Research indicates that manager's expectations and perceptions shape performance their subordinates. It means your perceptions as a manager have a big impact on the productivity of your direct reports. Indeed it is your encouragement and support that spurs top performance from your team. By the same token when some employees fail, you may not realise it but the real reason could be you.
You may wonder that despite your close monitoring, some of your team members fail to perform . Perhaps unwittingly you are responsible for their poor show. This is how it happens:
When an employee fails to deliver you exhibit a natural tendency to hold him solely responsible for his poor performance. You tend criticise him for his negligence, lack of drive inability to prioritise things or follow directions. With an intention to improve his performance you begin to micromanage him. But often micromanaging proves counter productive. Though your actions are intended to boost performance and prevent him from making mistakes, the subordinate often interprets the close supervision as lack of trust on your part. Perceiving your reduced confidence the employee starts doubting his own abilities. Thus the employee stops giving his best. He avoids taking initiative and shows a further decline in performance. Viewing this as an additional proof of his lack of competence, you further tighten the supervision turning this into a vicious circle. Often in the workplace high performers and low performers are treated differently. You consider the top performers as your trusted collaborators and therefore extend more freedom to them. While you tend to give greater autonomy to strong performers you subject perceived weak performers to increased scrutiny. This further dampens their morale.
As you could see, a small mishap such as missing a deadline triggers the sequence of poor performances. Researchers Jean-Francois Manzoni and Jean-Louis-Barsoux describe this phenomenon as "The set-up-to-fail syndrome" in their HBR article by the same name. This syndrome proves costly to everyone concerned. The uneasy relationship with the low performers tempts you often saps your energy. A lack of faith in perceived poor performers tempts to overload whom you consider good performers. As some members are alienated, team spirit takes a beating.
On the whole the organisation suffers because you fail to get the best out of your team.
Jean-Francois Manzoni and Jean-Louis-Barsoux contend that the set-up-to-fail syndrome is not irreversible. They offer some valuable suggestions to bring perceived poor performers back on track; As a first step you must understand and accept the fact that your own behaviour may contribute to a subordinate's underperformance. Next you must endeavour to separate emotion from reality. Challenge your own perceptions at frequent intervals. Analyse if the perceived weak performer is really that bad. Initiate discussions with the employee to repair the strained relationship. Select a neutral place to hold the meeting so that it presents as little threat as possible to the subordinate. It helps to disclose the employee, your intention of using the conversation to decrease the growing tension between both of you. Agree on the employee's weaknesses and also strengths. Avoid being emotional and support your assessments with facts. Find the cause of weakness with his help.Identify ways to uplift his performance by providing additional training and guidance. Let him understand that you will loosen the reins once he gains competence. Strongly convey your desire to improve matters by encouraging openness. Find out your behaviour is in any way intimidating. The time spent by you in reversing the poor performance trend will invariably pay rich dividends. It is always advisable to act before problems mushroom. Learn to use your expectations in ways that prompt high performance from your subordinates.
