TOPIC – Hawthorne Experiment

ASSIGNMENT

Subject: Principles Of Management

B.BA.LL.B I Year, I Semester,2018

Submitted By- Submitted To-

Kritika Arora Mr. Pravin Kumar

1120181923
 Acknowledgement

Every project big or small is successfull largely due to the efforts of a number of wonderful
people who have always given their valuable advice or lent a helping hand. I sincerly
appreciate the inspiration, support and guidance of all those people who have been
instrumental in making this project a success.

I, Kritika Arora, a student of Himachal Pradesh National Law University, B.B.A. LL.B. first
semester, am extremely grateful to HPNLU for the confidence bestowed in me and entrusting
my assignment of managment.
I also extend my gratitude to my project guide Mr. praveen kumar who assisted me in
compiling the project. I would also like to thank all the faculty members of HPNLU for their
critical advice and guidance without which this project would not have been possible.

Last but not the least, I place a deep sense of gratitude to my family members and my friends
who have been constant source of inspiration during the preparation of this project.

Date- 15 october, 2018 Name- Kritika Arora

 Table of contents

1. Introduction
2. George Alton Mayo
3. Hawthorne Experiment
 Illumination Experiment
 Relay Room Experiment
 Mass Interview Experiment
 Bank Wire Experiment
4. Conclusion Of Hawthorne Experiment
5. Criticism
 INTRODUCTION

Elton Mayo and  Fritz Roethlisberger in the 1920s conducted a number of experiments
involving six female workers. These experiments are often referred to as the Hawthorne
experiments or Hawthorne studies as they took place at The Hawthorne Works of the
Western Electric Company in Chicago. The Hawthorne studies were part of a refocus on
managerial strategy incorporating the socio-psychological aspects of human behavior in
organ

izations.

The Hawthorne effect is named after what was one of the most famous experiments (or, more
accurately, series of experiments) in industrial history. It marked a sea change in thinking
about work and productivity. Previous studies, in particular Frederick Taylor's influential
ideas, had focused on the individual and on ways in which an individual's performance could
be improved. Hawthorne set the individual in a social context, establishing that the
performance of employees is influenced by their surroundings and by the people that they are
working with as much as by their own innate abilities.

In the case of the Hawthorne experiments, workers increased their productivity because the

presence of the researchers had a motivational effect on them. It's important to note that the
increase in productivity was not only the result of the researchers' presence, but also of the
interest they took in the workers.
 GEORGE ELTON MAYO

George Elton Mayo was born in South Australia on, 26 December 1880. He is known as the
Father of Human Relations Approach. He also worked as a professor at the Harward Business
school. He lectured at the University of Queensland before moving to the University of
Pennsylvania, but spent most of his career at Harvard Business School, where he was
professor of industrial research.

 He wrote a book, “ The Human Problems of an Industrialized Civilization” in 1933 ,relating
the findings about human relations within the Hawthorne plant to the social environment in
the surrounding Chicago area.

He was the leader of the Hawthorne Experiments (1924-1927).  His conducted studies,
together with the Hawthorne studies, became the base for his lifelong breaking theories
on Human Relations and scientific management. He died on 1 September 1949.

Elton Mayo stated that “Management, in any continuously successful plant, is not related to
single workers but always to working groups. In every department that continues to operate,
the workers have whether aware of it or not formed themselves into a group with appropriate
customs, duties, routines, even rituals ; and management succeeds (or fails) in proportion as it
is accepted without reservation by the group as authority and leader.”
 HAWTHRONE EXPERIMENT

In the 1920s the Western Electric Company had a factory at Cicero, Illinois, just outside
Chicago. Between 1924 and 1932, a series of field studies and experiments were carried out
on workers at the plant. It was conducted by Elton Mayo and Fritz Roethlisberger in the
1920s. The Hawthorne studies were part of a refocus on managerial strategy incorporating the
socio-psychological aspects of human behaviour in organizations.

The term was coined in 1958 by Henry A. Landsberger when he was analyzing earlier
experiments from 1924–32 at the Hawthorne Works. The Hawthorne Works had
commissioned a study to see if its workers would become more productive in higher or lower
levels of light. The workers' productivity seemed to improve when changes were made, and
slumped when the study ended. It was suggested that the productivity gain occurred as a
result of the motivational effect on the workers of the interest being shown in them.

The Experiments were conducted in four phases –

 Illumination Experiment.

 Relay Assembly Test Room Experiment.

 Mass Interview Programme.

 Bank Wiring Test Room Experiment.

 Illumination Experiment

The main purpose of this experiment was -

 To determine the effects of lighting on worker efficiency in three separate

manufacturing departments. 
 To establish relationship between output and illumination. 

In the first series two groups were made. One group was exposed to varying intensities of
illumination. Since this group was subjected to experimental changes, it was termed as
experimental group. Another group was called control group, continued to work under
constant intensities of illumination.

The researchers found that as they increased the illumination in the experimental group,
both groups increased production. When the intensity is decreased, the production
continued to increase in both the groups. The production decreased when the illumination
was below the level of moon light.

Conclusion -

It was concluded that there is no consistent relationship between output of workers and
illumination in the factory. There must be some other factor which affected
productivity.Productivity has some psychological component. The results prompted
researchers to investigate other factors affecting worker output.
 Relay Assembly Test Room Experiment

This phase aimed at –

 Knowing not only the impact of illumination on production but also other factors
like length of the working day, rest hours, and other physical conditions.
 Also to determine the effect of changes in various job conditions on group
activity.

In this experiment, a small homogeneous work-group of six girls was constituted. These
girls were friendly to each other and were asked to work in a very informal atmosphere
under the supervision of a researcher. The incentive scheme was changed so that each
girl’s extra pay was based on the other five rather than output of larger group, say 100
workers or so. The productivity increased as compared to before. Two five minutes rests-
one in morning session and other in evening session-were introduced. Though the rest
period was reduced to 5 minutes but frequency was increased. But the productivity
decreased slightly and the girls complained that frequent rest intervals affected the rhythm
of the work. The time interval of rest was increased to 10 minutes each, but in the mor

ning, coffee or soup was served along with sandwich and in the evening, snacks was
provided, the productivity increased.

Changes in the working hours and workdays 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
pm instead of usual 5.00 pm and later at 4.00pm, productivity increased.

Conclusion –

As each change was introduced, absenteeism decreased, morale increased and less
supervision was required. There was a sense of belongingness, self- discipline, sincerity.
The researchers concluded that socio- psychological factors such as feeling of being
important, recognition, attention and participation, held the key for higher productivity.
 Mass Interview Programme

It was done to determine employee attitude towards the company and their jobs. The
objective of this programme was to make a systematic study of the employees attitudes which
would reveal the meaning which their “working situation” has for them.

21,000 employees were interviewed over a period of three years to find out reasons for
increased productivity. Initially, a direct approach was used whereby interviews asked
questions considered important by managers and researchers.

The researchers observed that the replies of the workmen were guarded. Therefore, this
approach was replaced by an indirect technique, where the interviewer simply listened to
what the workmen had to say.

Conclusion –

It was concluded that productivity can be increased if workers are allowed to talk freely about
matters that are important to them. The findings confirmed the importance of social factors at
work in the total work environment. It was discovered that what employees found most
deeply rewarding were close associations with one another.
 Bank Wiring Test Room Experiment

It was conducted during 1931- 1932. It’s main aim was -

 To determine the effect of pay incentive on productivity.

 To study a group of workers under conditions which were as close as possible to
normal.
It was undertaken by researchers to test some of the ideas they had gathered during the
interviews. A group of 14 male workers in the bank wiring room were placed under
observation for six months. The observers only collected the data, no interaction with the
employees.A worker's pay depended on the performance of the group as a whole.

The researchers thought that the efficient workers would put pressure on the less efficient
workers to complete the work. However, it was found that the group established its own
standards of output, and social pressure was used to achieve the standards of output.
Workers produced only that much, thereby defeating the incentive system.

Those workers who tried to produce more than the group norms were isolated, harassed
or punished by the group. Each individual was restricting output. The group had its own
“unofficial” standards of performance. Individual output remained fairly constant over a
period of time.

There were following reasons for the restricted output – 

Fear of unemployment: The basic reasoning of workers was that if there would be more
production per head, some of the workers would be put out of employment .

Fear of raising the standards: most workers were convinced that once they had reached
the standard rate of production, management would raise the standard of production
reasoning that it must be easy to attain.

Protection of slower workers: The workers were friendly on the job as well as off the job.
They appreciated the fact that they had family responsibility that required them to remain
in the job. Since slower workers were likely to be retrenched, the faster workers protected
them by not overproducing.
Satisfaction on the part of management: According to workers, management seemed to
accept the lower production rate as no one was being fired or even reprimanded for
restricted output.

Conclusion -

Informal groups play an important role in the working of an organization. Informal social
organisation dictated little deviation from the established production standards. Informal
social groups protect workers from managers who –

 raise production standards

 cut pay rates
 challenge workplace norms
 Conclusion Of Hawthorne Experiment
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 workers' behaviour and
performance more than the formal relations in the organisation.
 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 in order 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
 Lacks validity - The Hawthorne experiments were conducted under controlled
situations. These findings will not work in real setting. 
 More importance to human aspects -  Human aspects alone cannot improve
production. Production also depends on technological and other factors.
 More emphasis on group decision making - In real situation, individual
decision-making cannot be totally neglected especially when quick decisions are
required and there is no time to consult others.
 Over importance to freedom of 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.
 The experiment lacked scientific basis.
 Hawthorne plant was a thoroughly unpleasant place to work.
 REFERENCES

1. https://www.economist.com
2. www.yourarticlelibrary.com
3. https://economictimes.indiatimes.com
4. http://shodhganga.inflibnet.ac.in
5. www.ukessays.com