importance of hawthorne experiment in management

Overview of the Hawthorne Effect

The field of organizational behavior is built on a foundation of research and studies that aim to understand the complexities of human behavior within the workplace. One of the most influential studies in this field is the Hawthorne Studies, conducted at the Western Electric Hawthorne Works in Chicago between 1924 and 1932.

Led by a team of researchers from Harvard Business School , these studies revolutionized the understanding of human behavior in a work setting and continue to shape organizational behavior research today.

The Hawthorne Effect, named after the studies that uncovered it, refers to the phenomenon where individuals modify their behavior simply because they are being observed.

• 1 The Context of the Hawthorne Studies
• 2 The Initial Experiments and Findings
• 3 The Significance of the Hawthorne Studies
• 4 The Legacy of the Hawthorne Effect in Organizational Behavior
• 5.1.1 Benefits and Impact
• 5.1.2 Limitations

The Context of the Hawthorne Studies

The Hawthorne Studies were conducted by a team of researchers from Harvard Business School, including Elton Mayo, Fritz Roethlisberger, and William J. Dickson. Elton Mayo , considered the father of the Hawthorne Studies, played a crucial role in shaping the research and interpreting the findings.

The Hawthorne Studies were originally initiated to examine the relationship between lighting levels and worker productivity. The researchers believed that by increasing lighting levels, they could improve worker efficiency.

However, the results of the initial experiments surprised them. Not only did productivity increase when lighting was increased, but it also increased when lighting was decreased. This unexpected finding prompted further investigations into the psychological and social factors that influence worker motivation and performance.

The Initial Experiments and Findings

The initial experiments of the Hawthorne Studies focused on the relationship between lighting levels and worker productivity. The researchers divided the workers into two groups and manipulated the lighting conditions for each group. Surprisingly, both groups showed increased productivity regardless of whether the lighting was increased or decreased. This phenomenon became known as the “Hawthorne Effect” and led the researchers to delve deeper into the factors that influence worker behavior.

Further experiments were conducted to explore factors such as rest breaks, incentives, and supervisory styles. The researchers found that regardless of the specific changes made, productivity tended to increase. This led to the realization that it was not the specific changes themselves that influenced productivity, but rather the attention given to the workers and the social interactions within the workplace.

The Significance of the Hawthorne Studies

The Hawthorne Studies challenged traditional management theories that focused solely on the technical aspects of work. They demonstrated that the human element within organizations plays a crucial role in productivity and job satisfaction.

The studies highlighted the importance of worker attitudes, group dynamics, and social interactions in influencing employee performance. This shift in perspective paved the way for a greater emphasis on creating supportive and collaborative work environments that prioritize employee well-being and engagement.

The findings of the Hawthorne Studies also led to the development of new management practices. The researchers advocated for a more participative management style that encouraged open communication, employee involvement in decision-making, and a focus on developing positive relationships between managers and workers. These practices aimed to create a sense of belonging and foster a positive work culture, ultimately leading to improved performance and job satisfaction.

The Legacy of the Hawthorne Effect in Organizational Behavior

The Hawthorne Studies have left a lasting legacy in the field of organizational behavior. They shifted the focus from a purely technical approach to a more holistic understanding of employee behavior.

The studies highlighted the importance of considering the human element within organizations and recognizing the impact of social interactions and group dynamics on productivity and job satisfaction.

The Hawthorne Studies also paved the way for further research in the field, inspiring subsequent studies that explored topics such as leadership styles, employee motivation, and organizational culture .

Criticisms of the Hawthorne Studies

One criticism is that the studies were c onducted in a specific context – the Hawthorne Works factory – which may limit the generalizability of the findings to other industries or settings.

Some argue that the Hawthorne Effect itself may have influenced the results , as the workers may have changed their behavior due to the awareness of being observed.

Another criticism is that the studies did not take into account external factors that could have influenced productivity, such as changes in technology or market conditions.

And critics argue that the studies focused too heavily on the social and psychological aspects of work , neglecting other important factors that contribute to productivity.

Quick Overview of the Hawthorne Effect

Human Relations Approach : Emphasized the importance of social relations and employee attitudes in the workplace.

Effect of Observation on Behavior : Known as the “Hawthorne Effect,” it suggests that workers modify their behavior in response to being observed.

Increased Productivity : Found that changes in physical work conditions (like lighting) temporarily increased productivity.

Social Factors in Work : Identified the significant role of social groups and norms in the workplace.

Employee Motivation : Highlighted non-economic factors like camaraderie and attention as motivators for workers.

Management Practices : Suggested that more attention to workers’ needs could improve worker satisfaction and productivity.

Benefits and Impact

Humanizes the Workplace : Shifted focus from strict task orientation to considering workers’ social needs and well-being.

Foundation for Modern HR Practices : Influenced the development of employee-centered management and human resource practices.

Importance of Social Dynamics : Emphasized the role of group dynamics, leadership, and communication in work efficiency.

Broader Understanding of Motivation : Contributed to understanding that motivation is not solely driven by pay or working conditions.

Limitations

Methodological Flaws : Critics point out flaws in experimental design, lack of proper controls, and subjective interpretations.

Exaggerated Effects : Some argue that the studies overemphasized the impact of social and psychological factors on productivity.

Overgeneralization : Critics believe that conclusions drawn from the studies were too broad and not universally applicable.

Potential Bias : The presence of researchers may have influenced worker behavior, questioning the validity of the results.

Key Takeaways

• The Hawthorne Studies have had a profound impact on our understanding of human behavior in the workplace.
• These studies revolutionized management theories by highlighting the significance of worker attitudes, group dynamics, and social interactions in influencing productivity and job satisfaction.
• The findings of the studies continue to shape modern-day organizations, emphasizing the value of employee engagement, teamwork, and creating a positive work culture for optimal performance.

What is the Hawthorne Effect?

The Hawthorne Effect refers to the phenomenon where individuals change or improve an aspect of their behavior in response to their awareness of being observed.

How was the Hawthorne Effect identified?

It was identified during the Hawthorne Studies conducted at the Western Electric Hawthorne Works, where changes in work environment led to increased productivity, believed to be due to the workers’ awareness of being observed.

What were the Hawthorne Studies?

The Hawthorne Studies were a series of experiments on worker productivity conducted at the Hawthorne Works of Western Electric Company in Chicago between 1924 and 1932.

Why is the Hawthorne Effect important in research?

In research, the Hawthorne Effect is important because it highlights the need to consider how the presence of researchers or the awareness of being studied can influence participants’ behavior.

Can the Hawthorne Effect affect the outcome of an experiment?

Yes, the Hawthorne Effect can significantly affect the outcome of an experiment as participants might alter their natural behavior due to the awareness of being observed or studied.

Is the Hawthorne Effect only observed in workplace settings?

No, the Hawthorne Effect can occur in various settings, including clinical trials, educational research, and workplace studies, essentially anywhere subjects are aware they are being observed.

How can researchers minimize the Hawthorne Effect?

Researchers can minimize the Hawthorne Effect by using control groups, ensuring anonymity, employing blind or double-blind study designs, and minimizing the intrusion of observation.

Does the Hawthorne Effect have implications for management?

Yes, in management, it suggests that giving attention to employees and making them feel valued can improve productivity and job satisfaction.

What criticisms have been made about the Hawthorne Effect?

Critics argue that the original studies had methodological flaws, and some suggest the effect might be overestimated or not as universal as once thought.

How is the Hawthorne Effect relevant in today’s workplace?

In modern workplaces, understanding the Hawthorne Effect is relevant for designing work environments and management practices that acknowledge the impact of observation and attention on employee behavior and productivity.

About The Author

Geoff Fripp

Related posts, theories of multiple intelligences.

The theory of Multiple Intelligences, introduced by Howard Gardner in 1983, challenges the traditional view of intelligence as a single, general ability.

Find out more...

Goal-setting Theory: Motivation

Motivation Definition: The reason or reasons to act in a particular way. It is what makes us do things and carry out tasks for the organisation.…

Fundamental Attribution Error

The Fundamental Attribution Error often means there are false reason why something happened, we have to look into why something happened, but look at it…

Personality in Organisations

Personality Definition: A personality is a mixture of a person’s characteristics, beliefs and qualities which make them who they are. What is the Definition of Personality?…

• Accountancy
• Business Studies
• Organisational Behaviour
• Human Resource Management
• Entrepreneurship

Hawthrone Experiments: Concept, Implications, and Limitations

What is hawthorne experiments.

The Hawthorne effect is named after the Hawthorne Experiments that were carried out between 1924 and 1932 in the Hawthorne Works in Cicero of the Western Electric Company. Originally developed to study how environmental factors, including light, influenced workers’ outputs, the experiments gradually shifted toward analyzing the more general and psychological factors that might influence workers. The research found out that when the workers felt that somebody was monitoring them and noticed them, known as the Hawthorne effect, their productivity increased. Based on these findings, theorists began stressing social aspects of working environments, employee motivation, and team factors that ultimately moved organizations from the mechanism model of managing to the human relations model. Though several questions have been raised in terms of methods used, the Hawthorne Experiments played an important role in organizational behaviors and management.

Key Takeaways The Hawthorne effect is named after the Hawthorne Experiments that were carried out between 1924 and 1932. The occupational culture, worker interactions, and cooperation, all have an impact on the performance of the workers. From the research, there is a correlation between employee satisfaction and the amount of work given to them as well as the quality of their work. To a large extent, these experiments led to what was referred to as the human relations movement in management. Bradshaw and Roberts explained that human behavior in the workplace is a function of the social environment, as well as the psychological requirement of the worker and the practices employed by the management.

Table of Content

The Hawthorne Experiments: Concept

Implications of the hawthorne experiments, evaluation of the hawthrone experiment, methodological limitations, subsequent critiques and refinements, faqs - hawthrone experiments.

The Hawthorne Experiments showed that worker productivity is not only affected by physical work environment, but also by social and psychological factors although financial incentives were considered critical by workers.

The studies revealed the following points:

1. Social Factors Matter: There is evidence that people feel motivated and more productive when they perceive someone is watching and appreciating their work. Peer pressures, interactions, or group processes have been considered significant determinants of performance.

2. Employee Attention: The attention that supervisors devoted to the work and the appreciation of being a part of a crucial investigation boosted morale and created more output, which came to be known as the Hawthorne Effect.

3. Complex Human Behavior: Organization members’ behavior is not only rational and self-interested but is socially embedded, reflecting the nature of the social relations and psychology of the individual persons with whom they work.

1. Human Relations Movement: These experiments were also very crucial to the movement known as the human relations movement which deems social relationships as essential. In this, management techniques shifted towards concern with the well-being of employees, the exchanging of information, and employee involvement in decisions.

2. Employee Motivation: It also stemmed from the understanding that people are not motivated by money alone, hence creating new motivational theories and approaches. Employees were given factors such as job satisfaction, receive recognition, and get a chance to interact with other people.

3. Workplace Environment: The belief that the social environment is recurring also results in the improvement of the design and management of workplaces. Policies that enhance group activities like team building, group conversations, and work culture improvements gained center stage.

4. Organizational Psychology: The experiments provided the basis for a new area of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, an exploration of scientific means of controlling human performance in workplaces. It encouraged more exploration into the impact that various psychological and social factors evident in the workplace have on productivity and satisfaction.

5. Management Training: It became common to include special seminars and courses on interpersonal skills, leadership, and the significance of developing appropriate relations between people at work for the training programs of managers. They were advised to be more considerate when subordinating the employees and made to change their attitude to become more friendly.

6. Critiques and Refinements: These studies have been criticized too severely on methodological grounds; at least the experiments at any rate led to a finer appreciation of organizational processes. Subsequent investigations remain to develop additional and more precise results derived from Hawthorne Studies which insists on positivist validation in organizational research.

Several issues surround the Hawthorne Experiments; factors include the analysis of what exactly they brought to the theory of management and the drawbacks in the method employed in the experiments. Here’s a balanced view:

Contributions

1. Introduction of the Human Relations Approach: These experiments have thrown down the challenge from an objective approach to work and shifted the attention to subjective and more importantly social and psychological factors in the work environment. It endorsed the need for job satisfaction, communication, and group cooperation in influencing the levels of production.

2. Hawthorne Effect: It explains the concept of defining behavior shifts that occur when people perform a witnessed action; the fact that attention and feedback affect performance.

3. Foundation for Organizational Psychology: It laid down the foundation for the growth of industrial /organizational psychology which in turn led to additional studies on the motivation of employees, the level of satisfaction they have in their workplace, and the social relations within the working environment.

4. Enhanced Management Practices: It influenced more participative management practices and the espousal of concepts such as morale booster organizations that sought the involvement of employees in bettering their working conditions.

1. Lack of Rigorous Experimental Controls: Some scholars have complained about the lack of controls and proper experimental controls which leaves it very tricky to relate changes in productivity to the variables being worked on.

2. Observer Bias: One might argue that the bias could have arisen due to the presence of researchers and the changes made by them during the process. Seligman site points out that workers might have had better productivity because they were being watched and thus they considered themselves important even without actual changes in their working environment.

3. Overgeneralization: Several interpretations of the discovered findings have been deemed too generalized, as the authors rely on the assumption that the effects highlighted under investigation apply to people of all industries and workplaces.

4. Limited Scope: One potential limitation was that all the researched experiments were conducted in a particular organization type – the industrial type, in the specific organization – the Western Electric Company – which may cause some difficulty in generalizing the results to other types and cultural contexts.

1. Replication Issues: Later studies attempting to replicate the Hawthorne Experiments have yielded mixed results, raising questions about the consistency and generalizability of the original findings.

2. Alternative Explanations: Subsequent researchers have proposed alternative explanations for the observed productivity increases, such as improved working conditions, changes in management styles, and economic factors that were not adequately controlled in the original studies.

Overall Evaluation

Despite these methodological limitations, the Hawthorne Experiments are still highly regarded for their pioneering role in shifting the focus of management theory toward human and social factors. They highlighted the complexity of human behavior in organizational settings and the need for a more nuanced approach to managing people at work. The studies sparked a wave of research into workplace behavior, leading to more sophisticated theories and practices that consider both the social and psychological needs of employees. They also underscored the importance of designing work environments and management practices that foster employee well-being, collaboration, and engagement.

The Hawthorne Experiments played a revolutionary role in changing the tactics of management by researching the effect of social and psychological factors on workers’ performance. The Hawthorne Experiments were made with the workers of the Hawthorne’s factory, Western Electric Co., between 1924 and 1932 By these experiments it was found that the performance of the workers increased when they felt observed or appreciated by their management which is known as the Hawthorne effect. Thus, though not without their limitations the experiments precursed the human relations movement that gave paradigmatic importance to the satisfaction of the workers, proper communication, and the dynamics of the groups. The principles that emerged through the classical period continue to be relevant to contemporary management by addressing issues of social and psychological satisfaction, which are crucial for a positive work environment.

What were the Hawthorne Experiments?

The Hawthorne Experiments were a series of studies conducted at the Western Electric Company's Hawthorne Works in Cicero, Illinois, from 1924 to 1932. They aimed to investigate how different conditions affected worker productivity.

Who conducted the Hawthorne Experiments?

The experiments were conducted by the National Research Council and later by researchers from Harvard University, including Elton Mayo and Fritz Roethlisberger.

What was the main objective of the Hawthorne Experiments?

The main objective was to determine the effects of various physical and environmental conditions, such as lighting and break times, on worker productivity.

What is the Hawthorne Effect?

The Hawthorne Effect refers to the phenomenon where individuals change their behavior because they know they are being observed, which was first identified during these experiments.

What were the key phases of the Hawthorne Experiments?

The key phases were: Illumination Studies (1924-1927) Relay Assembly Test Room Studies (1927-1932) Mass Interviewing Program (1928-1930) Bank Wiring Observation Room Study (1931-1932)

Similar Reads

• How to Set Width and Height of Span Element using CSS ? The <span> tag is used to apply styles or scripting to a specific part of text within a larger block of content. The <span> tag is an inline element, you may encounter scenarios where setting its width and height becomes necessary. This article explores various approaches to set the widt 2 min read
• How to make input and select elements to be same width? As a beginner, while working with CSS and HTML, you may have noticed a problem with the form elements like input and select that when the output is opened in the browser, both elements are not having the same width. It would not look properly aligned to the user. In this article, we would be learnin 2 min read
• How to Center an Element in jQuery ? Centering elements in a webpage is a common task for web developers, often involving CSS. However, certain scenarios might require dynamically centering elements using JavaScript or jQuery, especially when dealing with dynamic content sizes or responsive designs. jQuery, a fast, small, and feature-r 3 min read
• How to Maintain the Aspect Ratio of an Element using CSS? Maintaining the aspect ratio of an element ensures that the element retains its width-to-height proportion regardless of screen size or resizing. This is particularly useful for responsive web design, where you need images, videos, and other elements to scale correctly without distortion. There are 3 min read
• How to Resize the Chart and maintainAspectRatio in ChartJS? Responsiveness in a web application is important for providing an optimal user experience across various devices and screen sizes. In Chart.js, the responsive property makes sure that charts adapt to different screen sizes automatically, while the maintainAspectRatio property allows you to control w 3 min read
• How to Get and Set Scroll Position of an Element using JavaScript ? In this article, we will learn how to get and set the scroll position of an HTML element using JavaScript. Approach: We will be using the HTML DOM querySelector() and addEventListener() methods and the HTML DOM innerHTML, scrollTop and scrollLeft properties. We create an HTML div element with an id 3 min read
• How to change font size depending on width of container? There are various ways of putting some text in a container and having some size to fill that container. There are different methods such as using CSS and jQuery which are explained below. Using CSS property (Viewport width): The vw is a CSS property, to create responsive typography in the HTML file. 3 min read
• How to Create a Half Page Background Image with CSS? A half-page background image is an image that covers half of the viewport height. This can be useful for creating visually distinct sections on a webpage, especially for headers or introductory sections. These are the different approaches to creating a half-page background image using CSS: Table of 2 min read
• How to hide elements in responsive layout using CSS ? CSS provides powerful tools to create responsive websites that adapt to different screen sizes and devices. One of the key techniques for creating responsive designs is media queries, introduced in CSS3. Media queries allow you to apply styles based on the characteristics of the device, such as its 3 min read
• How to Create a div that Contains Multiple Fixed-Size Images? Creating a div that contains multiple fixed-size images involves defining a container (div) in HTML and applying CSS to set consistent dimensions for the images. This ensures that all images within the container maintain the same width and height, providing a uniform layout. ApproachHTML Structure: 2 min read
• How to Control Ratios of Flex Items Along the Main Axis in CSS? Flexbox in CSS is a powerful tool for aligning elements in rows or columns. It allows you to easily control the size and distribution of items, making it possible to adjust their relative sizes. For example, you can make one element larger than the others, creating responsive and dynamic layouts wit 3 min read
• How to Transition Height from 0 to Auto using CSS? To transition height from 0 to auto in CSS, apply max-height with a transition effect. Using max-height allows for smooth expansion and collapse, making the element responsive while maintaining the animated effect. Creating Height Transition using max-heightTo create a height transition from 0 to au 3 min read
• How does the CSS Box-sizing Property control the size of HTML Elements ? The box-sizing property in CSS tells us how to figure out the complete width and height of an element. It decides whether to include things like padding and borders in that calculation or not. Syntaxbox-sizing: content-box;box-sizing: inherit;box-sizing: border-box;Table of Content Using content-box 3 min read
• How to make div height expand with its content using CSS ? When designing a webpage, ensuring that a div adjusts its height according to its content is important for creating a flexible and responsive layout. By using CSS, you can easily make a div adapt to varying content sizes, which is particularly useful when dealing with dynamic or unpredictable conten 3 min read
• How to detect the change in DIV's dimension ? The change in a div's dimension can be detected using 2 approaches: Method 1: Checking for changes using the ResizeObserver Interface The ResizeObserver Interface is used to report changes in dimensions of an element. The element to be tracked is first selected using jQuery. A ResizeObserver object 4 min read
• How to Force Image Resize and Keep Aspect Ratio in HTML ? To resize an image in HTML while keeping its aspect ratio, you can use simple HTML or CSS techniques. The problem is to ensure that the image scales without distortion or cropping. This can be fixed by applying simple styles that resize the image while keeping its original proportions. Below are the 2 min read
• Best way to make a d3.js visualization layout responsive D3 stands for Data-Driven Documents. It is an open-source JavaScript library that is used to create interactive data visualizations in the browser using HTML, SVG, and CSS. The huge amount of data is being generated in today's world, which is very difficult to store and analyze. Visual representatio 3 min read
• How to Set a Flex Container to Match the Width of Its Flex Items? Flexbox is a powerful layout model in CSS that simplifies the process of designing responsive layouts. One common scenario is needing the flex container to dynamically adjust its width to match the combined width of its flex items. By default, flex containers expand to fill the available space, but 3 min read
• How to Create a 3-Column Layout Grid with CSS? Grid in CSS is a powerful layout system that allows you to create complex, responsive designs with ease. By defining rows and columns, you can position elements precisely within a grid container. Using grid properties like grid-template-columns, you can create flexible and adaptive layouts, such as 3 min read

Improve your Coding Skills with Practice

What kind of Experience do you want to share?

Module 6: Motivation in the Workplace

The hawthorne effect, learning outcome.

• Explain the role of the Hawthorne effect in management

During the 1920s, a series of studies that marked a change in the direction of motivational and managerial theory was conducted by Elton Mayo on workers at the Hawthorne plant of the Western Electric Company in Illinois. Previous studies, in particular Frederick Taylor’s work, took a “man as machine” view and focused on ways of improving individual performance. Hawthorne, however, set the individual in a social context, arguing that employees’ performance is influenced by work surroundings and coworkers as much as by employee ability and skill. The Hawthorne studies are credited with focusing managerial strategy on the socio-psychological aspects of human behavior in organizations.

The following video from the AT&T archives contains interviews with individuals who participated in these studies. It provides insight into the way the studies were conducted and how they changed employers’ views on worker motivation.

The studies originally looked into the effects of physical conditions on productivity and whether workers were more responsive and worked more efficiently under certain environmental conditions, such as improved lighting. The results were surprising: Mayo found that workers were more responsive to social factors—such as their manager and coworkers—than the factors (lighting, etc.) the researchers set out to investigate. In fact, worker productivity improved when the lights were dimmed again and when everything had been returned to the way it was before the experiment began, productivity at the factory was at its highest level and absenteeism had plummeted.

What happened was Mayo discovered that workers were highly responsive to additional attention from their managers and the feeling that their managers actually cared about and were interested in their work. The studies also found that although financial incentives are important drivers of worker productivity, social factors are equally important.

Practice Question

There were a number of other experiments conducted in the Hawthorne studies, including one in which two women were chosen as test subjects and were then asked to choose four other workers to join the test group. Together, the women worked assembling telephone relays in a separate room over the course of five years (1927–1932). Their output was measured during this time—at first, in secret. It started two weeks before moving the women to an experiment room and continued throughout the study. In the experiment room, they were assigned to a supervisor who discussed changes with them and, at times, used the women’s suggestions. The researchers then spent five years measuring how different variables affected both the group’s and the individuals’ productivity. Some of the variables included giving two five-minute breaks (after a discussion with the group on the best length of time), and then changing to two ten-minute breaks (not the preference of the group).

Changing a variable usually increased productivity, even if the variable was just a change back to the original condition. Researchers concluded that the employees worked harder because they thought they were being monitored individually. Researchers hypothesized that choosing one’s own coworkers, working as a group, being treated as special (as evidenced by working in a separate room), and having a sympathetic supervisor were the real reasons for the productivity increase.

The Hawthorne studies showed that people’s work performance is dependent on social issues and job satisfaction. The studies concluded that tangible motivators such as monetary incentives and good working conditions are generally less important in improving employee productivity than intangible motivators such as meeting individuals’ desire to belong to a group and be included in decision making and work.

Candela Citations

• Boundless Management. Provided by : Boundless. Located at : https://courses.lumenlearning.com/boundless-management/ . License : CC BY-SA: Attribution-ShareAlike
• Revision and adaptation. Authored by : Linda Williams and Lumen Learning. Provided by : Tidewater Community College. Located at : https://courses.lumenlearning.com/wmopen-introductiontobusiness/chapter/introduction-to-the-hawthorne-effect/ . License : CC BY-SA: Attribution-ShareAlike
• AT&T Archives: The Year They Discovered People. Provided by : AT&T Tech Channel. Located at : https://youtu.be/D3pDWt7GntI . License : All Rights Reserved . License Terms : Standard YouTube License
• Hawthorne Works. Provided by : Western Electric Company. Located at : https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Hawthorne_Works_aerial_view_ca_1920_pg_2.jpg . License : Public Domain: No Known Copyright

MBA Knowledge Base

Business • Management • Technology

Home » Management Concepts » Understanding the Significance of Hawthorne Studies to Management

Understanding the Significance of Hawthorne Studies to Management

The Hawthorne experiments were conducted at Western Electric’s Hawthorne plant in Illinois, running from 1924 through 1932. These experiments were intended to examine how people would react to certain conditions such as light, heat, and humidity. These variables were altered and produced both expected and unexpected results. Further trials embarked as Professor George Elton Mayo brought an academic research team into the factory, which were among the most extensive social science studies ever conducted. These investigations have been heavily criticized for merely serving the interest of management. However, these accusations can be argued. The Hawthorne investigations did not only have enormous influence on the ‘human factors’ to management but also on the development of industrial psychology and sociology. Some maintain their opinion that the human relations approach is misinterpreted, leading to major failures.

The Hawthorne studies were initially undertaken to investigate the relationship between physical work conditions and employers productivity. But the experiments represented revolutionary work in the field of management and lead to the creation of the human relations movement. These studies broke the boundaries of the management theory of the time, Taylorism . Scientific management, developed by Frederick W. Taylor , was a concentration exclusively on the physical aspects of work, ignoring the psychological needs and capabilities of the worker. Taylor’s view of management became inadequate due to the findings of the Hawthorne researchers, who revealed that the physical work environment was one of the only many aspects which influence employee productivity. This style of management became known as authoritarian. The human relations school was concerned with the human aspect of work, meaning that interpersonal relations, especially the feelings within working groups were of importance. Group harmony, satisfaction of individual needs, and the care for people were vital. By the individual worker being able to participate and involved in the decision making related positively to the productivity. In other words, this represents a democratic way of leadership . Nonetheless, particular studies also point out that productivity is sometimes positively connected to the authoritarian style. Showing that certain people do prefer to be controlled and directed.

The primary experiment for the Hawthorne studies was to examine the connection between the illumination intensity and employee productivity . It showed that as the lightning improved in the experimental room, production increased. But production also rose in the control room. Followed by a slight amount of light in the experimental room, production was still rising, while there was constant illumination in the control room However, the results by 1927 were so confusing, that Elton Mayo and an academic research team were invited to continue a variety of inquiries on productivity and the motivation of worker.

The next experiment that took place from 1927 to 1933 was the Relay assembly test room. This engaged a small group of female staff taken to work in a Relay assembly room, away from the regular workforce, varying the number and lengths of breaks and working days. The women were cautiously studied and a total of thirteen periods with different rest pauses, hours of work, and breaks for refreshment were conducted. The result of this phase showed that regardless the changes, there was almost no persistent increase in output. This became known as the ‘Hawthorne Effect’. This effect refers to the tendency that people act differently when being observed during a research. The results were influenced by this reaction of the small group of women due to the observation of the researchers. The women were not motivated by the improvements of their working conditions or money, but a reason was that working in a group had increased their output. However, in the group work the productivity rose by 15 percent and management made rest breaks more common. Psychologists were especially interested in this particular study. They found it phenomenal that people’s attitudes changed as they were being watched since it seemed more important than changes to the physical work conditions.

The Interviewing programme took place from 1928 until 1930. In this period of time 21,000 employees were interviewed. Interviewers began through asking highly structured questions on work and its conditions and then about non-related work issues, e.g. on family and social issues. The friendlier, the more interest the supervisors showed in the individual worker, and the less harsh discipline existed, the more increases in productivity and morale became significant. The researchers learned a great deal about the staff’s attitude towards their job. This finding’s reveal that workers actually lacked social support and that placing individuals in groups had a positive effect. A famous psychologist, Rensis Likert , contended that organizations should be managed as a collection of groups, rather than individuals.

The Bank wiring observations room experiments commenced in 1931 until 1932. This test was conducted without any alteration in the working condition. A group of fourteen workers were taken from the production line and observed for six months. Each employee had three different jobs but worked together in order to produce one output. During this time, the group developed its own procedures to defend its own interests. Productivity remained constant and was unaffected by work payments. The group had developed informal rules of behavior and determined what was a fair days payment for a fair day’s work. The worker’s were afraid that if they produced considerably more output, that the daily unit output would be replaced by an increase of expected output. These results show that the social forces were far more important for the worker than the controls and regulations of the organization. Again stressing the meaning for the worker to belong to a group and not be isolated. Communication from the superior to the employee would eliminate such misunderstandings.

The Hawthorne studies did contribute an immense amount to management and served them enormously as we have seen from the various experiments discussed. It was a revolutionary research project at that point of time and discovered a whole new era in the human relations movement. Nevertheless, the Hawthorne reports did affect psychology and sociology. It affected especially the industrial psychology, meaning the observation of specific human behavior. Especially, the ‘Hawthorne effect’ was in the interest of the psychologists and it became one of the best-known psychological results. The effect has been generalized to every kind of psychological study. However, recently the Hawthorne effect has been reanalyzed and considering it to be a myth. There is no solid evidence that the workers in the relay room felt better in response to personal attention by supervisors and the participation in a new programme.

Criticisms always exist with each single new discovery; someone will always have something to declare. It is up to the manager to know how to handle its business. However, it may be true that Mayo’s conclusions of human relations movement cannot always be applied. Some organizations need more direction and a specific structure for their employees. Finding a midpoint with both the Taylorism and Mayonism would be an effective way of leadership .

Further criticisms pronounce that the Hawthorne studies cannot be seen as an accurate research. They insist that there was a ‘lack of adequate control’ in the study. There were rumors that Elton Mayo did not appear, accurately controlled the variables of the experiment, nor noted them down correctly. Supposedly, changes in the number of participants, misinterpretations, and inaccurate history of work circumstances during the study, provided false results. Yet, these factors are minor when considering the real contributions the Hawthorne studies have brought to management and psychology. These are determent’s that exist but not make the study any less valuable to knowledge. Another ideological critique argues that ‘the studies showed a pro-management bias in favor of manipulating the workforce.’ However, the key view of management at that time was Taylorism, which entirely ignored the human element. No matter how many critiques and debates there are about the faults of the Hawthorne studies, the contributions well over take all assumptions. The discovery that physical work conditions were not the prime importance of the worker but also social factors was a break through.

The main conclusions that can be drawn from Elton Mayo’s experiments are it is essential that work is a group activity, the necessity of recognition, need for security, and job satisfaction. Organizations are social systems, not just technical economic systems. It was proven that management requires social skills and not just technical skills. Only giving the employee specific instructions and demands will give the worker the wrong impression. It is necessary to have some contact in order to achieve knowledge of what is going on between the workers. This knowledge can effectively improve the boss’s management skill and through this contact earn the necessary respect. Since, the Hawthorne studies are not methodologically precise, it does not reduce the importance of their findings. They were revolutionary, no one before had noticed that human relations were that important to organizational output. Humans were seen as ‘machines’ until the studies came along. Then the well being of employees became of significant and changed the way managerial style.

In conclusion, it has become evident that there are various approaches to organizational efficiency. The first significant method was scientific management, where the main focus was on the physical aspect of work, also on the individual worker and not group work. Taylor furthermore ignored the importance of other rewards than money, such as achievement and job satisfaction . As the Hawthorne studies were conducted and moved away from Taylorism, which indicated a paradigm shift, redefining the field of management research. It had broken the traditional theory of Taylor and no study had ever had such an impact on management as the Hawthorne investigations. Elton Mayo was known as the main supporter of the human relations movement in management. He stated that in order to motivate people, meaning increase in output and efficiency, the individual worker has to believe that their corporation cares about them, is concerned, and willing to listen. The emotional and social sides were major attributes of organizational behavior . These studies did have an enormous amount of influence on management but also on sociology and psychology. In spite of all criticisms, the Hawthorne studies still contributed a significant amount and redefined management. It also brought one of the most important results to psychology.

Related posts:

• Elton Mayo’s Hawthorne Experiment and It’s Contributions to Management
• 4 Phases of Hawthorne Experiment – Explained
• Analysis of Problems in Management Case Studies
• Leadership vs. Management: Understanding the Differences
• Case Studies on Debt Recovery Management
• Receivable Management – Meaning, Significance and Purpose
• Case Study of Apple iPod: Significance of Strategic Innovation Management within the Business
• Role of Case Studies in Employee Training and Development

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Hawthorne Effect: Definition, How It Works, and How to Avoid It

Ayesh Perera

B.A, MTS, Harvard University

Ayesh Perera, a Harvard graduate, has worked as a researcher in psychology and neuroscience under Dr. Kevin Majeres at Harvard Medical School.

Learn about our Editorial Process

Saul McLeod, PhD

Editor-in-Chief for Simply Psychology

BSc (Hons) Psychology, MRes, PhD, University of Manchester

Saul McLeod, PhD., is a qualified psychology teacher with over 18 years of experience in further and higher education. He has been published in peer-reviewed journals, including the Journal of Clinical Psychology.

Olivia Guy-Evans, MSc

Associate Editor for Simply Psychology

BSc (Hons) Psychology, MSc Psychology of Education

Olivia Guy-Evans is a writer and associate editor for Simply Psychology. She has previously worked in healthcare and educational sectors.

On This Page:

Key Takeaways

• The Hawthorne effect refers to the increase in the performance of individuals who are noticed, watched, and paid attention to by researchers or supervisors.
• In 1958, Henry A. Landsberger coined the term ‘Hawthorne effect’ while evaluating a series of studies at a plant near Chicago, Western Electric’s Hawthorne Works.
• The novelty effect, demand characteristics and feedback on performance may explain what is widely perceived as the Hawthorne effect.
• Although the possible implications of the Hawthorne effect remain relevant in many contexts, recent research findings challenge many of the original conclusions concerning the phenomenon.

The Hawthorne effect refers to a tendency in some individuals to alter their behavior in response to their awareness of being observed (Fox et al., 2007).

This phenomenon implies that when people become aware that they are subjects in an experiment, the attention they receive from the experimenters may cause them to change their conduct.

Hawthorne Studies

The Hawthorne effect is named after a set of studies conducted at Western Electric’s Hawthorne Plant in Cicero during the 1920s. The Scientists included in this research team were Elton Mayo (Psychologist), Roethlisberger and Whilehead (Sociologists), and William Dickson (company representative).

There are 4 separate experiments in Hawthorne Studies:

Illumination Experiments (1924-1927) Relay Assembly Test Room Experiments (1927-1932) Experiments in Interviewing Workers (1928- 1930) Bank Wiring Room Experiments (1931-1932)

The Hawthorne Experiments, conducted at Western Electric’s Hawthorne plant in the 1920s and 30s, fundamentally influenced management theories.

They highlighted the importance of psychological and social factors in workplace productivity, such as employee attention and group dynamics, leading to a more human-centric approach in management practices.

Illumination Experiment

The first and most influential of these studies is known as the “Illumination Experiment”, conducted between 1924 and 1927 (sponsored by the National Research Council).

The company had sought to ascertain whether there was a relationship between productivity and the work environments (e.g., the level of lighting in a factory).

During the first study, a group of workers who made electrical relays experienced several changes in lighting. Their performance was observed in response to the minutest alterations in illumination.

What the original researchers found was that any change in a variable, such as lighting levels, led to an improvement in productivity. This was true even when the change was negative, such as a return to poor lighting.

However, these gains in productivity disappeared when the attention faded (Roethlisberg & Dickson, 1939). The outcome implied that the increase in productivity was merely the result of a motivational effect on the company’s workers (Cox, 2000).

Their awareness of being observed had apparently led them to increase their output. It seemed that increased attention from supervisors could improve job performance.

Hawthorne Experiment by Elton Mayo

Relay assembly test room experiment.

Spurred by these initial findings, a series of experiments were conducted at the plant over the next eight years. From 1928 to 1932, Elton Mayo (1880–1949) and his colleagues began a series of studies examining changes in work structure (e.g., changes in rest periods, length of the working day, and other physical conditions.) in a group of five women.

The results of the Elton Mayo studies reinforced the initial findings of the illumination experiment. Freedman (1981, p. 49) summarizes the results of the next round of experiments as follows:

“Regardless of the conditions, whether there were more or fewer rest periods, longer or shorter workdays…the women worked harder and more efficiently.”

Analysis of the findings by Landsberger (1958) led to the term the Hawthorne effect , which describes the increase in the performance of individuals who are noticed, watched, and paid attention to by researchers or supervisors.

Bank Wiring Observation Room Study

In a separate study conducted between 1927 and 1932, six women working together to assemble telephone relays were observed (Harvard Business School, Historical Collections).

Following the secret measuring of their output for two weeks, the women were moved to a special experiment room. The experiment room, which they would occupy for the rest of the study, had a supervisor who discussed various changes to their work.

The subsequent alterations the women experienced included breaks varied in length and regularity, the provision (and the non-provision) of food, and changes to the length of the workday.

For the most part, changes to these variables (including returns to the original state) were accompanied by an increase in productivity.

The researchers concluded that the women’s awareness of being monitored, as well as the team spirit engendered by the close environment improved their productivity (Mayo, 1945).

Subsequently, a related study was conducted by W. Lloyd Warner and Elton Mayo, anthropologists from Harvard (Henslin, 2008).

They carried out their experiment on 14 men who assembled telephone switching equipment. The men were placed in a room along with a full-time observer who would record all that transpired. The workers were to be paid for their individual productivity.

However, the surprising outcome was a decrease in productivity. The researchers discovered that the men had become suspicious that an increase in productivity would lead the company to lower their base rate or find grounds to fire some of the workers.

Additional observation unveiled the existence of smaller cliques within the main group. Moreover, these cliques seemed to have their own rules for conduct and distinct means to enforce them.

The results of the study seemed to indicate that workers were likely to be influenced more by the social force of their peer groups than the incentives of their superiors.

This outcome was construed not necessarily as challenging the previous findings but as accounting for the potentially stronger social effect of peer groups.

Hawthorne Effect Examples

Managers in the workplace.

The studies discussed above reveal much about the dynamic relationship between productivity and observation.

On the one hand, letting employees know that they are being observed may engender a sense of accountability. Such accountability may, in turn, improve performance.

However, if employees perceive ulterior motives behind the observation, a different set of outcomes may ensue. If, for instance, employees reason that their increased productivity could harm their fellow workers or adversely impact their earnings eventually, they may not be actuated to improve their performance.

This suggests that while observation in the workplace may yield salutary gains, it must still account for other factors such as the camaraderie among the workers, the existent relationship between the management and the employees, and the compensation system.

A study that investigated the impact of awareness of experimentation on pupil performance (based on direct and indirect cues) revealed that the Hawthorne effect is either nonexistent in children between grades 3 and 9, was not evoked by the intended cues, or was not sufficiently strong to alter the results of the experiment (Bauernfeind & Olson, 1973).

However, if the Hawthorne effect were actually present in other educational contexts, such as in the observation of older students or teachers, it would have important implications.

For instance, if teachers were aware that they were being observed and evaluated via camera or an actual person sitting inside the class, it is not difficult to imagine how they might alter their approach.

Likewise, if older students were informed that their classroom participation would be observed, they might have more incentives to pay diligent attention to the lessons.

Alternative Explanations

Despite the possibility of the Hawthorne effect and its seeming impact on performance, alternative accounts cannot be discounted.

The Novelty Effect

The Novelty Effect denotes the tendency of human performance to show improvements in response to novel stimuli in the environment (Clark & Sugrue, 1988). Such improvements result not from any advances in learning or growth, but from a heightened interest in the new stimuli.

Demand Characteristics

Demand characteristics describe the phenomenon in which the subjects of an experiment would draw conclusions concerning the experiment’s objectives, and either subconsciously or consciously alter their behavior as a result (Orne, 2009). The intentions of the participant—which may range from striving to support the experimenter’s implicit agenda to attempting to utterly undermine the credibility of the study—would play a vital role herein.

Feedback on Performance

It is possible for regular evaluations by the experimenters to function as a scoreboard that enhances productivity. The mere fact that the workers are better acquainted with their performance may actuate them to increase their output.

Despite the seeming implications of the Hawthorne effect in a variety of contexts, recent reviews of the initial studies seem to challenge the original conclusions.

For instance, the data from the first experiment were long thought to have been destroyed. Rice (1982) notes that “the original [illumination] research data somehow disappeared.”

Gale (2004, p. 439) states that “these particular experiments were never written up, the original study reports were lost, and the only contemporary account of them derives from a few paragraphs in a trade journal.”

However, Steven Levitt and John List of the University of Chicago were able to uncover and evaluate these data (Levitt & List, 2011). They found that the supposedly notable patterns were entirely fictional despite the possible manifestations of the Hawthorne effect.

They proposed excess responsiveness to variations induced by the experimenter, relative to variations occurring naturally, as an alternative means to test for the Hawthorne effect.

Another study sought to determine whether the Hawthorne effect actually exists, and if so, under what conditions it does, and how large it could be (McCambridge, Witton & Elbourne, 2014).

Following the systemic review of the available evidence on the Harthorne effect, the researchers concluded that while research participation may indeed impact the behaviors being investigated, discovering more about its operation, its magnitude, and its mechanisms require further investigation.

How to Reduce the Hawthorne Effect

The credibility of experiments is essential to advances in any scientific discipline. However, when the results are significantly influenced by the mere fact that the subjects were observed, testing hypotheses becomes exceedingly difficult.

As such, several strategies may be employed to reduce the Hawthorne Effect.

Discarding the Initial Observations :

• Participants in studies often take time to acclimate themselves to their new environments.
• During this period, the alterations in performance may stem more from a temporary discomfort with the new environment than from an actual variable.
• Greater familiarity with the environment over time, however, would decrease the effect of this transition and reveal the raw effects of the variables whose impact the experimenters are observing.

Using Control Groups:

• When the subjects experiencing the intervention and those in the control group are treated in the same manner in an experiment, the Hawthorne effect would likely influence both groups equivalently.
• Under such circumstances, the impact of the intervention can be more readily identified and analyzed.
• Where ethically permissible, the concealment of information and covert data collection can be used to mitigate the Hawthorne effect.
• Observing the subjects without informing them, or conducting experiments covertly, often yield more reliable outcomes. The famous marshmallow experiment at Stanford University, which was conducted initially on 3 to 5-year-old children, is a striking example.

Frequently Asked Questions

What did the researchers, who identified the hawthorne effect, see as evidence that employee performance was influenced by something other than the physical work conditions.

The researchers of the Hawthorne Studies noticed that employee productivity increased not only in improved conditions (like better lighting), but also in unchanged or even worsened conditions.

They concluded that the mere fact of being observed and feeling valued (the so-called “Hawthorne Effect”) significantly impacted workers’ performance, independent from physical work conditions.

What is the Hawthorne effect in simple terms?

The Hawthorne Effect is when people change or improve their behavior because they know they’re being watched.

It’s named after a study at the Hawthorne Works factory, where researchers found that workers became more productive when they realized they were being observed, regardless of the actual working conditions.

Bauernfeind, R. H., & Olson, C. J. (1973). Is the Hawthorne effect in educational experiments a chimera ? The Phi Delta Kappan, 55 (4), 271-273.

Clark, R. E., & Sugrue, B. M. (1988). Research on instructional media 1978-88. In D. Ely (Ed.), Educational Media and Technology Yearbook, 1994. Volume 20. Libraries Unlimited, Inc., PO Box 6633, Englewood, CO 80155-6633.

Cox, E. (2001).  Psychology for A-level . Oxford University Press.

Fox, N. S., Brennan, J. S., & Chasen, S. T. (2008). Clinical estimation of fetal weight and the Hawthorne effect. European Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology and Reproductive Biology, 141 (2), 111-114.

Gale, E.A.M. (2004). The Hawthorne studies – a fable for our times? Quarterly Journal of Medicine, (7) ,439-449.

Henslin, J. M., Possamai, A. M., Possamai-Inesedy, A. L., Marjoribanks, T., & Elder, K. (2015). Sociology: A down to earth approach . Pearson Higher Education AU.

Landsberger, H. A. (1958). Hawthorne Revisited : Management and the Worker, Its Critics, and Developments in Human Relations in Industry.

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, 3 (1), 224-38.

Mayo, E. (1945). The human problems of an industrial civilization . New York: The Macmillan Company.

McCambridge, J., Witton, J., & Elbourne, D. R. (2014). Systematic review of the Hawthorne effect: new concepts are needed to study research participation effects. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 67 (3), 267-277.

McCarney, R., Warner, J., Iliffe, S., Van Haselen, R., Griffin, M., & Fisher, P. (2007). The Hawthorne Effect: a randomised, controlled trial. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 7 (1), 1-8.

Rice, B. (1982). The Hawthorne defect: Persistence of a flawed theory. Psychology Today, 16 (2), 70-74.

Orne, M. T. (2009). Demand characteristics and the concept of quasi-controls. Artifacts in behavioral research: Robert Rosenthal and Ralph L. Rosnow’s classic books, 110 , 110-137.

Further Information

• Wickström, G., & Bendix, T. (2000). The” Hawthorne effect”—what did the original Hawthorne studies actually show?. Scandinavian journal of work, environment & health, 363-367.
• 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, 3(1), 224-38.
• Oswald, D., Sherratt, F., & Smith, S. (2014). Handling the Hawthorne effect: The challenges surrounding a participant observer. Review of social studies, 1(1), 53-73.
• Bloombaum, M. (1983). The Hawthorne experiments: a critique and reanalysis of the first statistical interpretation by Franke and Kaul. Sociological Perspectives, 26(1), 71-88.

• Increase Font Size

10 Hawthorne Experiment

Dr.Shafali Nagpal

9.1  Learning Objective

9.2  Introduction

9.3 Definition of Hawthorne studies

9.4 Illumination Experiments

9.5 Relay Assembly Test Room Experiments

9.6 Mass Interviewing Program

9.7 Bank Wiring Observation Room Experiment

9.8 Conclusions from experiment

9.9 Summary

Learning Objectives

After completing this module, you will be able to:

• To gain familiarity about illumination concept.
• To understand the impact and usefulness of Hawthorne Experiment in industries.
• To enable students to learn how to increase efficiency through illumination concept.

Introduction

Mayo’s notoriety for being an administration master lays on the Hawthorne Experiments which he directed from 1927 to 1932 at the Western Electric Hawthorne Works in Cicero, Illinois (a suburb of Chicago). The processing plant utilized essentially ladies labourers who collected phone cabling gear. The point of the investigation was to build up the effect of various states of work on worker efficiency. At first, Mayo analyzed the effect of changes in the production line condition, for example, lighting and dampness. He at that point went ahead to contemplate the impact of changes in business plans, for instance, breaks, hours, and legislative initiative. Not exclusively were the Hawthorne analyzes the main extensive scale investigations of working individuals’ conditions at any point made; they likewise created a scope of surprising outcomes that changed the substance of people administration.

George Elton Mayo was an Australian who ended up noticeably one of the best-known administration scholars after his test takes a shot at worker inspiration in the 1920’s and 30’s.

Mayo was a speaker at the University of Queensland when he chose to move to the University of Pennsylvania in America in 1923 and afterwards to the Harvard Business School in 1926 where he moved toward becoming teacher of mechanical research. It was from here that he went up against the exploration that was to make him a standout amongst the most well-known names in administration history.

Research on efficiency at large assembling edifices like the Hawthorne Works was made conceivable through associations among businesses, colleges, and government. In the 1920s, with help from the National Research Council, the Rockefeller Foundation, and in the long run Harvard Business School, Western Electric attempted a progression of behavioural examinations. The initial, an arrangement of enlightenment tests from 1924 to 1927, embarked to decide the impacts of lighting on labourer proficiency in three separate assembling offices. Records of the investigation uncovered no critical relationship amongst efficiency and light levels. The outcomes incited analysts to examine different variables influencing specialist yield.

The following investigations starting in 1927 concentrated on the hand-off get together division, where the electromagnetic switches that made phone associations conceivable were delivered. The fabricate of transfers required the monotonous get together of pins, springs, armatures, separators, loops, and screws. Western Electric created more than 7 million transfers every year. As the speed of individual labourers decided general generation levels, the impacts of variables like rest periods and work hours in this office were individually noteworthy to the organization.

In a different test room, an administrator arranged parts for five ladies to amass. The women dropped the finished transfers into a chute where a recording gadget punched an opening in a persistently moving paper tape. The quantity of gaps uncovered the generation rate for every labourer. Scientists were uncertain if efficiency expanded in this examination as a result of the presentation of rest periods, shorter working hours, wage motivating forces, the progression of a little gathering, or the different consideration the ladies got. In 1928, George Pennock, an administrator at Western Electric, swung to Elton Mayo at Harvard Business School for direction. “Will have a man turned out from one of the schools and saw what he could enlighten us regarding what we’ve discovered,” Pennock composed.

Mayo’s reputation as a management guru rests on the Hawthorne Experiments which he conducted from 1927 to 1932 at the Western Electric Hawthorne Works in Cicero, Illinois (a suburb of Chicago). The factory employed mainly women workers who assembled telephone  cabling equipment. The study aimed to establish the impact of different conditions of work on employee productivity. Initially, Mayo examined the effect of changes in the factory environment such as lighting and humidity. He then went on to study the effect of changes in employment arrangements such as breaks, hours, and managerial leadership. Not only were the Hawthorne experiments the first large-scale studies of working people’s conditions ever made; they also produced a range of remarkable results that changed the face of people management.

Image credits @ Harvard Business School

Definition of Hawthorne studies

F.W. Taylor through his analyses expanded creation by supporting it. Elton Mayo and his adherents tried to build creation by acculturating it through behavioural examinations prominently known as Hawthorne Experiments/Studies. The reality remains that an introduction to the investigation of authoritative conduct will stay inadequate without a say of Hawthorne thinks about/tests.

In November 1924, a group of scientist teachers from the eminent Harvard Business School of the U.S.A. started researching into the human parts of work and working condition at the Hawthorne plant of Western Electric Company, Chicago. The organization was delivering ringers and other electric types of gear for phone industry. Conspicuous teachers incorporated into the exploration group were Elton Mayo (Psychologist), Roethlisberger and Whitehead (Sociologists) and William Dickson (organization delegate). The group led four separate exploratory and behavioural investigations over a seven-year time span.

The Hawthorne tests were pivotal examinations in human relations that were conducted in the vicinity of 1924 and 1932 at Western Electric Company’s Hawthorne Works in Chicago. Initially planned as enlightenment concentrates to decide the connection amongst lighting and efficiency, the underlying tests were supported by the National Research Council (NRC) of the National Academy of Sciences. In 1927 an examination group from the Harvard Business School was  welcome to join the investigations after the brightening tests drew unexpected outcomes. Two other arrangements of tests, the transfer get together tests, and the bank-wiring tests took after the enlightenment tests. The investigations accepted the name Hawthorne tests or concentrate from the area of the Western Electric plant. Finished up by 1932, the Hawthorne ponders, with accentuation on another elucidation of gathering conduct, where the reason for the school of human relations.

Some of the major phases of Hawthorne experiments are as follows:

1.  Illumination Experiments

2.  Relay Assembly Test Room Experiments

3.  Mass Interviewing Program

4.  Bank Wiring Observation Room Experiment.

• Experiments to determine the effects of changes in illumination on productivity, illumination experiments, 1924-27.
• Experiments to determine the effects of changes in hours and other working conditions on productivity, relay assembly test room experiments, 1927-28;
• Conducting plant-wide interviews to determine worker attitudes and sentiments, mass interviewing program, 1928-30; and
• Determination and analysis of social organization at work, bank wiring observation room experiments, 1931-32.

1. Illumination Experiments:

Enlightenment tests were embraced to discover how fluctuating levels of brightening ( a measure of light at the work environment, a physical element) influenced the efficiency. The speculation was that with higher brightening, efficiency would increment. In the first arrangement of tests, a gathering of specialists was picked and set in two separate groups. One gathering was presented to fluctuating forces of brightening. Since this gathering was subjected to test transforms, it was named as test convention. Another forum, called as control gathering, kept on working under steady powers of enlightenment. The scientists found that as they expanded the knowledge in the exploratory gathering, both gatherings expanded generation. At the point when the power of enlightenment diminished, the generation kept on expanding in both the gatherings.

The creation of the test assembles diminished just when the light was diminished to the level of moonlight. The decline was because of light falling much beneath the ordinary level. Along these lines, it was reasoned that enlightenment did not have any impact on profitability but rather something else was meddling with the efficiency. Around then, it was supposed that human calculates critical deciding profitability however which perspective was influencing, it didn’t know. Along these lines, another period of trials was embraced.

2. Relay Assembly Test Room Experiments:

Relay assembly test room experiments were designed to determine the effect of changes in various job conditions on group productivity as the illumination experiments could not establish a relationship between the intensity of light and production. For this purpose, the researchers set up a relay assembly test room two girls were chosen. These girls were asked to choose for more girls as co-workers. The work is related to the assembly of telephone relays. Each relay consisted of some parts which girls assembled into finished products. Output depended on the speed and continuity with which girls worked. The experiments started with introducing numerous changes in sequence with duration of each change ranging from four to twelve weeks. An observer was associated with girls to supervise their work. Before each change was introduced, the girls were consulted. They were given the opportunity to express their viewpoints and concerns to the supervisor. In some cases, they were allowed to take decisions on matters concerning them.

Following were the changes and resultant outcomes:

• The incentive system has been modified so that each girl’s extra pay was based on the other five rather than the output of larger group, say, 100 workers or so. The productivity increase as compared to before.
• Two five-minute rests one in the morning session and other in evening session were introduced which were increased to ten minutes. The productivity increased.
• The rest period was reduced to five minutes, but the frequency was increased. The productivity decreased slightly, and the girls complained that frequent rest intervals affected the rhythm of the work.
• The number of rest was reduced to two of ten minutes of each, but in the morning, coffee or soup was served along with the sandwich, and in the evening, snack was provided. The productivity increased.
• Changes in working hours and workday were introduced, such as cutting an hour off the end of the day and eliminating Saturday work. The girls were allowed to leave at 4.30 p.m. instead of usual 5.00 p.m. and later at 4.00 p.m. productivity increased.

As each change was introduced, absenteeism decreased, morale improved, and less supervision was required. It was assumed that these positive factors were there because of the various factors being adjusted and making them more confident. At this time, the researchers decided to revert to an original position, that is, no rest and other benefits. Surprisingly, productivity increased further instead of going down. This development caused a considerable amount of redirection in thinking, and the result implied that productivity increased not because of positive changes in physical factors but because of the change in girls’ attitudes towards work and their workgroup. They developed a feeling of stability and a sense of belongings. Since there was more freedom of work, they developed a sense of responsibility and self-discipline. The relationship between supervisor and workers became close and friendly.

3. Mass Interviewing Program:

During experiments, about 20,000 interviews were conducted between 1928 and 1930 to determine employees’ attitudes towards company, supervision, insurance plans, promotion and wages. Initially, these interviews were conducted using direct questioning such as “do you like your supervisor?” or “is he in your opinion fair or does he have favourites?” etc.

This method has the disadvantage of stimulating antagonism or the oversimplified ‘yes’ or ‘no’ responses which could not get to the root of the problem; the method was changed to nondirective interviewing where the interviewer was asked to listen to instead of talking, arguing or advising. The interview program gave valuable insights into the human behaviour in the company.

Some of the major findings of the program were as follows:

• A complaint is not necessarily an objective recital of facts; it is a symptom of personal disturbance the cause of which may be deep-seated.
• Objects, persons or events are carriers of social meanings. They become related to employee satisfaction or dissatisfaction only as the employee comes to view them from his situation.
• The personal situation of the worker is a configuration, composed of a personal preference involving sentiments, desires and interests of the person and the cultural reference constituting the person’s human past and his present interpersonal relations.
• The position or status of worker in the company is a reference from which the employee assigns meaning and value to the events, objects and features of his environment such as hours of work, wages, etc.
• The social organization of the company represents a system of values from which the worker derives satisfaction or dissatisfaction according to the perception of his social status and the expected social rewards.
• The social demands of the workers are influenced by social experience in groups both inside and outside the work plant.

During interviews, it was discovered that workers’ behaviour was being influenced by group behaviour. However, this conclusion was not very satisfactory and, therefore, researchers decided to conduct another series of experiments. As such, the detailed study of a shop situation was started to find out the behaviour of workers in small groups.

Source: https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/image

4. Bank Wiring Observation Room Experiment:

These investigations were directed to discover the effect of little gatherings of the people. In this trial, a group of 14 male labourers were framed into a little work meeting. The men were occupied with the gathering of terminal banks for the utilization in phone trades. The work included appending wire with switches for certain gear utilized as a part of phone deals. Time-based compensation for every specialist was settled on the premise of the normal yield of every labourer. Reward as additionally payable on the assumption of collective endeavour.

It was normal that profoundly skilled specialists would convey weight on less capable labourers to build yield and exploit gather motivation design. In any case, the technique did not work and experts built up their particular standard of yield, and this was implemented enthusiastically by different strategies for social weight. The specialist’s referred to different explanations behind this conduct viz. dread of unemployment, a dread of increment in yield; yearning to secure moderate labourers and so on. The Hawthorne tests unmistakably demonstrated that a man at work is roused by more than the fulfilment of financial needs. The administration ought to perceive that individuals are social creatures and not simply monetary creatures. As a social being, they are people from a gathering and the government should attempt to comprehend assemble states of mind and gathering brain science.

The following were the main conclusions drawn by Prof. Mayo by Hawthorne studies:

1. Social Unit:

A factory is not only a techno-economic unit but also a social unit. Men are social beings. This social characteristic at work plays a major role in motivating people. The output increased in Relay Room due to the effective functioning of a social group with a warm relationship with its supervisors.

2. Group Influence:

The workers in a group develop a common psychological bond uniting them as the £ panel in the form of informal organization. Their behaviour is influenced by these groups. The pressure of a group, rather than management demands, frequently has the strongest influence on how productive workers would be.

3. Group Behavior:

Management must understand that a typical group behaviour can dominate or even supersede individual propensities.

4. Motivation:

Human and social motivation can play even a greater role than little monitory incentives in moving or motivating and managing employee group.

5. Supervision:

The style of control affects worker’s attitude to work and his productivity. A supervisor who is friendly with his employees and takes an interest in their social problems can get co-operation and better results from the subordinates.

6. Working Conditions:

Productivity increases as a result of improved working conditions in the organization.

7. Employee Morale:

Mayo pointed out that workers were not simply cogs, in the machinery. Instead, the employee morale (both individual and in groups) can have profound effects on productivity.

8. Communication:

Experiments have shown that the output increases when workers have explained the logic behind various decisions and their participation in decision-making brings better results.

9. Balanced Approach:

The problems of employees could not be solved by taking one factor, i.e. management could not achieve the results by emphasizing one aspect. All the things should be discussed, and a decision is made for improving the whole situation. A balanced approach to the whole situation can show better results.

Conclusions of Hawthorne Studies / Experiments

It took Elton Mayo some time to work through the results of his Hawthorne Experiments, particularly the seemingly illogical results of the Relay Assembly room operations. His most important conclusion was that the prevailing view of the time that people want to work purely for money and living was deeply flawed. Work was much more. It was first and foremost a group activity in which other people and their behaviour are they colleagues, managers or observers, affected how well people worked. People’s morale and productivity were affected not so much  by the conditions in which they worked out by the recognition they received. The rises in productivity in the Relay Assembly Room were achieved under the affected eye of the observers not because the conditions made the workers feel good but because the employees felt valued.

The conclusions derived from the Hawthorne Studies were as follows:-

• The social and psychological factors are responsible for workers’ productivity and job satisfaction. Only good physical working conditions are not enough to increase productivity.
• The informal relations among workers influence the employees’ behaviour and performance more than the formal relationships in the organization.
• Employees will perform better if they are allowed to participate in decision-making affecting their interests.
• Employees will also work more efficiently when they believe that the management is interested in their welfare.
• When employees are treated with respect and dignity, their performance will improve.
• Financial incentives alone cannot increase the performance. Social and Psychological needs must also be satisfied to increase productivity.
• Good communication between the superiors and subordinates can improve the relations and the productivity of the subordinates.
• Special attention and freedom to express their views will improve the performance of the workers.

Criticism of Hawthorne Studies / Experiments

The Hawthorne Experiments are mainly criticized on the following grounds:-

• Lacks Validity : The Hawthorne experiments were conducted under controlled situations. These findings will not work in the real setting. The workers under observation knew about the tests. Therefore, they may have improved their performance only for the experiments.
• More Importance to Human Aspects : The Hawthorne experiments give too much importance to human aspects. Human aspects alone cannot improve productivity. The production also depends on technological and other factors.
• More Emphasis on Group Decision-making : The Hawthorne experiments placed too much emphasis on group decision-making. In a real situation, an individual decision cannot be neglected especially when quick decisions are required, and there is no time to consult others.
• Over Importance to Freedom of Workers : The Hawthorne experiments give a lot of relevance to freedom of the workers. It does not give importance to the constructive role of the supervisors. In reality, too much of freedom to the workers can lower down their performance or productivity.

Mayo’s reputation as a management guru rests on the Hawthorne Experiments which he conducted from 1927 to 1932 at the Western Electric Hawthorne Works in Cicero, Illinois. The factory employed mainly women workers who assembled telephone cabling equipment. The study aimed to establish the impact of different conditions of work on employee productivity. Initially, Mayo examined the effect of changes in the factory environment such as lighting and humidity. He then went on to study the effect of changes in employment arrangements such as breaks, hours, and managerial leadership. Not only were the Hawthorne experiments the first large-scale studies of working people’s conditions ever made; they also produced a range of remarkable results that changed the thinking of management.

• Franke, Richard H., and James D. Kaul. “The Hawthorne Experiments: First Statistical Interpretations.” American Sociological Review (1978): 623-43.
• Gillespie, Richard. Manufacturing Knowledge: A History of the Hawthorne Experiments. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1991.
• Landsberger, Henry A. Hawthorne Revisited. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University, 1958.
• Mayo, Elton. The Human Problems of an Industrial Civilization. New York: Macmillan, 1933.
• Pitcher, Brian L. “The Hawthorne Experiments: Statistical Evidence for a Learning Hypothesis.” Social Forces (1981): 133-39.

9.2 The Hawthorne Studies

• What did Elton Mayo’s Hawthorne studies reveal about worker motivation?

The classical era of management was followed by the human relations era, which began in the 1930s and focused primarily on how human behavior and relations affect organizational performance. The new era was ushered in by the Hawthorne studies, which changed the way many managers thought about motivation, job productivity, and employee satisfaction. The studies began when engineers at the Hawthorne Western Electric plant decided to examine the effects of varying levels of light on worker productivity—an experiment that might have interested Frederick Taylor. The engineers expected brighter light to lead to increased productivity, but the results showed that varying the level of light in either direction (brighter or dimmer) led to increased output from the experimental group. In 1927, the Hawthorne engineers asked Harvard professor Elton Mayo and a team of researchers to join them in their investigation.

From 1927 to 1932, Mayo and his colleagues conducted experiments on job redesign, length of workday and workweek, length of break times, and incentive plans. The results of the studies indicated that increases in performance were tied to a complex set of employee attitudes. Mayo claimed that both experimental and control groups from the plant had developed a sense of group pride because they had been selected to participate in the studies. The pride that came from this special attention motivated the workers to increase their productivity. Supervisors who allowed the employees to have some control over their situation appeared to further increase the workers’ motivation. These findings gave rise to what is now known as the Hawthorne effect , which suggests that employees will perform better when they feel singled out for special attention or feel that management is concerned about employee welfare. The studies also provided evidence that informal work groups (the social relationships of employees) and the resulting group pressure have positive effects on group productivity. The results of the Hawthorne studies enhanced our understanding of what motivates individuals in the workplace. They indicate that in addition to the personal economic needs emphasized in the classical era, social needs play an important role in influencing work-related attitudes and behaviors.

Concept Check

• How did Mayo’s studies at the Hawthorne plant contribute to the understanding of human motivation?
• What is the Hawthorne effect?
• Was the practice of dimming and brightening the lights ethical?

This book may not be used in the training of large language models or otherwise be ingested into large language models or generative AI offerings without OpenStax's permission.

Want to cite, share, or modify this book? This book uses the Creative Commons Attribution License and you must attribute OpenStax.

Access for free at https://openstax.org/books/introduction-business/pages/1-introduction

• Authors: Lawrence J. Gitman, Carl McDaniel, Amit Shah, Monique Reece, Linda Koffel, Bethann Talsma, James C. Hyatt
• Publisher/website: OpenStax
• Book title: Introduction to Business
• Publication date: Sep 19, 2018
• Location: Houston, Texas
• Book URL: https://openstax.org/books/introduction-business/pages/1-introduction
• Section URL: https://openstax.org/books/introduction-business/pages/9-2-the-hawthorne-studies

© Apr 5, 2023 OpenStax. Textbook content produced by OpenStax is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License . The OpenStax name, OpenStax logo, OpenStax book covers, OpenStax CNX name, and OpenStax CNX logo are not subject to the Creative Commons license and may not be reproduced without the prior and express written consent of Rice University.

• HBS Home HBS Index Contact Us
• A New Vision An Essay by Professors Michel Anteby and Rakesh Khurana
• Introduction
• The Hawthorne Plant
• Employee Welfare
• Illumination Studies and Relay Assembly Test Room
• Enter Elton Mayo
• Human Relations and Harvard Business School
• Women in the Relay Assembly Test Room
• The Interview Process
• Spreading the Word
• Next The "Hawthorne Effect"

The “Hawthorne Effect”

What Mayo urged in broad outline has become part of the orthodoxy of modern management.

In 1966, Roethlisberger and William Dickson published Counseling in an Organization , which revisited lessons gained from the experiments. Roethlisberger described “the Hawthorne effect” as the phenomenon in which subjects in behavioral studies change their performance in response to being observed. Many critics have reexamined the studies from methodological and ideological perspectives; others find the overarching questions and theories of the time have new relevance in light of the current focus on collaborative management. The experiments remain a telling case study of researchers and subsequent scholars who interpret the data through the lens of their own times and particular biases. 12

Mayo and Roethlisberger helped define a new curriculum focus, one in alliance with Dean Donham’s desire to address social and industrial issues through field-based empirical research. Harvard’s role in the Hawthorne experiments gave rise to the modern application of social science to organization life and lay the foundation for the human relations movement and the field of organizational behavior (the study of organizations as social systems) pioneered by George Lombard, Paul Lawrence, and others.

“Instead of treating the workers as an appendage to ‘the machine’,” Jeffrey Sonnenfeld notes in his detailed analysis of the studies, the Hawthorne experiments brought to light ideas concerning motivational influences, job satisfaction, resistance to change, group norms, worker participation, and effective leadership. 13 These were groundbreaking concepts in the 1930s. From the leadership point of view today, organizations that do not pay sufficient attention to ‘people’ and ‘cultural’ variables are consistently less successful than those that do. From the leadership point of view today, organizations that do not pay sufficient attention to people and the deep sentiments and relationships connecting them are consistently less successful than those that do. “The change which you and your associates are working to effect will not be mechanical but humane.” 14

• Research Links
• Baker Library | Historical Collections | Site Credits | Digital Accessibility
• Contact Email: [email protected]

© President and Fellows of Harvard College