The document discusses the Pygmalion effect in management, highlighting how higher expectations from leaders can lead to increased employee performance. It illustrates this with a case study from Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, where different management styles impacted team productivity. The key takeaway is that managers' beliefs about their employees' capabilities significantly influence their behavior and, consequently, employee performance.

1. PYGMALION IN
MANAGMENT
17 XPGDM04 Bolekano Bokalo Nancy
17 XPGDM06 Deepak Kumar Srivastava
17 XPGDM08 Dzhamshed Istamkulov
17 XPGDM09 Ekta Shailendra
17 XPGDM11 Himamshu Narang
17 XPGDM17 Moomin Abubakari
17 XPGDM32 Trudy Tricia Dsouza

2. PYGMALION?

3. The Pygmalion effect, is the phenomenon whereby higher
expectations lead to an increase in performance.
The concept of Pygmalion leadership refers to a leader who uses a set of behaviors that help the
managers achieve high performance expectations.

4. The Role Of Managers to Increase Performance
 Optimal development & utilization of work force that has high career aspirations.
 Training & motivating employees is one of the primary duties of a manager.
 High managerial expectations & welcoming attitudes are essential for effective team management.
 A managers belief in himself & his ability and hence in the ability of his team is necessary for success.

5. Play

6. Why are some managers better at motivating
their team than others?
 Inherent self belief in themselves as managers & trainers.
 Confident in their ability to select the right candidate for the job.
 Taking ownership of the job & the team allows them to be extremely involved in all
projects undertaken by the subordinates.

7. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company
 Alfred Oberlander, one of the managers of Metropolitan Life Insurance Company observed that
outstanding insurance agencies not only grew faster but the new insurance agents performed better in
outstanding agencies than in poor agencies, regardless of their sales aptitude.
 He decided to group his superior men in one unit to stimulate their performance and to provide a
challenging environment in which to introduce new salesman.
 He made 3 teams:
 One with best assistant manager and best agents (Super-staff)
 Another with average assistant manager and average agents
 Third with least able manager and low performing agents

8. Results
 Though productivity of “super-staff” improved dramatically, the productivity of men
in the lowest or the third unit actually declined.

The “average” unit proved to be an exception as it’s productivity increased
significantly because it’s manager believed that he was not less capable of the
“super-staff” managers. As a result the productivity of the middle group increased
substantially.

9. The Pygmalion Effect
 Managers communicate expectations consciously or
unconsciously.
 Subordinates “pick up” on these expectations from their
manager.
 Subordinates perform in ways that are consistent with the
expectations.

10. Pygmalion Management
 Stated simply, your expectations of the people that report
to you dictates how you treat them and ultimately, how
they perform.
 If you truly and sincerely believe an employee is going to
be a superstar, they will be!
 But on the other hand, if you believe they will be a failure,
they will be.

11. Pygmalion Management
 ALL managers practice the Pygmalion Effect.
 Successful managers understand the effect, and channel it
in a positive way. The key is what you expect and believe
an employee is capable of.
 Pygmalion is a very well known, highly documented and
proven management technique that gets results!

12. FINDINGS
 Self-efficacy is a person's belief in his or her ability to perform the actions necessary for
success.
 The Pygmalion-at-work model suggests that having high expectations of your employees
makes you behave towards them in a way that enhances their self-efficacy.
 Managers must keep in mind that self-fulfilling prophecies can cut both ways. If you have
low expectations for your employees, you may be inadvertently hurting their performance
by negatively impacting their self-efficacy.