Pygmalion effect has been studied in a theoretical context since many decades now. In fact it was in 1960s that the first empirical proof of Pygmalion effect was provided (Rosenthal & Jacobson, 1968). However, most of the research has focused on academic and experimental settings. Although a study by Chirayeth et al. (2009) present a valuable finding in this sphere and conduct an experiment in the Kerala Minerals and Metals Limited and have pointed to a possibility of managers playing a significant role in the success or failure of an employee through praise, criticism, feedback. However, the possibilities and mechanisms under Pygmalion examined in the given research as well as subsequent research (Howard et al., 2015) need to be explored further in more naturalistic settings to unearth the implicit and so far uncovered processes underling the Pygmalion effect in a large organization setting.
Further, although, the positive effects of explicit expectations of managers and supervisors on subordinates performance have been widely studied, the flip side or negative aspects were rarely studied, which had equally important implications for the workplace performance. Reynolds (2007) has expressed the need to study and delineate the dark side of the Pygmalion effect with the positive aspects and calls for a need to study the effect of the kind of environment associated with the type of Pygmalion process and its effect on employee productivity. As also supported by Chirayeth et al. (2009) in terms of the role of a supportive environment, and by Raza (2013) who has pointed to fact that the best managers might be able to activate the best areas of an employees capabilities, there is a need to explore the relationship between the aspect of pygmalion, the environment created and the effect on employee performance. Another aspect that needs to be studied as suggested by the literature, is to further test the relationships between goal setting, expectations and supportive environment and Pygmalion effect within large organizational settings (Analoui & Inamori, 2010).
Furthermore, Huang et al. (2016) have explicitly pointed to a scope for research into whether leaders or managers with higher self-efficacy are likely to make increased contributions to the creativity inducing environment for the workers to enhance their creative performance. Finally, the authors have also pointed to a more domain or indsutry and organizational type –specific research on the subject by indicating that the the effect of the leader self-efficacy as a factor of pygmalion effect maybe dependent on contextual factors such as job-conditions and organizational context.
A similar approach to the study by Chirayeth et al. (2009) can be utilized in the analysis of Nigerian company, but the terms ‘superior’ and ‘subordinate’ will have parallel designations, such as ‘leader’ and ‘follower’ respectively. The authors interview 150 employees and their managers in order to obtain enough data regarding working experience on both sides. They analyze why inefficient managers opt for rather low expectations and their conclusion is that many managers are simply afraid of setting higher goals, because then they can fail to achieve the aims or the workers can eventually become better than themselves. It is important to demonstrate how managers of this international company handle various complications and difficulties faced by their workers, since the research in the field so far has mostly concentrated on academic domains and experimental settings, a study exploring the explicit as well as implicit effects underlying the Pygmalion process within the context of a large industrial organization is much needed. The initial assumption is that local business leaders present high demands and expectations and therefore, set rather high goals in procurement plans. It is necessary to find out whether such an approach can actually increase the worker confidence, motivation and productivity at the organization.
Based on the rationale and context of the study, the following research questions as evidenced and posed by the relevant literature on the topic,
1. Does the presence of a Pygmalion effect serve as an effective tool for increasing the confidence level, motivation and the productivity of the employees?
2. Can the managers play a significant role in success or failure of employees through praise, criticism or feedback?
3. Does high expectation as in Pygmalion effect have to be supported with equally high level of supportive conditions and environment from the managers to the employees?
4. Do the determinants of the Pygmalion effect model namely, leader-member exchange relationship, goal specificity and goal difficulties provide learning opportunities and feedback for the members or followers?
5. Can the Pygmalion process induce a creativity-conducive environment and enhance the creative performance of the employees?
6. Do managers with higher self-efficacy tend to affect the creative environment and in turn positively affect the self-efficacy, productivity and performance of employees?