
Set Up to Fail: How Bosses Create Their Own Poor Performers (1998) [pdf] - deathtrader666
http://www.insead.edu/facultyresearch/research/doc.cfm?did=46698
======
snorkel
Unfortunately I was one of those bosses. I was not trained in the art of
managing a team with asymmetric talents, so this paper read exactly how my
team and I were acting. Eventually I figured out that each person on the team
can shine if they're given independent projects that they themselves had
spec'd out rather than having everyone tugging on the same rope and fighting
over who is pulling the most. This is one of the unfortunate fallacies of the
scrum teams that everyone is equally capable to take any story and the point
size will be the for everyone, that just sets up the false expectation of
everyone can do every story just as fast. I essentially dropped the everyone
is a talented clone aspect of scrum and just let some people drive hard on
their own project, and they delivered good stuff.

The manager also has to stop and applaud each accomplishment, make sure
everyone's effort is recognized, it's easy to forget that in a busy
environment.

~~~
datasmash
Recognizing people's successes and what they are doing well is a 1000% more
effective than harping on what people have messed up. It's very easy find
yourself in or create a toxic culture that is overly focuses on the negative,
but it instantly kills motivation.

People who feel like they are doing great work and motivated to do great work.

~~~
javajosh
_> Recognizing people's successes and what they are doing well is a 1000% more
effective than harping on what people have messed up_

Yes, this is (verifiably) true. One must be aware, however, that positive
feedback is _usually_ going to be ineffective, thanks to natural "regression
to the mean" effects, elucidated wonderfully in this Veritasium video[1].

(The point, in the end though, is that performance is going to statistically
improve if people do worse than average, and do worse if they do really well,
regardless of the feedback you give them", which is called "regression to the
mean". The net effect is that you might get a false positive for negative
feedback, and a false negative for positive feedback if you don't account for
the natural tension that brings everything back to average.)

[1]
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1tSqSMOyNFE](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1tSqSMOyNFE)

------
KeepTalking
People management is one of the poorly understood and performed roles in a
corporate hierarchy. Most middle management ( in technical organizations ) is
promoted either due to 'Technical competence' or 'In-the-club'. Unfortunately
either of these 2 selection criteria are not necessary functions for good
people mgmt skills.

Ace people managers are strategic physiologists. They understand emotion and
motivation while developing a great understanding of their employees. Each
employee has a profile that determines what motivates them and these managers
have a good holding of this. All this while knowing that their employees are
humans and not robotic machines.

------
mathattack
Very true. This can play itself out different in different organizations.

At a large consumer products company I worked at, the solution was trying to
fit square pegs in round holes. People could only "perform" their way into new
good positions.

At a consulting firm with an up-or-out policy, we had rigorous micromanagement
of poor performers. Surprisingly it actually worked half the time, though it
took a lot of managerial attention.

At a software firm that I worked at, the boss fired people as soon as there
was a hint of misperformance. "People just don't turn around, and you waste a
lot of time of managers."

Unfortunately after the first two experiences, I began to have sympathy with
#3. It would be great to find an environment where everyone is allowed to find
their niche to shine. Office politics make this difficult. The reality is MOST
people can thrive somewhere, but there is still a small subset that is in the
wrong place and spot. It is important to note where the hiring mistakes
happened too.

~~~
mahyarm
So if they had a sickness spell or similar for a few weeks and performed at
%70, he would fire them!?

~~~
mathattack
Mayharm - He was quick to pull the trigger on most anything. I can't get into
too many more specifics without identifying people, other than to say he gave
people good cause to get lawyers.

------
theologic
In large part the article describe Leadership-Member Exchange interaction.
Wikipedia has summary here:
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leader%E2%80%93member_exchange_...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leader%E2%80%93member_exchange_theory).

The classic criticism of the LMX model is that "it isn't fair." Generally
those of LMX say "it isn't about fair, it is about reality."

The best advice probably goes to the worker that understands LMX, "Get on the
inside track immediately."

------
Shivetya
Hell, now we just have HR departments to create poor performers and then
select them as the next leaders and managers.

------
jrs235
Yikes. I have read First, Break All the Rules ( affiliate link:
[http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0684852861/ref=as_li_tl?ie=...](http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0684852861/ref=as_li_tl?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=0684852861&linkCode=as2&tag=j02-20)
) which argues for the behavior of playing favorites. This would/could cause
the exact problem his paper examines... Different treatment. Now what do I do?

------
dsplatonov
nice article, why don't bosses read it?

~~~
tdullien
Bosses do, but the article does not necessarily provide any real solutions.
The only clear thing to take away is "be aware that you may be causing a
vicious cycle, and try to look out for that/get out of it" \- which is a level
of self-awareness that any semi-decent manager should have and keep in mind.

Management is a fundamentally messy and error-prone process, and dealing with
differences in abilities is always hard and complicated :-/ The other thing
about running organisations seems to be the "Anna Karenina principle" \- all
organisations that function really well are similar, but almost each
organisation that fails fails in a different way.

~~~
lifebeyondfife
> the two parties have to "sit down and talk" [quote from the article]

As the paper is addressing a social problem rather than a technical one, the
definition of what a 'real solution' may be is debatable.

I definitely think the paper provides suggestions about how to reverse such a
cycle.

~~~
tdullien
Agreed; I guess my complaint could be best phrased as "the paper does not
sufficiently address the complexities of determining whether you are in such a
cycle, and the fact that many people that struggle actively search for more
concrete guidance". This doesn't detract from the fact that it was a good
read.

------
michaelochurch
This may be "(1998)" but it's timeless and everyone who's had (or been) a
micromanager or a bad boss could stand to read it. It describes the
micromanagement death spiral well. It also explains why about a third to a
half of people in closed-allocation companies, no matter how talented they
would be in a better context, are going to fail. Open allocation gives the
individuals multiple opportunities to roll the dice and takes that failure
rate down to about 2%.

For all our noise about "meritocracy", the truth is that social status matters
a great deal in the workplace. I've written about this here:
[http://michaelochurch.wordpress.com/2014/07/13/how-the-
other...](http://michaelochurch.wordpress.com/2014/07/13/how-the-other-half-
works-an-adventure-in-the-low-status-of-software-engineers/)

In addition to what's described in the paper, and very relevant to the sorts
of ultra-hard-working people you find in tech, high status is right-to-care.
If you have low status and care a lot about your work and doing things the
right way, you're "pushy" and "entitled". If you're of high status, you're
dedicated and creative.

Working hard from a position of low social status does absolutely nothing. In
fact, it makes your situation worse because it lowers your status even
further. A low-status person who puts in long hours is seen as compensating
for inability, and if that person stops putting in long hours, the relative
drop ("downward trend in performance") is what will be noted.

This paper doesn't discuss the real way out. It's not to work harder. It's
also not "communication" (even though "communication breakdown" is the polite
term for this scenario) because the communication between the manager and low-
status subordinate is destined to be one-way. The best odds are with escape:
transfer to another group under someone who likes you. However, if that can't
be done, the next best option is _social proof_. Gain the blessing of a high-
status person. You can't really do this on your own team (the high-status
people don't want to be associated with the low-status ones) so you need to
gain the approval of someone of equal or higher status (formal and informal)
to your boss and to have your boss know. Of course, this can be dangerous (you
appear to be a flight risk) and if you're caught or you fail, it'll be
interpreted in the worst possible way, but it's the only reliable way out of
the bottom on this one, and it's surprisingly quick when the "magic" of social
proof works.

~~~
arethuza
There is another option for the under-performer - they might be on the
sociopath track:

 _The future Sociopath must be an under-performer at the bottom. Like the
average Loser, he recognizes that the bargain is a really bad one. Unlike the
risk-averse loser though, he does not try to make the best of a bad situation
by doing enough to get by. He has no intention of just getting by. He very
quickly figures out — through experiments and fast failures — that the Loser
game is not worth becoming good at. He then severely under-performs in order
to free up energy to concentrate on maneuvering an upward exit. He knows his
under-performance is not sustainable, but he has no intention of becoming a
lifetime-Loser employee anyway. He takes the calculated risk that he’ll find a
way up before he is fired for incompetence._

[http://www.ribbonfarm.com/2009/10/07/the-gervais-
principle-o...](http://www.ribbonfarm.com/2009/10/07/the-gervais-principle-or-
the-office-according-to-the-office/)

~~~
JabavuAdams
Remember, this is in the context of trying to analyze a fictional program --
The Office. Although there's some truthiness there, it's all a bit too neat.
Wow, there's only three kinds of workers. Okaaay.

~~~
michaelochurch
I've done some analysis on my own of that. There are more, but those 3 tend to
dominate the culture of an organization.

Organizations want 3 things from people: subordinacy, dedication, and strategy
(working on the right things). You'll almost never see all 3, because a person
who is strategic will either optimize for minimum discomfort (and not be
dedicated/sacrificial) or for maximum personal yield (and, while he might
follow orders, won't put the organization's goals above his own).

Moreover, people who have zero or one of those 3 traits are generally
maladaptive and fall into a "Lumpenloser" category that excludes them even
from the Loser in-group, and they'll usually be quickly let go.

This means that the interesting people will have 2 of those 3 traits. If
they're subordinate and strategic (but not dedicated) they become minimum-
effort Losers. If they're subordinate and dedicated (but not strategic) they
become the middle-manager Clueless who clean up the messes made below and
above them. If they're strategic and dedicated (but not subordinate) they fall
into the category called "Sociopath".

The labels are a bit unfair. Most of the "Losers" aren't dislikable or inept
people, and often the "cool kids" are MacLeod Losers. (In startups, the cool
kids are Clueless.) Likewise, most of the "Sociopaths" aren't bad people--
just ambitious and not willing to sacrifice their own goals for the benefit of
an organization that wouldn't return the favor.

~~~
BugBrother
>> Organizations want 3 things from people: subordinacy, dedication, and
strategy (working on the right things).

Uh, where did "able to do good work" go??

Edit: "Dedication" and "productivity"/"capability" are different concepts.
Trust me on this, I had an undetected bacterial infection for a while that
lowered my capabilities seriously.

~~~
throwaway888886
>> dedication

~~~
BugBrother
I'll expand on my "Edit:"

I had lowered productivity a couple of periods from undetected health problems
(allergy troubles and a bacterial infection).

I have been both a high producer and a problem producer. And I have surprised
bosses in both good/bad ways, and they have changed their opinions about me.

The main personal difference was self confidence ("I burn out easy these days?
:-( More exercise/relaxation don't help?! I am old?! :-(". Afterwards, my
reaction was/is "So I was physically sick, I am not a complete luser that turn
everything I touch to shit.")

The only difference in "dedication" was a later natural effect -- of burnout
from working like an animal to get productivity when it was failing.

And the lesson I have learned is compassion; the cynical failures that are a
depressing pain on us others might not be stupid or sociopaths. I am happy for
the insight, it made me less of an asshole, but it was probably not worth the
high cost.

Edit: To make this into a point, I do believe in the "Pygmalion effect" and I
have seen it in action. But it is far from the whole story. There are probably
also many other effects than bosses' behaviour and those I know personally
which influence workers.

------
menriquez
it's called "office politics" in a nutshell, and its constantly hovering
around all workplaces.

i don't think it's possible to eliminate these sort of biases from group
interactions...i personally think there will always be a bell curve of
dislikes/likes among managers who see over a large group of individuals.

that's why it often pays, esp. in this day and age, to keep your employment
options open.

~~~
calinet6
It can be eliminated, and it's extremely simple to lay out exactly how to do
so. Getting there is not so simple, but the analysis is.

This type of office politics are a direct result of a specific set of
ingrained beliefs about people, and a lack of scientific understanding of
three areas: psychology and behavioral theory, statistics, and systems theory.
In sum, they produce Quality. Lacking, you get the problems we see in the
original article.

Knowledge of these three areas, and fundamentally the recognition that the
solution lies in this knowledge, is pivotal.

1\. Psychology. Knowledge of human behavior and motivation. The article does a
good job of identifying the individual breakdown of motivation, but it doesn't
go further. The now-famous Dan Pink TED talk is a good start: Autonomy,
Mastery, and Purpose.

2\. Statistics. Knowledge that in a complex production line, whether it be
software or widget making, all performance is fundamentally a statistical
process highly influenced by a myriad of confounding variables. Even
individuals are bound to this model, and strings of good performance or a
string of bad performance are probabilistically likely. This brings a new
level of understanding to employee performance and an attitude that's wholly
beneficial to all employees. [http://blog.deming.org/2013/08/is-the-results-
due-to-mathema...](http://blog.deming.org/2013/08/is-the-results-due-to-
mathematical-probability-or-individual-merit/)

3\. Systems Theory. Knowledge that most of the performance _deficit_ able to
be optimized in any production is within the systems surrounding it, not the
individuals themselves. Even the best individuals are often doing their best
in the context of extremely poor conditions. The best company improves the
process of production continuously, focusing on the system and not the
individuals. This type of thinking is also supported by the knowledge of
statistics and psychology above.

“A bad system, will defeat a good person, every time.” -- Deming

If everyone has even a basic knowledge of these three concepts, then the
entire organization improves.

And more importantly, the beliefs about people that stem from a lack of
knowledge of these important concepts begin to dissipate. The belief that
individuals are fully responsible for their own success and performance, the
idea that bad performers can't be improved or utilized effectively, the belief
that individuals are best motivated by carrots and sticks; all of this flies
out the window in the face of solid scientific fact.

The challenge is getting everyone in the company to adopt this new philosophy.
For that reason, it must come in the vessel of leadership from the top.

Start with the 14 points:
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W._Edwards_Deming](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W._Edwards_Deming)

~~~
tehwalrus
I can't believe I had never heard of Deming before. Thank you.

------
somehnreader
The paper looks more anecdotal than scientific to me. No tables, no graphs,
where is the data coming from?

~~~
pgeorgi
It's not going to be popular in an environment that prefers the quantitative
"big data" approach, but qualitative research is a thing.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qualitative_research](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qualitative_research)

~~~
arethuza
Qualitative reasoning was also a fairly active area in AI research for a
while:

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qualitative_reasoning](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qualitative_reasoning)

