Leader-follower expectations: Effects of Pygmalion Leadership Style on Employees’ Performance
RESEARCH PHILOSPHY (TERM PAPER)
SUBMITTED TO:
Mr. IRFAN MOHAMMAD
SUBMITTED BY
Sehrish Abro
Reg#1331121
FALL
2014
Shaheed Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto Institute of Science& Technology (SZABIST)
Leader-follower expectations: Effects of Pygmalion Leadership Style on Employees’ Performance
Table of Contents
1.0 Abstract: 2
2.0 Introduction: 3
2.1 Objectives of the study: 4
3.0 Literature Review: 4
3.2 Pygmalion Leadership Style (PLS): Power of Expectations: 5
3.3 Self-Expectation: 6
3.4 Employees’ Expectations from Leaders: 6
3.5 Critical literature: 6
4.0 Research philosophy of this study: 7
4.1 Positivistic Research Paradigm: Predict, control and explain 9
…show more content…
The term used to express the power of positive expectations is called Pygmalion effect, which is actually a special case of Self-Fulfilling Prophecy. Pygmalion Leadership Style (PLS) has received an increased attention only recently, it encapsulates the leadership behaviors that communicate higher performance expectations from employees and end up with enhanced productivity thereof. The aim of this research is to explore the impact of Pygmalion Leadership Style on employee performance, employees’ self-expectations and their characteristics and expectations from the leaders. The researcher undertakes two philosophical approaches to study the topic i.e. positivism and post-positivism. The first approach has the primordial belief that reality exists on its own independent of an individual’s perception and interpretation, that is to say knowledge is politically and socially neutral and hence can be objectively measured. And second approach assumes that there may not be a single reality in all cases, and it is less likely that the researcher as well as the knowledge to be completely neutral and lastly it proposes that the aim of a scientific research should not be verification of the theory, rather, …show more content…
However, to address these issues with positivism, this research also is ready to take a conflicting position in the sense that not only the theory will be tested for its verification but also for its falsification. The person behind the philosophy of falsificationism is Karl Popper (1902-1994). As per this philosophy the purpose of scientific research must not be to ‘verify’ the statements rather ‘falsify’ them. The researcher should start with a well-informed guess or a Conjecture that must be subjected to the empirical testing. And we must try to refute it, the presupposition is that we can’t ‘prove’ any hypothesis no matter how large is our number of observations we have made, rather, one single observation is enough to refute the hypothesis. This study combines both approaches i.e. verification and
One of a few problems that hypothetico-deductivists would find in Chalmers statement is contained in the phrase, “Scientific theories in some rigorous way from the facts of experience acquired by the observation and experiment.’’ Theories are never produced strictly, Popper would say, but firstly crafted through the thought and feeling of a scientist in their given field. This then discards the idea that theories are the result of facts and it then forwards the idea that a theory will be manipulated by individual people as they are no more than a personal concept with reason. Furthermore if theories were derived meticulously from the facts the implication would then be made that the theory is virtually perfect. Yet these theories that are disproven all the time through falsifying this then demonstrates that these theories are not just part of a scientists thoughts but also that falsification is a more precise form of proof and justification than that of induction.
provides very important approaches to leadership and ways of dealing with dilemmas, negative feedback, and other management issues. Although it has a few minor short comings, the book is well-written and properly structured, making it easy for the target readers to understand its content.
Some genuinely testable theories, when found to be false, are still upheld by their admirers-for example by introducing some ad hoc auxiliary assumption, or re-interpreting the theory ad hoc in such a way that it escapes refutation. However, such a method either destroys or lowers its scientific status.” These criteria make it hard for pseudosciences such as astrology or dowsing to be considered science. There has also been large increases in the accuracy and use of technology is ensuring that there is more empirical evidence and proof that theories are being based on. Some may argue against the corrected ratio of falsified to accepted theories, but unless every theory in the history of science was to be measured that argument would be futile, and the above point would still
In a firm, management and leadership are important and needed. Leadership and management are similar. Actually, leadership and management are totally different. The leadership would influence the firm. The leader would have difference leadership styles to lead the subordinate.
The unificationist account of explanation and the notion of ad hoc-ness as posited by Popper are very similar concepts, but there is a nuance between the two that is worth explaining. Although both notions seem to show why we choose certain explanatory theories over others, they differ in that the model of unification shows us what type of theory we should accept, while Popper’s notion of ad hoc-ness shows us what type of theory to reject. Together, these concepts help us better understand the explanatory model of unification which leads us to a better understanding of why we are inclined to accept certain scientific theories over others. In this paper, I will attempt to show that falsifying theories based on Popper’s ad hoc-ness criteria strengthens the idea of unification by giving people a more specific way of eliminating competing scientific theories in search of the most unified one. First, I will briefly describe the unificationist account of explanation, then I will explain the idea of ad hoc-ness as laid out by Popper, and finally I will show how ad hoc-ness can be used to strengthen the account of unification by means of increasing its objectivity and by providing simpler explanations.
While transactional leadership relies on a system of rewards and penalties it doesn't provide a lot of in conditions of inspiration to encourage folks to travel past the fundamentals. Given this truth the supporters of transactional leaders may get happy and develop a propensity to attain smallest expectations solely that might facilitate them avoid penalties (Bass, 1990). Therefore the leader and also the follower ar in associate conformity on what the follower would take delivery of achieving the negotiated level of performance (Bass, 1990). The success of such leadership depends on the extent of satisfaction the leader and followers have in following this technique of performance based mostly appraisals (Bass, 1990)
The Chalmers's view against the Popperian hypothetico-deductive. Popper mentioned that people shouldn't concentrate our hopes on an unacceptable principle of induction.Also, he claimed that without relying on induction we still can work out how science works and why it is rational.1 Hence, I would like to said Popper would disagree with Chalmer's opinion. Also, I think Popperian might say Chalmers is wrong because his falsifiable in Popperian sense. Chalmers might be falsified if scientific knowledge is observed not reliable due to some experiment and observation might contain mistakes and we do not find them now. Furthermore, the Popperian might argue that science can not be prove but can justify the better theories or laws.1 We can justify which scientific laws or theories are better ones as there is falsified is found, or not scientific. When they are found falsified or not scientific, we can seek for novel bold hypot...
Any hypothesis, Gould says, begins with the collection of facts. In this early stage of a theory development bad science leads nowhere, since it contains either little or contradicting evidence. On the other hand, Gould suggests, testable proposals are accepted temporarily, furthermore, new collected facts confirm a hypothesis. That is how good science works. It is self-correcting and self-developing with the flow of time: new information improves a good theory and makes it more precise. Finally, good hypotheses create logical relations to other subjects and contribute to their expansion.
The style of leadership is very task orientated. Therefore, it would be easy to establish goals and quotas for followers to target in order to achieve higher levels of pay, promotions, or incentives. For example, a restaurant manager may design a contest in his or her restaurant that can reward the highest seller a bonus. This type of leadership has many avenues to inspire employees by rewarding them. Equally, with rewards however, they can come with punishment. Leaders are able to have measurable result that can also have consequences.
...h not justifiable enough to be relied. Even though the inductive reasoning has been a success in the determination of events and instances that have occurred in the past, philosophers still argue about its appropriateness, in the modern society (Earman, 2006, p.36). The problem of induction has been analyzed through various philosophical studies with the aim of finding a justifiable answer to the dilemma. The uncertainty of inductive reason forms the basis of myriad questions that engulf the justification of the approach. According to some philosophers, it is possible that some unknown phenomenon might occur, leading to justification with a known phenomenon. As aforementioned, falsification and irrationalism are some of the solutions to the induction problem. It is, therefore, imperative for individuals to falsify the beliefs through hypothesis and empirical testing.
The following essay will discuss falsification, as discussed by Karl Popper, as well has his account of the scientific method. The idea whether any scientific theory can truly be falsified will also be approached by looking at the problems presented by Popper’s theory of falsification, and the impact this has on the scientific method and science as a whole.
Leadership style is the manner in which a leader provides directions, implement plans, and motivate people or a team to achieve a goal (Newlink, 1997). After reading the course work study and taking a leadership style quiz on the web. (About.com, 2014). It is my conclusion that my leadership style is participative. In Participative leadership style, members of the group are allowed to identify goals and develop strategies to reach the goal. As a participative leader, I do not shove my ideals into my member’s throats or impose my decision on everyone. Though the final decision rested with me, each member of the group is still giving an opportunity to express their view and knowledge of the task at hand. Each member’s suggestion is taken into account and the final decision is made based on the suggestions. Therefore, I serve as a facilitator, not a dictator.
Leadership, without doubt, is a significantly important function of management. It helps to aggrandize efficiency and to fulfil an organization’s goals. Leadership is the ability of a manager to induce the subordinates to work with confidence, determination, courage and zeal. It is also defined as ability to influence a group towards the realization of a goal. Leaders should have the capability of developing future visions, and to drive the organizational members to want to attain the visions. This paper states my points in which I duly believe, justifies the importance of an outstanding leader in any organization.
The word theory emanated from the Greek word meaning “contemplate” It has been viewed by scholars in different ways. Theory can be defined literally as an explanation of phenomena and its associations with variables that it is attempting to predict. There are no general agreed definitions of theory because scholar’s views of what constitute theory differ based on the purpose, nature and what make up of a good theory (Gelso, 2006; Harlow, 2009; Stam, 2007, 2010; and Wacker 1998). For instance, Wacker, (1998), pointed out that a theory must have four basic criteria such as conceptual definitions, domain limitations, relationship-building, and predictions. He, also, opined that for any theory to be regarded as a good theory, it must have qualities for `good ' theory, such as “uniqueness, parsimony, conservation, generalizability, fecundity, internal consistency, empirical riskiness, and abstraction, which apply to all research methods” (p.364). Stam (2010) interpreted theory as ...
...and one cannot pull a conclusion for all people of this world by using around 30 subjects. A theory is not certain; it is just a thought that we have gathered; yet through your own experience, our surroundings we see them as convincing. Natural science theories are believable because of the proof given, yet these experiment results may also be inaccurate because of human errors or errors in the scientific equipments. A theory is a system of ideas in which we attempt to explain predict or describe something that might be believable to us. We use our emotions and reasoning for the theory’s validity. Over all, the questions whether an individual is convinced by a theory or not is based on his willingness to accept this theory, his own personal aspect and the humans trust towards it. The way a theory is described and how it is displayed is what makes it convincing.