The Hawthorne Effect

• The Human Relations Movement began with the Hawthorne

Experiments.
• They were conducted at Western Electrical Works in USA, b/w 1924-
1932.
• At the beginning of the 20th century, companies were using scientific
approaches to improve worker productivity.
• But that all began to change in 1924 with the start of the Hawthorne
Studies, a 9-year research program at Western Electric Companies.
• The program, of which Elton Mayo and Fritz Roethlisberger played a
major role, concluded that an organization’s undocumented social
system was a powerful motivator of employee behavior.
• The Hawthorne Studies led to the development of the Human
Relations Movement in business management.
• The experiment was about measuring the impact of different working conditions by the company itself
(such as levels of lighting, payment systems, and hours of work) on the output of the employees.
• The researchers concluded that variations in output were not caused by changing physical conditions or
material rewards only but partly by the experiments themselves.
• The special treatment required by experimental participation convinced workers that management had
a particular interest in them. This raised morale and led to increased productivity.
• The term ‘Hawthorne effect’ is now widely used to refer to the behavior-modifying effects of being the
subject of social investigation.
• The researchers concluded that the supervisory style greatly affected worker productivity.
• These results were, of course, a major blow to the position of scientific management, which held that
employees were motivated by individual economic interest.
• The Hawthorne studies drew attention to the social needs as an additional source of motivation.
Economic incentives were now viewed as one factor, but not the sole factor to which employees
responded.
Part I - Illumination Experiments (1924-27)

• These experiments were performed to find out the effect of different levels of
illumination (lighting) on productivity of labour.
• The basic idea was to vary and record levels of illumination in a test room with the
expectation that as lighting was increased, productivity would too.
• Workers were notified of the tests in order to attempt to control interference from
human factors.

• The brightness of the light was increased and decreased to find out the effect on the
productivity of the test group.
• Surprisingly, the productivity increased even when the level of illumination was
decreased.
• It was concluded that factors other than light were also important.
Part II - Relay Assembly Test Room Study
(1927-1929)
• In order to observe the impact of these other factors, a second set of tests was begun before the
completion of the illumination studies on April 25, 1987.
• The relay-assembly tests were designed to evaluate the effect rest periods and hours of work would
have on efficiency.
• Researchers hoped to answer a series of questions concerning why output declined in the afternoon:
Did the operators tire out? Did they need brief rest periods? What was the impact of changes in
equipment? What were the effects of a shorter work day? What role did worker attitudes play?
• Six women operators volunteered for the study and two more joined the test group in January 1928.
• The women were isolated in a separate room to assure accuracy in measuring output and quality, as
temperature, humidity, and other factors were adjusted.
• The test subjects constituted a piece-work payment group and efforts were made to maintain steady
work patterns.
• A male observer was introduced into the test room to keep accurate records, maintain cordial working
conditions, and provide some degree of supervision.
1. Under normal conditions with a forty-eight hour week, including Saturdays, and no rest pauses. The girls
produced 2,400 relays a week each.
2. They were then put on piecework for eight weeks. – Output increased
3. They were given two five-minute breaks, one in the morning, and one in the afternoon, for a period of five
weeks. – Output increased, yet again
4. The breaks were each lengthened to ten minutes. – Output rose sharply
5. Six five-minute breaks were introduced. The girls complained that their work rhythm was broken by the
frequent pauses – Output fell only slightly
6. The original two breaks were reinstated, this time, with a complimentary hot meal provided during the
morning break. – Output increased further still
7. The workday was shortened to end at 4.30 p.m. instead of 5.00 p.m. – Output increased
8. The workday was shortened to end at 4.00 p.m. – Output leveled off
9. Finally, all the improvements were taken away, and the original conditions before the experiment were
reinstated. They were monitored in this state for 12 more weeks. – Output was the highest ever recorded –
averaging 3000 relays a week
• Researchers hypothesized that choosing one's own coworkers,
working as a group, being treated as special (as evidenced by working
in a separate room), and having a sympathetic supervisor were the
real reasons for the productivity increase.
• One interpretation, mainly due to Elton Mayo was that "the six
individuals became a team and the team gave itself wholeheartedly
and spontaneously to cooperation in the experiment."
Part III - Mass Interviewing Programme (1928-1930)

• 21,000 employees were interviewed over a period of three years to

find out reasons for increased productivity.
• It was concluded that productivity can be increased if workers are
allowed to talk freely about matters that are important to them.
Part IV - Bank Wiring Observation Room Experiment (1932)

• A group of 14 male workers in the bank wiring room were placed

under observation for six months.
• 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.
 Conclusions of Hawthorne Studies / Experiments

1. The social and psychological factors are responsible for workers' productivity and job
satisfaction. Only good physical working conditions are not enough to increase
productivity.
2. The informal relations among workers influence the workers' behaviour and
performance more than the formal relations in the organisation.
3. Employees will perform better if they are allowed to participate in decision-making
affecting their interests.
4. Employees will also work more efficiently, when they believe that the management is
interested in their welfare.
5. When employees are treated with respect and dignity, their performance will improve.
6. Financial incentives alone cannot increase the performance. Social and Psychological
needs must also be satisfied in order to increase productivity.
7. Good communication between the superiors and subordinates can improve the
relations and the productivity of the subordinates.
8. Special attention and freedom to express their views will improve the performance of
the workers.
Criticism of the Hawthorne experiments:
• Lacks Validity : The Hawthorne experiments were conducted under controlled situations. These
findings will not work in real setting. The workers under observation knew about the
experiments. Therefore, they may have improved their performance only for the experiments.
• More Importance to Human Aspects : The Hawthorne experiments gives too much importance
to human aspects. Human aspects alone cannot improve production. Production also depends
on technological and other factors.
• More Emphasis on Group Decision-making : The Hawthorne experiments placed too much
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 : The Hawthorne experiments gives a lot of importance
to freedom of the 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.
Conclusions:
• The tests challenged prior assumptions about worker behavior.
• Workers were not motivated solely by pay.
• The importance of individual worker attitudes on behavior had to be
understood.
• Further, the role of the supervisor in determining productivity and
morale was more clearly defined.
• Group work and behavior were essential to organizational objectives
and tied directly to efficiency and, thus, to corporate success.