Two meta-analyses have shown that the Pygmalion effect greatly influences performance. The meta-analysis by McNatt found an overall effect size of 1.13, and the meta-analysis by Kierein and Gold found an overall effect size of 0.81. The Pygmailion and Golem effects can be explained by the idea that our expectations of others’ performance lead us to treat them differently. That is, if we think someone will do a poor job, we will probably treat that person in ways that bring about that result. If a supervisor thinks an employee is intrinsically motivated, he treats the employee in a less controlling way. The result of this treatment is that the employee actually becomes more intrinsically motivated. Thus, when an employee becomes aware of others’ expectations and matches his own with them, he will perform in a manner that is consistent with those expectations.
Sandler (1986) argued that our expectations are communicated to employees through such nonverbal cues as head tilting or eyebrow raising and through more overt nonbehaviors such as providing low-expectation employees with less feedback, worse facilities, and less praise than high-expectation employee. He also stated that employees are quick to pick up on these cues. Along with Korman (1970) and Rosenthal (1994) sandler argued that employees then adjust their behaviors to be consistent with our expectations and in a way that is self-sustaining.
Though we know that the Pygmalion effect is true, efforts to teach supervisors to communicate positive expectations have not been successful. On the basis of seven field experiments, Eden (1998) concluded that there was little support for the notion that teaching the “Pygmalion leadership style” would change the way supervisors treated their employees and thus increase employee self-esteem.
Research on self-esteem and consistency theory has brought mixed results, Laboratory studies have generally supported the theory: Subjects who were led to believe they would perform well on a task did so, and subjects who were led to believe they would do poorly on a task also did so. The theory was criticized by Dipboye (1977), however, who believed that factors other than self-esteem, such as the need to achieve or the need to enhance oneself, could explain the same results.
But given that consistency theory does have some reasonable research support, the next concern is how it can be used to increase employee performance. If employees do indeed respond to their managers’ expectations, then it becomes reasonable to predict that mangers who communicate positive and optimistic feelings to their employees will lead employees to perform at higher levels. A good example of such management behavior can be found in a study that increased the self-expectations of a group of auditors employed in four accounting firms. Half of the new auditors (the experimental group) interviewed with a company representative who told them
that they had been selected from competitive applicant pool, praised them for being highly skilled, and reminded them of their previous accomplishments. The other half of the new auditors (the control group) did not receive this information. The results of the study indicated that the positive interview increased self-efficacy levels, motivation, and job performance, although the effect on performance went away after 3 months.
Intrinsic Motivation: -
In intrinsically motivation, people will seek to perform well because they either enjoy performing the actual tasks or enjoy the challenge of successfully completing the task. When they are extrinsically motivated, they don’t negative consequences. People who are intrinsically motivated don’t need external rewards such as pay or praise. In fact, being paid for something they enjoy may reduce their satisfaction and intrinsic motivation.
An interesting debate has formed between researchers who believe that rewards reduce intrinsic motivation and those who don’t. A meta-analysis by Cameron and Pierce (1994) concluded that research does not support the idea that rewards reduce intrinsic motivation. However, the meta-analysis has been criticized by Ryan and Deci (1996) as misrepresenting the data. Thus, it appears that this debate will continue for at least a few more years.
Individual orientations toward intrinsic and extrinsic motivation can be measured by the work Preference Inventory (WPI). The WPI yields scores on two dimensions of intrinsic motivation (enjoyment, challenge) and two dimensions of extrinsic motivation (compensation, outward orientation).
Needs for Achievement and Power: -
A theory developed by McClelland (1961) suggests that employees differ in the extent to which they are motivated by the need for achievement, affiliation, and power. Employees who have a strong need for achievement are motivated by jobs that are challenging and over which they have some control, whereas employees who have minimal achievement needs are more satisfied when jobs involve little challenge and have a high probability of success. In contrast, employees who have a strong need for affiliation are motivated by jobs in which they can work with and help other people. These types of employees are found more often in people-oriented service jobs than in management or administration. Finally, employees who have a strong need for power are motivated by a desire to influence others rather than simply to be successful.
Research has shown that employees who have a strong need for power and achievement often make the best managers and that employees who are motivated most by their affiliation needs will probably make the worst managers.
Needs for achievement, affiliation, and power are measured by one of two tests. The first and most popular is the Thematic Apperception Test (TAT). With the TAT, an employee is shown a series of pictures and then asked to tell a story about each one. From the responses, a psychologist identifies the degree to which each theme of power, affiliation, and achievement is present in the stories.
The problem with the TAT is that it is time-consuming and must be administered by a psychologist trained in its use. To avoid these problems, developed a more objective and less expensive paper-and-pencil test that measures the same three needs, Although this test has not yet become popular, research seems to indicate that it is as reliable and valid a measure as the TAT.
