Leadership Lessons from Pygmalion and Clever Hans

Classical Literature 101, condensed version:

The Roman poet Ovid's Metamorphoses, X, tells the story of the sculptor Pygmalion who created a sculpture of the perfect woman, Galatea. Even though he had turned his back on women, his sculpture was so perfect he fell in love with it, and eventually Venus (Aphrodite) took pity on him and brought the sculpture to life.


The Pygmalion Effect, condensed version:

Expectation impacts results.



In the early 1960s, Dr. Robert Rosenthal, then at Harvard and currently Professor of Social Psychology at the University of California (Riverside), began to suspect that researcher expectations were influencing the results of research studies. Although this may not be big news in 2008, and in fact even in the 1960s was an extension of a 1911 study of a horse named Clever Hans, it was the stimulus for several hundred studies to test his hypothesis. One of the more interesting investigations was one he conducted in the South San Francisco Unified School District after being contacted by elementary school principal Lenore F. Jacobsen who was intrigued by his hypothesis and offered her school for the testing ground.

In this “typical” elementary school, Rosenthal chose random children and told their teachers that those children had scored very high on a test that showed they were educational bloomers who would perform very well in class. Those children actually did better than their peers, with the only variable being teacher expectation. They expected better performance, and got it, probably because they treated them as “performers.”

In another study involving a vocational class for the “hardcore unemployed,” welding instructors were told some of the students had scored exceptionally high on a welding aptitude test. Those students learned twice as fast, scored 10 points higher on an exit exam, and were even absent less than the other students.


Pygmalion “Expectation Cycle:"

1. We form expectations of others.

2. We communicate our expectations (verbally and nonverbally, consciously and subconsciously).

3. Others respond to the cues we provide by adjusting their behavior to match our expectations.

4. Our original expectation comes true in a classic self-fulfilling prophecy, reinforcing our belief in our original assessment.


In the classroom, establishing high expectations for students with the anticipation of success increases student performance, but it is important to remember that the converse is also true. If the teacher has low expectations that are consciously or unconsciously transmitted to the student(s), lessened performance is the result. It is also important to remember that this applies not only to teacher - student relationships, but to supervisor – subordinate and peer – peer relationships as well.

According to Dr. Rosenthal, the Pygmalion Effect is composed of four main factors, listed below in oversimplified form, that apply both to students in the classroom and staff in any organization.


1. Climate. If you expect good things from people, you create a more positive interpersonal climate for them and the result is increased performance.

Positive: Being supportive and encouraging is important, but we also transmit signals with tone of voice, eye contact, facial expression, and body posture, that help create a positive environment that fosters success.

Negative: Being negative and discouraging removes the structures necessary to support success, and produces substandard performance.


2. Input. We teach more to those from whom we expect more due to the increased amount and quality of the input we give them.

Positive: We communicate our positive expectations of others by giving them important and challenging assignments that encourage them to expand their skills, and the information they need to perform their task well.

Negative: Negative expectations result in a dismissive attitude and a “just do it” approach that does not provide needed information and hinders chances for success.


3. Output. We give more opportunity to the “good” student (or employee) to ask questions of and communicate with us.

Positive: Opportunities to speak, offer their opinions, even the opportunity to disagree with our opinions are provided and foster student development.

Negative: We may consciously or subconsciously discourage output from the student from whom we expect less than stellar output, and since we don’t give them the opportunity for that stellar output, we create a classic self-fulfilling prophecy.


4. Feedback. The quality of the feedback we provide can vary based on what we expect from the student.

Positive: We give more feedback to the “good” student, not just by telling them what they’ve done well and giving them a pat on the back for the good work, but also by more thoroughly reviewing areas that offer opportunities for improvement.

Negative: When expectations are low, we may not make sufficient effort provide useful feedback. This can easily cause a student or staff member confusion over what is expected, and the cycle continues when that confusion is taken for confirmation that the student or staff member is a low performer.




For More:

http://www.psych.ucr.edu/faculty/rosenthal/index.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lenore_Jacobson

http://www.kidsource.com/education/pygmalion.html

http://psychology.wikia.com/wiki/Pygmalion_effect

http://www.accel-team.com/pygmalion/