Boot Camp
In the early 1980’s the Israeli army ran a combat command course.
Every 15 weeks, one hundred trainee soldiers were allocated to one of four instructors and then, for 3 months, they received 16 hours of instructor / trainee contact every single day.
I’d have never lasted in the army.
The experiment
Two psychologists (Eden and Shani) persuaded the government to run a test to see if the Pygmalion Effect (the greater the expectation placed upon people, the better they do) existed in the military.
Before a group of trainees started the course they undertook a series of psychometric tests to see how capable they were. These test scores and the ratings from the trainee’s previous commanders were combined to predict the trainee’s potential.
- High Potential — scores suggested they would do well as combat commanders
- Regular Potential — scores met the course requirements but did not exceed them
- Unknown Potential — scores were not statistically grounded
The trainee’s potential was then shared with their instructors before the course began.
What the instructors didn’t know was that the trainee’s rating was totally random and had nothing to do with their potential. The exercise was only undertaken to manipulate the instructor’s expectations of the trainees before they started the course.
How did the trainees do?
At the end of the course the soldier’s performance was evaluated using a set of objective tests that measured speed, accuracy, and learning. The design of the tests removed any biases that the instructors may have developed. The results looked like this:
Despite the fact that the trainees potential score was assigned randomly, the trainees that instructors believed had the most potential did best, the Pygmalion Effect was alive and well in the army.
If an instructor believed someone would do well, they did.
And how did the instructors do?
Eden and Shani added a twist to their research. They asked the trainees to rate their instructors. The score reflected leadership ability and whether or not the trainees would recommend the course to their friends.
Here are the instructor’s results:
What they found was that the high potential soldiers rated their leaders most highly, where as the low potential soldiers rated the same instructors poorly.
These were exactly the same leaders, with exactly the same soldiers, on exactly the same course. Why would their leadership style vary so much?
It is all about expectations
As managers we change our behaviour depending on our expectations of those who work for us.
Or to put it another way:
- The best performing managers believe they have the best staff
- And the best performing staff believe they have the best managers
- The worst performing managers believe they have the worst staff
- And the worst performing staff believe they have the worst managers
Perception and reality become the same.
The implication is that the way to improve our performance as leaders and managers is simply to increase our expectations of those who work for us.
An interesting twist on the chicken and egg problem — and not one that ranking and stacking your staff will solve any time soon.
If you enjoyed this post click here to the next delivered straight to your inbox
Read another opinion
Image by Mark Lorch
I completely agree with your point about ‘ranking and stacking’ staff. I’ve never seen it deliver any benefits, and most often it seems a forced ranking is used to apply a ‘normal distribution’ of salary increases from a fixed pot.
Statistically, I see the logic of that, but from a motivational point of view the forced ranking is bankrupt, especially when it’s done within a small team. I’d love to see you tackle that subject sometime. Have you found a better way of taking a salary increase budget and applying it in a fair and motivational way across a workforce?
James,
Guys raises a great question and I, too, would be interested in reading your thougths on it. I also wonder if, taking Guy’s point, we take ‘a salary increase budget and applying it in a fair’ way would be motivational?
Adrian
Guy, Adrian, Thanks for your comments, I once heard it described as legitimised dishonesty.
There is a book called Abolishing Performance Appraisals which is full of really great ideas and possibly the most boring book of all time.
Maybe I should plagerise it.
I worked for Mars Confectionery for a while, possibly the best organisation I have ever worked for. They didn’t link pay to performance, everybody got the same pay rise. If you weren’t good at your job you simply got the sack. And then they paid you off handsomely.
I think that was the most honest and legitimate way to go.
James
James,
I think your words ‘possibly the best organisation I have ever worked for’ speak for themselves.
Adrian
James,
Not only is it about expectations but how leaders react or respond to those expectations. Perhaps we focus more on high performers because they are “easier” employees or perhaps we rally for them and want them to succeed just a little more… rather than working with lower performers who need the coaching and guidance to succeed.
Annette :-)
A very good point Annette, we do a lot in the name of ease.