What does it mean to set someone up for failure

Setting up to fail - Wikipedia

What does it mean to set someone up for failure

do the boss and the subordinate agree on their priorities?.As a result, bosses who observe the dynamics of the set-up-to-fail syndrome being played out may be tempted to avoid an explicit discussion. so is monitoring and controlling the deteriorating performance of a disenchanted subordinate. reports to the cfo, who isn't as comfortable with martha's culture-building activities as he could be. so it is with the people who are in the boss’s out-group. boss and subordinate typically settle into a routine that is not really satisfactory but, aside from periodic clashes, is otherwise bearable for them. her ceo loves her energy and ability to get things done. by creating and reinforcing a dynamic that essentially sets up perceived underperformers to fail. it should also include an explicit discussion of how much and what type of future supervision the boss will have. the subordinate, in particular, would not have the benefit of observing and learning from how his boss handled the difficulties in their relationship—problems the subordinate may come across someday with the people he manages. i have never heard of a situation where an hr manager goes through her boss to communicate with her internal clients. as with most things in life, you can only expect to get a lot back if you put a lot in. does the subordinate have limited skills in organizing work, managing his time, or working with others? if the pygmalion effect describes the dynamic in which an individual lives up to great expectations, the set-up-to-fail syndrome explains the opposite. labeling is something we all do, because it allows us to function more efficiently.  hiring interns is often the decision of one busy manager who, overwhelmed with a lot of office tasks, decides to hire an intern to help keep the workload manageable. bosses tend to avoid initiating these talks because they are concerned about the way the subordinate might react; the discussion could force the boss to make explicit his lack of confidence in the subordinate, in turn putting the subordinate on the defensive and making the situation worse.

The Set-Up-To-Fail Syndrome

Five Ways A Weak Manager Will Set You Up To Fail

that approach has the short-term benefit of bypassing the discomfort of an open discussion, but it has three major disadvantages. but when it is, it results in a range of outcomes that are uniformly better than the alternative—that is, continued underperformance and tension. down also involves disengaging personally—essentially reducing contact with the boss. many unpaid internship positions list alluring job responsibilities and a fancy position title to make up for the fact that you won't be paid a dime for your hard work. for the same reason that we tend to typecast our family, friends, and acquaintances: it makes life easier., the syndrome can take its toll on the boss’s reputation, as other employees in the organization observe his behavior toward weaker performers. example, in the case of steve and jeff, jeff could have made explicit very early on that he wanted steve to set up a system that would analyze the root causes of quality control rejections systematically. subordinates can break out of it, but we have found that to be rare. before even deciding to have a meeting, the boss must separate emotion from reality. when the subordinate senses these low expectations, it can undermine his self-confidence. if you're good enough at your job or you catch the attention of higher-ups, a fearful manager above you won't like it. and oftentimes, they might be unintentionally just setting you up for failure. got a call from martha, an hr person with a big flame. his new job, steve reported to jeff, who had just been promoted to a senior management position at the plant. after all, bosses who systematically choose either to ignore their subordinates’ underperformance or to opt for the more expedient solution of simply removing perceived weak performers are condemned to keep repeating the same mistakes.? one answer is that those managers begin by being actively involved with all their employees, gradually reducing their involvement based on improved performance. yes, sure, he would say that it was not his fault and that the customer was unreasonable.

Job Survival Tips: What to Do When You're Set Up for Failure

you can jolly him or her along and help the fearful one become less skittish. that is true whether you're working the drive-up window at burger king or an executive-level position. the risk of a negative reaction, perceived weaker performers are concerned with not tainting their images further. following the often-heard aphorism “better to keep quiet and look like a fool than to open your mouth and prove it,” they avoid asking for help for fear of further exposing their limitations. great teams share a sense of enthusiasm and commitment to a common mission. frequent contact in the beginning of the relationship gives the boss ample opportunity to communicate with subordinates about priorities, performance measures, time allocation, and even expectations of the type and frequency of communication. after all, just because it is the boss’s opinion does not make it a fact. 6, 2013by ahmed mediensharetweetemailit is no surprise to anyone that many employers hire underpaid (or unpaid) student interns to handle mundane tasks at their company — tasks that no mid-career employee would want to waste their time on. said earlier that the set-up-to-fail syndrome usually starts surreptitiously—that is, it is a dynamic that usually creeps up on the boss and the subordinate until suddenly both of them realize that the relationship has gone sour. ways a weak manager will set you up to fail. 4, 20134 ways to transform your summer internship into a jobjuly 24, 2013you should take that unpaid internshipjune 20, 2013unpaid internships lawsuit 2013: dear liberal nonprofits — pay your interns! and in setting goals so high that they are bound to fail, the subordinates also come across as having had very poor judgment in the first place. as the boss’s assumptions about weaker performers and the right way to manage them explains his complicity in the set-up-to-fail syndrome, the subordinate’s assumptions about what the boss is thinking explain his own complicity. (Note that certain details have been changed to protect John's identity. getting results in spite of one’s staff is not a sustainable solution. he could have explained the benefits of establishing such a system during the initial stages of setting up the new production line, and he might have expressed his intention to be actively involved in the system’s design and early operation. clearly, it takes a special kind of courage, self-confidence, competence, and persistence on the part of the subordinate to break out of the syndrome.

How a Toxic Workplace Sets You Up To Fail | Deborah Fillman | Pulse

instead, they will proceed tacitly by trying to encourage their perceived weak performers. although jeff didn’t really explain this to steve at the time, his request had two major objectives: to generate information that would help both of them learn the new production process, and to help steve develop the habit of systematically performing root cause analysis of quality-related problems. 14, 2013'black swan' intern ruling: landmark case could mean the end of the unpaid internshipjune 12, 2013. he was on top of his operation, monitoring problems and addressing them quickly. therefore, it is critical that the intervention result in a mutual understanding of the specific job responsibilities in which the subordinate is weak. it does not address the subordinate’s role in the underperformance. he increases his pressure and supervision again—watching, questioning, and double-checking everything the subordinate does. years people have said, "if they change your title to 'special projects manager' you know it's time to go. the areas of weak performance have been identified, it is time to unearth the reasons for those weaknesses. make sure you keep an eye out for these situations — and avoid them if you can. it also demands that they have the courage to look within themselves for causes and solutions before placing the burden of responsibility where it does not fully belong. methods used to head off the set-up-to-fail syndrome do, admittedly, involve a great deal of emotional investment from bosses—just as interventions do. before long, jeff became convinced that steve was not effective enough and couldn’t handle his job without help. when a boss believes that a subordinate is a weak performer and, on top of everything else, that person also aggravates him, he is not going to be able to cover up his feelings with words; his underlying convictions will come out in the meeting. in those cases, however, the intervention still yields indirect benefits because, even if termination follows, other employees within the company are less likely to feel expendable or betrayed when they see that the subordinate received fair treatment., bosses trying to modify their behavior in a unilateral way often end up going overboard; they suddenly give the subordinate more autonomy and responsibility than he can handle productively., even if the subordinate achieves better results, it may take some time for them to register with the boss because of his selective observation and recall.

4 Ways Your Boss Will Set You Up For Failure

he withdrew more and more from interaction with him, meeting his demands with increased passive resistance. indeed, research shows that bosses tend to attribute the good things that happen to weaker performers to external factors rather than to their efforts and ability (while the opposite is true for perceived high performers: successes tend to be seen as theirs, and failures tend to be attributed to external uncontrollable factors). here are ways your boss might set you up for failure in your new job. does the boss have enough time and energy to do his part? big and small companies alike do not often let first-time interns play with their sales pitches or make big presentations for their investors. no orientation orientation is the first thing that you learn in hr 101 if you are an hr major, but it's something that you might miss if this your first or second professional work experience. in other cases, the relationship between the boss and the subordinate is too far gone—too much damage has occurred to repair it. they are more involved with some subordinates than others—they even monitor some subordinates more than others. in the case of steve and jeff, for instance, an exhaustive sorting of the evidence might have led to an agreement that steve’s underperformance was not universal but instead largely confined to the quality of the reports he submitted (or failed to submit)., even if the boss’s encouragement were successful in improving the employee’s performance, a unilateral approach would limit what both he and the subordinate could otherwise learn from a more up-front handling of the problem. “feedback” could also be taken to mean that the conversation will be one-directional, a monologue delivered by the boss to the subordinate. in any case, the syndrome is set in motion when the boss begins to worry that the employee’s performance is not up to par., the set-up-to-fail syndrome has consequences for the subordinates of the perceived weak performers., a one-sided approach on the part of the boss is less likely to lead to lasting improvement because it focuses on only one symptom of the problem—the boss’s behavior. that is because a boss needs to back up his performance assessments with facts and data—that is, if the intervention is to be useful. (note that certain details have been changed to protect john's identity. the boss must also use affirming language when asking the subordinate to meet with him.

Failure Synonyms, Failure Antonyms |

an employee is transferred into a division with a lukewarm recommendation from a previous boss. the employee doesn’t understand the work, a manager might contend. the subordinate will probably be somewhat uncomfortable as well, and it is reassuring for him to see that his boss is a human being, too. in fact, the bosses we have studied, regardless of nationality, company, or personal background, were usually quite conscious of behaving in a more controlling way with perceived weaker performers. he or she will make it very hard for you to succeed -- or at least they'll try. she said, "what would be the business benefit of that process? the most daunting aspect of the set-up-to-fail syndrome is that it is self-fulfilling and self-reinforcing—it is the quintessential vicious circle. the initial impetus can be performance related, such as when an employee loses a client, undershoots a target, or misses a deadline. must, for instance, select a time and place to conduct the meeting so that it presents as little threat as possible to the subordinate. component of the discussion also needs to make explicit the assumptions that the boss and the subordinate have thus far been making about each other’s intentions. the first step is for the boss to become aware of its existence and acknowledge the possibility that he might be part of the problem. the boss might even acknowledge that he feels tension in the relationship and wants to use the conversation as a way to decrease it. it can be quite a strain to keep up a facade of courtesy and pretend everything is fine when both parties know it is not. we have seen it happen to people perceived within their organizations to be excellent bosses. “does my behavior toward you make things worse for you? in many cases, however, these performers simply absorb the greater load and higher stress which, over time, takes a personal toll and decreases the attention they can devote to other dimensions of their jobs, particularly those yielding longer-term benefits. it gets to the point where you don't even know what you should be doing and why you're doing this or that.

What does it mean to set someone up for failure-Five Ways A Weak Manager Will Set You Up To Fail

What Can I Do If My Boss Is Setting Me Up for Failure? | Career Trend

in addition, the energy devoted to trying to fix these relationships or improve the subordinate’s performance through increased supervision prevents the boss from attending to other activities—which often frustrates or even angers the boss. cio of ameristar casinos likes to gamble, but not when it comes to hiring. this improved understanding leads the boss and the subordinate to explore together how they can develop a better fit between the job and the subordinate’s strengths and weaknesses. your it organization in our 2018 state of the cio survey. indeed, recent studies show that the perceived fairness of a process has a major impact on employees’ reactions to its outcomes. it is self-reinforcing because the boss’s low expectations, in being fulfilled by his subordinates, trigger more of the same behavior on his part, which in turn triggers more of the same behavior on the part of subordinates. the next step toward cracking the syndrome, however, is more difficult: it requires a carefully planned and structured intervention that takes the form of one (or several) candid conversations meant to bring to the surface and untangle the unhealthy dynamics that define the boss and the subordinate’s relationship.. chris argyris has written extensively on how and why people tend to behave unproductively in situations they see as threatening or embarrassing. interns are left to do the "work" with no real direction. as one subordinate put it, “my boss tells me how to execute every detail. passive when it comes to taking charge of problems or projects;. you can partner up with him or her and let your manager see that you are happy to make him or her look good along the way to growing your flame. other newsdespite death threats, alligator brewing continues to protest richard spencer’s uf speech7h agowomen allegedly assaulted by harvey weinstein may not pay a cent to take him to court7h agomeet 3 black men who could change your perception of single fatherhood9h agoyou’re probably paid less than you’re worth. our research shows, in fact, that executives typically compare weaker performers with stronger performers using the following descriptors:Less motivated, less energetic, and less likely to go beyond the call of duty;. doesn't set clear goals a lot of bosses do hire interns but never really check with them after the first or second week of work. why, he wondered, should he submit reports on information he understood and monitored himself? not all of those engineering or finance managers know how to successfully recruit an intern and make sure the intern can see their tasks through to completion.

How (and Why) to Intentionally Set Yourself Up for Failure

the second step requires that the boss initiate a clear, focused intervention. a lack of faith in perceived weaker performers can tempt bosses to overload those whom they consider superior performers; bosses want to entrust critical assignments to those who can be counted on to deliver reliably and quickly and to those who will go beyond the call of duty because of their strong sense of shared fate. early guidance is not threatening to subordinates, because it is not triggered by performance shortcomings; it is systematic and meant to help set the conditions for future success. i exert more control over my underperformers, but i make sure that it does not come across as a lack of trust or confidence in their ability. Here are five ways fearful managers will do itWould you fire this person? such an environment is a function of several factors: the boss’s openness, his comfort level with having his own opinions challenged, even his sense of humor. the executives in the second study represented a wide diversity of nationalities, industries, and personal backgrounds. as one perceived weak performer recalled, “i just wanted to let my boss know about a small matter, only slightly out of the routine, but as soon as i mentioned it, he was all over my case..What bosses do not realize is that their tight controls end up hurting subordinates’ performance by undermining their motivation. “no,” he might have answered, “i just reacted negatively because you asked for the reports in writing, which i took as a sign of excessive control. in the best-case scenario, the intervention leads to a mixture of coaching, training, job redesign, and a clearing of the air; as a result, the relationship and the subordinate’s performance improve, and the costs associated with the syndrome go away or, at least, decrease measurably. addition, alienated subordinates often do not keep their suffering to themselves., what often happens is that members of the out-group set excessively ambitious goals for themselves to impress the boss quickly and powerfully—promising to hit a deadline three weeks early, for instance, or attacking six projects at the same time, or simply attempting to handle a large problem without help. if you don't have an orientation that allows you to meet everyone who works in your organization, you won't be able to get help when you need it from people in the nearby offices. (for an illustration of the set-up-to-fail syndrome, see the exhibit “the set-up-to-fail syndrome: no harm intended—a relationship spirals from bad to worse. that improved fit can be achieved by significantly modifying the subordinate’s existing job or by transferring the subordinate to another job within the company. is important that you are introduced to the people in the office and told who does what and who manages whom.

10 Things I Do To Guarantee Failure For Myself and Others

he said, "well, let's keep talking about it" and martha kept up her campaign to humanize her workplace. a boss who rigidly plans for this conversation with a subordinate will not be able to engage in real dialogue with him, because real dialogue requires flexibility. likewise, the subordinate must be allowed—indeed, encouraged—to defend his performance, compare it with colleagues’ work, and point out areas in which he is strong. for them, this behavior is not an error in implementation; it is intentional. their tardiness and below-average quality annoyed jeff, who began to suspect that steve was not a particularly proactive manager. does he have lower standards for performance than the boss does? or perhaps the boss and the employee don’t really get along on a personal basis—several studies have indeed shown that compatibility between boss and subordinate, based on similarity of attitudes, values, or social characteristics, can have a significant impact on a boss’s impressions. a month later the goofy "go through me" idea was forgotten, but only because martha made it clear in her body language and her voice that she is not someone you can push around. whatever the reason, the problem is assumed to be the employee’s fault—and the employee’s responsibility. in the first few weeks of the relationship, jeff periodically asked steve to write up short analyses of significant quality-control rejections. or a new investment professional and his boss might come to agree that his performance was subpar when it came to timing the sales and purchase of stocks, but they might also agree that his financial analysis of stocks was quite strong. in other words, these bosses delve into their own assumptions and behavior before they initiate a full-blown intervention. the subordinate will therefore need to achieve a string of successes in order to have the boss even contemplate revising the initial categorization. such an intervention demands an open exchange between the boss and the subordinate based on the evidence of poor performance, its underlying causes, and their joint responsibilities—culminating in a joint decision on how to work toward eliminating the syndrome itself. the problem is intense monitoring that never seems to go away. if your goals are so out of reach that you don't stand a chance at hitting them, you have to say something. it describes a dynamic in which employees perceived to be mediocre or weak performers live down to the low expectations their managers have for them.

Job Survival Tips: What to Do When You're Set Up for Failure

Are You Setting Yourself Up For Failure Today?

all they have to do is compare how they are treated with how their more highly regarded colleagues are treated., the boss sees the subordinate’s withdrawal as proof that the subordinate is indeed a poor performer. partly due to lack of time, partly in response to what he considered interference from his boss, steve invested little energy in the reports. you're more qualified for a new job than the individuals with whom you're going to be working, your mere presence can threaten them--so much that they conspire to make your life miserable, and ultimately, to get you fired. before answering that question, let’s take a closer look at the dynamics that set the syndrome in motion and keep it going. no boss, of course, should suddenly abdicate his involvement; it is legitimate for bosses to monitor subordinates’ work, particularly when a subordinate has shown limited abilities in one or more facets of his job. prone to hoard information and assert their authority, making them poor bosses to their own subordinates. rather than arguing with him, i’ve ended up wanting to say, ‘come on, just tell me what you want me to do, and i’ll go do it. you take on the dog project to be a good citizen? boss must separate emotion from reality: is the subordinate really as bad as i think he is? are two obvious costs of the set-up-to-fail syndrome: the emotional cost paid by the subordinate and the organizational cost associated with the company’s failure to get the best out of an employee. it's the worst feeling ever when you start a new job. in time, because of low expectations, they come to doubt their own thinking and ability, and they lose the motivation to make autonomous decisions or to take any action at all. is also critical in the intervention that the boss bring up the subject of his own behavior toward the subordinate and how this affects the subordinate’s performance. our results are still preliminary, but it appears that bosses who manage to consistently avoid the set-up-to-fail syndrome have several traits in common. instead of focusing on the team’s mission, valuable time and energy is diverted to the discussion of internal politics and dynamics. we were taught to respect authority more than our own bodies.

How a Toxic Workplace Sets You Up To Fail | Deborah Fillman | Pulse

10 Signs You're Setting Up Your Relationship For Failure

having made up his mind about a subordinate’s limited ability and poor motivation, a manager is likely to notice supporting evidence while selectively dismissing contrary evidence. know which projects and initiatives are the most closely tied to the organization's future, and which ones its leaders care about. predictably, the subordinate fails to deliver to the boss’s satisfaction, which leaves the boss even more frustrated and convinced that the subordinate cannot function without intense supervision. way managers appear to avoid the set-up-to-fail syndrome is by challenging their own assumptions and attitudes about employees on an ongoing basis.” many of them also acknowledged that—although they tried not to—they tended to become impatient with weaker performers more easily than with stronger performers. most subordinates can accept temporary involvement that is meant to decrease as their performance improves., in setting the context, the boss should tell the perceived weaker performer that he would genuinely like the interaction to be an open dialogue. aren’t there a few things that he does well? you're more qualified for a new job than the individuals with whom you're going to be working, your mere presence can threaten them--so much that they conspire to make your life miserable, and ultimately, to get you fired. in another situation, it might be agreed that a purchasing manager was weak when it came to finding off-shore suppliers and to voicing his ideas in meetings. does the subordinate have the intellectual and emotional resources to make the effort that will be required? vague job responsibilities you might think that you will be doing everything that listed in the job description, but that is far from the norm. it may even result in the subordinate’s choosing to leave the company. high that payback will be and what form it will take obviously depend on the outcome of the intervention, which will itself depend not only on the quality of the intervention but also on several key contextual factors: how long has that relationship been spiraling downward? it saves time by providing rough-and-ready guides for interpreting events and interacting with others. if the subordinate moves to a new job within the organization that better suits him, he will likely become a stronger performer. if we come back again to the hypothesis that you were hired by that one busy manager and you know only that person, they won't help you that much with your problems because they will be busy themselves.

How to Move Past Failure

that outcome is not as successful as the first one, it is still productive; a more honest relationship eases the strain on both the boss and the subordinate, and in turn on the subordinate’s subordinates. boss and subordinate develop a better understanding of those job dimensions the subordinate can do well and those he struggles with.” another perceived weak performer explained, “when my boss tells me to do something, i just do it mechanically. anticipating that they will be personally blamed for failures, they seek to find excuses early. that kind of clarity goes a long way toward preventing the dynamic of the set-up-to-fail syndrome, which is so often fueled by unstated expectations and a lack of clarity about priorities. you can take it on and launch a job search, internally and externally. in other words, it makes sense to think of the intervention as an investment, not an expense—with the payback likely to be high. often the biggest obstacle to effective intervention is the boss’s mind-set. 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 authority. the boss might even try to describe the dynamics of the set-up-to-fail syndrome. was the situation always as bad as it is now? in fact, our research strongly suggests that bosses—albeit accidentally and usually with the best intentions—are often complicit in an employee’s lack of success. when people perceive disapproval, criticism, or simply a lack of confidence and appreciation, they tend to shut down—a behavioral phenomenon that manifests itself in several ways. one year after excitedly taking on the new production line, steve was so dispirited he was thinking of quitting. one outstanding performer commented on his boss’s controlling and hypercritical behavior toward another subordinate: “it made us all feel like we’re expendable., managers avoid the set-up-to-fail syndrome by creating an environment in which employees feel comfortable discussing their performance and their relationships with the boss. the boss, they figure, will just question everything they do—or do it himself anyway.

'Training to Failure' Means—and Whether or Not You Should Do It

as one subordinate admitted, “i used to initiate much more contact with my boss until the only thing i received was negative feedback; then i started shying away. interrupting the syndrome requires that a manager understand the dynamic and, particularly, that he accept the possibility that his own behavior may be contributing to a subordinate’s underperformance.” in particular, they know full well whether they fit into their boss’s in-group or out-group. martha is dragging her company into the 21st century bit by hit. you don't like that plan, you can leave the fearful manager and go to work for someone else -- or go to work for yourself! look at it this way: a waste of resources is a bad business decision and a disservice to shareholders. could it be that, under other circumstances, i might have looked more favorably upon them? “blamed” is too strong a word, but it is directionally correct. tight controls are an indication that the boss assumes the subordinate can’t perform well without strict guidelines. or the employee isn’t driven to succeed, can’t set priorities, or won’t take direction. this observation is especially relevant to the set-up-to-fail syndrome because of its self-fulfilling and self-reinforcing nature. as one boss half-jokingly said, “rule number one: if you want something done, give it to someone who’s busy—there’s a reason why that person is busy. the result is that they often end up leaving the organization—either of their own volition or not. eventually, the subordinate gives up on his dreams of making a meaningful contribution. maybe the subordinate has been paying less attention to a particular dimension of his work because he does not realize its importance to the boss. boss doesn't have to give you a title with "special projects" in it for you to get the message. spirit can also suffer from the progressive alienation of one or more perceived low performers.

How & Why You're Setting Yourself Up For Failure - mindbodygreen

for example, jeff might have said, “when you did not supply me with the reports i asked for, i came to the conclusion that you were not very proactive.) unfortunately for some subordinates, several studies show that bosses tend to make decisions about in-groups and out-groups even as early as five days into their relationships with employees. fairness is a benefit even in the cases where, despite the boss’s best efforts, neither the subordinate’s performance nor his relationship with his boss improves significantly. downside of categorical thinking is that in organizations it leads to premature closure. problem is, while you (the new intern) are looking for an exciting experience that will get you ahead in your career track, a lot of employers just want you to get the dirty jobs done. (for more on how bosses treat weaker and stronger performers differently, see the chart “in with the in crowd, out with the out. while this idea of a weak subordinate going head to head with his boss may seem irrational, it may reflect what albert camus once observed: “when deprived of choice, the only freedom left is the freedom to say no. face-to-face discussions about a subordinate’s performance tend to come high on the list of workplace situations people would rather avoid, because such conversations have the potential to make both parties feel threatened or embarrassed. it will be easier for the boss to be open if, when preparing for the meeting, he has already challenged his own preconceptions. it is hard for subordinates to impress their bosses when they must work on unchallenging tasks, with no autonomy and limited resources; it is also hard for them to persist and maintain high standards when they receive little encouragement from their bosses. in the worst-case scenario, the boss’s intense intervention and scrutiny end up paralyzing the employee into inaction and consume so much of the boss’s time that the employee quits or is fired. he requires the employee to get approval before making decisions, asks to see more paperwork documenting those decisions, or watches the employee at meetings more closely and critiques his comments more intensely. in particular, he should acknowledge that he may be partially responsible for the situation and that his own behavior toward the subordinate is fair game for discussion. his award-winning research on boss-subordinate relationships includes the set-up-to-fail syndrome: how good managers cause great people to fail (with jean-louis barsoux, harvard business school press, 2002). strong performer said of his boss’s hypercritical behavior toward another employee: “it made us all feel like we’re expendable. things are a bit more complex when repairing organizational dysfunction, since modifying behavior and developing complex skills can be more difficult than taking a few pills. first, uneasy relationships with perceived low performers often sap the boss’s emotional and physical energy.

Home Sitemap