tud i e d w e r e t yp i c a lly qu i te c on s c i ou s o fbehaving in a more controlling way with their perceived weakerperformers. Their objective, they said, was to compensate for theinsufficient drive and initiative of these subordinates. Over the last twoy e a r s w e h a v e t e s t e d t h e g e n e r a l iz a b ili ty o f th i s f in d i n g w i th h un d r e d s o fmanagers attending executive programmes at INSEAD. Specifically, weask managers to identify how, on average, the behavior of "superiorperformers" differs from that of "weaker performers". Much to oursurprise, the results are strikingly similar across hierarchical levels,comp an i e s , n a t i on a l it ie s , m ixed g r oup s v s . m ono -comp an y g r oup s , e t c ..

6 The s e r e a c t i on s a r e c on s i s t e n t w i th Fa i r hu r s t , G re e n and Snav e l y 's ( 1 984 ) f in d i n g t ha t ,when dealing with perceived lower performers, managers either tend to use criticisms,r ep r iman ds , th r ea t s o r o rde r s f r om th e beg inn ing o f the c on t ro l s e q uen ce , o r in i t i a ll y tr y t od i sp la y a "p rob l em-so lv i ng " s t y le bu t t h en qu i ck l y r e v e r t t o a m ore pu n i t iv e s t ra tegy .


12/36

1 1

Specifically, many managers explain that, compared to "superiorp e r f o rme r s " , "w eak e r p e r f orme r s " t e nd t o b e : less motivated, less energetic, less likely to go "beyond the call ofd u t y " more passive; they do not "take charge" of problems or projects;the y are n o t "se l f-s ta r te rs " l e s s p roac t iv e ; they d o no t an t i c ipa t e p rob lems as w e l l le s s i n n o v a t iv e ( th e y t e n d t o 'd o w ha t t h e y a r e t o ld ' a s o pp o s e d t ob r in g i n g u p n ew id e a s ) o ft e n l a ck i n g i n v i s ion an d o v e r a l l p e r s p e c t iv e o ft en n o t a s good lead e r s f o r the i r ow n s ubo rd ina t e s more likely to "walk into your office and bring you problems",w h i le " sup e r i o r p e r f o rme r s " b r in g you s o lu t i on s !

Once t h e s e d i f fe r en c e s a r e e s t ab li sh ed w e a sk m anag e r s w he th e r ( and if s o,how) they tend to behave differently toward the two theoretical sub-g r oup s . Aga i n , t h e s am e l is t o f d i ff e r e n c e s c omes u p ac r o s s v a s t l y d i f fe r e n tg r oups an d s u pp o r ts ou r s tu d y 's f in d i n g th a t man ag e r s t e n d t o b e mo r edirective with, and perform more monitoring of, perceived weakerpe r f o rme r s .

T o w a r d " Su p e r i or P e r f o r m e r s "Discuss what an d why, limitedf o cu s on how;Give them more freedom tochoose ow n cours e o f a c ti on ;Less systematic attention toun fa vo rab l e v a r ian c e s ;Make oneself available; "let mekn ow i f I can he lp ";More likely to listen tosuggestions. Real discussiontakes p lace ;Gi v e th e mo r e i n t e re s t in g a n d / o rcha l len g i n g a s s i g nmen t s .Spend more time discussing/ask i n g th e i r v i ew on s t r a t e g y , "onthe b ig p ic ture ".

T o w a r d " W e a k e r P e r f o r m e r s "Generally more directive whend i s c u s s i n g t a s k s a n d g o a ls ; e .g .,focus on what needs to be done,why, an d how i t s h ou l d g e t don e ;Set more t a rg e t s , more d ead l in e s ;Follow up /monitor on a morecont inuous bas i s ;Get mo r e s y s t em a t ic a l ly i n vo l v edi n un f a vo r ab le v a r i an c e s ;More l ik e ly t o im pos e t h e i r v i ew si n th e ca s e o f d i s a g r e emen t s .


13/36

Bosses' self-assessment of their behavior thus confirms the differencesidentified by subordinates. Bosses do behave differently. We see thesed i f fe r en ce s a s p a r t ly r oo ted in em otiona l r ea c ti on s such a s l im i t ed p a t ien c eand frustration. For the large part, however, the differences are quitecon sc i ou s and d e l ib e r a t e . They seem t o s t em f rom a the o ry o f p e r f o rman ceconc e rn i n g t h e l im i t a ti on s o f weak e r p e r f orme r s and t h e m os t app rop r ia t ew ay f o r t h e bo s s t o ov e r com e th em . The ex e r c is e w e cond uc t i n c la s s w i thexecutives suggests that this theory is often tacit (the exercise helpsexecut iv e s t o make i t exp l ic i t) , and s e em s to b e surp r i s in g l y u n i v e r sa l .Subordinates can read their boss' mindSome managers are very up-front about the low level of confidence theyha v e i n t h e i r p e r c e iv e d w e ak e r p e r f orme r s , b u t th e m a jo r it y of man ag e r sw e me e t b e l ie v e t ha t a "li tt le en cou ra g em en t an d su pp o r t" c an s ome t imesincrease subordinate performance. They also believe that openlyexpressing or showing their lack of confidence could damage thesub o r d i n a t e ' s mo t iv a t i on a nd p e r f o rman c e , s o th e y t r y t o "p r e s e n t th i n g sin a positive light". 7 Unfortunately, subordinates are highly sensitive tothe different signals sent out by their boss and they typically have littlet r oub l e s e e in g th rough th e i r bos s ' b eh av io r .Perceived lower performers have many ways to realise that their boss isless participative and supportive with them than with some of theirc o lle a gu e s : me e t in g s , in f o rma l c on v e r s a t i on s w i th p e e r s o r s u b o r d i n a t e sprovide many opportunities for data gathering. They can also observemore ob v i ou s s i g n s o f c on f i d en c e such a s w ho g e t s t h e i n t e r e s t i n g p ro je c t san d w ho s i ts i n f o r th e b o s s a t mee t ing s .Subordinates also learn a lot from daily interactions with their boss,pa r t i cu la r l y fr om th e bo s s ' r e a c t ion s d u r i n g d i s cu s s i on s . Some m an age r sh a v e t o ld u s a b ou t 'd e a d g i v e -aw ay s ' (s u r e s i g n s o f a l a c k o f c on f i d e n c e ) ,s u c h a s "w h e n y o u c o m e f or w a r d w it h a p r o b le m , d o e s t h e b o s s a s s u m eth a t y ou h a v e a l r e a d y d on e t h e o b v i ou s , or d o e s s / h e s t a r t w it h o b v i ou squ e s t i on s o r su g g e s t i on s? " For e xamp l e , i n th e c a s e o f a p r od uc t i on li n etha t ju s t w en t dow n , th e bo s s ma y a sk , "Hav e you c a l le d m a in t en an c e?".Su ch a qu e s t io n w ou ld c le a r l y n o t b e a s k e d o f a h i g h e r p e r f orme r . It is a'd e ad g i v e - awa y ' w h i ch comm un i ca te s t h e b o s s 's la ck o f c on f id e n c e i n t h esubo rd ina t e .Another dimension subordinates observe is the boss' reaction to theiri d e a s . One m an ag e r e xp la i n ed : "Whe n I g o t o h im t o t e ll h im tha t I ha v e aproblem and what I've done with that problem, there is never anyfeedback like 'that was a good thing to do'; or 'not bad, I think I would addthis other aspect'. The communication in that type of situation is always

7 See Argyr i s (19 94 ) fo r a w ider d i scuss ion o f the ine f f ec ti vene ss and somet imes d ys fun c t iona le f f e c t s o f "up bea t " b eh av i o r .

1 2


14/36

one-sided, 'here are the things you have to do', period, with no commenton w ha t I 'v e d on e . I c an f e e l h i s la ck o f c on f id e n c e ."The bo t tom l in e i s : sub o r d i n a t e s kn ow w ha t you really t h i nk o f th e m ! Forboss e s w ho d oub t th i s , h e r e i s a s imp l e t e s t : Can y ou t e l l i f your boss r ea l lyt ru s t s y ou an d b e l ie v e s i n y ou? Can you t e ll wh e th e r s / h e ha s f a it h i n y ou rab i li ty t o so lv e p r ob l ems an d man ag e y ou r o p e r a t i on? You p robab ly c an . Ifyou can , chances a r e tha t th e p eop l e r epo r t in g t o you a l so can !Living down to expectations: the response of perceived lower performersStud i e s on t h e Py gma l io n e f f e c t sug g e s t t ha t h i gh e xp e c t a ti on s on t h e pa r tof bosses are associated with higher subordinate performance. 8 Ourr e s ea r ch sug g e s t s t ha t a s im i la r ph enome non ex is t s a t th e o th e r e nd o f t h ee x p e c ta t io n s p e c t r um . P e rc e iv e d low e r p e r f orme r s c an s e n s e t h e i r b o s s 'slack of confidence in their abilities and many respond in kind: bydisengaging mentally from the task, reducing interaction with the boss,and mak ing su r e th ey a r e fu l l y a rmed to de f le c t c r it ic i sm.

Disconnecting intellectually and emotionally: the type of boss behaviord e s c r ib e d ab o v e d i s c ou r a g e s p e r c e iv e d low e r p e r f orme r s ' d e v e l opm en t i ntwo w ay s : it un d e rm in e s s ubo rd i na t e con f id en c e an d s t if le s i n it ia t iv e .When the boss's behavior demonstrates low confidence in thesub ord ina t e ' s ab il it y , t h e su bord ina t e may s t a r t to doub t tha t h e o r sh e h asanything to contribute. Among the fifty subordinates we studied, forexample, the subordinates receiving lower performance ratings clearlype r c e i v e d t ha t t h e i r bos s h ad l e s s t ru s t in t h em than i n m embe r s o f t h e i n -g roup . In s ome ca s e s , f or examp l e in S t e v e ' s c a s e d e s c r i b e d e a r l ie r , th i srealization can lead the subordinate to non-compliance and progressivewi thdrawa l . 9In less extreme cases, many subordinates simply stop 'giving their best'because they grow tired of being overruled; they lose the will to fight fort h e i r i d ea s . Th i s l o s s o f p e r s ona l m o t iv a t i on w as a f am i li a r comp la in t . Asone s ub o rd ina t e pu t it : "My boss i s v e r y ope n to chan ge , wh i ch i s g r ea t , bu the a ls o t e nd s t o te l l y ou h ow to g e t t h e r e , and tha t 's n o t good b e c a u s e yout h en t end t o lo s e y ou r c r e a t iv i ty . Ra th e r t han a r gu i n g w i th h im , y ou en d upwanting to say, 'Jesus, Joe, just tell me what you want me to do and I'll go doit.' You become a robot." Another perceived weaker performer explained:8 See Eden ' s (19 90a ) s tudy o f abou t 1 ,000 r e c ru i t s und e r go ing Squad Leade r t r a in i n g i n theIs ra e l i a rm y . Take 29 p l a toons o f r e c ru i t s . Te ll the l eade r o f 10 o f the se p l a toons th a t "thea v e r a g e comma nd po t en t i a l o f y ou r t r a in e e s i s app r e c i ab ly h i gh e r t h an t h e u sua l l e v e l . .the re fo re you can expect unusu a l ach ievemen ts f rom the t ra inees in y our g roup" . Come back 11w eek s l a t e r . A v e r a g e p e r f o rmance o f th e t en p hon y " e li te " p la t oon s i s s i gn i fi c an t ly h i gh e rthan that o f the 19 cont ro l p la toons . In p ar t i cu lar , the t en " e l it e p la toons" pe r form be t te r onphy s i ca l f it n e s s t e s t s , and they sh oo t more a c cura t e l y !9 The F r en ch ph i lo s ophe r A lb e r t Camus on c e obs e r v e d t ha t wh en d ep r i v e d o f c ho i ce , th eon ly f r eedom le f t is the f reed om to say n o .

1 3


15/36

"What does that do to you when you develop this perception of lack ofcon f i d en c e? You e i th e r don 't go ah ead an d g e t h im in vo l v e d , o r if h e t e ll syou t o d o s ome th i n g , you ju s t d o i t me cha n i c a l ly !". Ye t an o th e r v i ew :"How does it make you feel? Not good! What it does is take away anyi nd i v i dua l c r ea t i v it y tha t you ma y ha ve . If someb ody i s t e l li ng you h ow to goa h e a d a n d d o th e job an d a l l the d e ta i ls to ach i eve tha t , i t me an s you ' re go ingout an d d o ing w hat he t e ll s you to do ! If y ou have o the r w ays you ' d l ik e t o doi t and you 'r e n o t g iv en the f r e ed om o f cho i c e t o tr y those o the r w ays , i t r ea ll yst i f les y our cre at i v i ty . "

Disengaging interpersonally: the progressive intellectual withdrawal iso ft e n a c comp an i e d b y r e d uc ed i n t e r p e r s ona l c on tac t w i th th e bo s s . Pa r t ly ,t h is i s mo ti v a te d b y t h e n a t u r e o f p r e v i o u s e x chan g e s w h i c h h a v e t e n d e dto be negative in tone. As one subordinate confessed: "I used to initiatemuch more contacts with (my boss) until the only thing I received wasne ga t iv e f e ed back , the n I s ta r t ed sh y ing aw ay . He has n o t a t a ll en couragedmor e f r e qu en t in t e r a c t i on ."Be s i d e s th e r is k o f a n e ga t iv e r e a c t ion , "w eak e r p e r f o rme r s " a r e c on c e r n edw i th n o t ta i n t i n g th e i r image fu r th e r . Fol low i n g th e o f t e n -h ea r d aph o r ism"Be t t e r to k e ep qu i e t an d l ook a foo l, than open you r m outh an d p rov e i t!",th ey avo id as k in g fo r h e lp for f e a r o f fu r the r e xpos ing the i r l im i ta t ions .Also, feeling hemmed in by the boss's close supervision and tightboun da r i e s , t h e su bo rd i na t e m ay t r y t o r e -e s t ab l ish a m a rg in o f d is c r e t io n .Typ i ca l ly , subord ina te s w i ll tr y to c r ea t e spa ce fo r th e ms e l v e s by i n i t ia t i n gfewer contacts with the boss. They may volunteer less unsolicitedinformation. As one lower performer recalled, "I more or less kept doingmy job to the be s t o f my ab i li ti e s , w i thou t tha t cons tan t in t e rac t i on , fe e l i ngt h a t i f th e r e ' s n o t r oub l e , wh y w av e th e f l a g?"

Dissipating energy: a l on g s i d e t h i s r e lu c t anc e t o i n i ti a te i n t e r a c t i on , man ysubordinates adopt a more defensive stance. They often start devotingm ore en e r g y t o s e l f-ju s t if ic a t io n - kn ow in g t h e y w i ll b e p e r son a l ly b l am edf o r f a ilu r e s , t h e y s e e k t o f in d ex cu s e s e a r ly . Th e y en d u p s p en d i n g a l ot o ftime and energy looking in the rear-view mirror for self-protection, thussp en d i n g l e s s t ime lo ok i n g a t t h e r o ad ah ead .People reporting to "weaker performers" also get dragged in to thisun p rodu c t iv e a c t iv i ty . The su bo rd i n a t e o f on e "l ow e r p e r f o rm e r " r ep o r te dthat he often spent more time trying to explain away variances - byidentifying plenty of exogenous factors contributing to the poorpe r f o rmance - than t r y in g t o id e n t i fy th e i r r oo t cause s and add r e s s th em .The net result, then, is fewer ideas, decreased commitment, lessinformation exchange and lower productivity from the perceived weakerpe r f o rme r s an d t h e i r subo rd i na t e s , a s sh own in Appe nd ix II.

1 4


16/36

A v ic ious c i rc leBos s e s s t a r t w i th a t h e o r y o f d i ff e r e n c e s b e twe e n "sup e r i or " an d "we a k e r "p e r f o rme r s . Th i s t h e o r y d e t e rm in e s how t h e y t h i nk t h e y s h ou ld b e ha v e i no r d e r t o in c r e a s e w eak e r su bo r d i n a t e s ' p e r f orma n c e . Sp e c i fi c a ll y , "l ow e rperformers" don't drive t o e xc e lle n c e a n d s h ou l d t h u s b e s t r e tc h e d a n dmon i to r e d c l o s e ly . Ou r r e s e a r ch sug g e s t s t ha t t h i s t h e o r y o f p e r f orman ce ,combined with "implementation difficulties" (such as limited patience),o f ten c rea tes a v i c ious c i r c l e - tha t i s , a dy s fun c t iona l p roces s w h ich i s se l f -fulfilling and self-reinforcing (see Appendix III for a more visualp r e s en ta t i on ) :The p r o c e s s i s self-fulfilling becau s e t he bo s s 's b eh av i o r con t r ibu t e s t o thesu bo r d i n a t e p r odu c i n g th e v e r y b eh a v i o r t h a t t h e bo s s e xp e c t e d f rom th esub o rd ina t e . Fo r exam p l e , th e bo s s i s v e r y d i r e c ti v e i n t e rms o f what t o doan d how it s h ou l d b e d on e , s o th e s ubo r d i n a t e g e t s u s e d t o b e in g t o ld wh a tt o d o , p r o g re s s i v e l y b e come s m o r e "me ch an i c a l" an d s t op s p r o po s i n g n ewideas, thus "confirming" the boss's belief that the person "is not a selfdr i ve r " , nor som eon e "capab l e o f se t t ing s t r e tch ta rge ts " .The process is also self-reinforcing because the boss's beliefs on how"w eak e r p e r f o rme r s " b eha v e a r e r e i n f o r c e d , wh i ch w i ll tr i g g e r mo r e o f th esam e b e hav i or on th e b oss ' s (an d th e sub o rd ina t e ' s ) p a r t . For examp l e , th es ub o r d i n a t e 's w i th d r a w a l ma k e s t h e b o s s f e e l in c r e a s i n g l y i s o la t e d f r omthe area. This increased distance lessens the boss's sensitivity to thedifficulties faced, and the progress made, by subordinates. It alsod imin i sh e s b oss e s ' ab i li ty t o con t r i bu t e t o th e d ec i s i on m ak ing p roc e s s an dto reassure themselves that the subordinates have things well in hand.Th i s , in tu rn , fu e l s t h e bo s s e s ' f r u s t r a ti on w i th t he i r subo rd ina t e s and thed es i r e t o ex e r c i s e g r ea t e r con t ro l. The boss 's a t t itud e ma ke s in t e ra c t i on sprogressively more painful and punitive for subordinates, who in turnbe come i n c r e a s i n g l y d e f e n s i v e .D e l ay s i n p rob lem r e cogn i t ion c r e a t e the i r ow n d i l emm a f o r t he bo s s : La t ereporting of problems by subordinates means that when the boss doesi n t e r v e n e , h e o r s h e i s fo r c e d t o in t e r v e n e i n p r e t ty f o rc e f u l w a y s ( "w h e nth e ba rn i s on f ir e , y ou don 't g e t in to a de ba t e , y ou jus t s t ep i n an d p u t ou tthe fire!"). These forceful reactions on the part of the boss can have twoimpacts on subordinates: encourage them to report problems early (toavoid a "big blow-up" from the boss), or comfort them in their opinionthat it is best to try to solve problems on their own (which may includehiding them from the boss), because when the boss gets involved, s/het ak e s th e i s sue aw ay f r om you .Pe r c e i v e d sup e r i or p e r f orme r s a r e l ik e l y t o r e po r t p r ob lems e a r l y b e cau s ebosses tend not to take authority away from them too quickly. Forp e r c e i v e d w eak e r p e r f orme r s , t h e p r ob lem i s mo r e c omp lex b e c aus e b o s s e st e n d t o r e a c t i n mo r e d i r e c ti v e a n d s ome t ime s p un i ti v e w a y s m uch mo r equ i ck l y . Pe r ce i v ed w eake r p e r f ormer s a r e thu s caugh t in a b i nd .

1 5


17/36

These vicious circles really exist. We are not claiming that they happeneverywhere but they happen with a far higher frequency than wean t i c ipa t ed an d i s t yp i ca ll y a ckn ow l edg ed . It is w o r th r e i te r a t in g tha t th e s ev i c iou s c i r c le s a r e n o t p r ima r i ly t h e con s eq uen c e o f poo r imp leme n ta t io n .Basically, the behavior of bosses towards lower performers is intended,ev en i f som e o f i ts e f f e c t s a r e u n in t en de d . It is n o t a 'p rod uc t i on ' p rob l em ;it is rather a theory problem. It is as if, when confronted with a lowerperformer, bosses switched to a sequence of behaviors which almostguaranteed the failure of that subordinate. This eight step sequence issum ma r i ze d in App en d i x IV .Of c ou r s e , s ome s ub o r d in a t e s d o p e r s e v e r e an d s u c c e e d i n c h a n g i n g t h enegative impressions held by their boss. We did observe a fewsub o rd i na t e s l if ti n g t h e mse lv e s up f r om th e i r bo s s ' "ou t -g r oup " to h i s /h e r"i n -g roup ". Bu t fi gh t i ng i s ha rd , p r ec i s e l y because t h e ph en omen on is s e l f-f u l fi ll in g . On e m an age r e xp la i n e d th e t e n s i on h e f e l t: "I f in d my s e l f do i n gt h a t s ome t im e s . I'v e g o t e n ou gh o f th e t h in g s h e g a v e m e y e s t e r d a y , h e 'sgoing to give me new ones tomorrow and he will also tell me how to getthere. So you become an executor, and you can get caught up in thatpa t t e rn i f you 'r e n o t s t r ong en ough to r ea l i ze tha t 's n o t w ha t you w an t ".Some sub o r d in a t e s a r e s t r on g e n ou gh t o r e s i s t t h is d a ily p r e s su r e . Man ywe have seen were not. Furthermore, a persistent subordinate movingf r om th e "ou t -g r oup " t o t h e " in -g r oup " so lv e s t h i s su bo rd i na t e 's p r ob l em ,but it does not change the relationship between the boss and the otherp e r c e i v e d l ow e r p e r f o rme r s . Th e un d e r l y in g d y n am ic r ema i n s .The spiral is costlyWe have so far discussed two of the costs associated with this negativePygmalion effect: a human cost borne by many perceived weakerp e r f o rme r s a n d a n o r gan i za t iona l c o s t a s s o c i a te d w i th th e f irm f a i li n g t oget the best out of one or more subordinates. There are other costs tocon s i d e r , s ome o f t h em i nd i r e c t an d l on g -t e rm i n n a tu r e . The s e co s t s a r eincurred by the bosses themselves, the rest of the team and thesubordinates of the perceived weaker performers, thus ultimately thew i d e r o r g an i za t io n .

Consequences for the boss Energy sapping: uneasy relationships with perceived lower performerso ft en t ak e a d i re c t t oll on t h e b o s s ; d ea l in g w i th "un d e rp e r f o rme r s " c an b eemo t iona l ly w ea r ing . It can be q u i t e a s t r a in t o k e ep u p a f a cade o f cou r t e s yan d p r e t end e v e r y th i n g i s fi n e , w hen bo th pa r t ie s kn ow i t i s no t. D ra g g in gp eop l e t o e x c e lle n c e is e xhau s t in g ! Th e t ime a nd en e r g y d e v o t e d t o th e s er e l a ti on s h i p s p r e v en t th e bo s s f r om a t t end i n g t o oth e r i s su e s o r a c t iv i ti e s .Mo r eo v e r , t h i s exp en d i tu r e o f t ime a nd en e r g y i s un e nd i n g . The b o s s mayeven have to devote more and more effort simply to maintain thesubo r d i n a t e 's p e r f o rman c e l e v e l .

16


18/36

Reputation in the organization: other members of the team and theo r gan i za t io n a l s o ob s e r v e a nd i n t e r p r e t t h e bo s s ' s b eh a v i or t ow a rd s "lowe rp e r f o rme r s ". If th e b o s s 's t r e a tmen t of a subo r d i n a t e i s d e e me d u n f a i r o runsupportive, observers will be quick to draw their lessons. As oneou t s tan d i n g p e r f o rme r ob s e r v e d a f t e r w i t n e s s i n g h i s bo s s ' s la c k o f lo ya lt yt owa r d s an o th e r subo r d i n a t e : "It mad e u s a l l f e e l l ik e w e ' re e xp en da b l e ."With organizations increasingly espousing the values of learning andemp owe rmen t , amb i ti ou s m an age r s h av e t o cu lt iv a t e th e i r re pu ta t ion s a scoaches , a s we l l a s secu re r esu l ts .

Consequences for the team Burning out the "better performers": la c k o f fa i th i n t h e p e r c e iv e d w e ak e rperformers creates a temptation for bosses to overload "superiorpe r f o rme r s " ; bo s s e s w an t to en t ru s t c r i ti c a l a s s i g nm en t s t o t ho s e w ho canbe c oun t e d on t o d e l iv e r r e l iab l y an d q u i c k l y , t ho s e w ho w i ll b e w i lli n g t o"go b e yon d th e c a l l of du t y " b e c au s e o f t h e i r s t r on g s en s e o f "s ha r e d f a t e "w i th th e i r b o s s . As on e bo s s ha l f-jok i n g l y ob s e r v e d : "Ru l e n um be r on e : i fy ou w an t s ome t h i n g d o n e , g i v e it s ome on e w ho 's bu s y - t h e r e 's a r e a s o nw hy tha t p e r son ' s busy . "This increased work load may help the perceived superior performerslearn to manage their time better, including through more effectivedelegation to their own subordinates. In many cases, however, thep e r c e i v e d s u p e r i or p e r f orme r s s imp l y ab s o r b t h e g r e a t e r lo a d an d h i g h e rs t r e s s w h i ch , ov e r t ime , tak e s a p e r s ona l to ll an d d e c r e a s e s t h e am oun t o ftime and energy they can devote to other dimensions of their job( pa r t icu l a r ly those y i e ld i ng l onge r t e rm ben e f it s ). Loss of morale: team spirit can suffer from the progressive alienation ofone or more perceived lower performers. As one manager recalled: "Iremember watching one of my peers getting grilled every week veryin t e n s e l y b y o u r b o s s . Th e w ho le t e am w ou ld s e e t h i s g u y e v e r y w e e k , a n dthey'd say, 'Come on, Alex. Get with it.' A team is like a functioningorganism. I don't think people like to see people hurt in general. So youleave a person suffering, the whole team feels that pain." In addition,alienated subordinates often expend some of their and their colleagues't ime an d en e r gy in r e c r im ina t i on s , r e g r e t s and com p la in t s .

Consequences for the subordinates of the perceived weaker performersBos s e s o f te n po i n t ou t th a t p e r c e i v e d w eak e r p e r f o rme r s a r e l e s s e f f e c t iv eleaders for their own subordinates than their better performingcounterparts. Similarly, subordinates of several perceived lowerpe r f o rme r s i n d ic a t ed t o u s t ha t th e i r bo s s o f ten d i s p l a y ed t owa rd t h em th esame type of behavior that they complained of from above, including al a ck o f r e co gn i ti on , ex c e s s i v e m on i t or i n g o f r e su l ts an d a t en d e n cy t o b ev e r y d i re c t iv e w he n d i s cu s s i n g p o s s i b le a c t ion s . As i d e f r om th e p e r c e i v e d

17


19/36

w eak e r p e r f orme r s ' i n t r in s i c le a d e r s h i p qu a l it ie s , th e l ow e r qu a l it y o f t h er e l a t ions h ip t h e y en jo y w i th t he i r bo s s mak e s i t mor e d i ff icu l t fo r th e m tobe e f fe c t iv e l e ad e r s . The r e a r e tw o r e a sons f or t h i s : Bad example: The cascading effect of poor leadership should not bene g l e c te d . Pe r c e i v e d l ow e r p e r f o rme r s o f te n a ckn ow l e d g e d t ha t th e y w e r ei n d e e d r e p r o du c in g b eha v i o r th a t t h e y d is lik e d i n t h e i r b o s s and su g g e s t e dthat more supportive behavior toward them on the part of their bosswould help them to be more supportive toward their own subordinates.Similarly, several managers commented that the effectiveness of theirbo s s ' s b eh a v i or towa rd t h em en cou ra g ed a n d h e l p e d t h em t o t r y t o mod e lthe sam e beh av i o r f o r the i r subord ina t es .10 Cascading of downward pressure: Being under pressure and on a "tightleash" from their boss, perceived weaker performers have a tendency toimpo s e s im i la r p r e s s u r e an d con s t r a in t s on t h e i r own sub o r d i n a t e s ; it i sdifficult to maintain a positive outlook and to give much autonomy toyour subordinates when your boss is "breathing down your neck"! Inaddition, the subordinates are often roped into into their boss's self-jus t i f ica t i on e f for t s , thus ge t t in g s i de - tracke d f rom the i r co re ac t i v i ty .

"Bad things happen to good people"It is important to say that this phenomenon is not restricted toincompetent bosses. We have seen it happen to people perceived withintheir organizations as excellent bosses. The mismanagement of somesubordinates need not prevent bosses from achieving a certain level ofsuc c e s s , p a r t ic u l a rly w h en t h e b o s s a n d t h e p e r c e i v e d su p e r i or p e r f orme r sha v e h i g h i n d i v id u a l p e r fo r man c e le v e l s .Our a r gumen t is t ha t th e s e bos s e s cou l d b e e v en mor e succ e s s fu l, a t a l ow e rcos t to th e s ubo rd ina t e s ( p a r t icu l a r ly th e p e r c e i v ed w eake r p e r f o rmer s ) , tot h e t e am , th e o r g an i za t ion , a n d t o th em se l v e s . Ou r b a s i c a s s e r t i on i s t h a tb o s s e s d o n o t n e c e s s a r i ly n e e d t o s p en d m o r e time w i th l ow e r p e r f o rme r s ,but that many bosses should consider changing the way they spend t h a tt ime i n o rd e r t o chan ge th e d yn am i c s o f t h e r e l a ti ons h i p .The cho i c e i s e a s i ly s t a t e d : bo s s e s can w r i te -of f t h e t ime th e y sp en d w i th"weaker performers" as an expense, knowing that they will have to paysteadily more, in terms of increased monitoring and control, in order tooffset the subordinate's deteriorating motivation and performance.Alternatively, we argue, they can invest the time in establishing a moreproductive relationship which will yield superior performance anddem an d p rog r e s s i v e l y le s s a t t en t ion .

10 Th i s b e l i e f i s con s i s t en t w i th mu ch r e s e a r ch h i gh l i gh t in g the e f f e c t i v en e s s o f mode l l in gbeh av io r as a t ra in ing t echn ique . See , fo r examp le , Ban du ra ' s Soc ia l Learn ing Theo ry ( 19 86 ) .

1 8


20/36

Ge tt ing i t r ightThe pattern mapped out in Appendix III can only correct itself if thesubordinate refuses to "give up" and fights long and hard enough togenerate results that are sufficiently impressive for the boss to changeh i s /h e r men t a l c a te go r iz a ti on . We ha v e s e en t h is h app en , bu t w e h a v e a ls oseen many cases where this "self-correction" failed to occur and wherei n t e r rup t ion o f th e v i c i ous c i r c l e r e qu i r ed an in t e r v en t ion .Boss e s w ho w i sh t o ha lt t h e s e v i c iou s c i r c le s m us t fi r s t a ckn ow l ed g e t h e i rr e s pon s i b i li ty i n th e p roces s . Th i s i s d i ff icu l t , n o t jus t fo r r eas ons o f p r i d eand e go , bu t a ls o f or c o gn i ti v e r e a s on s : th e bo s s ob s e r v e s a m a t ch b e tw e e nexp e c t e d an d a c tua l subo r d i n a t e b eha v i or , s o wh y chan ge an y t h in g? 1 1 Thesolution starts with the boss experiencing some dissatisfaction with thestatus quo. Then, in the short run, the first priority is to interrupt thedownward spiral. In the long run, bosses must try to prevent similars i tuat ions f rom ar i s ing aga in .Becoming aware: w he n p eop l e g e t f r om o th e r s t h e b eh a v i o r t h e y exp e c t , i tcan b e d i f f icu l t t o conv in c e th em tha t th e r e i s a p rob l em to ad dr e s s . Manyboss e s h a ve d i f fi cu l ti e s ad dr e s s in g e f f e c ti v e l y th e p rob l em o f "sa t i s fa c to r il yunder performing" subordinates because they assume that the problems t ems f r om th e p e r s on r a t h e r t h an t h e i r tr e a tmen t o f th e p e r s on . We hop eto have presented a compelling enough case to raise doubts in a fewm i n d s !One clue is to look for relationships which may have followed thedegenerating pattern described in Appendix III. Likely candidates aresubordinates whose performance you see as acceptable but short ofexcellent, and with whom you maintain a courteous but nor very warmr e la t ion sh i p ; p e op l e you t ry t o push and en cou r a g e b u t w ho don 't s e em t or e sp ond to your e f f o r ts .

Interrupting the cycle: bosses may be tempted to try to interrupt thedyn am i c t a ci tly , b y mod i f y in g t h e i r b eh a v i ou r t owa r d t h e p e r c e i v e d w eak e rperformer without a formal announcement or discussion. This processc ou ld s t a r t w i th t h e b o s s r e s o lv i n g t o b e c ome m o r e sup po r ti v e o f, a n d t op ro je c t mo r e con f id e n c e in t h e su bo rd i na t e . Th i s app ro a ch ha s t h e s ho r tt e rm ben e f it o f b ypa s s i n g t h e d i s com fo r t of an exp li c it d i s cu s s i on . It a l s ohas tw o ma jo r d i s adv an t age s .F ir s t , a tac i t and un i la t e ra l ad jus tmen t by the b oss i s l e s s l ike l y to lead to adurable improvement because it focuses on one of the symptoms of the1 1 In f a c t, bo th p a r t ie s , i n c lud i ng th e pe r c e i v ed we ake r pe r f o rmers , g e t wh a t t h ey expec t ! Int ime , many p e r c e i v e d w eake r p e r f o rme r s c om e t o lo s e f a it h i n t h e i r a b i li ty t o c hang e t h ebo s s ' m i nd ( a nd i n t h e bo s s ' a b i li ty t o c han g e h i s /h e r m i nd ! ), . Th e y d e v e l o p t h e b e l ie f t h a t ,r e ga rd l e s s o f how ha rd th ey t r y , t h e i r boss w i ll b e con t ro ll in g t owa rd th em . As they becom emore d i s tan t and de tache d , they o f course obser v e more cont ro ll ing be hav io r f rom the i r boss .

1 9


21/36

p rob l em - th e boss ' b eh a v i our -, w i thou t id e n t i f y in g i t s r oo t caus e (wh y th eboss came to develop this perception of the subordinate). The boss mayha v e q u i t e v a l id r e a sons t o dou b t the sub o rd ina t e ' s ab i li ty t o p e r f o rm a t ah i gh l e v e l . In p a r t i cu la r , th e su bo r d i n a t e ' s p e r f o rman c e m i gh t b e l im i te db y a nu mbe r o f c aus e s t h a t c a n a n d sh ou ld b e a dd r e s s e d . Se cond l y , e v en i fthe p rocess i s success fu l , a un i la t e ra l approach l im i ts the l ea rn ing tha t bossand subordinates can derive from this experience; the subordinates, inparticular, do not "see" the process their boss went through (and theymight have to go through one day), nor do they learn how to be morep r o a c t iv e w i th o t h e r s s h ou l d a s im i la r s i tu a t i on hap p en t o t h em aga i n i nt h e fu tu r e .To address these two limitations, the two parties have to "sit down andtalk". The final objective of the conversation is to increase theperformance of the unit, the boss and the subordinate, which involvesth re e s t eps :

( 1 ) r e du c i n g th e un e a s i n e s s o f t h e b o s s -s ub o r d i n a t e r e la t io n s h i p ,w h i ch f ir s t r e qu i r e s a ckn ow l edg i ng and d i s cus s ing th i s uneas i n e s s .(2 ) add r e s s i n g t h e s p e c i fi c p e r fo rmance i s s u e ( s ) t h e bo s s b e l ie v e s t ohave identified as well as other issues that the discussion mayun co v e r , an d(3 ) p r e v e n t in g t h e r e c u r r e n c e o f s u c h a p r o b lem b e tw e e n t h e b o s sand t h e subo r d i n a t e , w h i ch r e qu i r e s a d i s cu s s i on o f "h ow d i d w e g e tto this?" More generally, improving the boss's and thesub ord ina t e ' s ab i li ty to de t ec t and co r r ec t pe r fo rman ce p rob l ems .

Our r e s e a r ch su g g e s t s th a t su ch d i s cu s s i on s do n o t t a k e p l a ce v e r y o f te n .Both b o s s e s an d p e r c e i v e d l ow e r p e r f o rme r s t end t o fe e l th e t en s i on bu t a r eo ft e n r e l u c t an t to b r i n g i t up i n t h e op en , la r g e l y b e c au s e o f t h e i r la c k o fcon f id e n ce i n th e i r mutua l ab i li ty t o ho ld s uch a d i s cus s i on i n a p rodu c t iv ewa y .We don 't p r e t end to ha ve a mag i c bu l le t tha t make s such a d i s cuss i on ea syor a sure success. Being productive under conditions of threat andembarrassment is not easy and often requires investing a significantamount of time and effort into personal re-training.' 2 Still, our researchsugge s t s a nu mbe r po ten t ia l ly use fu l r emarks .Firs t , w e ha ve l ea rn ed tha t t r ig g e r ing the d i scus s ion i s pa r t i cu la r ly d i f f icu l tf or su bo rd i na t e s , fo r two r e a sons : Subo rd ina t e s w ho f e e l un de r - app r e c i a te da r e o ft e n w o r ri e d abou t com ing a c r o s s a s f e e b l e , t h in - s k i nn e d o r wh i n i n g .1 2 Discussions of subordinate performance present a high potential for threat andembaras smen t . A fu l l d i scuss ion o f how an d w hy hu man b e ings t end to be unp roduc t iv e und ercond i ti on s o f th r ea t and emb aras sm en t is b e yond the s cope o f th i s pap e r . Se e Arg y r i s andSch6n (1974) and (1978) for the initial presentation and discussion of this surprisinglyun i v e r sa l human t endency , and Argy r i s (1993 ) an d ( 1994 ) fo r more r e cen t d i s cuss i ons .

20


22/36

How d o y o u t e ll y ou r b o s s t h a t y o u s o me t ime s f i n d h im/ h e r u n f a i r, th a tyou feel under-appreciated, that you feel s/he often does not give you achan c e t o wo rk on you r t e rms , t ha t , ba s i c a ll y , you th i nk s / he do e s n o t hav emu ch f a i th i n you r ab i li ti e s? Second l y , man y su bo rd i na t e s t h i n k tha t t h e i rboss would prefer not to discuss the issue either. One disenchantedsub o rd i na t e c omm en t ed : "He mu s t f e e l t h e t en s i on a s w e l l. He mu s t no t ic et h e ab s e n c e o f i n t e r cha n g e s . I'm s u r e h e 's i n t e ll ig e n t e nough t o s a y 'hey,what's going on here?', but h e ch oose s n o t to b r i n g u p th e t op ic , so I t ak e i tt o mean he do e sn 't wan t t o d i s cus s i t ."As a result, many perceived lower performers indicated that while theywould welcome such a discussion with their boss, they would be muchmore com fo r tab l e if th e b oss t r ig g e r ed th e d i s cuss i on . The on us i s thu s onthe boss to in i t ia t e the p rocess .

Back to Steve's storyGo ing b ack to th e ca s e o f th e S te v e an d Je f f , J e f f a sk ed S te v e t o p e r f o rm at a sk an d r e por t back h im r egu la r l y . Steve d i d n o t do so to Je f f s sa t i s f a c t ion .As man y bo s s e s f r e quen t ly do w i th su bo rd i na t e s th e y p e r c e iv e t o b e w eake rp e r f o rme r s , S te v e mad e a n e g a t iv e a t tr ibu t io n abou t t h e c au s e o f St e v e 'sbeh av i o r , l e ad in g t o a n e ga t i v e e v a lua t i on o f St e v e : S te v e i s s im p l y n o t "ap roac t i v e guy ".A s sum ma r i z e d i n App end i x V , h ow e v e r , th e r e a r e m an y p o s s i b le r e a s on sfor Steve's behavior: Steve could be unaware that Jeff finds his reportsw eak ( in w h i ch ca s e h e w ou l dn ' t t h i nk o f pu t ti n g i n m o r e e ff or t ); or S te v ecou ld b e pu rpo s e ly i n v e s t i n g l it tle t ime i n th e an a l y s e s and r epo r ts b e cau s ehe does not fully appreciate the value of systematic investigation off a ilu r e s ; o r h e do e s a pp r e c ia t e th e v a l u e bu t is sw amp ed an d d o e s n o t fin dt h e t ime t o w r i te up g ood r e po r t s ; an d , o f c ou r s e , w e cou l d h a v e an o th e rexample of the vicious circle we discussed in this article. Choosing theright solution requires understanding the root cause of the problem. Toi d e n t if y th i s r o ot c au s e J e f f n e e d s t o s i t d ow n w i th S t e v e an d d i s cu s s t h es i tua t ion as w e l l as the i r r e la t i on sh ip .Such con v e r s a t io n s r e q u i r e c and o r , c ou r a g e an d t o le r an c e f r om t h e b o s s(see Appendix VI for an illustration). In particular, the boss needs to beop en -m in d ed on t h r e e f ron t s :

(a ) S/h e m i gh t b e w ron g ! A s y s t ema t ic e x am in a t ion o f t h e da t a a n da b e t te r u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f t h e c i rc um s t a n c e s m a y l e a d t h e b o s s t or e a l iz e t ha t th e subo rd i na t e i s p e r f o rm ing be t t e r than s /h e though t ;(b ) Assuming that the boss is right - the subordinate is under-p e r f o rm in g -, th e q u e s t io n t h en b e c omes why? What a r e th e c aus e sof this under-performance? Too often, bosses attribute lowperformance of members of their "out-group" to limited abilityand /o r e f fo r t on th e p a r t of th e s e subo rd i na t e s , wh i ch l e ad s th e bo s s

2 1


23/36

to "pull harder". Bosses need to remain as open to causes of poorr e su l t s w i th t he i r p e r c e i v e d w eak e r p e r f o rme r s a s t he y a r e w i th t he i rp e r c e i v e d s up e r io r p e r f orme r s ;( c) Mos t imp o r ta n t , th e b o s s n e e d s t o b e o p e n t o, a n d a c k n ow le d g eexplicitly, the possibility that s/he has been contributing to thesubordinate's lack of drive, motivation, initiative and/or self-c on f i d en c e .

When trying to remain open-minded, bosses should keep two things inmin d : F ir s t , t h e l ong e r t he y w a i t t o d i s cus s an i s su e w i th p e r ce i v e d w eake rperformers, the harder it will be for them to remain open-minded.Human b e i n g s t e n d t o c r e a t e men t a l map s f o r t h ems e l v e s , a nd t h e lon g e rt h e b o s s w a i ts t o c o n f r on t h is /h e r e v o lv i n g v i ew , th e mo r e o p p o r tun i ti e sw i ll a r i s e f or t h e b o s s t o "con f i rm" h i s /h e r op in i on .Secondly, bosses should avoid thinking of these discussions as "givingf e e db a ck " to th e i r p e r c e i v e d l owe r p e r f o rme r s . Th e t e rm "g i v in g f e e db a ck "imp l ie s t h a t f e e db a ck i s a n ob je c t iv e v i ew t h a t t h e b o s s "h a s " , w h i ch m us tb e c omm un i c a te d i n t h e le a s t h a rm fu l w a y t o t h e sub o r d i n a t e . Y e t b o s s e scan be wrong in their assessment of the situation, just as they cancon t r i bu t e t o t h e i r su bo rd i n a t e 's l a ck o f mo t i v a t io n , i n i ti a ti v e an d d r i v e .In t e r r up t in g a v i c i ou s c i rc le r e q u i r e s m o r e t han t h e b o s s "g i v in g f e e dba ck "to the subordinate. It requires the boss "having a performance-relatedd i s cus s i on " w i t h t he su bo rd ina t e , a d i s cus s i on tha t i n c lude s t he bo s s ' s , a sw e l l a s t he subo rd in a t e 's , b eh av i o r an d pe r f o rman ce .Why not just tell Steve?J e ff c ou l d o f c ou r s e b e mu ch mo r e u n i la t e r a l a b ou t h i s w an t i n g S te v e t oi n v e s t ig a t e r e je c t ion s an d r e p o r t b a ck t o h im ; h e c ou l d t e ll J e ff a bou t h i sd em an d i n no unc e r ta i n te rms an d a s s o c i a te c le a r and imp o r tan t r ew a r d s(or punishments) to Steve's compliance. This more directive approachmight work in the short run, but it will not help Jeff achieve his firstobjective (reducing the uneasiness in the relationship), nor his lastobjective, which is to try to use the conversation to enhance their jointability to solve problems in the future. This learning objective could bei n t ro duc e d b y J e ff t ow a r d t h e e n d o f th e con v e r s a t io n ( s e e App en d i x VI fo ran examp l e ).

Comparing cost and benefitsExpe r i e n c e d a nd bu s y m an age r s c ou l d r a i s e tw o ma jo r ob je c t ion s a t t h i spoint. First, "there is no guarantee that the subordinate can indeedimprove and lift his/her performance level." Secondly, "the discussionan d e n s u i n g c o a ch i n g t a k e t im e . Time i s in v e r y s h o r t s u p p l y , s o I u s e asimpler approach: If the present incumbents don't reach a high enough

22


24/36

level of performance, I replace them with people who can." Bothobjec t ion s a r e w or th a br i e f d i s cus s ion ."This process does not always work"Th is ob j e c ti on i s in tu i t iv e l y ap p ea l i n g , bu t t o d i s cu s s i t w e n e e d t o d e f i n eh ow w e mea su r e t h e s u c c e s s o f th e p r o ce s s . We can d is t in gu i s h a t le a s tthr e e poss ib l e outcomes :(a ) The ideal scenario: the subordinate's performance improves, therelationship improves and the costs associated with the vicious circled i sap pea r o r , a t le a s t , d e c r ea s e . Th i s w i ll obv ious l y no t hap pen e v e r y t ime ;w e a r e n o t c la im ing t ha t e v e r y p e r c e i v e d w eak e r p e r f o rme r w i ll t u rn i n t o asup e r i o r p e r f o rme r , bu t if , o v e r t im e , t h e i r p e r f o rman c e imp ro v e s r a th e rthan deteriorates, the difference in performance can be significant (seeApp en d ix II) .(b ) The subordinate's performance improves only marginally but,because the subordinate received help and support from the boss, therelationship between the two becomes more productive. Boss andsubordinate develop a better understanding of the job dimensions onw h i c h t h e s u bo r d i n a t e c an d o w e l l a n d t h o s e w h e r e s / h e s t r u g g l e s . Th i simp ro v e d un de r s t a nd i n g c an l e a d t h e bo s s a nd subo r d i n a t e t o e xp lo r e howt o d e ve l op a be t t e r fit b e tw e en t h e job and t h e subo r d i n a t e 's s t r e n g t h s andw eakn e s s e s . Th i s imp ro v ed f it c ou l d b e a ch i e v ed b y m od i fy i n g t h e ex is t in gjob , mov i n g t o ano th e r job o r e v en t o ano th e r c omp an y . We h av e s e en a l lt h r e e p o s s ib i li ti e s ha ppen in p r ac t ic e .

Whi l e th is i s n ot as succe ss fu l an outcome as the f i r s t one , it i s s t il l aproductive one; a more productive relationship eases the strain on bothboss and subordinate, and in turn on the perceived weaker performer'ss ubo r d i n a t e s . If a b e t te r f it i s d e v e l op e d , th e s u b o r d in a t e b e c ome s mo r esucce s s fu l and ope ns up a spo t f or a po t en t i a ll y b e t te r p e r f o rmer in h i s/he rold job. The key point is that, having been treated with fairness, thesubordinate is much more likely to accept the outcome of the process.Indeed, numerous recent studies in performance appraisal and others e t ti ng s sh ow tha t t he p e r ce i v e d f a ir n e s s o f a p ro ce s s h as a ma jor impac t onem ployees ' r eac t ions to the outcomes o f tha t p rocess .13

1 3 In th e p e r f o rmance app ra i sa l con t ex t , Tay lo r e t a l .'s ( 19 95 ) f i e ld expe r imen t show ed tha t ,compared to a control group, employees involved in a performance appraisal systememphasizing fair procedures displayed more favorable reactions towards the appraisals y s t e m a n d t h e man a g e r s wh o a dm i n is t e re d i t a n d a g r e a t e r in t e n t io n t o r e ma in w i t h t h eorganization, even though they received significantly lower performance evaluations thanthe con trol group. In th e s t ra teg i c dec i s ion mak ing p roc ess , K im an d Maub orgne ( 199 6 ) f oundtha t p roc edura l jus t i ce be tween Head O f fi c e and subs i d i a r y un i t t op m anage r s l eads t o be t t e ra c c ep t ance an d execu t ions o f d ec i s ions . F ina l l y , Ko r in e ( 199 6 ) f ound tha t t h e pe r f orman ce o fp roduc t dev e lopme n t t eams ( a s s e s s ed by t op manage men t ) was s t rong l y pos i ti v e ly a s soc i a tedw i th th e t eams ' a s s e s smen t of pe r c e i v ed f a irn ess i n dec i s i on m ak ing o f top man agemen t andt h e t e ams t h emse l v e s .

23


25/36

(c) The subordinate proves impervious to the boss' efforts and makesno effort to improve. In Appendix V this possibility is showed under theheading "Steve has low performance expectations". We are not denyingthat some proportion of employees, for a variety of reasons, choose todevote as little energy as possible to their work. In our experience,how ev e r , t h e p ropo r t io n o f 'd i e - ha rd co a s t e r s ' i s sm a l l; mos t o f t h e w eak e rp e r f o rme r s w e m ee t u s e d t o w i sh , and t y p i c a lly s t i ll w i sh , to op e r a t e i n anenvironment where they can be sucessful. Their current low level ofmot iv a t i on s t em s f r om a ba d f i t b e tw e en th e job 's r e qu i rem en t s and th e i rcap ab i l it ie s an d/ or a poor r e la t ion sh ip w i th the i r boss .Sti ll , f or the f ew 'd i e -ha rd coas t e r s ' , the f a i rnes s o f the p roces s u sed by theboss s e t s a be t t e r s tage fo r l a te r r es or t ing to more fo rce fu l ac t ion , w h ich ca nrange from a substantial increase in performance standards to removalf r om th e j ob . Ev en i f t h e w eak e r p e r f o rme r r e a c t s n e ga t i v e ly t o th e bo s s ' sactions, their peers and subordinates are more likely to feel that theirco lle ag u e w as t r e a t e d f a i r ly , and thu s l e s s l ik e l y t o d e v e l op th e f e e l in g o f'w e ' re expen dab l e ' t ha t we de s c r ib ed in th e a r t ic le .We do not claim that the ideal scenario will occur every time; we haveseen examples of all three types of outcomes. In all cases, however, thep ro c e s s y i e ld s s ome b e n e f it fo r th e s ubo rd i na t e , th e b o s s and /o r t h e t e am .Furthermore, managers who engage in such a process typically find outt h a t th e r e a r e s i gn i fi c an t ly f ew e r 'd i e -ha r d c oas t e r s ' an d m or e w i ll in g n e s san d c apa b i li ti e s t o imp ro v e th an th e y i n i ti a lly t hough t . Th e s e b en e f it s dono t c ome

set up to fail

Documents