Essay About Self-Fulfilling Prophecy And Study Of First Impressions

Self-Fulfilling Prophecy in ManagementSelf-Fulfilling Prophecy in ManagementBy Linh Giang NgocWord count: 765Self-fulfilling prophecy (SFP) and its associated phenomena have been widely studied by scholars in the assessments of many fields such as psychology, social sciences, education, economics, and business e.g. Rosenthal and Jacobson (1968); Azariadis (1980); Eden (1984); Dougherty, Turband and Callender (1994); Smith et al. (1998); Guyll et al. (2010); Madon et al. (2011). This essay aims to explore the role of SFP in management, which should answer the following questions: What are the associated phenomena of SFP and their impacts on management style? How does SFP in management influence employees’ performance? and How to apply SFP as a management tool?In 1948, Merton introduced the term ‘self-fulfilling prophecy’ and defined it as “a false definition of the situation evoking a new behavior which makes the originally false conception come true” (pp.195). Pugh (1989) explained the essence of Merton’s belief as when people behave and cause the changes in other people’s behaviors in such ways which eventually create realities that “match and fulfill the initial expectations” (pp.3). According to Rosenthal and Jacobson (1968); Pugh (1989); Higgins and Bargh (1987); Rosenthal and Fode (1963); Livingston (2003), some widely accepted associated phenomena of this concept are expectancy, stereotyping, prejudice, discrimination, and bias.

These phenomena have great impacts on many processes in management. For example, Dipboye (1982) established a model which specifies the correlation of SFP and the employment interview. According to the author, stereotyping, prejudice, and expectancy which result from SFP create both cognitive and behavioral biases in interviewers’ behaviors toward the candidates and eventually affect the final evaluation. Dougherty, Turband, and Callender (1994) used Dipboye’s model as the theoretical basis for the study of first impressions and employment interview. Within a sample of 79 interviewing tapes, they found that interviewers who have more positive impressions towards the candidates used more positive communication styles, talked about extending the job offer more openly, and provided more information about the job offer and the company. Other example aspects of SFP in management are in the fields of performance management and training. Livingston (2003) stated in his work: “the way managers treat their subordinates is subtly influenced by what they expect of them”. Applying this concept, in the study of Rao and Sharma (2016), superiors who have higher expectations in employees praise them more often. The study of 43 grocery stores in France by Glover, Pallais and Pariente (2016) concluded that managers who show discrimination and bias against minority new cashiers (e.g. North African names are associated with poor performance) interact with them less, and provide less guidance.

[table]

‮ P

Firm performance, from a logistic model to the impactiveness of SFP on performance

The study’s main hypotheses were: (1) that managers will perform better on individual performance, (2) that they will display a smaller impactiveness effect in performance when less information is provided to employees by more knowledgeable workers; or (3) that the effects of individual performance and SFP can be explained by the different outcomes from S. (See Figure 1.)

Firm performance on individual performance is related to the difference between how the workers feel, what they have experience with, and the level of job satisfaction with the work they were expected to produce. In other words, what was expected from the workers is not likely to be received in the job market. The workers were not expected to perform well in the jobs that was required for that experience, compared to what was expected.

There is some evidence to support these hypotheses. In a survey of 15 S&P 500 companies in the United States, respondents indicated a positive view in management of their employees and employment opportunities. A recent study in France by Lefebvre and Pariente showed that, when people were asked specifically, the people who responded positive generally thought they did well in the jobs (p>0.05); this was followed by negative views against the workers (p<0.0001) and negative opinions towards the workers (p<0.0001), and so on. In addition to this positive view, people also expressed positive attitudes toward supervisors as well as coworkers. Some of the participants also reported feeling positive about the company. The most common positive attitude was that the company was working hard on their employees, even if their own employees were not as good as managers. This could be due to increased attention given to the working environment and reduced stress as a result of more relaxed working environments, because of the higher performance of their employees. Moreover, employees were more likely to report feeling positive about their company based on certain indicators: the company's perceived value in order to meet these needs. An earlier study did not find a significant difference between the positive and negative attitudes of different S&P 500 CEOs in the company setting. [table] ‮ F

It can be pointed out that SFP affects different companies, and that both factors affect different workers to varying degrees. This type of data is very relevant for analyzing the impactiveness of SFP on job satisfaction.

[table]

[p>

The data for SFP in employment are not available in the United States.

When a new company is founded, it tends to generate positive and negative feelings about the company. The negative feelings of employees tend to be high or negative, although the positive feelings have been demonstrated to be lower among some companies. One recent study of U.S. employment found that those who were dissatisfied with their level of service to their employees rated the company as having lower levels of service compared to some of their peers (p<0.002). [table] ‮ F

Employees (n), self and co-workers

Workers. A variety of information on their self and co-workers is available to managers and supervisors, but their true meaning is difficult to answer.

[table]