The Hawthorne experiment remains one of the most debated and controversial studies conducted in the field of management thought that has received both praise and criticism at the same time (Wren and Bedeian 2009).
Much of the criticism regarding the study revolves around Elton Mayo, a researcher from Harvard Business School. The study was initiated by researchers from Western Electric and Harvard University and its main aim was to examine the impact of different environmental variables on the production of a group of workers at Western Electric Company (Gale 2004).
The workers were divided into control group and test group. Variables were introduced to the test group while the controlled group worked under constant conditions. Pennock and Stoll, the engineers in charge of the experiment, first began manipulating the lighting of the test group. The performance of test group increased with better lighting but the performance of the controlled group increased as well to which no changed were made in the lighting conditions (Gillespie 1988).
The experimenters then reduced the lighting of the test group but this did not have any effect on the increasing productivity of both the groups even when the lighting was made so dim that it was becoming difficult to see (Gillespie 1988). The researchers concluded that the lighting had no significant effect on the performance of the workers and that psychology of the workers was the only factor influencing the result of the research (Zerega 2008).
The main purpose of the experiment was to improve the overall experience of work of the employees to increase the productivity of the workers. The experiment, however, initially failed to do so and was unable to recognize factors that had any impact on the productivity of the workers.
The conclusion made by the experimenters, that there was a psychological factor involved in the motivation of the workers, came as a shock in the management thought because prior to this study it was believed economic interest was the only factor responsible for individual motivation.
It was concluded that the reason why the productivity of the workers increased was because these women were given attention for the first time and they were trying to please the experimenters no matter what the working conditions were (Gillespie 1988).
After that a number of studies were conducted to study the behaviour of the workers and to discover how the workers can be motivated so maximise productivity. A number of factors came to the surface while these studies were conducted. The three findings of the Hawthorne studies which I would like to exploit as a manager would be the Mica-Splitting Test group (1928 – 1930), Plant-wide Interview program (1928 – 1931), and Bank Wiring Observation group (1931 – 1932) (Rice 2010).
The Mica-Splitting test group was established after the researchers found that the performance of the workers improved when they were rewarded for their good performance (Rice 2010). The main purpose of this study was to find out whether the pay scale of the workers had any impact on the performance of the workers. The researchers introduced different variables to the work environment while they pay was kept constant.
Researchers discovered that the performance of the workers increased by about 15 per cent (Brannigan and Zwerman 2001). The researchers established that factors other than pay have a significant effect on the performance of the workers and the social conditions played a very important role in the performance of the workers (Brannigan and Zwerman 2001). This study can be used by the management to discover other factors which increase the productivity of the workers without increasing their pay.
The plant-wide interview program was conducted from 1928 to 1931. The Western Electric company wanted to avoid any possible conflict between their members and to achieve this, the personnel director of Western Electric said that “[The management] must really know what the employee thinks…, what are the worker’s satisfactions and aspirations, and…set up management policies that will synchronize with the worker’s viewpoint and compel thereby this cooperation” (Cohen 1990 pp.173).
To achieve this, the researchers conducted plant-wide interviews of the employees to hear the problems of the workers and improve the worker-management relationship (Swanson 2006). The researchers discovered that attention paid to the employees by the supervisors had a positive effect on the work of the employees and increased their productivity (Swanson 2006). By using this technique, the overall productivity of a company can be improved without causing any extra costs to the company.
Another important finding of the Hawthorne experiments that I would like to use as a manager is that ofBank Wiring observation group conducted in 1931-32. Nine men were selected for the bank wiring observation group. They were being paid on the piecework incentive pay system, i.e. they were being paid according to the amount of work that they were doing and it was expected that the productivity of the workers would rise with time (Ornstein and Lunenburg 2008).
Researchers found that the workers, instead of doing their best and trying to increase their productivity, established a group norm accepted by all the workers(Ornstein and Lunenburg 2008). They had established a “standard level of acceptable output” and any worker who produced more was called a “rate-buster” and persons who produced less than the standard output were called “chislers” (Ornstein and Lunenburg 2008 pp.7).
It was also observed that the raqte busters were being threatened by other workers to reduce their output while the chislers were encouraged to increase their productivity(Ornstein and Lunenburg 2008). This kind of trend should not be alloed in the working environment because this hinder the performance and abilities of the workers who are capable of doing better work.
Elton Mayo used the term “pessimistic reverie” to explain the negative state of mind of the workers which decreased their productivity. Mayo believed that it was the job of the managers to educate workers about the importance of their role and to use positive and relative reveries to concentrate on their work (Mayo 1924).
According to Mayo, anything which passed negative vibes was a pessimistic reverie, such as a person who walked awkwardly across machines stretching was actually exhibiting physical fatigue which was intensified by the reveries (Trahair and Zaleznik 2009).
He held the managers responsible for improving the employee’s experience of work and suggested rest breaks to minimize the pessimistic reveries. He was also concerned with the rootlessness of the workers which he called anomie (Whyte and Nocera 2002). Mayo believed that lack of societal norms, i.e. anomie, would lead to isolation which would decrease the motivation of the workers.
Frederick Taylor (1856-1915) was one of the people who applied theories and scientific management to business in order to produce more value for the stakeholder (Farzaneh 2009).
Taylor has written in his book the Principles of Scientific Management, about how the efficiency of the workers can be improved and how management can get rid of the inefficiency of worker by applying scientific principles and laws(Taylor 2008). The findings of Mayo and other researchers are different from the findings of Taylor because the Hawthorne studies proved that factors the economic ones affected the productivity.
These studies proved Taylor wrong and focused more on how the work experience of the employees could be made better instead of just focusing on increased value for the stakeholders by making the employees work more than they can making their work experience negative. The methods of the Hawthorne researchers were also different from those of Taylor. Where Taylor used scientific methods and principles, the Hawthorne researchers studied the psychology of the workers and observed their behavior and what influenced it.
The main contribution of the Hawthorne studies to the history of management thought is that it introduced a whole new dimension to the management techniques and proved that many factors influence the workers not just one as it was previously believed. Another important contribution of the Hawthorne studies is that it revealed that responding to the worries of the workers and paying attentions to their grievance can increase the productivity without any extra expense.
It also helped recognize the environmental conditions affecting the productivity of the workers. All these important factors were not known before these studies, hence it is correct to say that the Hawthorne studies revolutionized the management thought it its own way and introduced new concepts. It also acknowledged the importance of the workers psychology in a company and how it can drastically effect the environment and output.
List of References
Brannigan, A. and Zwerman, W., 2001. The real Hawthornes effect. Society, pp.55-60.
Cohen, L., 1990. Making a new deal: Industrial workers in Chicago. New York: Press Sundicate of the University of Cambridge.
Farzaneh, A., 2009. Management, job satisfactin, and teamwork. Web.
Gale, E.A.M., 2004. The Hawthorne studies—a fable for our times?. Oxford Journal Medicine, pp.439-49.
Gillespie, R., 1988. The Hawthorne experiments and the politics of experimentation. The rise of experimentation in American psychology, pp.114-37.
Mayo, E., 1924. The basis of industrial psychology. Bulletin of the Taylor Society, pp.249-59.
Ornstein, A.C. and Lunenburg, F.C., 2008. Educational administration: concepts and practices. Belmont: Cengage Learning.
Rice, B., 2010. The Hawthorne defect: Persistence of a flawed theory. Web.
Swanson, K., 2006. The success of emplye to management relations at Western Electric Hawthorne plant. Web.
Taylor, F.W., 2008. The principles of scientific management. London: Forgotten Book.
Trahair, R.C.S. and Zaleznik, A., 2009. Elton Mayo: the humanist temper. New Jersey: Transaction Publishers.
Whyte, W.H. and Nocera, J., 2002. The organization man. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
Wren, D. and Bedeian, A., 2009. The evolution of management thought. John Wiley & Sons.
Zerega, Blaise. 2008. Art of knowledge management. InfoWorld, Vol. 20, No. 30, p. 61.