![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Quotes from study "Set up to fail: How bosses create their own poor performers" by Jean-Francois Manzoni and Jean-Louis Barsoux, 1998
The right stuff
Numerous studies have shown that most managers (some studies claim
up to 90 per cent) treat some subordinates as members of an "in-group"
and consign others to an "out-group".
Members of the "in-group" are the trusted collaborators and receive more autonomy, more feedback, more expressions of confidence and more considerate behavior on the part of the boss. The boss-subordinate relationship is one of mutual trust and reciprocal influence.
Members of the "out-group", on the other hand, are regarded more as "hired hands" and are managed in a more formal (less personal) way, with more emphasis on rules, policies and formal authority.
And this tends to practical usage:
Theere is evidence that managers tend to form these opinion very early in the relationship.
Note: In the first major study in this field, Dansereau, Graen and Haga (1975) detected differences between the in-group and the out-group as early as one month into the superior-subordinate relationship. Liden and Graen (1980) and Bass & Stogdill (1990) review several studies with similar results.
Freedom of action
In relative terms, the "lower performer" is set up for repeated failure, as acknowledged by one boss: "A higher and a lower performer may have failed by the same amount but because you monitor one every day, the lower performer receives 20 failed grades in a month, and the higher performer only one!"
Giving feedback
With respect to deviations from plan, be it budget or a deadline, bosses show greater readiness with "weaker performers" to focus on the negative rather than the positive. They also seem less open to circumstantial explanations for unfavorable results.
Bosses also tend to show more leniency toward "better performers" when handing out credit for success and blame for failure. The successes of members of the "in-group" are more likely to be attributed to the individual, and their failures to external factors such as unfavorable circumstances. In contrast, the successes of perceived weaker performers tend to be attributed to luck or favorable situational factors, while failures stem from the subordinates' lack of ability or effort.
In general, problems reported by "better performers" tend to set off fewer alarm bells. The thoughts triggered in the boss's mind are: "it's not her/his fault and s/he can handle the problem." For the perceived weaker performers, the immediate reaction is often more along the lines of, "s/he fouled up again, I'd better get involved."
Initiating contact
With "higher performers" the contact can be initiated indifferently by both parties. Perceived better performers show little reluctance to approach their boss because they are confident that announcing a problem will not reflect on them personally. As a result bosses can give them more space and do not feel compelled to check up on them all the time.
The right stuff
Numerous studies have shown that most managers (some studies claim
up to 90 per cent) treat some subordinates as members of an "in-group"
and consign others to an "out-group".
Members of the "in-group" are the trusted collaborators and receive more autonomy, more feedback, more expressions of confidence and more considerate behavior on the part of the boss. The boss-subordinate relationship is one of mutual trust and reciprocal influence.
Members of the "out-group", on the other hand, are regarded more as "hired hands" and are managed in a more formal (less personal) way, with more emphasis on rules, policies and formal authority.
And this tends to practical usage:
Theere is evidence that managers tend to form these opinion very early in the relationship.
Note: In the first major study in this field, Dansereau, Graen and Haga (1975) detected differences between the in-group and the out-group as early as one month into the superior-subordinate relationship. Liden and Graen (1980) and Bass & Stogdill (1990) review several studies with similar results.
Freedom of action
In relative terms, the "lower performer" is set up for repeated failure, as acknowledged by one boss: "A higher and a lower performer may have failed by the same amount but because you monitor one every day, the lower performer receives 20 failed grades in a month, and the higher performer only one!"
Giving feedback
With respect to deviations from plan, be it budget or a deadline, bosses show greater readiness with "weaker performers" to focus on the negative rather than the positive. They also seem less open to circumstantial explanations for unfavorable results.
Bosses also tend to show more leniency toward "better performers" when handing out credit for success and blame for failure. The successes of members of the "in-group" are more likely to be attributed to the individual, and their failures to external factors such as unfavorable circumstances. In contrast, the successes of perceived weaker performers tend to be attributed to luck or favorable situational factors, while failures stem from the subordinates' lack of ability or effort.
In general, problems reported by "better performers" tend to set off fewer alarm bells. The thoughts triggered in the boss's mind are: "it's not her/his fault and s/he can handle the problem." For the perceived weaker performers, the immediate reaction is often more along the lines of, "s/he fouled up again, I'd better get involved."
Initiating contact
With "higher performers" the contact can be initiated indifferently by both parties. Perceived better performers show little reluctance to approach their boss because they are confident that announcing a problem will not reflect on them personally. As a result bosses can give them more space and do not feel compelled to check up on them all the time.