Nearly every single person can relate to an experience of feeling intimidated. And what’s important to realize is that intimidation can quickly lead to negative self-talk, which can quickly lead to hesitation, second-guessing, and depleted confidence.

The best way to counter insecurities — or the fear of inferiority— is to practice mindfulness and actions to create confidence. Confidence can be increased and most notably, it can be increased in adulthood.

Research shows that women tend to be less confident and undervalue their competence, while men tend to overshoot their competence, which is directly linked to their high levels of self-confidence. The short and sweet psychological reasoning of it is this: girls observe the benefits received from people-pleasing and good behavior at a young age. They also see boys rough-housing and getting into trouble. This conditioning leads our girls to take fewer risks and consequently teaches them little about resilience in the process. The kicker? Resilience is a confidence builder. Conversely, boys get daily doses of resilience as they learn to accept criticism and consequence.

If you are a man you may think of the times you were reprimanded growing up. If you are a woman, you may relate to the narrative of ceasing “poor behavior” to keep your good grades, reputation, and likability intact. But what is seen to be important in childhood, such as being a well-behaved child, actually can set the stage for less success in adulthood. Research shows that confidence matters as much as competence to achieve promotions, raises, and even contentedness.

This means that as a people manager, we must encourage all within our teams to explore their confidence and guide the process. In order to create an inclusive climate, leading to better team cohesion, innovation, and productivity, discussing confidence is important.

You will likely find that based on the psychological undertones just briefly discussed here, women will benefit most from confidence creation, and men will learn their predispositions — demonstrating to all team members that there is room for personal growth and professional development. Consider sharing not only the science behind confidence (more can be read about the confidence gap by authors Katty Kay and Claire Shipman) but provide the tools to your team to practice confidence builders.

As a starting point, ask team members what confidence means to them. More specifically, what does a “confident you” look like?

Second, ask team members what this confident person behaves like and what this person accomplishes.

Third, what does this person look like, and how does he or she present themself?

Envisioning what it is a person wants provides an opportunity for clarity. It also presents an opportunity to recognize areas for growth. In addition to this grounding visualization exercise, provide team members with resources — such as confidence tips and education. I provide weekly confidence hacks here on my company’s Instagram page.

Cheers to a more confident you — have a good week.

People fail. Employees fail. It’s a fact of life. However…

The problem is often assumed to be that of the employees. But what if we were wrong? What if it was our fault? (Assume “our” classifies the boss or manager in this scenario.)

Spoiler: an employee’s poor performance can be blamed mainly on his or her boss.

person sitting alone on a couch with a notebook

This syndrome has been titled “set-up-to-fail.” Jean François Manzoni and Jean-Louis Barsoux researched the topic at length. I’ll review the basics to help managers be aware of the syndrome itself and, if all seems too familiar i.e., you’re living the examples shared, I’ll provide recommendations to help you address.

The negative cycle of set-up-to-fail is just that, cyclical. Destructive behaviors from a boss fuel less favorable behaviors from the subordinate, and with each stroke the synergy between two individuals, splinter.

What happens is this:
When workers are perceived to be mediocre, they often continue to achieve those expectations. Namely, a team member (subordinate) may make an error. It could be the first, but the manager feels it’s a slippery slope if the error is not addressed. Regrettably, the way of “addressing” is to tighten the rope. The boss’ hope is to boost performance by managing closely. Instead, the scrutiny causes the employee to be insecure and he or she feels there’s a lack of trust and confidence in them.

In time, the employee doubts their performance and they lose motivation. If the manager is going to correct, critique, or minimize, it’s no wonder ownership diminishes. Sadly, this feeds into the syndrome. With absence of enthusiasm or performance, the manager sees this as proving them right. The team member is ill-equipped.

The real kicker here is this: Employees whom you’ve identified as weak performers are living down to your expectations! Let’s look at a standard flow of this self-fulfilling process.

The relationship is workable/functional. ---> Something happens that’s unfavorable (a deadline is missed or a performance was lackluster) thus you begin to micromanage. ---> The employee starts to doubt him or herself due to your (the manager’s) confidence in delivery. They begin to avoid making decisions (aren’t you going to make them, anyway?). ---> Manager views this behavior as proof of mediocracy and tighten the rope further.

The behaviors go ‘round and ‘round and worsen with each spin.

What's the cost of set-up-to-fail?

Employees are defeated (no longer ask for help, or offer suggestions, and grow defensive).
The organization no longer gets the most from their employee(s) who suffer from this.
Team cohesion decreases as more effective members are asked to take on more responsibilities, and the weak are given menial tasks. Unfair separation of work causes tension. There's also discomfort watching one team member be belittled.
The boss/manager loses energy. He or she is spending it (energy & time) in destructive ways --following the "lesser employee" around. They may even earn a harmful reputation (e.g., micromanagement, being unfair, etc.).

How do you reverse this situation?

You don’t want your team to fail. It hurts you and it hurts the company for which you work. Here are some tips to help you reverse and/or avoid the SUTF syndrome:

Set expectations early. Recorded expectations may be my favorite proactive step in the workplace. It demonstrates transparency, ownership (for all parties), and it minimizes ambiguity. If someone doesn’t follow-through, there’s a clear record.
Convey openness. This is a big one. If you say you’re "open to openness" – even difficult conversations – and then never set the stage for these discussions, that’s on you! Consistency, and following through, is important and helpful for building a functional working relationship.
What are the facts? The moment you feel someone is under-performing, or they missed a deadline, review the facts. Were there expectations? If there were, did you set them to accomplish a task they weren’t qualified for? Should this change your opinion of them as a person? [This is not a feeling-based assessment. This is about challenging your perceptions with facts.]

The truth is, the difficulty of undoing full-blown SUTF syndrome can be challenging. People are more perceptive than we give them credit for. They know when they’re part of an out-group and they know when there’s no trust.

If you think you have team members who are wearing the SUTF cap, there are clear steps to take to help the two (or more) of you get back to a healthy working paradigm. If you want to make sure you’re not falling into the trap, drop me a line. We can come up with a clear and actionable plan that’s tailored to your team.

Creating Confidence Through Action

Failure: Don't Be the Cause