How managers set employees up to fail without knowing it
Have you ever been a part of a team where it’s clear the manager has a favorite… and it’s not you? How did s/he show their favoritism? How did it impact the team? Did these feelings of perceived preference impact your engagement or performance? How did that differ from times when you strongly connected to your manager?
If you’re many years into your career, you may be able to recall being on many sides of this equation, and in some cases, you may recall being the manager who played favorites.
There is a syndrome plaguing organizations called The Set-Up-To-Fail Syndrome. Despite being introduced in this 1998 Harvard Business Review article nearly 20 years ago, few managers are consciously aware of it.
In today’s post I will share with you: why this phenomenon is so powerfully dangerous, a few related concepts, and tips for managers to learn how to manage its effects.
Being Set-Up-To-Fail
This phenomenon is especially dangerous because managers often don’t recognize it when it happens. This does not only impact junior emerging managers; it can also affect the most experienced leaders if not they are not careful to regularly monitor their biases. No industry or line of work is immune from these phenomena. These dynamics can be observed in every setting from the classroom to the boardroom, on the football field, and in manufacturing warehouses.
How set-up-to-fail plays out
Take a look at the image below and imagine a Director has hired two project managers (PMs). Upon first impression, PM A is confident, easy to connect with, and the Director knows she is smart because they went to the same college. PM B is a bit reserved and often seems anxious when faced with small talk in the halls. The company CEO gives the Director a big project; the Director needs to select a PM to lead the project.
While the Director feels more confident in PM A, she decides to ask both to come up with a proposal in an effort to be fair. The best proposal will be implemented, with the proposer as lead on that project. She explains the project scope in a meeting to both parties and they get to work. The next day, she passes PM A in the hall and asks how the project is going. PM A shares that it’s going well but one piece is still unclear. The Director offers to sit down and go over the proposal and give feedback. They meet for a productive 15 minute chat and PM A learns which factors and proposal formatting is most preferred by the Director through this feedback. The next day, the Director sees PM B by the water cooler and asks how the project is going. The PM shares that it’s going well, but there are still a few questions. The Director replies that she’s excited to see the final proposal.
In the next team meeting, both proposals are shared, and, as the director predicted, PM A had a better proposal than PM B. As a result, the Director realized she could count on PM A to do quality work and, therefore, delegated future projects based on visibility and importance accordingly. PM A rose as a star in the company and was promoted 4 months later to a Senior PM.
While this is only one example of how this syndrome plays out, it’s important to point out a few factors in why these two paths diverged so greatly. First, the Director had a implicit bias toward people she perceived as confident and who went to her same college. This led her to spend an extra 15 minutes in oversight of PM A. As a manager, the Director likely did not perceive this as any advantage to the PM, but rather as something the PM requested. However, the Director experienced confirmation biaswhen the results confirmed her initial expectations. Over time, this results in a cyclical pattern that grows exponentially until there is a clear difference in actual performance, due to confidence, early access to information, and relationships.
In the next sections, I’ll share a few of these dynamics that play a contributing role in these cycles.

Image borrowed from this article.
In-Groups and Out-Groups
One of the main dynamics that evolves as a symptom of Set-Up-To-Fail is the emergence of an in-group and an out-group. An in-group is characterized as the manager’s inner circle. This is the person or group of people s/he shares information with. This information may seem casual and harmless at first, like sharing a few laughs about a tv show they share in common. That connect, however, can evolve into early access to information that can impact job outcomes, such as the details of an upcoming change in leadership, a reorganization of the company, or something similar. Reflect back on the example above: imagine in those 15 minutes where the Director gave “feedback” on the proposal, the Director disclosed that one of the details of PM A’s project proposal would likely be defunct in a quarter due to an upcoming acquisition. Now, not only does the PM have the insight needed to make their proposal stronger, but she can start to strategize other ways the potential acquisition will impact them. She might be able to offer support to help the director with change management efforts, further confirming the director’s belief in her abilities relative to her peers (e.g., PM B). While the director is not purposefully leaving PM B out, these types of outcomes relegate PM B to the out-group.
An out-group is characterized by anyone who does not belong to the in-group. This group has superficial level hallway conversations with their manager and does not have early access to important information. They gather their information in official settings like team meetings when the details of that same merger are formally announced.
It may sound like an evil scheme to keep some team members better informed than others, but most times the manager doesn’t realize they is creating this divide at all. The reason these relationships often form has to do with a variety of factors, one of which is homophily.
Birds of a feather
Homophily is an important sociological concept that states similarity breeds connection. In short, people find it easier to understand people similar to themselves, and this cognitive ease causes quicker, deeper, more seamless connections. Ties between non-similar people also dissolve at a higher rate.
When a person perceives oneself as similar to someone else, trust is naturally increased. We generally trust our own decision making, despite what science says. So when we observe a decision or behavior of someone similar to ourselves, we are inherently more likely to trust the intentions involved.
This phenomenon applies to all social relationships, including workplace relationships. A few examples of this range from the infamous “Boys Club” to the emergence of Employee Resource Groups. These networks can be structured or informal, company-sponsored or not, and can work to perpetuate inequity or can drive the inclusion conversation forward.
My challenge to managers
Reflect on your biases.
If you are a manager, I ask you to reflect on your current team. Are there people you are more easily drawn to, who you instinctively trust to get the job done? Are there people for whom you need to see achievement to recognize their value, people with whom you are a bit hesitant?
Most managers will find objective reasons why some direct reports are “objectively” better than others: better education, closed more sales deals, made more tips from customers, etc. However, it’s important to recognize any biases in place that contribute. For the employee with a “better education”, do you have a bias toward Ivy League schools? For the employee who “closed more sales deals”, did you train him/her differently or join more meetings with the clients alongside them? For the employee who “made more tips”, did you assign them on the schedule for a time that is known for higher tipping or higher volume of sales? One small decision can lead to exponentially different results over time.
Also consider, do your top performers share some demographic attribute with you? One major consequence for this syndrome is that a lack of diversity is perpetuated. If you are a man, do you simply naturally connect more with the men on your team? If diversity was achieved across the C-Suite, homophily would not greatly impact statistical outcomes, but this is not the case. Leadership at most companies is lacking diversity. This means the status quo will be perpetuated by the same people who already have top seats, serving as sponsors for their in-group members. Often, no mal-intent is present, but good intentions without conscious acknowledgment of this phenomenon doesn’t change outcomes.
Infuse confidence
Have you identified someone on your team that you may have set-up-to-fail? It’s not too late to make a change. It could be as simple as sitting down with that person for lunch and learning more about who they are. It could also be a compliment about something they bring to the table that has been undervalued, and which could help them drive business in a certain area.
Spread the love
Make a list of everyone on your team that may have been overlooked for opportunities. Next time you are sitting at a leadership team meeting and an opportunity comes up, be a sponsor for that team member. It may feel scary to put a name out there that you aren’t yourself confident in, but trust that you can help make that person successful. The best managers can drive the success of even underperforming employees with proper expectation setting and support.
Conclusion
Despite the best intentions, many people managers set up people on their teams for failure. If managers take away one point from this article, it is my hope that they consciously consider the biases they hold that make it easier to connect with some team members over others, and then to think about ways to balance the playing field. There is no perfect science, but any steps in the right direction will make all the difference in your team morale and performance, and in turn will result in dividends for your organization.
