Reassessment Of The Hawthorne Experiments

The Hawthorne experiments were conducted at the Hawthorne Plant of the Western Electric Company in the late 1920s and early 1930s and involved a variety of different studies of workplace behaviour (Coutts, 2003). From sole attention focused on environmental conditions of work in the initial illumination experiment, the Hawthorne studies extended to the first relay experiment to investigate effects of working environment, physical requirements, management, and social relations upon output (Chiesa & Hobbs, 2006). The subsequent studies were: the second relay experiment, which tested effects of incentive systems; the mica splitting experiment, which tested effects of rest pauses upon performance; the interviewing program, which indicated that relations with management and with peers were important to worker satisfaction, and that informal group organization could be used by workers to regulate and reduce the pace of their work; the bank wiring observation, which confirmed the latter conclusion regarding output restriction, and thus underlined the importance of social relations among workers (Kinicki & Kreitner, 2003; Contu, 2007). In the first relay, second relay, and mica splitting experiments as well as bank wiring observation, research attention was drawn to small group activities (Franke, 1979). Three separate groups of five female workers participated in the previous three experiments, while 14 male workers were in the bank wiring observation (Gillespie, 1991). The illumination and interviewing studies, on the other hand, involved whole departments of workers (ibid.). The final core conclusions that the researchers reached from these experiments were that measured experimental variables such as incentive payment had little effect, while that the unmeasured quality of human relations of workers to management and peer group was responsible for most output improvement (Gale, 2004). It was claimed that these insights serve as the paradigm of most current studies in human relations as well as for subareas such as leadership, motivation and organizational development (Beckford, 1998). There were, however, certain critiques maintaining that the Hawthorne Studies were of little use due to the poor research design particularly related to the issue of careful control (Yorks & Whitsett, 1985). To examine to what extent these two claims represent relatively objective views, this essay will start with a review of the significance of the Hawthorne Studies, especially the contributions on organisational management. Then with regard to the criticism of the Hawthorne Studies, it will focus on the analysis of the issue of control from the perspective of sample selections as well as objectivity maintenance. Finally with the scrutiny of data reanalysis, the personal stance will be given to show that the validity of the Hawthorne Studies do need to be reassessed not only due to the inappropriate exertion of control but also the inconsistency between the evidence and conclusions.

It was remarked that the Hawthorne Studies were one of the most significant empirical industrial social sciences that had ever been undertaken (Nelson & Quick, 2003). The studies laid a foundation for understanding people’s social and psychological behaviour in the workplace (Roberts, 2007; Robbins & Judge, 2007). By identifying the importance of the human factor in organizations, workers were recognized as having social needs and interests, under which they could no longer be regarded as the economically motivated automatons envisaged by Taylorism (Morgan, 1997). In other words, the Hawthorne studies had demonstrated that humans have a deep need for recognition, security and belonging (Brooks, 2003). People go to work in order to satisfy this complexity of needs rather than simply for monetary rewards (Fincham & Rhodes, 2005; Mullins, 2007). This inferred existence of social needs seems to hint that the competences of individuals may be imperfect predictors of job performance (Crey, 2005). Although they could give some indication of the physical and mental potential of the individual, the amount produced may be strongly influenced by social factors (Buchanan & Huczynski, 2004; Roberts, 2007). In addition, the existence of social needs appears to suggest that the organization that takes an interest in its staffs respecting them and taking into account their feelings and desires is likely to expect to achieve better output than one that does not (Hosking, 1991; Clark, 1999). This notion somewhat provides management with new strategies for organizing workers. The efforts of workers could be harnessed through the manipulation of social processes and relationships (Ellis & Dick, 2003). Group-based incentive schemes, for instance, could be employed to harness social influence processes and social needs (Wright, 1991). Similarly, employee-centred leadership styles which extend a greater degree of worker participation in decision-making may be regarded as alternative new organizing strategies to gain higher productivity (Coutts, 2003; Easterby-Smith et al., 2006). Nevertheless, it was argued that the glory of the Hawthorne studies may be faded to a lesser extent by the fact that an interest in workers going beyond economic concerns could be found before the Hawthorne Studies (Crey, 2005). This is evidenced by towns like Port Sunlight and Bourneville in the 19th Century in the UK, where housing and religious as well as communal activities were designed to cater for workers’ leisure time and to provide a favourable environment for good living (ibid.).

In addition to the identification of the importance of social needs, the Hawthorne Studies were credited with having discovered the emergence of informal groups which were not planned or formalized by management, but rather, created and controlled by the workers themselves (Beckford, 1998). It was maintained that informal groups may tend to develop their own norms, values and attitudes that enable them to exert strong social, peer group pressure on individuals within the group (Morgan, 1997; Linstead et al., 2004). This claim seems to suggest that working activities may be influenced as much by the strong peer group pressure imposed by informal groups on individuals as by formal organisational structures. Therefore, two main implications may emerge from this position generated by the Hawthorne Studies. First, the concept of organization has to be revised to recognize that workers could, to some extent, organize themselves (Crey, 2005; Mullins, 2006). They may create their own social relationships and social processes as well as acting as members of groups (Hosking, 1991; Fincham & Rhodes, 2005). Second, because of springy nature of informal groups, it may be inappropriate to try to break up such groupings (Clark, 1999; Nelson & Quick, 2003). Rather, management should seek to establish