IX. Geld und Kapital

Ohne Zusammenfassung     

Managers can drive their subordinates mad

This article explores the phenomenon of "folie à deux"--an aberrant relationship between manager and subordinates that is characterized by shared delusions. Though most visible among public figures like Adolf Hitler, J. Edgar Hoover and Jim Jones, the problem also surfaces among private managers and their associates with dangerous implications for the firm. In folie à deux, the unusual behavior patterns of a manager in an isolated setting become mirrored by dependent subordinates, and the organization loses touch with its original goals and strategies. The author describes the dynamics of this phenomenon and details steps to remedy the situation. Once recognized, he suggests that the manager establish a trusting relationship with the instigator as a prelude to altering the behavior patterns, then transfer the subordinates and reorient the work climate so that independence and responsibility are encouraged. If the instigator is a powerful executive, the author suggests enlisting the support of a countervailing force, such as the government or a union, to guide the organization away from possible self-destructive adventures.     

Getting 360 degrees feedback right

Over the past decade, 360-degree feedback has revolutionized performance management. But one of its components--peer appraisal--consistently stymies executives and can exacerbate bureaucracy, heighten political tensions, and consume lots of time. For ten years, Maury Peiperl has studied 360-degree feedback and has asked: under what circumstances does peer appraisal improve performance? Why does peer appraisal sometimes work well and sometimes fail? And how can executives make these programs less anxiety provoking for participants and more productive for organizations? Peiperl discusses four paradoxes inherent to peer appraisal: In the Paradox of Roles, colleagues juggle being both peer and judge. The Paradox of Group Performance navigates between assessing individual feedback and the reality that much of today's work is done by groups. The Measurement Paradox arises because simple, straightforward rating systems would seem to generate the most useful appraisals--but they don't. Customized, qualitative feedback, though more difficult and time consuming to generate, is more helpful in improving performance. During evaluations, most people focus almost exclusively on reward outcomes and ignore the constructive feedback generated by peer appraisal. Ironically, it is precisely this overlooked feedback that helps improve performance--thus, the Paradox of Rewards. These paradoxes do not have neat solutions, but managers who understand them can better use peer appraisal to improve their organizations.