Global Environment Management Hawthorne Studies: An Overview

General Principles

Discuss About The Global Environment Management Hawthorne Studies.

Inspired by the principles of scientific management as denoted by Frederick Winslow Taylor, the Hawthorne Studies were conducted in the year 1924. It was conducted within the Hawthorne plant, which was then functioning under the Western Electric Company in Chicago, by its management, rather than being initiated by any specialized research group, which was also a key factor contributing to the criticisms and debates that the experiments stirred after being published (Hassard, 2012). These experiments began with an investigation to understand and explain the correlation of illumination with productivity. Gradually, the experiments received attention from the scholars in the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) and in the Harvard University between 1927 and 1933 (Wickstrom & Bendix, 2000). Subsequently, a change in the direction of these experiments was observed towards a comprehensive perspective concerning the ‘change impacts of rest pauses’, demanded by the workers and their work hours on their trends of productivity with significant contributions from Elton Mayo, who was at the time a new recruit to the Harvard University (Gale, 2004). At the time of the experimentation, the company possessed a prominent industrial standing, with its reputation in maintaining parallel welfare capitalism to the productivity trends observed within its workforce, thereby making it one of the most innovative and leading manufacturer within the industry. This certainly drove the company towards its development of a singular pattern of cultural inheritance with augmented level of sustainability and productivity (Hassard, 2012).

These changes are often attributed as the Hawthorne effect, whereby a vibrant and apparent change is witnessed in the normal behavior of the subjects, i.e. within the workers of the Western Electric Company, with complete awareness of their productive trends and behavior within the workplace. To the scholars specifically, understanding the Hawthorne effect is perceived as crucial, owing to its ability to influence or rather to contaminate the environmental components being studied. It has been drawn specifically on the intentions of many traditional as well as modern ethnographers, who are concerned with the impacts of this phenomenon when the nature and the behavior of the research subjects change with their consciousness of being observed. In other words, the Hawthorne effect manipulates the natural setting, in which the data needs to be obtained to substantiate the research findings rationally. Irrespective of its significance in this context, a precise definition explaining the Hawthorne effect is lacking within the literary context, which is therefore accepted as a general phenomenon “where participants in an experimental study alter their behavior or performance because they are aware that they are being observed” (Oswald, Sherratt & Smith, 2014, pp. 55).

The Illumination Studies

The fundamental principles drawn by the results of the Hawthorne experiments implied that the workers’ behavior is largely affected by the presence of different small informal social groups formed within the workplace. These groups play a significant role in nonverbally and gradually determining the behavioral norms, trends as well as the employees' attitudes and their overall productivity by affecting the informal power grid within the workplace (Landy & Conte, 2010). The Hawthorne effect also advocates that people are socio-psychological beings and therefore, forming and getting involved in social groups is too crucial for them to gain a social perspective. Management, in this regard, plays a crucial role to determine employee satisfaction and motivate the workers towards enhanced productivity in alignment with the organizational goals to success. It is in this context that, supervisors and the management decision-makers of the organization need to put efforts to understand the individual problems within the social groups, which in turn defines the concept of interpersonal relationships and its significance within an organizational environment (Clegg & Bailey, 2007).

The significance of Hawthorne experiments is also visible with the introduction and justification of using a two-way communication procedure, emphasizing its benefits to secure the cooperation and coordination between the workers in alignment with the objectives of the management and the organization on the whole that in turn poses its impacts on the decision-making process. The theory thus assumes that workers offer a greater degree of productive output within organizational environments enriched with the opportunity for the workers to express their opinions, feelings and grievances without the fear of being rebuked or underestimated (Landy & Conte, 2010). When relating this assumption with the Maslow’s need hierarchy, it can be denoted to satisfy the psychological need of the employees to be treated with respect by their peers and simultaneously, suffices their social needs of recognition.

It is thus that leadership practices within the organization and the pressures experienced by the workers to deliver a higher degree of productivity in a consistent manner impose significant impacts on the overall rate of employee satisfaction as well as their performance. This also represents the dynamics of a democratic authoritative style of management that is believed as conducive to employee satisfaction resulting in higher productivity. However, considering the modern organizational frameworks, conflicts within the workers as well as between the management and the employees have evolved as a common phenomenon, which may arise due to a variety of reasons (Landy & Conte, 2010). At varied instances, it is the due to the maladjustments between the individuals and the organization that conflicts rise , thereby increasing the risks of bad or uncooperative behavior from the workers along with their poor performances as a depiction of their dissatisfaction. The theory also denotes employees as the individuals lacking the ability of pure rational decision making, as the workers need both materialistic rewards and intrinsic motivations to boost their performances as well as productivity levels in a consistent manner (Clegg & Bailey, 2007). Irrespective of these contributions, the Hawthorne effects have been widely criticized by the scholars specifically because of its methodological flaws.

Methodological Flaws

 Hawthorne experiments were performed through a series of experiments, the illumination studies being the first. It was initiated between 1924 and 1927, with the primary objective to examine the impacts of varying light illuminations on workers’ overall productivity. The methodology applied for the experiment comprised a series of observational sessions for the test groups, including the workers of the manufacturing organisation. In each of these sessions, the illumination levels were changed by holding the other conditions within the workplace as constant. The research samples were accordingly divided into two groups, i.e. test groups and the control groups. On observing the productivity rates of both these worker groups, insignificant or negligible differences were noted by Mayo, with regards to the workers’ ability to raise their level of productivity (Ebrary.net, 2018).

The experiment was conducted at multiple levels and within differing illumination settings, whereby the final experiment of this series revealed that the overall rate of productive output by the workers declined in correlation with the lowering level of same, which was termed as ‘moonlight intensity’ by Mayo. However, the experiment was concluded by stating that a positive linear correlation was not observable between workers’ productive efficacy and the levels of illumination, controversially stating that the experimental results lacked adequate reliability even when lacking a direct and simple cause-effect relationship. The researchers further concluded that the workers are quite likely to depict different workplace behavioural traits on being aware that they are being closely observed and studied as compared to when they work without being monitored (Anteby & Khurana, no date).

The test or the experimental group, as denoted by the researchers in Hawthorne, created for the purpose of this experiment were exposed to experimental changes. The other group noted as the control group, was included in the experiment by progressing under the continuous illumination intensities. Through a close observation, the experimental results stressed that when the level of illumination increased within the test group, an increased level of productivity was observed within both the test and control groups. Even when the illumination level is lowered, the production levels in both the groups continued increasing, which implied that illumination did not have a direct impact in their performances but their uniform changes in productivity were the impacts of other workplace components (Levitt & List, 2011). 

The conclusions therefore drew in connection to this experiment, which were affected by the predominant perceptions of the then scenario that human factor was crucial to the level of productivity, but failed to justify the specific factors that might, in turn, affect this relationship. In addition, the experiment covered three departments, involving only women workers, which also makes the experiment gender bias with limited applicability within the wider context. Influence of the weather conditions, even though the additional lighting was suspended during the summer, cannot be ignored in this context. Scholars have not only criticised but also hailed the conclusions drawn from the illumination experiments as one of the most ground-breaking and extensive social-science experiments of that era. Nonetheless, from a critical perspective, the experimental design lacks strength in terms of methodological relevance and objectivity, thereby offering ambiguous mixed results (Levitt & List, 2011). 

Critiques

The obstacles witnessed during the illumination experiments and the methodological flaws observed by the researchers themselves led to the need for further experiments in the series to identify the exact factors affecting the productivity levels of the workers within the manufacturing industry. It was thus that the next experiment executed by Mayo and the management group in Hawthorne emphasised the productive levels of workers. This time, the workers were categorised into groups, taking into consideration the extensive range of variables existing within the different working conditions (Schlaifer, 1980). The influencing variables or the determinant factors taken into consideration for the next experiment, i.e. the relay room experiments, included humidity in the workplace, the temperature inside, work schedule followed in the setting, the amount and contents of food they consumed and their pattern of rest breaks. The Relay Assembly Test Room comprised five women, who carefully recorded ‘the prediction variables’ as well as ‘the outputs’. The time taken by each of these research subjects to assemble a forty-part telephone relay was measured. In conclusion to these experiments, it was discovered that the predictor variables and the degree of industrial efficiency was vague to be able to conclude if they are correlated. The results obtained, therefore, challenged the preconceived notions of the researchers asserting that employee sentiments and their attitude within the workplace are critical in terms of their productivity levels (Schlaifer, 1980).

Emphasising the methodological processes used for conducting the experiment, the objectives underlying the study aimed to examine the change impacts of the various job conditions, under which the workers are asked to perform. The intention was therefore to test the determinants of group productivity within the workplace environment. In this experiment process, a relay assembly test room was set up by the researchers, as against the method used for the illumination experiment, including two principal participants, both of whom were females. Arguably, the gender-based division of workers in the study of organisational behaviour might be treated with lesser significance in the current era. However, during the late 1920s, employment opportunities for women were quite limited as compared to the men in the society, which in turn, affected the internal validity of the experiment as well as its industrial applicability to a substantial extent (Martin & Siebert, 2016).

In addition, these primary respondents were further asked to make decisions and select other girls as co-workers to perform telephone relays. Each of these relays included quite a few parts, which the girls required to assemble into finished products. Their productivity levels also were determined by the frequency and the continuity of the relays conducted, which was periodically introduced with sequential changes in every four to twelve weeks. Although an observer was involved in the process of supervising the girls during the experiment, it fails to diminish the possibilities of biases embedded into the methodological approach used for these studies. Notably, prior to the implementation of each change, due consultation was performed with the girls, which sufficed the needed ethical considerations. However, it simultaneously made the respondents aware of the continuous observation to be practiced on them throughout the experimental process, which probed them to change their natural behaviour by a significant extent. However, as they were allowed to reveal their opinions and concerns related to the workplace environment, a close observation was possible to examine the changes in their attitude and degree of satisfaction (Greenwood, Bolton & Greenwood, 1983).

Conclusion

The bank wiring experiments comprised the next series of an experiment, which was conducted by Mayo in the course of the Hawthorne studies. This followed the conclusions of the mass interviewing programmed conducted in the series. The objective of the bank wiring experiments was focused on conducting critical examinations and interpretations of the effects of relatively smaller groups of individuals on the workers’ overall level of productivity. In this particular experiment, the researchers focused on the inclusion of 14 male workers, shifting their focus from the study of female workers in the organisation. These 14 workers formed a small work-group and were involved in the terminal bank's assembly using the telephone exchanges. These individuals were bestowed with the work responsibility to attach the wire with the switches as were built in telephone exchanges. Unlike the past experiments, the researchers also offered due significance to the determination of the material as well as the intrinsic benefits that would motivate the employees to perform better and yield greater productivity (Franke & Kaul, 1978).

Correspondingly, hourly wage rates were determined for each worker based on the then running average output. When observing this small group of male workers, the researchers were of the view that workers having a higher rate of productivity are quite likely to impose a positive impact on workers having a comparatively lower rate of productivity. This would, in turn, increase their accumulated output for the company, simultaneously rendering them with the advantages of the group incentive plan. However, the researchers failed to observe any significant change to their productivity trends or outcomes before and after their inclusion in the experiment, as the workers in coordination created their personalised standards for productivity that would, in turn, align with their convenience rather than depicting alignment with the organisational goals. The results thus obtained through this experiment indicated that the workers are motivated in a workplace by social recognition as they are motivated by the satisfaction they gain as a result of their economic needs fulfilment (Olson, Verley, Santos, & Salas, 2004).

Conclusions

Since the publication of the Hawthorne studies, it has been criticised by many scholars around the world for its methodological faults and incomprehensiveness. Although it was obstructed by multiple gaps and biases in the methodologies applied, it undoubtedly paved the way for the evolution of numerous management theories that have shaped the idea of modern organisational behaviour and its dynamics today. Nonetheless, it was limited by the socio-demographic and economic factors of the era that suggests interactions between the internal organizational and the external business environment. In the then era, workers in the manufacturing industry were defined as symbolic to the machinery employed in the organisation, and hence, were believed to be transacted easily. It also meant that production from the workers can be increased, which made them prone to stressful work life and subjected to their prolonged working hours, in addition to insufficient wages to sustain a healthy and satisfactory life as well as detrimental working conditions as their welfare needs were overlooked by the management. When compared to the researches conducted today and their sophisticated use of methodological strategies to obtain the most reliable, valid and comprehensive data, the Hawthorne studies apparently fell short but if viewed from a time-based perspective, its contributions to scientific management theories become undeniable.

References

Arguably, even though the contributions from the Hawthorne effect can be regarded as an ideal to the understanding of organizational management, there are apparent methodological flaws those have attracted rigorous criticisms to the study over the past ages. At the scholarly level, the studies fall short of validity, as per the standards of controlled environment based experiments, as the workers were aware of their situation of being observed, which in turn could have allowed them to intentionally or unintentionally manipulate the research outcomes. The conclusions drawn from these experiments also provided more than necessary significance to the human aspects even though it is not the only factor determining workers’ productivity.

References

Anteby, M., & Khurana, R., no date, A New Vision, Harvard Business School, viewed 27 May 2018, < https://www.library.hbs.edu/hc/hawthorne/anewvision.html#e>

Clegg, S., & Bailey, J. R., 2007, International Encyclopedia of Organization Studies, Sydney: SAGE Publications.

Ebrary.net, 2018, Hawthorne Studies, Organizational Behavior, viewed 27 May 2018, <https://ebrary.net/2915/management/hawthorne_studies>

Franke, R. H., & Kaul, J. D., 1978, ‘The Hawthorne experiments: First statistical interpretation’, American sociological review, pp. 623-643.

Gale, E.A., 2004, ‘The Hawthorne studies—a fable for our times?’, Qjm, vol. 97, no. 7, pp. 439-449.

Greenwood, R. G., Bolton, A. A., & Greenwood, R. A., 1983, ‘Hawthorne a half century later: relay assembly participants remember’, Journal of Management, vol. 9, no. 2, pp. 217-231.

Hassard, J. S., 2012, ‘Rethinking the Hawthorne Studies: The Western Electric research in its social, political and historical context.’ Human Relations, vol. 65, no. 11, pp. 1431-1461.

Landy, F. J. & Conte, J. M., 2010, Work in the 21st Century: An Introduction to Industrial and Organizational Psychology, New York: John Wiley & Sons.

Levitt, S. D. & List, J. A., 2011, ‘Was there really a Hawthorne effect at the Hawthorne plant? An analysis of the original illumination experiments’, American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, vol. 3, no. 1, pp. 224-38.

Olson, R., Verley, J., Santos, L., & Salas, C., 2004, ‘What we teach students about the Hawthorne studies: A review of content within a sample of introductory IO and OB textbooks’, The Industrial-Organizational Psychologist, vol. 41, no. 3, pp. 23-39.

Oswald, D., Sherratt, F., & Smith, S., 2014, ‘Handling the Hawthorne effect: The challenges surrounding a participant observe’, Review of social studies, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 53-73.

Schlaifer, R., 1980, ‘The relay assembly test room: An alternative statistical interpretation’, American Sociological Review, vol. 45, no. 6, pp. 995-1005.

Siebert, S. & Martin, G., 2016, Managing people and organizations in changing contexts. New York: Routledge.

Wickström, G. & Bendix, T., 2000, ‘The Hawthorne effect — What did the original Hawthorne studies actually show?’, Scandinavian journal of work, environment & health, pp.363-367.