Amid the crushing realities of the Great Depression, the study used empirical research to build a compelling case that a happy worker makes for a hard worker, and in turn for a more successful organization. But 80 years ago, the idea that workers were purely rational beings motivated solely by money dominated in business schools and corner offices across America. If not for a famous study known as the Hawthorne Experiments — and the two men at Harvard Business School who led them — workers might still be seen as cogs in the machine. A sense of accomplishment, pride in an organization, and the rare week off for the holidays (as most Harvard employees can attest) go a long way toward making workers more productive. 1925Mayo and Roethlisberger’s methodology shifted when they discovered that, rather than answering directed questions, employees expressed themselves more candidly if encouraged to speak openly in what was known as nondirected interviewing. “The interview is now defined as a conversation in which the employee is encouraged to express himself freely upon any topic of his own choosing.”8
This concept emerged from a series of experiments conducted at the Hawthorne Works factory in Cicero, Illinois, during the 1920s, aimed at understanding how different working conditions influenced productivity. Initially, researchers, led by Elton Mayo, examined factors like lighting to assess their impact on worker output. Surprisingly, productivity increased even when lighting was dimmed, suggesting that the mere act of being observed was a significant factor. The Hawthorne effect is named after the Hawthorne Experiments that were carried out between 1924 and 1932 in the Hawthorne Works in Cicero of the Western Electric Company. Originally developed to study how environmental factors, including light, influenced workers’ outputs, the experiments gradually shifted toward analyzing the more general and psychological factors that might influence workers. The research found out that when the workers felt that somebody was monitoring them and noticed them, known as the Hawthorne effect, their productivity increased.
The Relevance of the Hawthorne Studies for Computer Science Research
At one point, however, the lighting was decreased and productivity still increased. When the experiments ceased altogether, productivity went back to its earlier norms. It began to occur to at least some of the researchers that perhaps it was not the physical changes that affected productivity, but the fact that the researchers were paying attention to the workers; this attention prompted them to work harder.
- Therefore, workplace lighting is more than just a matter of comfort; it is a crucial factor in productivity.
- By gaining a deeper understanding of yourself and those around you, you’ll not only improve your personal performance but also positively impact the overall work atmosphere.
- From 1927 to 1932, Mayo and his colleagues conducted experiments on job redesign, length of workday and workweek, length of break times, and incentive plans.
- The experiments remain a telling case study of researchers and subsequent scholars who interpret the data through the lens of their own times and particular biases.12
Time Perspective Theory
The principles that emerged through the classical period continue to be relevant to contemporary management by addressing issues of social and psychological satisfaction, which are crucial for a positive work environment. Hawthorne research, socioeconomic experiments conducted by Elton Mayo in 1927 among employees of the Hawthorne Works factory of the Western Electric Company in Cicero, Illinois. During the first phase of the experiment, lighting levels were systematically adjusted in three different manufacturing departments, with various groups of workers. The researchers expected that lower light levels would reduce employee productivity.
The cliques served to control group members and to manage bosses; when bosses asked questions, clique members gave the same responses, even if they were untrue. These results show that workers were more responsive to the social force of their peer groups than to the control and incentives of management. Managers are to be aware of the criticism evolved through years on such a study before adopting it. In my opinion, the Hawthorne effect is a validated theory and could be applied within the organisation, though care is to be taken and a limit is to be set. The use of team groups is acceptable as it creates a caring factor between workers and competitively amongst other teams.
Elton Mayo’s Hawthorne Experiment
The Hawthorne effect occurs when a group of people being studied change their activities or performance because they know they are under observation, even if they do not know what aspect of their behavior is being examined. The term comes from a series of experiments conducted in the 1920s at the Hawthorne Works, a Western Electric factory in Cicero, Illinois, that centered on ways to increase productivity in the workplace. Henry A. Landsberger coined the phrase Hawthorne effect in 1950 as he examined the results of the 1920s studies. During interviews, it was discovered that workers’ behaviour was being influenced by group behaviour. However, this conclusion was not very satisfactory and, therefore, researchers decided to conduct another series of experiments. As such, the detailed study of a shop situation was started to find out the behaviour of workers in small groups.
On the fifth experiments conditions for experiment three were repeated but this time a free hot meal was given by the company and output wen up again.at the sixth experiment, workers were dismissed at 4.30p.m. This phase aimed at knowing not only the impact of illumination on production but also other factors like length of the working day, rest hours, and other physical conditions. These girls were friendly to each other and were asked to work in a very informal atmosphere under the supervision of a researcher. Productivity and morale increased considerably during the period of the experiment.
Researchers realized that in the Relay Assembly Test Room, workers in a smaller group could more directly affect their group-based compensation, compared with 200 assembly workers in the main shop. A new relay group with a small-group-output incentive plan was arranged on the shop floor, but without being isolated from the other workers. Productivity quickly increased by 12 percent but leveled off for the duration of the study. In the next research phase, five workers assembled magnetic relays, working in isolation from the main shop.
Mayo’s thought was that legitimate elements were less significant than passionate variables in deciding usefulness effectiveness. Besides, of the relative multitude of human variables impacting representative conduct, the the experiment hewthrone experiment was conducted by most remarkable were those exuding from the specialist’s investment in gatherings. Accordingly, Mayo inferred that work courses of action as well as meeting the true necessities of creation must simultaneously fulfill the worker’s emotional prerequisite of social fulfillment at his workplace.
Bank wiring room experiments
In Mayo’s broad view, the industrial revolution had shattered strong ties to the workplace and community experienced by workers in the skilled trades of the 19th century. The social cohesion holding democracy together, he wrote, was predicated on these collective relationships, and employees’ belief in a sense of common purpose and value of their work. Under Mayo and Roethlisberger’s direction, the Hawthorne experiments began to incorporate extensive interviewing. The researchers hoped to glean details (such as home life or relationship with a spouse or parent) that might play a role in employees’ attitudes towards work and interactions with supervisors. From 1928 to 1930 Mayo and Roethlisberger oversaw the process of conducting more than 21,000 interviews and worked closely training researchers in interviewing practices. Employees had physical as well as social needs, and the company gradually developed a program of human relations including employee counseling and improved supervision with an emphasis on the individual workers.
At the same time if we praise a person in the presence of many others he will get motivated and further try himself to do better. I have witnessed this phenomenon many times during my career.Another point the author touched is the ambience. When we provide a comfortable chair to a lady instead of a stool when she is doing some electronic component’s assembly, the output will be much better and in addition to that, the quality of the product will also improve. When we provide necessary gadgets to a workperson the output will enhance to a great extent. This has been proved beyond doubt in many instances.Monetary incentives will have a lot of impact on the working class as their income will be less and they will try to get as much as possible for the time that is spent in the workplace.
Lighting was the first (and of all of the elements that changed, perhaps the most important) to be studied. One group was given more light to work in as opposed to a control group, whose lighting conditions remained typical for the plant. Further changes in the physical working area also resulted in improved productivity.
After additional study and consideration, the first two factors were rejected and further tests were conducted in an attempt to verify the effects of incentives and working conditions. Finally, researchers realized worker attitudes within the group were influential as was the more personal atmosphere of the test room. They concluded factors such as lighting, hours of work, rest periods, bonus incentives, and supervision affected workers, but the attitudes of the employees experiencing the factors were of greater significance. Almost as significant during the relay assembly tests was the introduction of a team of academics from the Harvard Business School into the experiments. J. Roethlisberger, this new group of researchers would have an enormous impact on the Hawthorne studies and the future of human relations in the workplace.
Findings May Not Be Accurate
- I would also recommend Jeffrey Sonnenfeld’s detailed analysis of the studies and their influence , as well as the online resources at the Harvard Business School .
- At the beginning of the 20th century, companies were using scientific approaches to improve worker productivity.
- The Hawthorne Effect stands as one of the most fascinating phenomena in the realm of personnel management.
- But an impressive team of industrial specialists and academics was not able to find any consistent correlation between lighting levels and worker output.
It is also possible that the illumination experiments can be explained by a longitudinal learning effect. Parsons has declined to analyse the illumination experiments, on the grounds that they have not been properly published and so he cannot get at details, whereas he had extensive personal communication with Roethlisberger and Dickson. The Hawthorne effect is a type of human behavior reactivity in which individuals modify an aspect of their behavior in response to their awareness of being observed.
Models of Organizational Behavior
In the end, the study demonstrated that social and psychological influences did more to increase output than did changes in wages and hours. This reversed the assumptions long held by managers who believed that economic issues were at the heart of employee motivation. Although the methods of Mayo’s research have been criticized, the results have led managers and scholars to study the human relations that affect employee motivation. Re-analysing it, they found slight evidence for the Hawthorne effect over the long-run, but in no way as drastic as suggested initially. Despite the absence of evidence for the Hawthorne effect in the original study, List has said that he remains confident that the effect is genuine.