3. How was it discovered
Individual behaviors may be altered because they know they are being studied was demonstrated in a research project (1927 - 1932) of the Hawthorne Plant of the Western Electric Company in Cicero, Illinois. This series of research, first led by Harvard Business School professor Elton Mayo along with associates F.J. Roethlisberger and William J. Dickson started out by examining the physical and environmental influences of the workplace (e.g. brightness of lights, humidity) and later, moved into the psychological aspects (e.g. breaks, group pressure, working hours, managerial leadership). The ideas that this team developed about the social dynamics of groups in the work setting had lasting influence - the collection of data, labor-management relations, and informal interaction among factory employees
3.1 Details of Research
1924-1927 there were 2.5 years of illumination level experiments.
In 1927 four studies began on selected small groups.
In 1932 a questionnaire and interview study of 20,000 employees.
Study 1a-d. a-c were experiments on whole departments.
1a) No control group, experimental groups in 3 different departments. All showed an increase of productivity (from an initial base period), didn't decrease with illumination.
1b) 2 groups. The control group got stable illumination; the other got a sequence of increasing levels. Got a substantial rise in production in both, but no difference between the groups.
1c) Experimental and control groups. Experimental group got a sequence of decreasing light levels. Both groups steadily increased production, until finally light in experimental group so low they protested and production fell off.
1d) 2 girls only. Their production stayed constant under widely varying light levels, but they said they preferred the light (1) if experimenter said bright was good, then the brighter they believed it to be they more they liked it; (2) then ditto when he said dimmer was good. And if they were deceived about a change, they said the preferred it i.e. it was their belief about the light level not the actual light level, and what they thought the experimenter expected to be good, not what was materially good.
Study 2: the relay assembly experiments (2a,b) on a group of 1+5 female operators.
2a) Rest pauses and hours of work (in a separate room). Small group piecework the only expt. var.
2b) About a piecework payment system (on a separate bench, but normal room).
2c) Mica splitting test room. Like 2a: separate room, but already and constantly on piecework rates.
2d) Bank wiring: pure observation of a 14 man team. Group piecework. Could always easily see their own rate.
In addition, Parsons (1974) argues that in 2a, 2d they had feedback on their work rates; but in 2b they didn't. He argues that in the studies 2a-d, there is at least some evidence that the following factors were potent:
- Rest periods
- Learning, given feedback i.e. skill acquisition
- Piecework pay where an individual does get more pay for more work, without counter-pressures (e.g. believing that management will just lower pay rates).
3.2 The Findings
The major finding of the study was that almost regardless of the experimental manipulation employed, the production of the workers seemed to improve. One reasonable conclusion is that the workers were pleased to receive attention from the researchers who expressed an interest in them. The study was only expected to last one year, but because the researchers were set back each time they tried to relate the manipulated physical conditions to the worker's efficiency, the project extended out to five years.
Also, four general conclusions were drawn from the Hawthorne studies:
-
The aptitudes of individuals are imperfect predictors of job performance. Although they give some indication of the physical and mental potential of the individual, the amount produced is strongly influenced by social factors.
-
Informal organization affects productivity. The Hawthorne researchers discovered a group life among the workers. The studies also showed that the relations that supervisors develop with workers tend to influence the manner in which the workers carry out directives.
-
Work-group norms affect productivity. The Hawthorne researchers were not the first to recognize that work groups tend to arrive at norms of what is "a fair day's work," however, they provided the best systematic description and interpretation of this phenomenon.
-
The workplace is a social system. The Hawthorne researchers came to view the workplace as a social system made up of interdependent parts.
4. Conclusion
In conclusion, Hawthorne Effect that comes from an early project in Illinois, brings some effects at work that could increase productivities by changing working conditions and let worker see themselves as special especially. This report has covered definition of Hawthorne Effect and where it is from in details.
5. References
G. Adair (1984) "The Hawthorne effect: A reconsideration of the methodological artifact" J. Appl. Psych. vol.69 (2), 334-345.
H. M. Parsons (1974) "What happened at Hawthorne?" Science vol.183, 922-932
