The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:

www.emeraldinsight.com/1751-1348.htm

JMH
23,1
The Hawthorne studies:
an analysis of critical
perspectives, 1936-1958
74 Jeffrey Muldoon
School of Business, Emporia State University, Emporia, Kansas, USA

Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this paper was to analyse the academic context of the Hawthorne studies from
1936. More specifically, great attention was paid towards those articles that were critical of the Hawthorne
studies. This study aimed to analyse why the Hawthorne studies were so criticized during the time period.
Design/methodology/approach – The author analysed various critical articles/books from the time
period. The author developed the sample through the use of Landsberger’s Hawthorne Revisited. The author
used one of the first critical articles, Daniel Bell’s, as a means to analyse the critics. In addition, secondary
literature was used to place the articles in context.
Findings – The author found that the majority of the critics were sociologists; these criticisms reflected
larger debates in sociology in terms of theory, method and ethics of research. They reflected the great changes
that occurred in sociology during the time period, as opposed to industrial/organizational psychology, for
example, where there was little criticism at the time.
Originality/value – The purpose of this study was to continue the work of Muldoon (2012) and Hassard
(2012) and place the work of the Hawthorne studies in a larger academic context.
Keywords Sociology, Elton Mayo, Hawthorne studies
Paper type Research paper

Journal of Management History
Vol. 23 No. 1, 2017
pp. 74-94
© Emerald Publishing Limited
1751-1348
DOI 10.1108/JMH-09-2016-0052
Introduction
The Hawthorne studies are one of the most controversial additions to management literature
(Sonnenfeld, 1985; Wren, 2005). Shortly after the studies’ release, critics began hotly debating
the studies’ findings, methods and level of objectivity (Landsberger, 1958; Muldoon, 2012).
Scholars have also voiced split opinions on whether the studies were a major contribution to
the field or, conversely, scientifically worthless (Carey, 1967; Whyte, 1969). Unfortunately,
the intellectual and contextual environment in which these criticisms took place remains
largely under-researched (Hassard, 2012; Muldoon, 2012). Although we have an
understanding of why the Hawthorne studies dominate the profession, there is still a need to
elucidate fully the driving forces behind scholars’ ample criticisms of the studies.
Two literature reviews of the Hawthorne studies independently concluded that the
majority of the studies’ criticisms stemmed from a combination of ideological differences and
the advocacy of Hawthorne researcher Elton Mayo (Stone, 1952; Landsberger, 1958).
However, reviewing the literature at the time offers an alternate explanation. Most
particularly, ongoing debates in the sociology field regarding the proper use of theory,
method and orientation drove sociologists to produce a disproportionately large amount of
the criticism aimed at the studies. Stone (1952) notes that researchers and critics of the
Hawthorne studies belonged to two divergent schools of sociology: Elton Mayo’s human
relations versus Wilbert Moore’s industrial sociology. Ideological and methodological
differences between the two factions created conflict that likely drove the high volume of
scholarly sociological criticism of the studies. In addition, the proliferation of sociology
journals provided opportunities for scholars to provide criticism to gain professional The
advancement. Hawthorne
This study seeks to carry on the work of O’Connor (1999), Hassard (2012) and Bruce and
Nyland (2011). O’Connor (1999) analyses Mayo’s attempts to gain legitimacy for human
studies
relations through various business networks and relationships with various contributors.
Her work examines the budding relationship between the Harvard Business School and the
field of human relations. Bruce and Nyland (2011) continue the work of O’Connor by arguing
that the field of human relations, with the backing of right wing politics and Mayo’s network 75
of big business, helped to exclude more democratic alternatives. Hassard (2012) also
examines the context of the actual Hawthorne plant, finding welfare capitalism, which
possessed a human relations component, present before Mayo came to the plant. Even so,
this progressive ethos was undermined by anti-unionism.
This paper’s focus is not on the studies per se, but rather the criticisms directed towards
the Hawthorne studies. The traditional narrative of Landsberger was that the advocacy of
Elton Mayo damaged the scientific rigor presented by Roethlisberger and Dixon. This study
seeks to place the criticisms within a larger historical context – in doing so, we find the
changing nature of sociology in terms of standards of theory building, greater use of surveys,
issues with focusing just on the work context and some issues with the lack of consideration
of unions that influenced the debate. The criticisms ranged from those who believed
industrial sociology could be saved to others that thought it was a fad.
My hope is to provide a greater understanding of the bevy of criticism surrounding the
Hawthorne studies by placing the studies within a broader and more useful social and
intellectual context, namely, the aforementioned conflict between the prevailing factions
within sociology at the time and the studies’ cross-disciplinary nature. To do so, this study
analyses one of the most well-known pieces of criticism addressing the studies: sociologist
Daniel Bell’s critique published in the 1947 edition of Commentary (Bell, 1947; Gillespie, 1991;
Wren, 2005). This study tracks the validity of Bell’s criticisms of the studies, measures the
extent to which other scholars noted his criticisms and attempts to outline why Bell raised
the issues he did, all with the purpose of better understanding what made the Hawthorne
studies so controversial. As the author notes, the overwhelming majority of criticisms came
from sociologists.

Daniel Bell: his importance

This study selected Bell’s (1947) criticism of the Hawthorne studies as the subject of
examination because his criticism is perhaps the most prominent of its kind, as it is Bell who
first used the popular term “cow sociology” to describe the Hawthorne studies (Wren, 2005).
Bell’s is not the first critique; however, the honour of being the Fort Sumter of the Hawthorne
civil war is most likely owed to the book reviews of either Mary B. Gilson or Robert Lynd
(Gilson, 1940; Lynd, 1937; Wren, 1987; Gillespie, 1991). Bell is neither the most strident critic
of the Hawthorne studies – political scientist Morton Grodzins compares industrial
sociologists to atomic bomb makers (Grodzins, 1951) – nor the most influential scholar that
might be. Hawthorne critic and prominent Princeton professor Wilbert Moore’s framework
of the Hawthorne studies’ informal group established him as a major industrial sociologist of
the era, whereas Robert Lynd, full professor at Columbia and one of the most prominent
sociologists in America at the time, also chimed in on the studies. Furthermore, Bell’s critique
does not appear in the most well-known or well-read sociology journal, for at the time of Bell’s
printing, Commentary was a small New York journal aimed at leading Jewish Left
intellectuals. Not until 30 years after Bell’s critique did Commentary become arguably the
most influential journal in the world as the intellectual defender of both the Reagan and Bush
JMH doctrines (Powers, 1998; Balint, 2010). Yet, it was prominent enough to have such luminaries
23,1 as John Dewey and Hannah Ardent contribute in 1947, and as such, it would have spread
Bell’s critique wide and far.
Despite its humble beginnings, the eventual popularity of Bell’s criticism of the
Hawthorne studies helped launch Bell’s long and distinguished career in researching
how the morality of capitalism and the transformation of work and morality in general
76 affected both business and society (Waters, 1996; Bell, 1960, 1973, 1976). Bell’s
quick-witted writing style – typified by his calling the Hawthorne scholars “cow
sociologists” – and strong moral arguments against the studies gave his fellow critics
ample intellectual fire power to build upon. Like the Hawthorne researchers themselves,
Bell showed interest throughout his career in how the new industrial order was
undermining of stability of the old world. For this reason, it would appear that Bell’s
would be the most appropriate review to use as an examination.
Examination of the various reviews of the Hawthorne studies reveals that the studies
received a warm reception until the aftermath of the Second World War, at which point
several articles emerged questioning the ethics and concepts of the study (Muldoon, 2012). In
the wake of these dissenting articles, Henry A. Landsberger published a defence of the
studies titled Hawthorne Revisited in 1958. Landsberger’s work is notable for two reasons.
First, he provides a comprehensive review of all relevant literature on the studies, both
positive and negative. Second, instead of grouping all Hawthorne researchers together as a
single entity, Landsberger differentiates between the primary Hawthorne researchers, Mayo
and Roethlisberger/Dixon, and suggests that Mayo is the responsible party for most of the
scholars’ concerns with the Hawthorne studies. Landsberger’s greatest charge against Mayo
is that Mayo advocated for his findings rather than approaching them with the responsible,
objective distance germane to scientific research (Landsberger, 1958). Landsberger posits
that this advocacy is possibly the primary driving force behind the numerous Hawthorne
critiques from Mayo’s fellow sociologists, as they felt the need to defend their field against
Mayo’s blatant social and political subjectivity.
Yet scholars both before and after the war considered advocacy to be an acceptable
protocol (Lynd, 1939; Steinmetz, 2007; Turner and Turner, 1990), so what was it about the
writings of Elton Mayo that encouraged such vigorous criticism, especially considering that
the Hawthorne researchers modestly tailored their studies to produce further hypotheses
rather than hard findings? Breaking down Bell’s criticisms will hopefully help answer this
question by providing a better understanding of the themes within and the context
surrounding his work. Table I provides a synopsis, validity check and context of the major
themes in the criticism of Bell and his fellow scholars, including ethics, objectivity,
methodological issues, anti-positivism, lack of theory, class orientation, ignorance of unions
and, finally, lack of institutional and societal analysis.

Adoption of management’s values

To begin, Bell takes issue with the clear bias towards management’s values present in the
Hawthorne studies. Bell’s critique originally appeared as part of a much larger volume of
work addressing the role researchers should play in society, which was a common research
theme following the Second World War (Glazer, 1946, 1947; Kennedy, 1999; Capshew, 1999).
In fact, Bell’s article was merely one in a series published in Commentary. Keeping with the
theme of the time, Bell disagrees with what he deems the Hawthorne researchers’ decision to
eschew objectivity to the benefit of private business, finding significant fault in the
researchers’ suggestion that workers would “criminally” suppress production through work
stoppages and other types of soldiering (Gillespie, 1991; O’Connor, 1999). In fact, Bell’s
Bell’s criticisms Similar critics Context Validity
The
Hawthorne
Ethics and the role Barkin, (1955) Questions regarding what the Both were correct. The scholar studies
of objectivity Bendix (1947) role of science should be has an important role to play
Bendix and Fisher Sociology emerged as a in making improvements in
(1949) science with emphasis on life. Yet, the scholar must be
Freeman (1936) objective development of wise
Gilson (1940) theory 77
Koivisto (1953)
Lynd (1937)
Merton (1947)
Mills (1970)
Moore (1947, 1948)
Sheppard (1950)
Sorenson (1951)
Anti-positivist Moore (1948) In addition to theory Mayo wanted new production
approach Hart (1949) building, sociology also procedures, so he was not as
Blumer (1947) remained a field that was anti- positivist as Bell claimed
Dewey (1947) concerned with reform.
Hawthorne research too
accepting of what is
Class orientation Barkin (1955) Questions regarding whether Both sides had flawed views
Briefs the worker could be of the worker. Mayo wanted to
Gilson, 1940 understood by Harvard see the placid worker; his
Moore (1947) researchers critics the proletariat. The
Sheppard (1950) worker wanted more, but
Sorenson (1951) wanted to keep the system
Unions Barkin (1955) Deep concerns that the Mayo lost the concepts of
Bendix and Fisher research of Hawthorne could union–he did not update his
(1949) be used to assault unions. In work. Yet, his critics placed
Blumer (1947) addition, concerns that the too much emphasis on unions
Hart (1949) findings were made invalid and formal arrangements,
Knox (1955) because of the emergence of ignoring informal groups
Mills (1970) unions
Sorenson (1951)
Tead (1946)
Theory Hacker (1955) The field had a push to Theory is important.
Knox (1955) theory based on the work of Observations do not alone
Moore (1947, 1948) Merton and Parsons constitute an approach, but
theory was needed and
occurred later. Yet, theory can
become a straitjacket
Institutional Barkin The amount of authority the Somewhat inaccurate–Mayo
influences Blumer supervisor had at work stressed on society as well
Moore limited by social factors (hence the Yankee series), and
Sheppard observing the worker at work
was a new concept. Yet,
modern organizational
behaviour scholars have Table I.
relatively ignored other Criticism, validity and
factors context
JMH famous “cow sociology” epithet stems from his negative feelings on this topic, with Bell
23,1 believing that the Hawthorne researchers, acting on the behalf of management, manipulated
workers’ sentiments to increase production just as a happy cow is said to produce more milk.
Contrary to the opinions of Bell and other researchers (Moore, 1948), however get rid of the
willing, output restriction among workers was actually a known issue at the time (Wren,
2005).
78 Bell is not alone in pointing out Mayo’s bias towards management (Barkin, 1955). Like
Sorensen (1951) and Mills (1970) assert that the Hawthorne researchers’ decision to advance
managerial goals at the expense of the worker undermines the studies’ validity, as the
concepts of efficiency, cooperation and harmony are values laden with judgment (Koivisto,
1953). In fact, Bell and Mills go so far as to doubt whether all research in industrial sociology
is of dubious quality for the aforementioned reasons. Blumer (1947) felt that industrial
sociology was a fad. The attitudes of these scholars would make it seem that they would have
opposed any attempt to study industrial relations. To Bell – it was a cult. This is a group that
would have opposed democratic scientific management because it may have been “value
laden”. This would not have been a group for Denison and other scientific managers to work
with (Bruce and Nyland, 2011).
Not quite as sceptical as Bell and Mills, others such as Sheppard (1950), Moore (1947a) and
Kerr (1953) acknowledge the Hawthorne studies’ managerial bias without finding it
necessary to convict the entirety of industrial sociology. In fact, Sheppard feels the need to
defend industrial sociology from the perceived poison of the Hawthorne studies, a task he
takes on by placing the Hawthorne studies in a new subset of sociology that he calls
“managerial sociology”. Sheppard states that managerial sociologists, unlike those in
industrial sociology, work on behalf of the management and, consequently, are less critical of
business norms and more inclined to report those things that management wants known. Yet
this group was not interested in scientific management. It may have been that they were
more concerned about building their own theories and approaches given the weakness of
sociology (Steinmetz, 2007). Yet such a relationship could have occurred because of a
common interest in unions, but we could assume that they had issues with scientific
management as well. Moore (1947a) seemed to be defensive about increasing production as
well and probably would have been sceptical of scientific management.
Homans (1949), one of Mayo’s former students, later defends Mayo from the accusations
of Sheppard and the like, insisting that Mayo did not acquiesce with the demands of
management but, instead, worked to independently identify problems and potential
solutions. Homans also downplays the reasons behind Sheppard’s distrust of Mayo’s work,
suggesting that Mayo’s assumption of a technician role does not inherently make him any
more values-driven than a scholar in a traditional research role. Other scholars disagree with
Homans’s forgiving stance on the issue, with Merton (1947) and Moore (1947a) independently
concluding that managerial researchers’ need for continued funding and uninterrupted
access to the organization requires them to adopt values that favour the management. As
Moore (1947a) notes, researchers truly interested in gaining an unbiased look into an
organization should choose to conduct their research under the cloak of anonymity, as
Donald Roy and Whiting Williams did when they took work under assumed names. A
number of scholars also expressed concern that the inherent bias towards management’s
goals present in managerial research would eventually lead to the commoditization of
academic study into a resource for organizations to use for their own private gain. For
example, Mills (1970) worries that organizations could leverage the work of researchers like
Mayo to undermine the liberating power of unions and reinstitute management control.
Relatedly, other scholars such as Hawthorne critic Mary B. Gilson argue that workers may
eventually become privy to researchers’ bias towards management and, in retaliation, The
attempt to sabotage the researchers’ findings (Merton, 1947; Gilson, 1940). Perhaps with such Hawthorne
consequences in mind, Moore (1947a, p. 651) warns that the sale of industrial sociology to
private industry “may make the previous sale of rural sociology to the agricultural
studies
experiment station appear as a minor transaction”.

Methodological issues 79
Moving forward, Bell also reports on methodological issues in the Hawthorne studies, a
criticism that likely stems from the tension between Mayo’s advocacy and the shift towards
empiricism that occurred in mainstream sociology following the Second World War. The
social sciences grew rapidly after the war, with sociology emerging as a legitimate course of
study for those who wished to explain human interactions collectively rather than
individually (Glazer, 1946; Bell, 1947; Parsons and Barber, 1948). The practical applications
of social science research seen during the war, such as the study of internment Japanese or
Stouffer’s (1949) well-known research on the treatment of the Negro soldier, prompted
sociologists like Bell to question the proper role of the sociologist in society.
Historically, mainstream sociology, like social work, focused on working with
governmental and union organizations to bring about positive social reform (Turner and
Turner, 1990; Capshew, 1999; Whyte, 1969; Zickar, 2004). Following the war, however, the
field evolved into a more distinctive social science that favoured empiricism and theory
building over reform (Steinmetz, 2007; Turner and Turner, 1990). Talcott Parsons’
importation of the European theory played a major role in this transformation, with the net
result being the field’s shift from advocacy to positivism (Steinmetz, 2007). Not surprisingly,
the increased emphasis on empiricism in sociology led to a significant uptick in survey
research that allowed for the measurement of attitudes across larger sections of society.
Respected scholars like Stouffer and Lazarsfeld adopted the survey in lieu of traditional
observation-based methodologies because they believed the survey was less prone to
situational biases or breaks from reality (Barkin, 1955). Mayo’s work on the Hawthorne
project did not adhere to this new standard, and as such, it is easy to see why his work did not
sit well with the prominent post-war scholars of the time. Mayo’s work was theoretical,
advocated for desired managerial outcomes and was methodologically crude with a small
sample size (Bendix and Fisher, 1949; Koivisto, 1953; Bell, 1947; Freeman, 1936; Blumer,
1947; Bendix, 1947; Sorensen, 1951). Yet in comparison with the observation technique of
Williams, many scholars preferred the technique.

“Gleefully” rejecting theory

Bell and other critics also argued that the Hawthorne researchers “gleefully” ignored theory
in their work, with Moore (1947a, p. 123) stating that Mayo “is ignorant of the role of theory
in social research” and that he instead “advocates amassing observations, apparently at
random”. Mayo’s disregard for theory, according to Moore, led to unclear hypotheses and
contradictory findings that mangle the subtle differences between concepts. In addition, the
development of surveys could allow for the testing of theories on a wide scale as Merton often
provided theoretical explanations for the survey research of Lazarsfeld (Steinmetz, 2007,
p. 653). To be fair, Moore does not intend to question all applied research. Rather, he wishes
to call attention to the fact that such research can “imply dangers to objectivity” and that
adequate sociological training, including the use of theory, is necessary to “avoid the pitfalls
of random problem-solving of undisciplined research”. Knox (1955) agrees with Moore’s
diagnosis, arguing that industrial sociology research like Mayo’s lacks the theoretical
foundation needed to be a major field of study. Furthermore, Hacker (1955) points out that the
JMH semblance of atheoretical underpinning present in the Hawthorne studies comes from the
23,1 work of Pareto, which, as the author will discuss later, is deeply troubling.
As previously noted, the importance of theory in sociological research gripped the field in
the mid-twentieth century. Several papers at the 1946 meeting of the American Sociological
Society addressed the need for theory, and two of the field’s major scholars – Merton and
Parsons – published work advising their fellow colleagues on how to develop theory as part
80 of their work. To be clear, however, not all scholars at the time agreed on the best use of
theory in sociological research, and some scholars even wondered whether there was any
value in theory at all. Not surprisingly, there were several violent reactions to the
introduction of theoretical development in some areas of the field (Steinmetz, 2007; Parsons
and Barber, 1948). Homans eventually took on the task of establishing a theoretical
explanation for the findings of the Hawthorne studies, in which he posits that groups derive
pleasure based on interactions between formal and informal groups (Homans, 1984). If the
interactions are positive, they are repeated; if costly, they are discontinued. In fact, Homans’s
interactions with Mayo and his research helped shape Homans’s well-known social exchange
theory (SET) in some ways. Homans’, like Mayo’s, research is subject to a host of scholarly
criticisms (Emerson, 1972a, 1972b), although most scholars agree that Homans directly
influenced research on leadership, performance, contracts, justice and perceptions of support
by helping to form the foundation of sociological and organizational theory (Cropanzano and
Mitchell, 2005).
The aforementioned evolution of sociology from social reform to theory building, paired
with the Hawthorne studies’ multidisciplinary approach, led to a complex and sometimes
contradictory set of criticisms from Bell and his peers. On one hand, critics slam the studies
for being too positivistic in nature, whereas on the other hand, they critique Mayo for his
advocacy. Although confusing at times, Bell’s seemingly paradoxical critiques of the
Hawthorne studies serve to emphasize the evolution of sociological norms and the role of
cross-disciplinary differences in generating criticism of the Hawthorne studies.
To begin, Bell accuses the Hawthorne researchers of being too positivistic, as previously
mentioned, asserting that they put too much emphasis on maintaining the status quo that
discounted creativity among workers. Interestingly, Bell’s criticism runs counter to the
prevailing theory-focused, positivistic trend in sociology at the time. Nevertheless, other
scholars like Moore (1948) agreed with Bell’s evaluation, arguing that social scientists should
actively work to develop new and improved organizational processes instead of merely
diagnosing the present inadequate system. In addition, Bell, Moore and the like feel that the
Hawthorne researchers too easily accepted management’s excuses for the current flawed
state of affairs (Whyte, 1969).
Dewey (1947, p. 380), America’s foremost philosopher at the time, provides
commentary on Bell’s outlook on social sciences. Dewey notes that one of social science’s
biggest flaws stems from its tendency to take “what is” as an unstated assumption rather
than testing whether “what is” actually corresponds to reality. In doing so, Dewey
argues that social science serves to “widen the very splits” that divide modern life. Bell
ultimately echoes Dewey’s opinion in his critique of the Hawthorne studies, with Bell
fretting that the studies’ misuse of science in promoting a too-conservative approach to
management–worker relations would ultimately create a permanent cleavage between
the two parties and bring about systems that neither sustain nor promote true
democracy and freedom (Bell, 1947, 1960). The Hawthorne studies’ prominence is also a
by-product of the studies’ multidisciplinary approach, as such an approach allowed for
the development of better techniques for dealing with modern problems (Hart, 1943;
Muldoon, 2012). Nevertheless, the multidisciplinary nature of the studies also proved to
be a weakness, as norms and values vary across fields (Hart, 1943). For example, The
post-war industrial and organizational psychology and sociology held differing opinions Hawthorne
on the issue of unions, with psychology siding with management and sociologists siding studies
with workers. In addition, normative differences across disciplines could cause some
critics to ignore the obvious anti-positivistic values of the research. For instance, Mayo
was an advocate who supported the creation of building social bonds between
management and the worker. However, because Mayo’s beliefs differed from that of the 81
economics-focused scientific management at the time, critics like Bell labelled him as a
positivist and overlooked the anti-positivistic implications of his work (Landsberger,
1958; Homans, 1949). Yet Mayo’s normative approach is not wholly above reproach
either, as critics also attack Mayo for advocating too strongly on behalf of the
management. Modern management scholars have a hard time accepting Mayo’s
advocacy because objectivity and theoretical development are professional norms today
(O’Connor, 1999). At the time of Mayo’s work, however, it was not uncommon for
scholars to engage in applied research to address issues caused by the ongoing
depression and war. For example, Chase (1946) and Drucker (1946) called for Mayo’s
ideas to be used to promote peace and security in American life, and even Parsons, an
arch-theorist, argues that the war provided scholars with greater opportunities to enrich
both social science and society via research.
As the splintering of sociology continued throughout the post-war era, scholars with
reform orientations worked alongside colleagues focused on theory building in departments
across the nation. For example, at Columbia, Merton and Lazarsfeld, Lynd and Mills all
worked in the same department despite their varying approaches and aspirations. The
debate between the scientific purists and the reform-minded eventually came to a head
during the post-war period (Turner and Turner, 1990; Camic, 2007). Some scholars lobbied
for the establishment of a social science based on rigorous theory building and the
measurement of social constructs, whereas others sought to continue, as the field had
previously done, with an emphasis on producing applied research and developing
government contracts to further the enterprise.
Following the Second World War, theory building was hegemonic but not yet
all-encompassing (Steinmetz, 2007), and pools of reformers, though ostracized, remained a
factor in sociology departments. One such reformer, Robert Lynd, argues that sociologists
should play an active role in bringing aid to society instead of standing idly on the side-lines,
in his book Knowledge for What? In some ways, the economic and political climate of the time
compelled Lynd’s response, with Lynd and others fearing that the field of sociology was
losing out to economics, political science and law as the ongoing depression and war
provided vast opportunities for experimentation. As a result, Lynd hypothesizes that
sociology should call upon its applied roots to develop practical solutions for society’s ails to
escape from the shadow of its sister disciplines.
Lynd’s mention of cross-disciplinary competition serves as yet another reminder of the
lack of standardization across the various social science areas of study. Thus, it is important
to couch critics’ issues with Mayo’s advocacy not only in the prevailing trends within
sociology but also in the conflicting trends across all of the social sciences. Mayo hailed from
the field of psychology, which had a long-established and widely accepted tradition of
working with businesses to promote production, but sociology, as discussed, was rooted in
social reform (Viteles, 1941; Zickar, 2004). Ergo, it is not surprising that sociology critics like
Bell or Mills – who felt that cooperation between scholars and private industry would
ultimately corrupt the field – would cringe at Mayo’s willingness to advocate on behalf of the
JMH Hawthorne management. According to such critics, sociology should aim to aid the
23,1 government or support unions, not further the interests of businessmen (Gouldner, 1970).

Use of Pareto’s teaching

Bell cites Mayo’s use of Vilfredo Pareto’s teachings as yet another issue plaguing the
Hawthorne studies (Lynd, 1937; Hacker, 1955). Most scholars know Pareto for his famous
82 20/80 principle, which states that 20 per cent of the population controls 80 per cent of all
wealth. His teaching became quite popular among certain groups of scholars at one point in
time, with management historians noting that a large segment of the Harvard faculty once
caught the so-called “Pareto flu” (Keller, 1984; Homans, 1984; Schlesinger, 2000). Yet
focusing solely on Pareto’s popularity ignores some of the more controversial undertones of
his work, namely, his association with fascism. At one point, Pareto even accepted a “royal”
nomination to the Italian senate from Mussolini himself. According to Pareto’s biographer
(Borkenau, 1936, p. 18):
In the first years of his rule, Mussolini literally executed the policy prescribed by Pareto, destroying
political liberalism, but at the same time largely replacing state management of private enterprise,
diminishing taxes on property, favouring industrial development imposing a religious education in
dogmas.
Despite Pareto’s clear link to fascism, it is not safe to assume that all Pareto disciples are
transitively proto-fascists themselves. For example, some scholars like literary critic
Bernard DeVoto admire Pareto’s work for reasons unrelated to fascism, such as Pareto’s
unique approach to Marxist literary criticisms and neoclassical economics (Stegner, 1974;
Gerhardt, 2006). Mayo’s personal affinity for the work of Durkheim and Janet caused him to
doubt Pareto’s work, but Mayo’s relationship with L.J. Henderson, Mayo’s valuable but
obstinate chief advocate who favoured Pareto, forced Mayo to include Pareto’s teachings in
the Hawthorne studies anyway (Homans, 1984). Thus, Mayo’s endorsement of Pareto was
likely more politically than intellectually or philosophically motivated (Smith, 1998).
That said, for some scholars, Mayo’s supposed utilitarian reasoning for including
Pareto’s work in the Hawthorne studies does not offset the harm done in including such
work. For example, Hawthorne critic Andrew Hacker takes issue with the Hawthorne
researchers’ use of Pareto’s teachings to justify the establishment of an elite cadre of specially
trained managers and administrators and to underscore the irrational nature of the
Hawthorne workers. Mills agrees, contending that the Hawthorne executives’ stated reasons
for commissioning the studies – technical issues – were nothing more than a red herring
intended to defer attention from their desire to use the research as a means of worker control.
Similarly, in one of the first and certainly most biting criticisms of the Hawthorne studies,
Lynd (1937) refers to a “fascist America to be run for and by businessmen” and purports that
Hawthorne researcher Thomas North Whitehead is an example of “what can happen to an
alert mind bent for the purposes of a modern business school”. Scholars believed that the
studies’ use of Pareto’s work supported Lynd’s contention, as several scholars including
Mills, Moore and Sheppard report believing that human relations legitimized big business.

Class orientation
Hawthorne critics, including Bell, also express dissatisfaction with the way Mayo addressed class
orientation among the Hawthorne workers. Emphasizing Durkheim, Mayo downplayed the
existence of class orientation and instead attributed observed differences between male and
female workers to the inability of female workers to overcome the breakdown of society’s ability
to regulate sex-appropriate behaviour. Bell (1947), with his Marxist background, disagrees with
Mayo’s explanation, believing instead that variation in long-term career and life plans across the
sexes led to class differences that, in turn, drove the behavioural dissimilarities between men and The
women observed in the studies (Greenwood et al., 1983). Bell argues that male workers accepted Hawthorne
a class mentality to protect themselves from management because they understood that their
primary life’s ambition would be their careers. To the contrary, female workers knew they would
studies
eventually depart industrial life to begin a family and, as a result, focused more on building their
home lives than their careers. Hence, Bell proposes that the men in the bank wiring room likely
had a stronger class orientation than the women in the relay assembly.
Interestingly, Stone (1952) points out that little actual difference exists between the viewpoints 83
of the Hawthorne researchers and critics like Bell, noting that both parties observed the same
phenomena but simply interpreted it through different philosophical lenses (Durkheim vs Marx,
respectively). Admittedly, Bell probably saw only what he wished to see, and as a result, he
argues for a greater degree of class orientation among workers than that likely actually existed.
For example, Bell’s supposition that the female workers devoted themselves primarily to home
life is inaccurate, as several of the Hawthorne women would spend their entire careers working at
the plant. The wages these women earned were important to their families, just as men’s wages
were important, so Bell’s easy explanation for the differences between sexes does not hold true.
Similarly, Bell’s assumption that the female workers did not have an accepted class-
consciousness falls apart upon realizing that some female workers restricted output just as the
male workers did.
Bell’s overestimation of variations in class orientation likely led him also to exaggerate
the size and power of class-based unions among the Hawthorne workers. History shows that
unions at the time were unable to make significant headway in areas of the South and
Midwest, and in addition, many of the benefits of the pro-union Wagner Act later dissipated
with the passing of the Taft-Hartley Act (Patterson, 1997). As a result, unions in the USA
leveraged material benefits, not class politics, as their primary offensive strategy. To be fair,
other scholars agree with Bell that class orientation did drive the unionization of Hawthorne
workers but note that issues of popular culture and religion were the catalyst for the
formation of classes and, eventually, unions among workers (Cohen, 1991; Hassard, 2012).
Despite the shortcomings of his own criticisms, Bell is certainly not alone in disputing the
manner in which the Hawthorne scholars understood and explained the class differences
they observed among Hawthorne workers. For example, a group of scholars concur that the
Harvard-trained male Hawthorne researchers had difficulty understanding and interacting
with the female workers (Barkin, 1955; Briefs, 1940; Dewey, 1947; Gilson, 1940; Moore, 1948;
Sheppard, 1950; Sorensen, 1951). Greenwood et al. (1983) later underscore this point by
getting back into contact with the Hawthorne women and finding their viewpoints to be quite
different from those of the researchers.

Unions
Bell also faults the Hawthorne studies for ignoring unions entirely, despite the fact that
unions were not a factor at Hawthorne at the time of the study (Bell, 1947; Smith, 1998).
Regardless, Mayo’s failure to consider unions created the perception that he was staunchly
anti-worker and pro-management and thus hurt his reputation among his fellow scholars. In
fact, even Whyte (1956), one of Mayo’s students, argues that Mayo’s work was incomplete,
weak and unclear when it came to unions, with Whyte wondering why Mayo chose the
ambiguous term “participation” to describe worker–management relationships. Mayo was
not alone in his supposed faults however, as a great many scholars feel that the human
relations movement as a whole either ignored or took a hostile approach towards unions.
Solomon Barkin, the long-time director of research for the Textile Workers Union,
argues that the human relations movement was a strike against unions, stating that
JMH human relations scholars attempted to cut the “umbilical cord [by] tying it (human
23,1 relations) to the writing of Elton Mayo” (Barkin, 1955, p. 95). Barkin believes that human
relations practitioners attempted to weaken unions by promoting solidarity rather than
using unions as a countervailing force against power. Similarly, other scholars worry
that anti-unionists could leverage the Hawthorne studies to damage unions and promote
managerial power (Hassard, 2012). Because the studies focused on the individual rather
84 than the group/union, these scholars fear that the studies could undermine the social
relationship between workers by creating a false sense of worker–management
camaraderie (Mills, 1970; Blumer, 1947).
Ironically, some scholars find evidence within Mayo’s own work that speaks to the
positive power of unions and use this evidence to convict Mayo further for his virtual
exclusion of unions from the Hawthorne studies. For instance, Sheppard (1949) quotes the
work of John R. Commons, in which Commons points out that de-unionization does not cause
a decline in workers’ ability to bargain with management but, instead, is a by-product of such
a decline. Scholars in this line of thinking believe that Mayo failed to recognize the dormant
power that lies within the informal group structure he identified (Tead, 1946) and that
fighting unions or other workforce groups could ultimately destroy an organic cooperative
system within the organization and, as a result, do more harm than good (Gilson, 1940). In
fact, even Wilbert Moore, a student of Mayo’s associate Talcott Parsons, disagrees with
Mayo’s apparent anti-union stance, instead arguing that unions actually aid management by
creating a more balanced and just world.
As with all criticism, it is imperative to consider the time period in which Mayo conducted
his work before forming a final judgment on Mayo’s treatment of unions. Doing so reveals
that Mayo’s comments were not as anti-union as Moore and others suggest. The Hawthorne
studies took place during a period of contention between union and labour groups, with the
depression years seeing a host of union strikes, wildcat strikes and even complete shutdowns
(Kennedy, 1999). At the time, it appeared as if unionization was not a solution but instead an
evidence of a much greater problem. After the Second World War, labour entered a crisis,
leading writers on both sides of the union issue – Chase (1946) on the political left and
Drucker (1946) on the side of management, among others – to call for managers to embrace
the tenets of human relations. From Mayo’s perspective, the relationship between unions and
management was more complex than critics note. Mayo’s feelings towards unions mirror
that of Taylor, whose anti-union views were the subject of scholarly criticism for years.
Taylor believed that unions were not innately necessary in proper management conditions.
Mayo concurred, suggesting that unions were partly from a conservative-side response to
poor managerial changes (Locke, 1982; Mayo, 1945). Thus, Mayo was not fundamentally
anti-union. Rather, he felt that unions had some justification because they protected workers.
What Mayo wished to create was a world without the need for unions.
Mayo’s intentions become even clearer upon closer examination of his writings. In his
1933 classic, Mayo draws upon the work of his friend Malinowski and colleague Lloyd
Warner to argue that societal norms, especially those that are understated, are important for
ensuring solidarity between individuals and groups in society. Simply put, Mayo argues that
a pure economic model does not foster collaboration because individuals will ignore societal
interests in lieu of self-interest or class interest. The clearest summarization of Mayo’s stance
on unions came from the wildcat strike work of Scott and Homans. In their research, Scott
and Homans identify a foreman who evaded a wildcat strike by reasoning with his workers.
During the Second World War, it was more common for workers to eschew striking out of
professional respect for their co-workers than because of pressure from leadership,
capitalism or even patriotism (Scott and Homans, 1947). As Mayo would point out, it was
only the respect they shared with their cohort – their informal group – that truly mattered in The
helping to bring about and maintain cooperation. Hawthorne
Institutional influences
studies
Bell also criticized Mayo for ignoring institutional influences: the outside governmental,
professional and cultural factors that colour human interactions (DiMaggio and Powell,
1983). In fact, Mayo’s exclusion of such influences is one of the most commonly occurring
criticisms of the Hawthorne studies. Scholars like Blumer (1947) and Barkin (1955) allege that 85
one of the most significant problems with industrial sociology and human relations in
Mayo’s time lies in researchers’ favouring of a static structure, disregarding the influence of
outside factors such as religion, family and community on workers’ on-the-job attitudes and
behaviours. Moreover, Hawthorne critic Moore (1947b, p. 390) points out that these
researchers’ overlooking of institutional influences occurred despite an increase in the
freedom of association:
Yet if the concept of society has any empirical reference at all, the autonomy of the great associations
is incomplete, and each is subject to the limiting environment provided by others and by the controls
that function to maintain interdependence and balance.
Other critics of Mayo’s work suggest that the relationship between worker attitudes and
outcomes is much more complex than even Bell thought. Scott and Homans (1947), for
example, contend that social relationships formed in the plant may prevent wildcat strikes
from occurring, and Kerr and Siegel (1955) go one step further and posit that neither informal
groups nor management alone can fully explain harmony and cooperation within the
industry. Similarly, Blumer (1947) suggests that the worker–management relationship
exists within a much larger nexus of societal relationships including, but not limited to,
government, unions and other aspects of the community. Thus, governmental rules and
societal norms constrain the actions of both the management and the worker. As Burgess
(1945) points out, the Hawthorne researchers’ failure to observe managers and workers
outside of the workplace prevented them from establishing a complete understanding of the
network of influential relationships present in workers’ lives, as a sociological examination
of the society requires an understanding of the whole community, not just a single section or
group.
Whyte (1956), a student of Mayo’s, proposes that scholars should expand upon the work
of the Hawthorne studies by further exploring the intersection between community and the
job. Whyte reasons that Mayo’s scope was too narrowly focused on workplace relationships
to constitute conclusive research. In his proposition, however, Whyte ignores the fact that the
influence of the Hawthorne studies ultimately stemmed from the studies’ exclusive, in-depth
look at on-the-job relationships (Smith, 1998) and that perhaps the Hawthorne researchers
purposefully chose such a narrow focus to foster a fuller understanding of the dynamics of
small work groups. The many studies on the community at large that succeeded Mayo’s
work, including those of Collins, Hughes and Warner and Low, support this possibility. This
criticism ignored the fact that Mayo pushed for Warner to research the larger community
(Smith, 1998). Warner was initially going to research Cicero but abandoned it for reasons
related to the overshadowing of the Hawthorne work or mafia influences in Cicero, home of
the infamous “Scarface” Al Capone (Hassard, 2012). Mayo’s emphasis on work influences
was a trade-off that allowed researchers to have a better understanding of what occurred in
small work groups.
Before the Hawthorne studies, a significant portion of industrial sociology research
focused on the broader role of society in determining work relationships. The workplace
focus of the Hawthorne studies was a marked departure from this trend and, thus, could
JMH explain why sociologists took such issue with the studies. Sociologists of the time aimed to
23,1 understand society first and foremost, paying less academic attention to individuals and
groups (Parsons and Barber, 1948). Talcott Parsons famously took up this charge by
combining the elements of economics and psychology with the insights of Max Weber – a
truly multidisciplinary effort – whereas others like C. Wright Mills looked to existing
philosophies like Marxism to gain a better understanding of the way society worked. In
86 comparison to the society-wide focus of sociological research at the time, the Hawthorne
work seemed to have more in common with psychology experimentation than sociology.
Sociology had begun to sub-divide into multiple specialties by that time, but the field
maintained its broad approach to understanding relationships and placed great emphasis on
establishing universal theories and broader behavioural contexts (Homans, 1964). Although
such efforts certainly had merit, they did fail to acknowledge the more minute relationships
that the Hawthorne researchers believed allowed society to function. Aware of this
shortcoming, Homans (1964) would later push to develop SET to bring the individual back
into the process of understanding social relationships.
Like Homans, modern management scholars have moved beyond the tapered focus of the
Hawthorne researchers to embrace the idea of examining how broader, outside influences
affect workplace behaviours. Organizational behaviour (OB) research, on the other hand,
more closely mimics the narrow scope of the Hawthorne work, generally ignoring societal
factors outside of a select few studies. For example, questions of the influence of religious
affiliation and/or political orientation on workplace or citizenship behaviours often go
unanswered in OB research studies, making modern-day OB scholars just as guilty as Mayo
when it comes to Friedmann’s (1955) accusation of ignoring outside groups.

Criticism and the case of industrial and organizational psychology

Borrowed from Landsberger’s (1958) work, Table II illustrates the extent to which criticism
of the Hawthorne studies came from the field of sociology. Although the list in Table II is by
no means exhaustive, it does provide a strong sample of the totality of critiques levied
against the Hawthorne researchers. Notably, only two psychologists, Michael Argyle and
Ellis Freeman, issued major criticisms of the studies, which suggest that Mayo’s work
did not generate as much controversy and scholarly dissent among psychologists as it did
among sociologists. Figure 1 provides another examination of these phenomena. The
overwhelming majority of critics, especially the prominent ones tended to be from sociology,
rather than psychology, even though the study itself had its roots in both sociology and
psychology.
How – and why – did psychology’s response to the Hawthorne studies vary from that of
sociology? To begin, industrial and organizational psychology took a more accepting initial
stance towards private industry than that of sociology, whose focus was on unions.
Although sociologists remained focused on reform issues and government-related research,
industrial and organizational psychologists of the 1930s were already involved in business
consulting efforts such as using personality tests to screen out potential union members. As
a result, psychologists and sociologists generated professional rewards from different
sources; psychologists sought funding from business relationships, whereas sociologists
looked to the government for funding or sought it from unions. The different sources of
funding probably paid a key role in shaping attitudes towards whether the field was
pro-business or pro-union. Data collection techniques also differed between the two fields.
Industrial/organizational psychologists were limited in the questions they could ask their
subjects, as it was necessary to obtain management sign-off on all research instruments
before research could proceed. Sociologists, on the other hand, gleaned data from national
Critic according to
Landsberger Profession Journal/book Type of journal Year

Michael Argyle Psychologist Occupational Psychology Psychology 1953

Daniel Bell Sociologist Commentary Literary and political journal of 1947
the Jewish Left
C. Wright Mills Sociologist Proceedings of the First Annual Meeting, Industrial relations meeting 1948, 1970
Industrial Relations Research Association (reprinted in the Berkeley Journal
of Sociology – 1970)
V.M. Bladen Economist, focusing on Canadian Journal of Economics and Economics/political science 1948
industrial relations Political Science
Wilbert E. Moore Sociologist American Sociology Review Sociology 1947, 1948
Mary B. Gilson Management theorist American Journal of Sociology Sociology 1940
Ellis Freeman Psychologist Social Psychology Book on psychology 1936
Harold Sheppard Sociologist American Sociology Review, Antioch Review Sociology/literary review 1950, 1949
John Knox Sociologist Social Forces Sociology 1955
Reinhard Bendix Sociologists Review of Economics and Statistics Economics 1949
and Lloyd Fisher
Herbert Blumer Sociologist American Sociology Review Sociology 1947
John T. Dunlap Industrial relations Industrial and Labor Relations Review Industrial relations 1950
Georges Friedmann Sociologist Social Forces Sociology 1949
C. M.W. Hart Anthropologist/sociologist Canadian Journal of Economics and Economics/political science 1949
Political Science
Clark Kerr Economist, focusing on Fortune Popular business magazine 1953
industrial relations
W.A. Koivisto Sociologist American Journal of Sociology Sociology 1953
E.V. Schneider Sociologist Social Forces Sociology 1950
Louis Schneider Sociologist Antioch Review Literary journal 1950
R.C. Sorenson Sociologist Social Forces Sociology 1951
R.C. Stone Sociologist Social Forces Sociology 1952
Robert S. Lynd Sociologist Political Science Quarterly Political science 1937
Ordway Tead Management theorist Survey Graphic Journal focused on social sciences 1946

outlet
87

Table II.
studies
Hawthorne
The

Critic, profession and

JMH trends and, thus, had more freedom in their survey design. In addition, the early leaders of
23,1 industrial and organizational psychology were conservative and pro-business, whereas the
early leaders of sociology were reform-minded. For instance, Robert Lynd became a
sociologist because of his commitment to reform, whereas C. Wright Mills once quipped that
“sociology studies problems, not society”. Because the Hawthorne studies spanned multiple
fields that clearly held to unique sets of normative values, it was inevitable that some
88 scholars, sociologists in this case, would respond to the studies more harshly than other
types of scholars would.
Another reason why sociology was so against the Hawthorne studies was that the
Hawthorne studies appeared to be a psychology or anthropology type of experiment
encroaching on sociology’s turf. Several critics, including Blumer (1947) and Bell (1947), felt
that the study was too limited, did not consider outside relationships and were generally
sceptical that increases in the social atmosphere alone would lead to improvements in
production. It would appear that the thrust of sociology was on macro-issues whether it was
research on crime or the theory building of Parsons. Hence, for some sociologists, it would
appear that the study was unacceptable because it was too limited and narrow for their
thinking. In addition, sociology after the war experienced a deep and serious crisis. Not only
did funding dry up after the Second World War, the discipline also lost ground to economics
and psychology (Camic, 2007; Steinmetz, 2007). In this context, sociologists sought to define
their field as different from a potential competitor in psychology. Sociologists did emulate
ideas from the field of economics – at least in building an overarching theory to explain
behaviour (Steinmetz, 2007). Therefore, the atheoretical Hawthorne studies would not
be appealing. Finally, there were serious social reasons to publish criticisms of the
Hawthorne studies. The aftermath of the War expanded the opportunities for publishing, as
there were an increasing number of journals as well as opportunities to advance. Therefore,
the time period saw an increase of criticisms of the Hawthorne studies as demonstrated by
Figure 2.

Sociologist
Management Theorist
Psychologist
Economist
Industrial Relations
Figure 1.
Critics by Profession

4.5
4
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1

Figure 2. 0.5

Criticism by Year 0
1936 1937 1940 1946 1947 1948 1949 1950 1951 1952 1953 1955
Conclusions The
Why then did sociologists account for the majority of the criticism hurled at the Hawthorne Hawthorne
studies? As noted here, the studies were an appealing target for sociologists because they
used an atheoretical, applied research approach and ignored larger societal factors such as
studies
unions. Mayo took issue with the field of sociology, noting that sociologists had amassed a
great body of knowledge but ultimately failed in developing a means of promoting peace. As
Wren and Bedeian (2009) point out, Mayo’s issues with sociology underscore the chasm that
existed between industrial sociology practitioners and traditional sociology scholars of the
89
time. Many scholars, including Robert Lynd, called for an increase in advocacy in the field,
yet Mayo was essentially ostracized for doing just that. Why? Because the call-to-action of
Lynd and his fellow scholars aimed to generate political advocacy, not the business advocacy
seen in the Hawthorne studies. Clearly, it was not Mayo’s advocacy but instead the aim of his
advocacy that rubbed sociologists the wrong way.
O’Connor (1999) suggested Mayo’s advocacy played a role in placing the Harvard
Business School and the field of human relations at the forefront. Advocacy, rather than
objectivity, was considered to be “good social science” in the 1930s – it was not until after the
war that people wanted objectivity, especially in sociology (Dewey, 1947; Steinmetz, 2007).
Mayo understood the importance of the Hawthorne studies and was aggressive in pursuing
his vision (Smith, 1998). Mayo’s arguments were accepted by industrial psychology, which
was more politically conservative than sociology, and probably for the same reason –
funding from big business (Viteles, 1953). Although Mayo had support from management
and industrial/organizational psychology – Mayo’s advocacy, or lack of advocacy (he
accepted capitalism according to Bell), was damaging to his reputation and the reputation of
human relations in sociology – which meant there was an academic field that could have been
interested in a competing framework.
Bruce and Nyland’s (2011) notable contribution was to examine the development of
Mayo’s network and the use of that network in gaining funding and support for the
Hawthorne studies. They confirmed what scholars have assumed for years (Smith, 1998) –
Mayo was an excellent networker. In addition, they studied the workings of scientific
management in the 1930s and found it to be more democratic than what was previously
thought. In doing so, they have attempted to replace the old narrative of Mayo, saving
workers from scientific management with a new one: Mayo replaced scientific management
with a less democratic alternative through an arrangement with big business. This is a
remarkable finding which compels scholars to delve more deeply into the development of
management thought in the 1930s and 1940s.
This paper’s findings provide a more complicated picture from the academic side. As, the
author (Muldoon, 2012) has previously pointed out – even the critics recognized what
Hawthorne did right in terms of findings and methods. If scientific management had been a
true competing framework, industrial sociologists would have flocked towards it. Yet they
did not – even though they shared a common interest in unions, which means common
ground was not an issue regarding its lack of dissemination. A potential explanation could be
that sociologists did not like scientific management. Some scholars, such as Bell and Blumer,
were against any type of industrial sociology because it was manipulative. Was not scientific
management manipulative as well? According to Bell and Blumer, it was. In fact, Bell (1956)
called scientific management a cult. Bruce and Nyland could rightly point out that they were
against a crude type of scientific management, but as Wren and Bedeian (2009) argued,
scientific management and human relations often were damaged because managers peddled
crude versions. What human relations replaced was crude scientific management – ignoring
changes in the field led by Henry Denison and others. In addition, Bruce and Nyland may
JMH ignore the convergence between human relations and industrial/organizational
23,1 psychology – which was as conservative and may have been as much of a hindrance to
scientific management as human relations.
Although it is not a proven fact, the proliferation of Hawthorne critiques within sociology
circles does speak to the explosion of sociology scholars and journals that occurred during
the Second World War. Developing an intelligent critique of the Hawthorne studies was
90 likely a quick way for a burgeoning scholar to end up in print, gain fame and establish a
career. Bell was one such young scholar; at the time, he was trying to break into the
profession by serving as an instructor in Chicago. Similarly, C. Wright Mills was trying to
write his way to tenure at Columbia, and Wilbert Moore was climbing the ranks at Princeton.
Though the career ambitions of each man varied, all three were united in turning to the
Hawthorne studies as a manner of flexing their intellectual muscle and, as a result, bringing
their goals to fruition.
Figure 2 shows the major Hawthorne critiques by year, illustrating the post-war
explosion of criticism that took place and providing credence to the theory that young
scholars piled on the studies for their own personal career gain (Whyte, 1969). This is not to
say that all such opportunistic critiques were without merit. Nevertheless, it does seem clear
that the fame of the Hawthorne studies was an easy target for a crop of up-and-coming
sociology scholars, with one prominent sociologist comparing the studies and subsequent
critiques to Galileo’s and Mendel’s work (Hart, 1943). In addition, funding played a major role
in determining methods and conclusions in psychology, sociology and management. Major
criticisms post-war are not unexpected because of the different sources of funding, differing
assumptions, career aspirations and the prominence of the Hawthorne studies. Critics’
motivations aside, the multitude of critiques of the Hawthorne studies underscore an
important ongoing debate between two divergent schools of thought in industrial sociology:
the human relations movement and the conflict of interest theory (Stone, 1952, p. 117). Stone
notes:
The former theory studies the factory as a unit, the latter the total economic system. One emphasizes
the importance of non-economic motives; the other emphasizes the primacy of economic motives.
One emphasizes of change within the present institutional order; the other emphasizes the necessity
of basic institutional change. This situation has tended to force sociologists to belong to one school
of thought or another and rather heated controversy has resulted.
As the modern reader should gather, little intellectual common ground existed between the
two factions because the groups’ normative differences were simply too vast for empirical
study to bridge successfully. If nothing else, this split clearly and concisely typifies the
insurmountable paradox under which applied research of all social science fields suffers;
report things the way they are, and you are maintaining the current order; propose a new
way, and you are not objective.

References
Balint, B. (2010), Running Commentary: The Contentious Magazine that Transformed the Jewish Left
Into the Neoconservative Right, Public Affairs.
Barkin, S. (1955), “A pattern for the study of human relations in industry”, Industrial and Labor
Relations Review, Vol. 9 No. 1, pp. 95-99.
Bell, D. (1947), “Adjusting men to machines”, Commentary, Vol. 3.
Bell, D. (1956), Work and its discontents, Beacon Press, Boston.
Bell, D. (1960), The End of Ideology, Free Press, Glencoe, IL.
Bell, D. (1973), The Coming of Post-Industrial Society, Basic, New York, NY.
Bell, D. (1976), The Cultural Contradictions of Capitalism, Basic Books. The
Bendix, R. (1947), “Bureaucracy: the problem and its setting”, American Sociological Review, Vol. 12 Hawthorne
No. 5, pp. 493-507.
studies
Bendix, R. and Fisher, L.H. (1949), “The perspectives of Elton Mayo”, The Review of Economics and
Statistics, Vol. 31 No. 4, pp. 312-319.
Blumer, H. (1947), “Sociological theory in industrial relations”, American Sociological Review, Vol. 12
No. 3, pp. 271-278. 91
Borkenau, F. (1936), Pareto, John Wiley and Sons, New York, NY.
Briefs, G.A. (1940), “Book review of the industrial worker”, American Sociological Review, Vol. 5 No. 1,
pp. 146-148.
Bruce, K. and Nyland, C. (2011), “Elton Mayo and the deification of human relations”, Organization
Studies, Vol. 32 No. 3, pp. 383-405.
Burgess, E.W. (1945), “Sociological research methods”, American Journal of Sociology, pp. 474-482.
Camic, C. (2007), “On edge: sociology during the great depression and the new deal”, in Calhoun, C. (Ed.),
Sociology in America, The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL.
Capshew, J.H. (1999), Psychologists on the March: Science, Practice, and Professional Identity in
America, 1929-1969, Cambridge University Press, New York.
Carey, A. (1967), “The Hawthorne studies as radical criticism”, American Sociological Review, Vol. 32,
pp. 403-416.
Chase, S. (1946), “Calling all social scientists”, Nation Magazine, p. 162.
Cohen, L. (1991), Making a New Deal: Industrial Workers in Chicago, 1919-1939, Cambridge University
Press.
Cropanzano, R. and Mitchell, M.S. (2005), “Social exchange theory: an interdisciplinary review”, Journal
of Management, Vol. 31, pp. 874-900.
Dewey, J. (1947), “The study of man: liberating the social scientist”, Commentary, October, pp. 378-385.
DiMaggio, P.J. and Powell, W.W. (1983), “The iron cage revisited: institutional isomorphism and
collective rationality in organizational fields”, American Sociological Review, Vol. 48 No. 2,
pp. 147-160.
Drucker, P.F. (1946), “For Industrial Peace”, Harper’s Weekly, Vol. 193, pp. 385-395.
Emerson, R.M. (1972a), “Exchange theory, Part I: a psychological basis of exchange”, in Berger, H.,
Zelditch, M. and Anderson, B. (Eds), Sociological Theories in Progress, Houghton Mifflin, Boston,
MA.
Emerson, R.M. (1972b), “Exchange theory, Part II: exchange relationships and network structures”, in
Berger, J., Zelditch, M. and Anderson, B. (Eds), Sociological Theories in Progress, Houghton
Mifflin, Boston, MA.
Freeman, E. (1936), Social Psychology, Henry Holt, New York, NY.
Friedmann, G. (1955), Industrial Society: The Emergence of the Human Problems of Automation, Free
Press, Glencoe, IL.
Gerhardt, U. (2006), “The Return of the Ghost of Utilitarianism: Talcott Parsons and the Theory of
George C. Homans in the 1960s”, in Trevino, A.J. (Ed.), George C. Homans: History, Theory and
Method, Paradigm, Boulder, CO.
Gillespie, R. (1991), Manufacturing Knowledge: A History of the Hawthorne Experiments, Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge.
Gilson, M.B. (1940), “Book review of management and worker”, The American Journal of Sociology,
Vol. 46 No. 1, pp. 98-101.
Glazer, N. (1946), “Government by manipulation: the social scientist reports for service”, Commentary,
July, pp. 81-86.
JMH Glazer, N. (1947), “The study of man: what is sociology’s job?”, Commentary, February, pp. 181-186.
23,1 Gouldner, A.W. (1970), The Coming Crisis of Western Sociology, Avon, New York, NY.
Greenwood, R.G., Bolton, A.A. and Greenwood, R.A. (1983), “Hawthorne a half century later” rely
assembly participants remember”, Journal of Management, Vol. 9, pp. 217-231.
Grodzins, M. (1951), “Public administration and the science of human relations”, Public Administration
Review, Vol. 11 No. 2, pp. 88-102.
92
Hacker, A. (1955), “The use and abuse of Pareto in industrial sociology”, American Journal of Economics
and Sociology, Vol. 14 No. 4, pp. 321-333.
Hart, C.W.M. (1943), “The Hawthorne experiments”, The Canadian Journal of Economics and Political
Science/Revue canadienne d’Economique et de Science Politique, Vol. 9 No. 2, pp. 150-163.
Hart, C.W.M. (1949), “Industrial relations research and social theory”, The Canadian Journal of
Economics and Political Science/Revue canadienned’Economiqueet de Science Politique, Vol. 15
No. 1, pp. 53-73.
Hassard, J.S. (2012), “Rethinking the Hawthorne studies: the Western Electric research in its social,
political, and historical context”, Human Relations, Vol. 65 No. 11, pp. 1431-1461.
Homans, G. (1964), “Bringing men back in”, American Sociological Review, Vol. 29 No. 6, pp. 809-818.
Homans, G.C. (1949), “The perspectives of Elton Mayo: some corrections”, The Review of Economics and
Statistics, Vol. 31 No. 4, pp. 319-321.
Homans, G.C. (1949), “The strategy of industrial sociology”, The American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 54
No. 4, pp. 330-337.
Homans, G.C. (1984), Coming to My Senses: The Autobiography of a Social Scientist, Transaction Books,
New Brunswick, NJ.
Keller, R.T. (1984), “The Harvard ‘Pareto Circle’ and the historical development of organization theory”,
Journal of Management, Vol. 10 No. 2, pp. 193-203.
Kennedy, D.M. (1999), Freedom From Fear: The American People in Depression and War 1929-1945,
Vol. 9, Oxford University Press.
Kerr, C. (1953), “What became of the independent spirit?”, Fortune, Vol. 48, pp. 108-112.
Kerr, C. and Siegel, A. (1955), “The structuring of the labor force in industrial society: new dimensions
and new questions”, Industrial and Labor Relations Review, Vol. 8 No. 2, pp. 151-168.
Knox, J.B. (1955), “Sociological theory and industrial sociology”, Social Forces, Vol. 33 No. 3, pp. 240-244.
Koivisto, W.A. (1953), “Value, theory, and fact in industrial sociology”, The American Journal of
Sociology, Vol. 58 No. 6, pp. 564-572.
Landsberger, H.A. (1958), Hawthorne Revisited: Management and the Worker: Its Critics and
Developments in Human Relations in Industry, Cornell University Press, Ithaca, NY.
Locke, E.A. (1982), “The ideas of Frederick W. Taylor: an evaluation, Academy of Management Review,
Vol. 7 No. 1, pp. 14-24.
Lynd, R.S. (1937), “Review of leadership in free society”, Political Science Quarterly, Vol. 52 No. 4,
pp. 590-592.
Lynd, R.S. (1939), Knowledge for What? The Place of Social Science in American Culture, Princeton
University Press, Princeton, NJ.
Mayo, E. (1933), The Human Problems of an Industrial Civilization, Macmillan, New York, NY.
Merton, R.K. (1947), “The machine, the worker, and the engineer”, Science, Vol. 105 No. 2717, pp. 79-84.
Mills, C.W. (1970), “The contribution of sociology to studies of industrial relations”, Berkeley Journal of
Sociology, Vol. 15, pp. 11-32.
Moore, W.E. (1947a), “Book review”, American Sociological Review, Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 123-124.
Moore, W.E. (1947b), “Current issues in industrial sociology”, American Sociological Review, Vol. 12 The
No. 6, pp. 651-657.
Hawthorne
Moore, W.E. (1948), “Industrial sociology: status and prospects”, American Sociological Review, Vol. 13
No. 4, pp. 382-391.
studies
Muldoon, J. (2012), “The Hawthorne legacy: a reassessment of the impact of the Hawthorne studies on
management scholarship 1930-1958”, Journal of Management History, Vol. 18, pp. 105-119.
O’Connor, E.S. (1999), “The politics of management thought: a case study of the Harvard Business
School and the Human Relations School”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 24 No. 1,
93
pp. 117-131.
Parsons, T. and Barber, B. (1948), “Sociology, 1941-1946”, The American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 53
No. 4, pp. 245-257.
Patterson, J.T. (1996), Grand Expectations: The United States, 1945-1974, Oxford University Press,
New York.
Powers, R.G. (1998), Not Without Honor: The History of American Anticommunism, Yale University
Press.
Schlesinger, A.M.J. (2000), A Life in the Twentieth Century, Houghton Mifflin, Boston, MA.
Scott, J.F. and Homans, G.C. (1947), “Reflections on the wildcat strikes”, American Sociological Review,
Vol. 12 No. 3, pp. 278-287.
Sheppard, H.L. (1949), “The treatment of unionism in managerial sociology”, American Sociological
Review, Vol. 14, pp. 310-313.
Sheppard, H.L. (1950), “The social and historical philosophy of Elton Mayo”, Antioch Review, Vol. 10,
pp. 407-417.
Smith, J.H. (1998), “The enduring legacy of Elton Mayo”, Human Relations, Vol. 51 No. 3, pp. 221-249.
Sonnenfeld, J.A. (1985), “Shedding light on the Hawthorne studies”, Journal of Occupational Behaviour,
Vol. 6, pp. 110-130.
Sorensen, R.C. (1951), “The concepts of conflicts in industrial sociology”, Social Forces, Vol. 29 No. 3,
pp. 263-267.
Stegner, W. (1974), The Uneasy Chair, Doubleday, New York, NY.
Steinmetz, G. (2007), “American sociology before and after World War II: the (Temporary) settling of a
disciplinary field”, in Calhoun, C. (Ed.), Sociology in America, University of Chicago Press,
Chicago, IL.
Stone, R.C. (1952), “Conflicting approaches to the study of workers”, Social Forces, Vol. 31 No. 2,
pp. 117-124.
Stouffer, S.A., Edward, A.S., Leland, C.D., Shirley, A.S. and Robin, M.W. Jr (1949), “Studies in social
psychology in World War II: the American soldier”, Adjustment During Army Life, Princeton
University Press, Princeton, Vol. 1.
Tead, O. (1946), “Review of Mayo’s social problems of an industrial civilization”, Survey Geographic,
Vol. 35, pp. 179-180.
Turner, S.P. and Turner, J.H. (1990), The Impossible Science: An Institutional Analysis of American
Sociology (SAGE Library of Social Research), Sage, Newbury Park, CA.
Viteles, M.S. (1941), “The role of industrial psychological in defending the future of America”, Annals of
the American Academy of Political and Social Science, Vol. 216, pp. 156-162.
Viteles, M.S. (1953), Motivation and Morale in Industry, W.W. Norton, New York, NY.
Waters, M. (1996), Daniel Bell (Key Sociologists), Routledge, London.
Whyte, W.F. (1956), “Problems of industrial sociology”, Social Problems, Vol. 4 No. 2, pp. 148-160.
Whyte, W.F. (1969), Organizational Behavior: Theory and Application, RD Irwin.
Wren, D.A. (1987), The White Collar Hobo, Iowa State University Press, Ames, IO.
JMH Wren, D.A. (2005), The History of Management Thought, 5th ed., John Wiley and Sons, Hoboken, NJ.
23,1 Wren, D.A. and Bedeian, A.G. (2009), The Evolution of Management Thought, 6th ed., Wiley, New York,
NY.
Zickar, M.J. (2004), “An Analysis of Industrial-Organizational Psychology’s Indifference to Labor
Unions in the United States”, Human Relations, Vol. 57 No. 2, pp. 145-167.

94 Further reading
Argyle, M. (1953), “The relay assembly test room in retrospect”, Occupational Psychology, Vol. 27,
pp. 98-103.
Bladen, V.W. (1948), “Economics and human relations: the presidential address delivered at the annual
meeting of the Canadian Political Science Association, June 18, 1948”, The Canadian Journal of
Economics and Political Science/Revue canadienned’Economiqueet de Science politique, Vol. 14
No. 3, pp. 301-311.
Brinkley, A. (1995), The End of Reform, Knopf, New York, NY.
Bruce, K. (2006), “Henry S. Dennison, Elton Mayo, and human relations historiography”, Management
& Organizational History, Vol. 1 No. 2, pp. 177-199.
Dunlop, J.T. and Whyte, W.F. (1950), “Framework for industrial relations: two views”, Industrial and
Labor Relations Review, Vol. 3 No. 3, pp. 383-401.
Fraser, S. (1989), “The labor question”, in The Rise and Fall of the new deal order, 1930-1980, Edited by
Steve Fraser and Gary Gerstle, pp. 55-84.
Friedmann, G., Goode, W.J. and Sheppard, H.L. (1949), “Philosophy underlying the Hawthorne
Investigation”, Social Forces, Vol. 28 No. 2.
Glazer, N. (1945), “The study of man”, Commentary, November, pp. 84-87.
Kennedy, D.M. (1980), Over Here: The First World War and American Society, OUP.
Mayo, E. (1945), The Social Problems of an Industrial Civilization, Harvard University Press,
Cambridge.
Meyer, J.W. and Rowan, B. (1977), “Institutionalized organizations: formal structure as myth and
ceremony”, American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 83 No. 2, pp. 340-363.
Moore, W.E. (1946), Industrial Relations and the Social Order, MacMillan, New York, NY.
Schneider, E.V. (1950a), “Limitation on observation in industrial sociology”, Social Forces, Vol. 28 No. 3,
pp. 279-284.
Schneider, L. (1950b), “An industrial sociology: for what ends?”, The Antioch Review, Vol. 10 No. 3,
pp. 407-417.

Corresponding author
Jeffrey Muldoon can be contacted at: jmuldoon@emporia.edu

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com