The Hawthorne effect in management

Revision as of 21:06, 9 May 2023

Abstract

An important part of successful project management is about emotional intelligence and soft skills, such as motivating and communicating. It requires skills in human relations.

The Hawthorne effect refers to the tendency of people to alter their behaviours in response to being aware that they are being observed. It is named after a study of worker productivity at the Hawthorne Electrical Works near Chicago in the late 1920s. The original idea was to test how changes in the work environment, such as lightning, working hours and rest breaks affected the productivity. However, based on the observations, the researchers concluded that the workers' productivity was not affected by the changes in working conditions, but rather by the awareness that someone was observing them.

This article will briefly present the history of the phenomena and the original studies it deprive from, explain the theory behind it and why it is relevant within project management, propose an application as well as reflect upon the limitations and challenges around the subject.

Can an intentionally application of the Hawthorne effect within a team lead to greater productivity among the team members, and thus increase the probability of a successful project?

Big idea

The "Hawthorne effect"

The “Hawthorn effect” is a phenomenon used to explain any change in behaviour related to an awareness of being observed, graded, or measured. In other words, it is the tendency for people to alter their behaviour when they know that they are being observed ^[1]. The term is named after a study of worker productivity, that was conducted at the Hawthorne Works, a large plant of the Western Electric Company outside of Chicago, from 1924 to 1933. The original idea was to test how changes in the work environment, such as lightning, working hours and rest breaks affected the productivity. However, based on the observations, the researchers concluded that the workers' productivity was not affected by the changes in working conditions, but rather by the awareness that someone was observing them.

Since then, the phenomenon has permeated the fields of research, economics, psychology, sociology and not to mention industrial organization and management. Due to a lack of original data, the concept been met with a lot of criticism, but supporters of the original studies argue that the research was intended to “generate, not verify, hypotheses” ^[2]. It is considered to be the single most important investigation of the human dimensions of industrial relations in the early 20th century and has thus come to represent a major historical event in the development of social science ^[3].

Although the studies are almost a hundred years old, they continue to impact leadership and organizational schools of thought today. No other theory or set of experiments has contributed more to a change in management thinking, nor led to more research and controversy than the Hawthorne studies ^[4].

The History of the Hawthorne Studies

The Hawthorne studies refers to a total of six studies, conducted from 1924 to 1933 at the Hawthorne Plant, an electric factory, outside of Chicago ^[5]. The earliest of the studies, and also the most frequently mentioned to back up the studies, are known as the “illumination experiments”.

The illumination experiments were jointly conducted by the Nation Research Council (NRC), Committee on Industrial Lightning (CIL) and Charles Snow, a researcher from MIT (REF Vannan 2021). The original idea was to examine how various amounts of lightning in the workplace affected productivity, and test claims that brighter lightning increased productivity. However, the results were not as expected, showing that the productivity in fact increased for all. The variation of lightning, both natural sunlight and artificial, had no effect proven. These findings led the researchers to the conclusion that the changes observed in the workers’ performance were not a result of changes in the work environment, but rather the awareness that they were being observed – what became known as the “Hawthorne effect”.

In the years to come, to help interpret the results of the studies, the Industrial Research Division at the Hawthorne plant consulted several external experts, including the charismatic figure, Elton Mayo of the Harvard Business School (Ref: Turner). Mayo encouraged management at the plant to further investigate the various factors affecting the worker’s productivity, such as shorter work hours, easier tasks, higher cage incentives, longer rest periods and friendlier and more flexible supervision ^[6]. He found that the workers were more responsive to social factors, such as their manager and coworkers, than the lightning in their work environment. This led to a redefinition of the research purpose, moving from a study of illumination, to a study of the physical factors causing fatigue and monotony ^[7].

Under the supervision of Elton Mayo, five more studies were conducted at the Hawthorne plant – The Relay Assembly Test Room (1927–1932, Two derivative studies (1928–1929), The Interview program (1928–1930) and The Bank Wiring Observation Room (1931–1932) – with results consistent with the ones from the illumination experiments. No matter how, or in what combination the factors varied, the worker’s productivity increased ^[8]. This led Mayo and his team to the conclusion that the workers were prompted to increase their performance and work harder due solely to the attention they were receiving from the researchers – confirming the “Hawthorne effect”, that behaviour can be altered by a subject’s awareness of participating in an experiment ^[9].

Application

The Hawthorne effect in Project Management

The Importance of People Skills as a Project Manager

Motivation

Limitations

Conclusion

Annotated Bibliography

ISO 21500 ISO 21500, Guidance on Project Management, is an international standard for project management. The standard is the result of 31 countries’ ISO (International Standards Organization) boards’ common understanding of project management. ISO 21500 represents a common language used to talk about projects. It provides guidance on concepts and processes of project management that are important for, and have impact on, the performance of projects. Furthermore, it represents a generic framework that can be used by any type of organization, including public, private or community organizations, and for any type of project, irrespective of complexity, size or duration (Danish Standards Association, 2021).

DS HandBook The DS Handbook is written as the companion to the ISO 21500:2012 Standard, Guidance on project management. It provides a Nordic interpretation to the ISO 21500, and thus propose a management which centers on empowering practitioners to develop their own practices in collaboration with others. The overall intention of the book is to provide the reader with the foundation to transform the well-known processes suggested in the ISO 21500 standards into contextualized actions, together with others, to achieve a meaningful purpose.

Was There a Hawthorne Effect? An article describing how the evidence for a Hawthorne effect has been tested, by examining the quantitative data on individual output levels collected over five years during the original Hawthorne studies. Contrary to the conventional wisdom in much research and teaching, he found essentially no evidence of Hawthorne effects, either unconditionally or with allowance for direct effects of the experimental variables themselves.

The “Hawthorne effect” is a myth, but what keeps the story going? This article demonstrates that the Hawthorne studies does not pass a methodological quality test. Even though methodological shortcomings were waived, there is no proof of a Hawthorne effect in the original data.

References

1. ↑ Elston, D. M. (2021). The Hawthorne effect. Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology, 1–2. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaad.2021.01.085
2. ↑ Vannan, K. (2021). History of the Hawthorne Effect. The Encyclopedia of Research Methods in Criminology and Criminal Justice: Volume II: Parts 5-8, I, 264–248. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119111931.ch47
3. ↑ Turner, C. (1939). The Real " Hawthorne Effect " Augustine Brannigan and William Zwerman. 55–60.
4. ↑ Kompier, M. A. J. (2006). The “Hawthorne effect” is a myth, but what keeps the story going? Scandinavian Journal of Work, Environment and Health, 32(5), 402–412. https://doi.org/10.5271/sjweh.1036
5. ↑ Sedgwick, P., & Greenwood, N. (2015). Understanding the hawthorne effect. BMJ (Online), 351(September), 1–2. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.h4672
6. ↑ (IPMA), T. I. P. M. A. (n.d.). Compentence Baseline. Http://Ipma.World/Certification/Competence/Ipma-Competence-Baseline/. Brenner, D. A. (2007). Achieving a successful project by motivating the project team. Cost Engineering (Morgantown, West Virginia), 49(5), 16–20. Danish Standards Association. (2021). Project, programme and portfolio management - Context and concepts. DS/ISO 21500:2021. Elston, D. M. (2021). The Hawthorne effect. Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology, 1–2. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaad.2021.01.085 Gale, E. A. M. (2004). The Hawthorne studies - A fable for our times? QJM - Monthly Journal of the Association of Physicians, 97(7), 439–449. https://doi.org/10.1093/qjmed/hch070 Jones, S. R. G. (1992). Was There a Hawthorne Effect ? Author ( s ): Stephen R . G . Jones Published by : The University of Chicago Press Stable URL : http://www.jstor.org/stable/2781455 Accessed : 11-04-2016 14 : 11 UTC Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of. 98(3), 451–468. Kompier, M. A. J. (2006). The “Hawthorne effect” is a myth, but what keeps the story going? Scandinavian Journal of Work, Environment and Health, 32(5), 402–412. https://doi.org/10.5271/sjweh.1036 Kumaran, M. (2012). 2 - Managers and leaders. In M. Kumaran (Ed.), Leadership in Libraries (pp. 45–75). Chandos Publishing. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-1-84334-658-6.50002-4 MacCoby, M. (2010). The 4 Rs of motivation. Research Technology Management, 53(4), 60–61. https://doi.org/10.1080/08956308.2010.11657641 Merrett, F. (2006). Reflections on the Hawthorne effect. Educational Psychology, 26(1), 143–146. https://doi.org/10.1080/01443410500341080 Peterson, T. M. (2007). Motivation: how to increase project team performance. Paper Presented at PMI® Global Congress 2007. Sonnenfeld, J. A. (1985). Shedding Light on the Hawthorne Studies. Journal of Occupational Behaviour, 6, 111–130. Tohidi, H., & Jabbari, M. M. (2012). Role of human aspects in project management. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 31(2011), 837–840. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2011.12.152 Turner, C. (1939). THE REAL " HAWTHORNE EFFECT " Augustine Brannigan a n d William Z w e r m a n. 55–60. Vannan, K. (2021). History of the Hawthorne Effect. The Encyclopedia of Research Methods in Criminology and Criminal Justice: Volume II: Parts 5-8, I, 264–248. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119111931.ch47 Wickström, G., & Bendix, T. (2000). The " Hawthorne effect " — what did the original Hawthorne studies actually show ? Institute of Occupational Health , the Danish National Research Centre for the Working Environment , and the Norwegian National Institute of Occupational Health Stable URL. The Scandinavian Journal of Work, Environment & Health, the Finnish Institute of Occupational Health, the Danish National Research Centre for the Working Environment, and the Norwegian National Institute of Occupational Health, 26(4), 363–367. https://www.jstor.org/stable/40967074
7. ↑ Sonnenfeld, J. A. (1985). Shedding Light on the Hawthorne Studies. Journal of Occupational Behaviour, 6, 111–130.
8. ↑ Melorose, J., Perroy, R., & Careas, S. (2015). Was There Really a Hawthorne Effect At the Hawthorne Plant? an Analysis of the Original Illumination Experiments. Statewide Agricultural Land Use Baseline 2015, 1(January), 224–238.
9. ↑ Jones, S. R. G. (1992). Was There a Hawthorne Effect ? Author ( s ): Stephen R . G . Jones Published by : The University of Chicago Press Stable URL : http://www.jstor.org/stable/2781455 Accessed : 11-04-2016 14 : 11 UTC Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of. 98(3), 451–468.