Hawthorne studies

Revision as of 22:38, 6 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]

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 Hawthorne investigations uncovered concepts relating to worker engagement, social norms, motivational factors, job satisfaction, resistance to change, and successful leadership.^[4] Almost a century after they were conducted, they are still considered ground-breaking studies methodological innovations in human factors, management studies, and sociology ^[5]

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.^[6]

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.^[7] 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. ^[8]

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.^[9]

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.^[10] 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.^[11]

The interviewing and supervisory training programme

• Mayo and his team worked on a new question research protocol and started interviewing 1600 employees.
• Employees belived the questions did not address their issues and felt leading.
• Mayo decide an indirect approach, trained the interviewers to use a scientific inquiry process.

^[12]

The bank wiring observation room study

It was a study that emerged from the interview programme and it was created in order to explore the interaction between the various groups within the company

Conclusions

Hawthorne effect

what is hawthorne effect how can manager use the hawthorne effect to motivate their team.

Applications of Hawthorne effect

The Legacy Of The Hawthorne Studies

• Hawthorne studies are perhaps more recognized for their methodological problems and their flawed arguments rather than for their significant findings.
• On the one hand, it has been argued

that this experiment, interpreted by Australian-born psychologist Elton Mayo (1880– 1949) in cooperation with colleagues at Harvard Business School, built the scientific foundation of personnel management and the Human Relations School.^[13] The Hawthorne Studies were the single most important investigation of the human dimensions of industrial relations in the early 20th century.^[14]

• Motivational theory

Limitations

Annotated bibliography

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. ↑ The Hawthorne studies and their relevance to HCI research https://doi.org/10.1145/2674966
5. ↑ https://doi.org/10.1108/JMH-05-2018-0026
6. ↑ https://doi.org/10.1177/0038026118755603
7. ↑ https://www.jstor.org/stable/3000246
8. ↑ The Hawthorne studies and their relevance to HCI research https://doi.org/10.1145/2674966
9. ↑ The Hawthorne studies and their relevance to HCI research https://doi.org/10.1145/2674966
10. ↑ Mayo, Elton: The Fruitful Legacy of an Intellectual Explorer https://link.springer.com/referenceworkentry/10.1007/978-3-030-38324-4_17#Sec3
11. ↑ 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
12. ↑ Mayo, Elton: The Fruitful Legacy of an Intellectual Explorer https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-38324-4_17
13. ↑ https://doi.org/10.1177/0038026118755603
14. ↑ DOI:10.1007/s12115-001-1041-6