Performance is in the Eye of the Beholding Manager

I have often encountered an interesting inconsistency when working with managers who have inherited new staff or are themselves new to a team. In these cases, I have often been approached by the manager for assistance with ‘non-performing’ staff members who are impacting the team negatively. Yet, on further investigation, I often find that the staff member in question has no history of poor performance. Similarly, their ‘performance’ issues are often spontaneously resolved when they are allocated to a new team. In digging deeper into these inconsistencies, I have increasingly found that there is often more to the story, and that performance is very often in the eye of the beholding manager. It seems that a manager’s perceptions of staff members’ performance in general is strongly influenced by the impressions they form of an individual during their initial interactions, that these impressions can be very inaccurate and that they are enduring. The result of basing judgments of performance on erroneous first impressions can be far-reaching, with a negative train of events being triggered for an entire team.

Psychological research has demonstrated that managers tend to give more consideration, recognition and autonomy to staff they perceive to be strong performers. In contrast, they are more likely to invalidate, undermine or micro-manage perceived under-performers. I have certainly seen this in action many times, having observed that a manager’s perception of the same behaviour differs depending on their opinion a staff member’s general performance. For instance, a high performer working long hours is likely to be seen as showing dedication and taking responsibility. Conversely, a ‘weak’ performer also working long hours is likely to be viewed by the same manager as slower, inefficient or unable to prioritise.

Managers, even if trying to disguise inconsistent treatment, tend to behave in subtle ways that indicate their opinion. For instance, when dealing with subordinates seen to be under performers, they tend to:

• give unsolicited advice;
• give solutions or orders disguised as suggestions;
• ignore ideas;
• respond more quickly and critically to failure;
• react with disbelief or surprise to success;
• be harsher, owing to the presumption of guilt;

This not only impacts relationships with the staff members considered poor performers, but can result in a divisive team culture where the manager’s actions are seen as perpetuating favouritism. The trouble is that these dynamics emerge as a result of how the human brain works. To simplify our cognitive world, the brain tends to categorise and label people as early as possible, so that we can quickly make decisions about how to respond to situations and treat people. Unfortunately, where managers are concerned, this can have major repercussions if the initial assessment is inaccurate because people tend to live down to a negative image. In addition, these early impressions and labels are extremely difficult to overcome because our brains tend to remember and accept information which confirms our initial opinions, while ignoring or misperceiving information to the contrary.

This results in a vicious cycle as the employee on the receiving end becomes anxious, withdrawn and uncertain. They may reduce contact with the manager; attempt to hide problems and volunteer less information or fewer ideas. As a result, their performance does suffer and the manager’s expectation is confirmed, thereby further encouraging the inequitable treatment of the weaker performer. The costs of this dynamic for an organisation are three-fold. Firstly, productivity for the organisation and the team suffers as ‘better’ performers become overloaded. Secondly, the employee develops a poor reputation and fails to reach their full potential. Thirdly, the manager is often viewed as being incapable of effectively developing employees and playing favourites. Needless to say, the morale, health and wellbeing of those involved in such a dynamic, naturally suffers.

I have found that avoiding this dynamic requires creating an awareness of its existence in managers so they are sensitised to the judgments they make about staff and more receptive to having their biases challenged. Some of the strategies I encourage managers to apply include:

• Communicate frequently regarding priorities, performance measures and expectations.
• Get to know their staff and their needs early to distinguish between the person and performance.
• Resist attaching labels until they have observed performance over a period of time and any initial failure of staff to meet the performance expectations of a new manager have had an opportunity to improve.
• Be careful about seeking, noticing and remembering facts that confirm initial impressions. Actively look for evidence that confirms the contrary in order to challenge personal biases.
• Intervene early where problems arise by not waiting to give feedback, include the staff member in addressing the issue.

At HR Business Direction we can assist with developing strong leaders.

Trish Cloete MA (Org. Psyc), Assoc MAPS; CMI
Workplace Psychologist
trish.cloete@hrbd.com.au
07 3890 2066
www.hrbd.com.au