Abstract The "Hawthorne effect" is often mentioned as a possible explanation for positive results in intervention studies. It is used to cover many phenomena, not only unwitting confounding of variables under study by the study itself, but also behavioral change due to an awareness of being observed, active compliance with the supposed wishes of researchers because of special attention received, or positive response to the stimulus being introduced. At times, the term seems to be used as a social equivalent to "placebo effect". In social research, there is much critical literature indicating that, in general, the term "Hawthorne effect" should be avoided. Instead of referring to the ambiguous and disputable Hawthorne effect when evaluating intervention effectiveness, researchers should introduce specific psychological and social variables that may have affected the outcome under study but were not monitored during the project, along with the possible effect on the observed results. Show Journal Information The Scandinavian Journal of Work, Environment & Health is an international scientific occupational safety and health (OSH) periodical. Our aim is to promote research in the fields of occupational and environmental health and safety and to increase knowledge through the publication of scientific articles, reviews and other information of high interest in occupational health and safety. The topics of the Journal include the interactions between work and health, that is, subjects like occupational epidemiology, occupational health, occupational medicine, occupational hygiene and toxicology, occupational health services, work safety and ergonomics, and work organization. Currently, areas of high relevance are musculoskeletal disorders, workhours, mental health, job stress, return to work, and intervention research, also studies related to economic evaluation and translational research (from the laboratory to practice). Publisher Information The Scandinavian Journal of Work, Environment & Health is published by three organizations: the Finnish Institute of Occupational Health, the Danish National Research Centre for the Working Environment, and the Norwegian National Institute of Occupational Health. Learning Outcome
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 QuestionThere 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. Practice QuestionContribute!Did you have an idea for improving this content? We’d love your input. Improve this pageLearn More What is the conclusion of Relay Assembly Test Room experiment?Mayo reasoned that “the six individuals became a team and the team gave itself wholeheartedly and spontaneously to co-operation in an experiment.”6 These views contributed to Mayo and Roethlisberger's conclusion that mental attitudes, proper supervision, and informal social relationships experienced in a group were key ...
Who conducted the relay assembly test room?Relay Assembly Test Room Experiment
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.
What are the main findings of the Hawthorne studies?The results were surprising: productivity increased, but for reasons unrelated to economics. Ultimately, researchers concluded that job performance improved because more attention was being paid to the workers.
What is a critique of the Hawthorne studies?The experiments have been widely criticized by some behavioural scientists because of lack of scientific objectivity used in arriving at various conclusions. Some critics feel that there was bias and preconception on the part of the Harvard researchers.
|
