個案總覽

In an ideal world, a subordinate would accept critical feedback from a manager with an open mind. He or she would ask a few clarifying questions, promise to work on certain performance areas, and show signs of improvement over time. But things don't always turn out that way. Fearing that the employee will become angry and defensive, the boss all too often inadvertently sabotages the meeting by preparing for it in a way that stifles honest discussion. This unintentional--indeed, unconscious--stress-induced habit makes it difficult to deliver corrective feedback effectively. Insead professor Jean-Francois Manzoni says that by changing the mind-set with which they develop and deliver negative feedback, managers can increase their odds of having productive conversations without damaging relationships. Manzoni describes two behavioral phenomena that color the feedback process--the fundamental attribution error and the false consensus effect. Managers tend to frame difficult situations and decisions in a way that is narrow (alternatives aren't considered) and binary (there are only two possible outcomes--win or lose). And during the feedback discussion, managers' framing of the issues often remains frozen. Manzoni says that bosses need to consider an employee's circumstances rather than just attribute weak performance to a person's disposition.

This case considers the transition at the head of British Airways (BA) from Lord Marshall, key architect of BA's spectacular restructuring and revitalisation in the 1980s, to his chosen successor Robert Ayling. In an increasingly deregulated market, Ayling's challenge is to sustain BA's position of leadership in the airline industry. He pursues an ambitious strategic alliance, a massive cost cutting drive and initiates a controversial change of corporate identity. Although the stock market initially approves of most of his strategy, he runs into trouble on the industrial relations front. A cabin crew strike in the summer of 1997 hits employee morale and triggers a sustained dive in the airline's share price. For all Ayling's efforts over the following three years, he does not manage to redress the slump and his eventual removal does not come as much of a surprise. What is surprising is the insistence by BA's chairman that Ayling had set the right strategy, but was the wrong person to implement it. The case explores what went wrong.

Why do some employees perform poorly? Most managers would answer this question by ticking off a list that includes weak skills, insufficient experience, inability to prioritize assignments, or sometimes even a lack of motivation. In other words, most managers would contend that poor performance is the employee's fault. But is it? Not always, according to Jean-Francois Manzoni, assistant professor at INSEAD, and Jean-Louis Barsoux, research fellow at INSEAD. Their research with hundreds of executives strongly suggests that it is bosses themselves--albeit accidentally and with the best intentions--who are often responsible for an employee's sub-par achievement. They call this dynamic "The Set-Up-to-Fail Syndrome," and in this provocative look at what makes--and sustains--dysfunctional work relationships, the authors conclude with a detailed description of how to break out of the negative spiral that can drain both individuals and organizations of valuable productive energy.