The rise of capitalism influenced a large group of people to work in industries where the

work involved a performance of the same set of tasks with the output measured in time.

The management approach in these industries was scientific. As invented by Frederick

Winslow Taylor; the father of Modern Management, scientific management believed that

there was one right way for work to be performed and workers’ behaviours were to be

controlled (Grey, 2005).

As part of the scientific management regime, companies conducted experiments to

determine the effect of physical environment on their workers’ productivity (Martin, 2001).

In 1924, General Electric; a company interested in promoting the sales of its light bulbs, paid

for a series of experiments that would investigate the effect of illumination on productivity

which were conducted at the Hawthorne Works of the Western Electric Company in the USA

(Buchanan and Huczynski, 1997). These experiments which would later become the turning

point of modern management, give rise to human relations movement and create a never

ending controversy in organizational behaviour were known as Hawthorne Studies

Experiments. While great controversy surrounds the design of the Hawthorne

Experiments, the fort built by their context and contribution has remained free of cracks.

This essay will review the Hawthorne experiments in brief, scrutinize the weaknesses in

their design and address the extent to which the design of these experiments affects their

demonstration to social science.

The Hawthorne studies Experiments involved four phases, each phase leading to the latter

as questions evolved after observations.

 The first phase; the illumination studies began in 1924. A group of workers was divided

into control and experimental groups. While lighting levels in the control group remained

constant, they were being varied in the experimental group; Output rose on both increase

and decrease of lighting. Surprisingly, output rose in the control group too. It was concluded

that worker productivity was influenced by many other factors, lighting, not being a

significant one. General electric withdrew from the experiments at this level and Fritz J

Roethlisberger and Elton Mayo; researchers at Harvard University with the directions of

William Dickson, the head researcher in the Hawthorne Plants took over the experiments

(Buchanan and Huczynki, 1997).

Designed to address the effect of variables expected to affect worker fatigue and

monotony, the second phase; the Test Room Experiments began in 1927 and fell into two

categories. The first category addressed the variables that affected fatigue; the Relay

Assembly Test Room Experiments. A group of 6 self-selected women were separated from

other workers and their usual 48 hours including Saturdays, authoritarian supervision and

laborious week. Variables such as length of rest pauses, length of working day, type of

working equipment and wage incentives were being altered. A continuous rise in

productivity and positive attitude towards work was observed even when all the privileges

were removed and earlier harder working conditions were returned. it was concluded that

the new incentive system, group cohesiveness and related social factors affected

productivity (Buchanan and Huczynski, 1985).

The second category of experiments; the Second Relay Assembly Test Room Experiments

(1928) and the Mica Splitting Test Room (1929) were designed to address the effect of wage

incentives on worker productivity. With wages increased and other privileges removed, no
significant change in output occurred so it was concluded that wages are a very minor

variable affecting worker productivity. With this, the researchers were confused and full of

questions (Martin, 2001).

The third phase; the Interview Programme in 1928, was originally designed to get

workers’ views on the supervision and working conditions as the company was

implementing a new training programme for supervisors (Buchanan and Huczynski, 1985).

20000 interviews were conducted, initially with closed-ended questions which did not work

as workers had a lot to reflect about, including how their social life affected their office

productivity. These interviews revealed the existence of informal groups within formal

groups (Buchanan and Huczynski, 1997).

The need to understand how informal groups worked drove the researchers to design the

fourth phase; the Bank Wiring Observation Room in 1931. 9 wirers were placed in a

separate room supervised by 3 supervisors and 2 inspectors. The wirers output was

constant regardless the fact that pay was to be based on the individual’s efficiency. 2

informal groups were observed. Data from this study suggested that norms and behaviours

created in an informal group could affect the productivity positively or negatively and

management was supposed to step down in the case of an informal group as each individual

was considered an equal (Drummond, 2000).

With the great depression devouring the economy, Hawthorne Studies Experiments

called it a day in 1932 (Sonnenfeld, 1985). With a lot of new ideas in their minds, Mayo and

his team came up with the following conclusions; based on their observations throughout

the whole study.

 Individual work behaviour is affected by a complex set of factors, each of which would

not stand individually (Sonnenfeld, 1985). This was demonstrated from the Illumination

experiments to as output increased despite the poor lighting.

The need for recognition, security and sense of belonging is an important factor in

determining attitudes and productivity of employees (Buchanan and Huczynski, 1997).

Observed in the Relay Assembly Test Room, the girls became more responsible in what they

were doing as they were informed and involved on the decisions affecting their day-to-day

work activities.

The social life of an individual affects the productivity, one way or the other. Awareness

of the individual’s sentiments can reduce resistance to change (Robbins, 2005).

Money is a minor factor affecting productivity of an individual. The girls in the second

Relay Assembly Test Room’s productivity did not increase output despite the higher wage

incentive as other privileges had been removed (Robbins, 2005).

Informal groups in an organisation are unavoidable as individuals take rewards gained

from these groups significantly. Informal groups have their own norms and behaviours and

their effect on productivity could be detrimental or beneficial. These groups have a

considerable effect on an individual’s attitude towards work and the social structure in them

is determined through job-related symbols of prestige and power (Drummond, 2000).

Every end signifies a new beginning. With the publication of these conclusions in 1939

by Roethlisberger and Dickson, Management and the Worker, management approach took

a turn from Taylorism, different companies employed tactics based on the research findings

with the aim to improve productivity and maximise profits. Sociologists however, looked
back at the grounds on which this great research stood. Did it really deserve all the

importance and recognition it was given?

For a research to produce strong, meaningful and applicable conclusions that would be

able to demonstrate anything important to the society, the generalisation, reliability,

validity and objectivity of the research design have to be critically looked upon.

Generalisation of a research tends to determine the ability of findings to be applied to

wider groups or circumstances (Maxwell, 1992).

Argyle complained (quoted by Sonnenfeld, 1985) that The Relay Assembly Test Room was

designed to deal with a single group, in a single unique setting, with only a single type of

change introduced. The fact that conclusions that were to be applied in other groups came

from here makes the design poor.

The sample in any research plays a vital role as it is supposed to portray the whole

society. The Relay Assembly Test Room dealt with a group of 6 women only. In a company of

more than 40000 workers, this sample was too small. Carey (1967) complained that a group

of five subjects is too small to yield statistically reliable results. However his criticism could

not stand as Whitehead (quoted by Sonnenfeld) had argued that the researchers preferred

depth over breadth in their investigation and that methods can be appropriately applied on

a small sample as each member could be studied critically.

A research design is said to be reliable when the results of the study can be reproduced

under the same methodology and remain consistent over time (Joppe, 2000). In

determining reliability, outside and inside controls are kept into consideration.
 The Hawthorne studies were conducted during the period of economic depression; it is

without doubt that increase in output among the workers could be associated with this

period as jobs were so important (Franke and Kaul, 1979). Would the same experiments

yield the same results under a different economic period? The company records showed

however, Western Electric had increased personnel from 44000 to 77000 at that time

(Sonnenfeld, 1985), so the workers could not have been worried about keeping their jobs.

The stability of a measurement over time is to be considered for a research design to be

reliable. Different changes of incentive plans are observed over the Hawthorne Experiments.

For perfect conclusions, incentives such as the financial incentives were to be kept constant

in all plans, example the group size. Parsons suggested (quoted by Sonnenfeld, 1985) that

financial incentive served to stimulate faster learning of the assembly tasks as the collective

piecework rate, which was higher in a small group, increased (Rice, 1982).

Changes in number of participants weakened the design as similarity of measurements

within a given time should also be considered for a research design to be reliable (Kirk and

Miller, 1986). With many participants in the Illumination Experiments and a few in the Test

Room, a reliable presentation of variables was not achieved.

Experiments conducted lacked adequate controls. Controls have a main aim of showing

the correlation between variables and distinguish the confounding ones. The Relay

Assembly Experiment did not have controls so determination of the causal relationship

between variables observed could not be reliable. Parsons argued (quoted by Sonnenfeld,

1985) that the experimenters were to wait until the rate levelled off or find and remove

whatever was causing the rate to rise.

 Another important determinant of a good research design is its validity. Validity deals

with how truthful the research results are or if the research truly measured what it intended

to (Joppe, 2000). The researchers might have reported conclusions based on the variables

they mentioned but where other important factors that could have affected the change in

output put into consideration?

Underestimation of importance of economic incentives. In the Second Relay Assembly

Test Room, output had risen by 12% in 5 weeks; the researchers concluded this increase

with inter-group rivalry when it should be considered that social factors together with wage

incentives in the First Relay Assembly Test Room caused the same increase in 9 months

(Carey, 1967). Although Roethlisbeger and Dickson claimed (quoted by Shepard, 1971) that

the efficacy of the wage incentive was so dependent on its relation to other factors that it

was could not be considered to affect output independently, their conclusions cannot be

termed as valid as an interview of one of the participants showed the true importance of

wage incentives as she said “the bigger the pay, the happier we were” (Parsons, 1974).

Learning curve effect. The fact that the girls in the Relay Assembly were given learning

and feedback on their change in output could have accounted for its increase. In April 19,

1929, Theresa Zajac; one of the girls in the Relay Assembly remarked that she was 15 relays

behind the previous day (Rice, 1982). This alone, is proof enough that the girls became

conscious that they had to produce more, simply because of the feedback. Although

feedback was provided in the main floor too, its effect was only negligible as it was done by

the supervisor and was not often.

The attention given to the girls, better known as the Hawthorne Effect, also accounted for

most increase in output. Though acknowledged by the researchers but discarded as an

important factor that could account for the increase in output in most of the Hawthorne

Experiments the Hawthorne Effect still displays looseness in the validity of most conclusions

as there was no attempt to employ control data from the output records of the girls who

were not receiving special attention (Carey, 1967).

Specialization. The work involved in the Relay Assembly Test Room was highly

monotonous and over a period of time, it is likely that the girls were just becoming more

specialized in what they were doing, thus accounting for the increase in output (Parsons,

1974). This was shown by the fact that production of Op; who had to assemble different

relays was low at the beginning but as Whitehead claimed (quoted by Carey, 1967) that

later on (1931), Op5’s production was in line with the group, just shows the effect of

specialization which questions validity on the conclusions drawn.

Physical properties of the test room. The fact that the test room was smaller, quieter and

better ventilated; a big difference from the main floor and that this could have had an

impact on the increased output was discarded by the researchers and social factors given a

high importance (Rice, 1982), working conditions are an important factor in determining

worker productivity, this questions the extent to which the research design truly measured

what it was ought to.

Experimental researches have to be designed in a way that lack subjective judgement.

This determinant is known as Objectivity of a research design. Subjective judgement in the

Hawthorne Experiments can be categorised into two; Confirmation bias and presence and

actions of the management during the experiments.

 The design of the Relay Assembly and other experiments after it were all based on the

conclusions made by the researchers beforehand. In the Illumination Experiments, the

Researchers had concluded that physical conditions do not affect worker productivity, with

this they ignored the effects of physical conditions that could have affected productivity in

the Relay Assembly. The Second Relay Assembly and the Mica Splitting Experiments were

only designed to check on the importance of social factors that the effect of wage incentives

were underestimated (Carey, 1967) for a research design to be free from judgements,

conclusions should be tentative and subject to change as new evidence is uncovered.

Pro-management bias. This is the effect observed when workers productivity increases

due to the presence of management. Workers feel like they should work to impress their

supervisors. And while the idea was to let workers work like they feel, a supervisor was

placed in the Relay Assembly Test Room to monitor their performance, the presence of the

supervisor certainly weakened the design (Franke and Kaul, 1978).

Managerial discipline. This means the actions that were taken by the management to

affect productivity directly or indirectly. Replacement of the two girls by the two ambitious

hardworking new operators in the Relay Assembly certainly shows the extent to which

management did not want flaws in the increasing output as output of the two girls was not

satisfactory (Franke and Kaul, 1978). Although this criticism was greatly defended by

Wardwell (1975), claiming that the observed increase in output was mainly due to increase

in group solidarity and the girls who were dismissed lacked cooperation, it still stands out

that effects of management’s disposal of the two original workers affected the attitude

towards productivity of the remaining workers. The fact that one of the replacements was

the sole provider of her family’s needs, also accounted for the increased productivity as
wage incentives were deemed to be more important to her. Interference of management

observed here forth displays the failure of objectivity.

Another flaw in the design of the Hawthorne Experiments is the use of observation to

study a population. Had the researchers participated in with the employees in some of the

experiments, they would have gained a closer understanding of most of the observed

changes in the output.

Despite the poor design and the heavy criticisms the Hawthorne Experiments have been

subjected to, they were still able to raise important concepts in the field of social science

and psychology that are still applied to date.

The greatest contribution of the Hawthorne Studies is the foundation for the field of

Human Relations in organisations (Hatch, 1997). Hawthorne researchers were able to raise

the importance of the human factor; social needs and interests that are to be considered for

perfect working conditions of any organisations.

The Hawthorne Experiments also raised questions on the qualities of effective leadership

and supervision, group norms, participation of workers on decisions partaken by the

company and job satisfaction. (Sonnenfeld, 1985).

They also triggered an interest in physical structure in organisations (Hatch, 1997). Based

on the experiments conducted by the Hawthorne researchers, companies have felt the need

to review their physical structure mainly the groups and removal of middle management as

it has proved low importance.

 The Hawthorne Effect has made an important contribution to psychology when studying

people. It is from this effect that various explanations like why an insomniac would sleep in

a laboratory were derived (Rice, 1982).

The Hawthorne studies have elevated social status among co-workers in organisations

(Hatch, 1997). Understanding of the need and importance of informal groups among formal

groups has perpetuated social relations among workers.

Although the Hawthorne Experiments will remain an important landmark in the field

of organisational behaviour and management, scientific naïveté should not be a reason to

justify the conclusions based on poor controls taken by the Hawthorne Researchers.

To a considerable extent, basing on choosing the right controls, the Hawthorne

Experiments demonstration to social science is negligible as the correct conclusions such as

importance of economic incentives and managerial discipline for the increase in output lie in

the context of Taylorism; something that is not new to management.

As the most extensive social science researches ever conducted, the Hawthorne

Experiments demonstrate the importance of context over science. Roethlisberger admitted

(quoted by Sonnenfeld, 1985) that the design and report of the Hawthorne Studies allow

further investigators to see and profit from the mistakes which were made.

And then again, as Meyer and Allen stated (quoted by Drummond, 2000) “In a highly

competitive world, arguably even a marginal improvement is significant”, as little as

Hawthorne Experiment’s demonstration to social science was, they will remain the most

important social science researches conducted.

WORD COUNT: 2999 WORDS.