Professor & Lawyer
Puttu Guru Prasad
Expert Resource Person for APHRDI
M.Com. M.B.A., L.L.B., (L.L.M)., M.Phil. PGDFTM.
AP.SET., ICFAI TMF., (PhD) at JNTUK.
Senior Faculty for Management Science,
S&H Department, VVIT, Nambur, NSS P.O
Mail Id:-
[email protected] My Blog: puttuguru.blogspot.in
93 94 96 98 98, 807 444 95 39, 9885 96 36 36, 89 857 43 663
ELTON MAYO
HAWTHORNE EXPERIMENT
ELTON MAYO
• George Elton Mayo (1880–1949) was an
Australian born psychologist, researcher and
organizational theorist
• Mayo is known as the founder of the Human
Relations Movement
• The research he conducted under the rubric of
the Hawthorne Studies in the late 1920s and
early 1930s showed the importance of groups
in affecting the behavior of individuals at work.
• He carried out a number of investigations to
look at ways of improving productivity
WESTERN ELECTRICCOMPANY
•Gray and Barton, a telephone industry supply
company founded in 1869 by Elisha Gray and
Enos Barton
•In 1872, the company changed its name to the
Western Electric Manufacturing Company
•In 1881, when the annual sales had already grown
to nearly $1 million, the firm was purchased by the
American Bell Telephone Company, it was
renamed the Western Electric Company and
became Bells manufacturing arm
HAWTHORNE EFFECT
• The Hawthorne Effect is the idea that “behavior
during the course of an experiment can be
altered by a subject’s awareness of participating
in an experiment”
• The initial Hawthorne effect took place in the
Hawthorne plant of Western Electric Company in
the 1920’s and 1930’s
• The studies were composed of many long
“investigations into the importance for work behavior
and attitudes of a variety of physical, economic,
and social variables.”
HAWTHORNE EXPERIMENT
• The Hawthorne experiment were first conducted in November,
1924
at Western Electric Company’s Hawthorne plant in Chicago
• The initial tests were sponsored by The National Research
Council (NRC) of the National Academy of Sciences
• In 1927, a research team from Harvard Business School was
invited to join the studies after the illumination test drew
unanticipated results
• A team of researchers led by George Elton Mayo from the
Harvard
Business School carried out the studies
• (General Electric originally contributed funding, but they
4 PARTS OF
HAWTHORNE
EXPERIMENT
I. Part I - Illumination Experiments (1924-
27)
II. Part II - Relay Assembly Test Room Study
(1927- 1929)
III. Part III - Mass Interviewing Programme
(1928- 1930)
IV. Part IV - Bank Wiring Observation Room
Experiment (1932)
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 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.
• Result :
– Higher worker productivity and satisfaction at all
light levels
– Worker productivity was stopped with the light
levels reached moonlight intensity.
• Conclusions:
– Light intensity has no conclusive effect on output
– Productivity has a psychological component
ILLUMINATION STUDY
PART II - RELAY ASSEMBLY
TEST ROOM STUDY (1927-
• 1929)
Under these test two small groups of six female
telephone relay assemblers were selected. Each
group was kept in separate rooms. From time to
time, changes were made in working hours, rest
periods, lunch breaks, etc. They were allowed to
choose their own rest periods and to give
suggestions. Output increased in both the
control rooms. It was concluded that social
relationship among workers, participation in
decision-making, etc. had a greater effect on
productivity than working conditions
Relay Assembly Room 1
• Manipulated factors of production to measure effect on
output:
– Pay Incentives (Each Girls pay was based on the other 5 in the
group)
– Length of Work Day & Work Week (5pm, 4:30 pm, 4pm)
– Use of Rest Periods (Two 5 minutes break)
– Company Sponsored Meals (Morning Coffee & soup along with
sandwich)
• Results:
– Higher output and greater employee satisfaction
• Conclusions:
– Positive effects even with negative influences – workers’ output
will
increase as a response to attention
– Strong social bonds were created within the test group.
Workers are influenced by need for recognition, security and
sense of belonging
Relay Assembly Room 2
• Measured effect on output with compensation
rates
– Special observation room
– 1st Session- Relay Assemblers changed from
departmental incentive to small group incentive
– 2nd Session - Adjusted back to large group incentive
• Results:
– Small group incentives resulted in highest sustained
level of production – 112% over standard output base
– Output dropped to 96.2% of base in 2nd session
• Conclusion:
– Pay relevant to output but not the only factor
WOMEN IN THE RELAYTEST ASSEMBLYROOM
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.
• Conducted 20,000 interviews.
• Objective was to explore information, which could be used
to improve supervisory training.
• Initially used the method of Direct Questioning and changed
to Non Directive.
• Results:
-Merely giving an opportunity to talk and express
grievances would increase the morale.
-Complaints were symptoms of deep-rooted disturbances.
-Workers are governed by experience obtained from both
inside and outside the company.
• Measured output with changes to work conditions only:
– Special Observation Room
– Length of Work Day
– Use of Rest Periods
– Workers stayed on established Piece-rate compensation
• Result:
– Productivity increased by 15% over standard output base
• Conclusions:
– Productivity is affected by non-pay considerations
– Social dynamics are a basis of worker performance
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.
• Limited changes to work conditions:
– Segregated work area
– No Management Visits
– Supervision would remain the same
– Observer would record data only – no interaction with
workers
• Small group pay incentive
• Result:
– No appreciable changes in output
• Conclusions:
– Pre-existing performance norms
– Group dictated production standards - SystemicSoldiering
– Work Group protection from managementchanges.
CONCLUSIONS OF HAWTHORNE STUDIES /
EXPERIMENTS
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 behavior and
performance more than the formal relations in the organization.
•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 OF HAWTHORNE STUDIES /
EXPERIMENTS
The Hawthorne Experiments are mainly criticised on the following
grounds :-
•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.
Professor & Lawyer
Puttu Guru Prasad
Expert Resource Person for APHRDI
M.Com. M.B.A., L.L.B., (L.L.M)., M.Phil. PGDFTM.
AP.SET., ICFAI TMF., (PhD) at JNTUK.
Senior Faculty for Management Science,
S&H Department, VVIT, Nambur, NSS P.O
Mail Id:- [email protected]
My Blog: puttuguru.blogspot.in
93 94 96 98 98, 807 444 95 39, 9885 96 36 36, 89 857 43 663
THAK
YOU
