Hawthorne studies

Revision as of 19:48, 9 May 2023

The Hawthorne studies was a program of industrial research run by Western Electric Company it took place over a long period of time between 1924 and 1932, until the early years of the Depression. The experiment involved female workers in their early twenties operating a relay assembly in a room specifically created for the experiment while being observed by a team industrial researchers.^[1].The series of experiments are documented more than 600 pages in great detail. It was published in 1939 by Harvard University Press under the name "Management and the Worker" by F. J. Roethlisberger, and is was considered "the most outstanding study of industrial relations that has been published anywhere, anytime."^[2] The goal of the experiment was for the researchers to determine if certain features of the factory, such as the level of illumination in the factory lamps, affected the productivity of the workers.The most interesting finding was what we might call today "the Hawthorne effect," which refers to the observation that the worker’s productivity increased over time with every variation in the work environment, which is believed to depend on the fact that the subject were aware that they are part of a research and they change how they act.^[3] Although later references contradict that the Hawthorne effect was and advocate that the Hawthorne studies had great impact on a wide range of scientific fields, including sociology, organizational behaviour, human resource management, industrial engineering, and experimental psychology. In Conclusion The Hawthorne Studies were essential because they demonstrated that perceptions of how managers acted were a critical part of motivation and better performance,' Crainer says in a study of humane approaches to management ^[4].

Big Idea

The Hawthorne studies began in 1924 when Bell Telephone Western Electric decided to learn how various factors, such as lighting conditions, could influence the efficiency and productivity of their workers. From 1924 to 1933, a series of longitudinal studies were conducted, spanning several months to several years. In total, six studies were carried out,the illumination experiment (1924-1927),the relay assembly group experiment (1927-1933), the mica slitting test experiment (1928-1930), the interview program(1929-1930) and the bank wiring room experiment (1931-1932). The Hawthorne investigations uncovered concepts relating to worker engagement, social norms, motivational factors, job satisfaction, resistance to change, and successful leadership.^[5] Almost a century after they were conducted, they are still considered ground-breaking studies methodological innovations in human factors, management studies, and sociology ^[6]

The Illumination and Relay Assebly Test

The first experiment was conducted by personnel managers over a three-year period (1924–1927) to explore how lighting conditions affected the productivity of the employees and reduce accidents and eyestrain. However, the researchers were unable to find any consistent correlation between lighting levels and worker output. Even when the lighting conditions were radically different, the girls continued to increase their productivity. Researchers understand that the answer was not as simple as they had expected; they hadn’t taken into account the psychological and sociological aspects of the experiment, which posed a significant problem with the results. Consequently, the experiment was terminated, and their focus shifted from a study of illumination to a study of physical factors that caused fatigue and monotony.^[7]

The Relay Assembly Test Room

In Order to further investigate productivity further Western Electric consulted Elton Mayo and his team in Harvard for the next research phase. To better control working condition in the Relay assembly test room, five female workers where isolated from the main shop floor. This research phase lasted from 1927 to 1932, during this period thirteen experimental treatments were implemented, involving variations in the number and duration of rest breaks, the length of workdays, and the length of workweeks. Also the girls were given instructions not to “hurry” and “ work at a natural pace” and the work environment was “friendlier” than the rest of the organization.^[8] Impressively as work condition relaxed, production rate rose steadily and the efficiency increased. When workers had to return to the previous work conditions, their productivity only slightly decreased even thought it was 30 % higher than their original numbers. In addition absenteeism decreased significantly compared to its initial levels.In addition, absenteeism dropped to a third of the original absenteeism. This suggests that workers were present at work more often and less likely to be absent. Althougth,once again the data that were gathered were inconclusive and could support the initial hypothesis about relief from fatigue and monotony. ^[9]

Two derivative studies (1928–1929)

Successively, two derivative studies were conducted to understand the cause of the increase in productivity in the relay assembly test room. In order to explore how the social dynamics between groups influence their productivity, researchers split workers again into two groups.The first group was put on the shop floor without isolating the grouped workers from the rest. Productivity increased by 12% and leveled off after a period of time. The second group was placed in a separate room away from the main floor. Productivity spiked again to 15% in the early phase. Nonetheless, the investigators realized that external factors, such as rumors of job transfers, had played a more significant role in the results than the location of the groups. In conclusion, the experiment revealed that wage incentives had a greater effect on productivity, but it didn’t completely explain it because it is so intertwined with other variables.^[10]

Mica splitting tests (1928-1930)

The Mica splitting experiment a group of workers were asked to perform once again a repetitive task of slitting mica (type of mineral) into thin sheets while they were observed under different lighting conditions and with different rest periods, and their productivity levels were measured. The studies were designed to explore the impact of social factors on employee productivity and motivation. The difference between the assembly relay test and the mica was that while the relay assembly test demonstrated strong evidence for social exchange and group cohesion among the operators, the mica splitting test failed to do so.^[11] The mica workers did not show any improvement in attendance or work performance, indicating a difference in their attitude towards attendance. Secondly, there was no evidence of increased social activity outside of work or engagement in social events, as seen in the Relay Assembly Room. Thirdly, the mica workers did not converse during work hours and there was no willingness among the mica workers to help each other, nor was there a designated leader to keep them accountable for their work. Finally, the mica splitters didn't pace each other, unlike the relay assembly room, indicating that they the individuals at the mica splitting experiment remained “individuals” and failed to develop social group. In comparison the relay assembly tests were an exceptional paradigm of the social exchanges, solidarity, reciprocity or cohesion. In conclusion, when we compare these two experiments the power of social factors in the workplace is clearly demonstrated. The relay assembly test revealed the power of social exchange and group cohesion in enhancing productivity, while the mica splitting test failed to do so. The different interests, attitudes and perspectives between the operators in the mica splitting test, in combination with the individual piece-rate pay system, may have contributed to the lack of group performance effects. That was I significant contribution to the understanding of human behaviour in organizations and laid the foundation for modern organizational behaviour research^[12] .

The interviewing and supervisory training programme

The management and investigators were amazed at the workers immense potential if they were provided with proper working conditions. However, they were unsure about the specific factors that constituted in such conditions. The goal of the interviewing program was to collect data about employees’ feelings about their work and about their supervision. Which would eventually be used to train supervisors to effectively motivate and support employees to perform at their optimal level while at work. In September 1928, Mayo and his team from Harvard collaborated with the Hawthorne team and began interviewing about 1600 employees following a standard semi-structured interview that was focused on key research questions. The problem was that the employees would not answer honestly and tried to guess what was expected of them to answer. After the first failed attempt, Mayo suggested using an indirect approach. Over the next two years, Wester Electric invested thousands of dollars to interview all 40.000 employees. With the new recommended methodology, the employees could talk to their interviewers without interruptions, express their observations, and voice their opinions. Interviewers made a number of interesting findings. Complaints were considered potential symptoms to investigate further to ensure that any issues were properly understood and addressed. Also, some interviews appeared to have a cathartic effect on some of the workers even if their problems weren’t resolved, which indicates that asking workers for their opinion had great motivational value. Furthermore, in the years that followed, the interview program brought substantive changes in the work environment, contributed to the training of managers, and gave an extra motive for further research. The key to the success of the interview was the transparency and anonymity of the research. The employees were free to express themselves without consequences, which ultimately led to better conclusions. Moreover, it was very beneficial that the employees during that period developed informal relationships with their co-workers in order to maintain a common purpose and work value. In conclusion, the program demonstrated how interviewing can help individuals associate better with fellow workers and supervisors, increasing collaboration with management. ^[13]

The bank wiring observation room study

After the interesting outcomes of the interview program the researchers wanted to investigate the dynamics of social groups withing the company. The bank wiring Tests was conducted between 1931-1932, they included 14 male workers :9 wiremen, 3 soldermen and 2 inspectors. During the experiment the worker weren’t given any special reward or external motivation to increase productivity, their individual outcome was influenced only by the general productivity of the group. Over time the group started to develop a special dynamic and exhibited hostile behavior toward anyone that would perform notably different than the groups standard outcome, as they were regarded a threat to the group. This way the group considered protecting their interests from the management’s agenda.^[14]

Conclusions

The original Hawthorne studies were elaborately documented, and it is an honest reporting of research ^[15] .In the years following the original publication, the conclusions of the fist illumination tests were given the name “the Hawthorne Effect”. Some critics argued to be the only valid result that derived from the Hawthorne studies, as it supposed to contain methodological shortcomings and lacked originality. The “Hawthorne Effect” referred to phenomenon, when the subjects of a study are aware that they are part of an experiment they tend to perform better and give extra attention as a result, in another angle the “Hawthorne Effect” suggests that being part o a research make people feel important and consequently improve their performance ^[16]. After 1978, when Franke and Kaul re-examined the original data from the “Relay Assembly Test Room”, and conducted a statistical analysis it became obvious the interdependence of work patterns in small groups.^[17] In 21st century many theories and explanations have emerged to explain the increase of productivity in Hawthorne studies,some of them are goal setting, learning, behavioral management, and changing of the various workers but is was the work of Wren and Bedeian in 2018 that argued that there is the trust developed between the participants as the time passes that pushes the member of the system to behave differently and change their productivity levels.^[18].

The Hawthorne studies changed forever the organisational culture and the management practice, it proved for the first time that employees productivity and effectiveness don’t depend solely on financial motives it brought to light ideas concerning motivational influences, job satisfaction, resistance to change, group norms, worker participation, and effective leadership. Also after the criticism over the decades led to the development od better research methodologies for studying complex social situations^[19].

CONCEPTUAL CONTRIBUTIONS ^[20]

The general conclusions which the researchers distilled from these six phases of investigation were:

1. Individual work behaviour is rarely a pure consequence of simple cause and effect relationships, but rather is determined by a complex set of factors.
2. The informal or primary work group develops its own set of norms which mediates between the needs of the individuals and the work setting.
3. The social structure of these informal groups is maintained through job-related symbols of prestige and power.
4. Supervisors need to listen to the personal context of employee complaints to understand the unique needs and satisfactions of each individual.
5. Awareness of employee sentiments and employee participation can reduce resistance to change .

Applications and the "Hawthorne effect"

Providing guidance on the utilization of the Hawthorne studies poses a significant challenge since it cannot be categorized as tool, concept or theory. Rather, a series of historical experiments and research that influenced both those who participated in them and subsequent scholars. As a result, it is difficult to directly link any theory to the Hawthorne studies themselves. Later in time, many theories were used to explain some of the phenomena that were observed in factory, for example The social exchange theory (SET) by Homans, which the most prominent theories in the organizational behavior literature. Yaron J. Zoller and Jeff Muldoon in their paper try to connect the development of the Theory with the Hawthorne studies ^[21]. Nevertheless, a term that derived from the Hawthorn studies is the “Hawthorne effect” that first appeared in a chapter of “Research methods in the behavioral sciences” from French in 1953. This term emerged from the observations of the illumination tests in the first phase of the studies. It is referred to the notion that people change their behavior when they know they are being observed, but the way French refers to the term is the impact of ‘artificial’ or ‘special’ aspects of the situation created for the experiment. In the span of 60 years (1953-2003) the term Hawthorne Effect has been used in 227 book and papers according to Mecca Chiesa and Sandy Hobbs and in many different fields of studies such as Research Methods, organizational psychology and sociology, educational and developmental psychology. According to the context in the different references would slightly alter the meaning of term. Nowadays the scientific community tent to use the term Hawthorn Effect as a phenomenon that might occur and should be either be avoided or be used as an advantage. ^[22]

Limitations and critisism

Since the original publication of the Hawthorne studies in 1939, many scholars have undertaken efforts to re-evaluate, interpret, and expand upon the findings of the Hawthorne experiment using various theoretical perspectives. Notably, there have been methodological criticisms directed at the studies, mainly focused on the Relay Assembly Test Room. These criticisms support that the sample size used in the study was insufficient, that the controls implemented were inadequate, that modifications were made to the original plan, and that a number of subjects were replaced during the study. Although the Hawthorne studies have faced some methodological criticisms, most of these criticisms target the Relay Assembly Test Room^[23].Subsequently, Crainer, S. & Dearlove, argued whether 'the Hawthorne Effect', that was a subproduct theory of the Illumination studies and the Relay assembly Room can be supported or not. Carey (1967) said that although the Hawthorne effect was a big discovery, not enough people have reanalyzed the studies, especially given the evidence that higher wages didn't necessarily lead to higher productivity. Additionally, the experiments were cut short because the subjects' employment ended in 1932, when the company's profits fell by 80% due to the stock market crash. Perhaps the greatest limitation of the Hawthorne studies was the lack of surviving data. Until 2009 it was believed that the original files were destroyed. Instead, they were found in the archive of Cornell University. Renewed analysis of the data showed more inconsistencies^[24].

Anotated bibliography

1.The Hawthorne legacy A reassessment of the impact of the Hawthorne studies on management scholarship, 1930-1958

This paper seeks to analyze the contribution that the Hawthorne studies made to the discipline of management. The recent scholarly trend has been to attack the Hawthorne studies on the grounds of methodology and originality. However, the only way to accurately view the Hawthorne studies is to recreate the intellectual environment in which the studies were conducted.

Refrences

1. ↑ https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0038026118755603
2. ↑ https://www.tandfonline.com/action/showCitFormats?doi=10.1080/01443410500341080
3. ↑ https://www.researchgate.net/publication/248141672_The_real_Hawthorne_effect
4. ↑ https://www.researchgate.net/publication/359520551_Applications_of_Management_Theories_by_Principals_to_Peaceful_School_Administration
5. ↑ The Hawthorne studies and their relevance to HCI research https://doi.org/10.1145/2674966
6. ↑ https://doi.org/10.1108/JMH-05-2018-0026
7. ↑ https://doi.org/10.1177/0038026118755603
8. ↑ https://www.jstor.org/stable/3000246
9. ↑ The Hawthorne studies and their relevance to HCI research https://doi.org/10.1145/2674966
10. ↑ The Hawthorne studies and their relevance to HCI research https://doi.org/10.1145/2674966
11. ↑ Mayo, Elton: The Fruitful Legacy of an Intellectual Explorer https://link.springer.com/referenceworkentry/10.1007/978-3-030-38324-4_17#Sec3
12. ↑ Illuminating the principles of social exchange theory with Hawthorne studies https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/JMH-05-2018-0026/full/html
13. ↑ Mayo, Elton: The Fruitful Legacy of an Intellectual Explorer https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-38324-4_17
14. ↑ Illuminating the principles of social exchange theory with Hawthorne studies https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/JMH-05-2018-0026/full/html
15. ↑ DOI: 10.1145/2674966)
16. ↑ DOI 10.1080/01443410500341080
17. ↑ https://www.jstor.org/stable/2095625
18. ↑ https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0038026118755603
19. ↑ https://doi.org/10.1145/2674966
20. ↑ Shedding Light on the Hawthorne Studies https://www.jstor.org/stable/3000246
21. ↑ 10.1108/JMH-05-2018-0026
22. ↑ Making sense of social research: How useful is the Hawthorne Effect? https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/ejsp.401
23. ↑ https://www.jstor.org/stable/3000246
24. ↑ Shedding Light on the Hawthorne Studies https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119111931.ch47