Organisation Of The Research Report: The Hawthorne Studies

The Illumination Experiments

The experiments conducted by Taylor were aimed at increasing production through rationalization (Merret, 2007).Elton Mayo and his disciples wanted to have production increased by individuals through experiments that were behaviorally oriented leading to the name Hawthorne experiments. It is thus imperative to note that without exposure to the research regarding organizational behavior, it would remain incomplete without including the work by Hawthorne experiments.

It is in November of 1924 that a team of professors with research background from the famous Harvard University particularly the Harvard Business school began to launch an investigation into the human dimensions of work and working conditions at Hawthorne plant. The company was involved with the production of bells and other electric gadgets for telephone industry. The research team had prominent professors on board such as Elton Mayo a psychologist and Whilehead, a sociologist. The team immersed itself in conducting four distinctive experiments and behavioral studies. The illumination studies were to reveal the effect that illumination had on the productivity of workers. The relay experiments, on the other hand, acknowledged the impact of changing the number of working hours and the workplace conditions on employee’s productivity (Levitt & A, 2011). The bank wiring experiments strived to expound on the social system within an organization

People like to command attention from other people too. The illumination experiment demonstrated this fact where paying attention to people was strategic in yielding positive impact. In the most recent studies, it is evident paying attention by giving feedback is more powerful.It is also apparent from the experiments that people desire to have maximum control over their life in the workplace environments. For instance, the women in the Relay assembly experiments organized their work better and cooperated with each other without the supervisor leading to increased production.

The Hawthorne experiments began as one experiment that was based on Taylor’s management theories where workers were perceived as rational economic agents. However, the tests eliminated that paradigm and developed a new bunch of ideas and research on social factors, rewards, and motivation that are still being studied.

Based on Hawthorne experiments a good number of things can be drawn from them. One that is clear is that work is a social function. Even though most of the literature that preceded the work of Hawthorne identified work as an economic function, the experiments asserted that friendships, social norms, and culture were essential variables worth studying. The working conditions among employees seems more critical for instance environmental elements such as lighting.

Groups have been identified as multipliers. For instance, in the relay experiments, it is the harmonious group work that led to increased productivity. However, in other settings such as the bank wiring experiments, norms in the workplace led to decreased production. Thus, groups affect how well employees work.

The illumination experiments were an extension and continuity of Elton Mayo earlier experiments on illumination conducted in the textile industry in between 1923 and 1924. At the onset of the experiment in 1924, a series of studies that entailed test groups were done where illumination levels were varied though the conditions remained relatively constant. The primary motive was to evaluate the relationship between the quality and quantity of illumination with regards to the workers’ efficiency.

Relay Room Experiments

The illumination experiments were conducted to determine how different levels of illumination, that is, the amount of light in the workplace as one of the physical factors that impacted productivity. The primary hypothesis was that higher illumination could facilitate increased productivity (Chand, 2013). Based on the first batch of experiments, a group of employees were chosen and categorized into two distinct groups. One group that was used as a control experiment was placed in different intensities of illumination.

Due to that fact, the group that was exposed to experimental changes was identified as the experimental group. Also, another group referred to as the control group continued to conduct its activities under what would be termed as constant intensities of illumination. It is through such experiments that researchers found that with the increased illumination in the experimented cohort, there was evidence of increased productivity for both groups (Bornmann, 2012). The production as per the experimental group declined only when the illumination was decreased to a certain level. However, it was ironical to find out that with decreased intensity of illumination, there was increased production for both the groups.

An important observation was made with regards to the experimental group as production only decreased when the illumination intensity decreased to the magnitude of moonlight. The decrease was attributed to light falling beyond the acceptable normal level.

Thus, it was asserted that illumination did not have any impact on productivity and its something else that altered the productivity of employees. Looking at the time frame when the experiments were conducted, it was evident that the human factor was crucial in determining productivity, but the aspect that was responsible was hard to determine. The lack of a clear connection that could show a positive linear correlation between illumination and workers’ efficiency made the results spurious in the absence of direct causal and effect associations. However, one of the solid facts that were revealed during the series of experiments was that workers behave differently when they realize that they are subjects under study and scrutiny than they would otherwise behave. It is from such experiments and behavior that the name Hawthorne effect was developed.

Thus, another series of experiments had to be undertaken to determine what was responsible for influencing and affecting workplace productivity.

The design of the relay room experiments was to outline the effect of variations in different work conditions on the productivity of a group due to the failure of the illumination experiments to establish a connection between illumination intensity and productivity. It is for this purpose that a group of researchers established a relay assembly set of experiments where two girls were selected.

The two girls were tasked with selecting two other girls to act as co-workers. The work done here was about the assembly of telephone relays. The protocol was that for each relay, it consisted of numerous parts that were to be assembled into finished products by the girls. The experiments began by introducing a series of changes in turn with duration associated with each change that varied between four to twelve weeks.

An observer was to observe and supervise the work conducted by the girls. The girls were consulted before any changes were made. The girls were also given a chance to express their views and perceptions to the supervisor. In other contexts, they were allowed to make decisions regarding matters touching their affairs.

The incentive system was altered so that it the extra pay for each girl relied on the five girls as opposed to the large group. Based on this observation.it was noted that productivity increased compared to the past. Also, breaks got introduced, and they ran for two to five minutes, one in the morning and the other in the evening and were increased for ten minutes. Based on such breaks, it was noted that productivity again increased.

When the rest periods were reduced to five minutes but offered frequently, it was observed that productivity decreased and the girls began complaining that the frequent rest intervals were affecting the pace of doing their work. Also, the introduction of two rest periods of ten minutes each where in the morning either coffee or soup was served along with a sandwich and in the evening, there were snacks provided led to increased productivity.

The introduction of changes in the working hours and weekends was imperative more so the reduction of working hours and making Saturday a rest day (Chand, 2013). The girls were allowed to work until 4.30 pm where they could leave as opposed to 5:00 pm and this was reduced to 4:00 pm and it was reported that productivity increased.

With the introduction of each change, there was decreased absenteeism and increased staff morale leading to minimal supervision. It was asserted that such positive factors arose due to some factors being adjusted making them more suitable. It is at that time that the researchers chose to get back to the original version of no rest and other benefits. Ironically, productivity continued to increase as opposed to going down.

The developments in this experiment led to a series of redirection in thinking, and the outcome implied that the increased productivity was not only because of the positive changes in physical elements but also due to change of attitudes by the girls towards their work and their cohort. The girls had developed a feeling of stability and shared responsibility and self-seeking discipline. Also, the relationship between the supervisor and the girls was friendlier and comforting.

The experiments in this context were conducted with the aim of expounding the impact of small groups on people. The experiment entailed fourteen men who were workers and represented a small workgroup. The men were tasked with assembling terminal banks that were to be used in telephone exchanges.

The task here entailed connecting wires to the switches for particular equipment used in telephone exchanges. The wage was per hour and was fixed based on the average output produced by each worker (Muldoon, 2017). Some bonuses were also paid based on the efforts made by the group.

The expectation from the groups was that workers considered to be highly efficient would put much pressure on the less efficient employees as they aimed to increase their output and benefit from the group incentive plan. However, the strategy failed to work and made workers establish their measures of production, and this was implemented through the various mechanisms of social pressure.

The workers gave the reasons for displaying such behaviors due to coerce from being unemployed and the notion here is that if the output produced per worker were more compared to others, then some of the workers would be laid off. The fear of improving the standards emanated from the simple fact once that standards were reached; the management would go further and raise the standard associated with production which would not be easy to achieve. The desire to shield slow workers meant that workers were friends in their workplace. The fact that they had family-related responsibilities intended that they would protect their workmates at all costs. Since employees that were slow were easy to be retrenched, the fast workers played a protection role by not overproducing.

The hypothesis that dominated here is that for workers to earn more money, workers would be stimulated to produce more to take advantage of the bonus attached to group work. Thus, they would help each other so that they could produce more. However, such a hypothesis was not validated. Contrary, the employees decided to set a target for themselves which was lower compared to the company’s target.

Based on Hawthorne experiments, it was clear that a man at work was motivated through the satisfaction of economic needs. Thus, the management should identify individuals as social beings and not economic entities. Being social beings, they are members of a particular group, and it is thus the role of management to understand the attitudes associated with a particular group together with its psychology.

However, though Hawthorne experiments played a role in ushering in new practices in management by showing the importance of social factors in output, there are numerous research methodological weaknesses. There have been many criticisms originating from behavioral scientists who claim that the experiments lacked objectivity needed in arriving at conclusions. Some critics are of the opinion and view that there was bias on the part of Harvard researcher.

Critics have raised concerns regarding the theoretical logic of the conclusions that were drawn from research involving human relations. Also, such studies had a clinical bias since they relied on discounted theory and focused on radical empiricism that was stressed. Most of the conclusions are not backed by substantial scientific evidence since they are entirely built on clinical insight as opposed to the controlled experiments. Absurdly, some of the experimental groups involved school children, psychology from college classes and a bunch of soldiers.

The following arguments postulate the myopic nature of the human relations. There is a lack of adequate emphasis on work for instance; human relations put all focus on relations that are interpersonal and informal groups. There is a tendency to exaggerate the psychological aspects at the expense of structural and technical components (Merret, 2007). Human relations have been associated with neglecting the economic focus of work satisfaction. However, economic motivation seems to exclude and alienate the very economic explanations necessary for understanding the behavior of human beings. People are said to do and behave the way they do because they are rational beings as opposed to social and psychological motives.

A very salient point with regards to research on human relations pertains to the operations of employees and reveals the myopic nature of the research findings. Such findings may be regarded as being irrelevant in explaining behavior based on the context of management at levels. In a nutshell, it is only fair and logical to assert that management behaviors should not be outlined in a skeleton manner relying on operative studies. Just like the classical theory where the classical doctrine suffered the fate of being of being incomplete, the experiment is myopic and lacks integration among other factors involving human behavior.

The neo-classists have time and again been criticized for having the attention that is single-minded regarding the concept of morale on the happiness of employees. Studies such as those conducted by Hawthorne indicate that happy workers tend to be more productive in their workplace (Chand, 2013). The idea and questions revolving around happiness and job satisfaction is irrelevant and only displays an inherent and simplistic nature of man. The past and present studies have failed to demonstrate a consistent relationship between happiness and productivity. Thus, it is likely to have many happy employees yet unproductive.

Most the human rationalist of the post-Hawthorne perceived participation as a lubricant that was instrumental in reducing resistance to formal power and would thus ensure support from workers in achieving organizational goals. The problems here is the fact that there is only one emphasis on the part of participation as opposed to the outcome. Based on the recent studies conducted it is apparent that employees feel equally important when they are treated right, and they always want to be appropriately utilized.

Human relationists expressed their concerns and have criticized the ongoing preference of superiority of group discussion to individual decision. Based on the research findings on the supremacy of group decision, the decision is both conflicting and inconclusive. The whole notion of decision making associated with a group can be termed as mystical (Bornmann, 2012). Though the personality tied to a particular group may be deemed more significant compared to the sum of its members, this does not mean that individual members cannot have a fruitful life without an identity and an attachment to a group. The repercussion here is that analysis regarding conscious intellectual traits and emotional dimensions of a man should be nurtured and given space for creative thought.

The human rationalist failed to identify conflict as a creative force that lurks in the society. They held the belief that conflict is severe and had to be minimized at all costs. Much emphasis was laid on attaining peace and cooperation. Thus, they were busy trying to promote cohesion with the aim of curbing conflict and encourage harmony. However, as it appeared later that perfect organizational health does not always guarantee freedom. A life that has no conflicts is one that is meaningless and intolerable. Conflict exists and if it handled adequately can lead to adjustments that are more effective and appropriate.

Conclusion

The Hawthorne experiments shed new light on understanding human behavior making them be regarded as the most fundamental investigations in the field of social science and are thus regarded as the foundation blocks of organizational behavior. Managers are thus advised to understand what the studies entailed before adopting them as they had many criticisms. The use of groups is acceptable as it develops a uniting bond amongst workers as it encourages healthy competition among different groups involved. Supervisors, on the other hand, have to maintain a professional relationship with the staff and adhere to set standards. Group meetings are to be allowed so that workers can share their opinions and contribute ideas which will make them feel important in an organization.

Irrespective of the management structure adopted by an organization, it is essential to conduct regular reviews to ensure that there are a stable output and good quality. Such a technique will go a long way in ensuring that the evolution of management continues and successful organization keeps operating efficiently.

References

Bornmann, L., 2012. The Hawthorne effect in journal peer review. Scientometrics, 91(3), pp. 120-124.

Chand, S., 2013. 4 Phases of Hawthorne Experiments – Discussed! | Business Management. [Online]
Available at: https://www.yourarticlelibrary.com/management/4-phases-of-hawthorne-experiments-discussed-business-management/27888
[Accessed 15 September 2018].

Levitt, S. D. & A, J. L., 2011. Was There Really a Hawthorne Effect at the Hawthorne Plant?An Analysis of the Original Illumination Experiments. American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, 3(1), pp. 224-238.

Merret, F., 2007. Reflections on the Hawthorne Effect. Educational Psychology, 26(1), pp. 143-146.

Muldoon, J., 2017. The Hawthorne studies: an analysis of critical perspectives, 1936-1958. Journal of Management History, 23(1), pp. 74-94.