qwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyui opasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfgh jklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvb nmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwer Management Studies tyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopas Hawthorne Studies dfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzx cvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmq wertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuio pasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghj klzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbn mqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwerty

uiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdf ghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxc vbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmrty uiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdf ghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxc

3/4/2012 Nupa

Hawthorne Studies
Background
The Hawthorne Studies is a specific type of research in which the people, being experimented, adjust the way they behave merely because of the fact that they are being observed. It was a series of studies which took place at the Hawthorne plant of Western Electric Company, from 1924 1932. The research was carried out by Elton Mayo, who was a faculty member and consultant of Harvard, with the help of his associates.

The Conducted Experiments

A number of studies were accomplished at the Hawthorne plant. The first one revolved around the relationship of productivity with the level of illumination. The study involved two groups of workers whose productivity was compared, as the level of illumination was changed for one group, whereas the other group faced no change. It was observed that increase in the illumination level resulted in increase of productivity for both the groups. The process of increasing productivity continued even when the level of illumination was decreased. The productivity started to diminish only when the illumination attained the level of moonlight. The second experiment involved with establishing a piecework incentive pay plan for a group of men accumulating terminal banks for telephone exchanges. Although conventionally it was assumed that each worker would try to produce as many units as possible, but it was practically observed that, the group of workers unofficially established an average of output. Producing either more or less than that average level was considered to be unexpected, so the workers produced at the average pace, and started slacking off as they arrived close to the average level. Then there was another case where subjects were asked to choose group members under supervision. It was noticed that productivity increased because of having the opportunity to choose co workers, working as a group, being treated specially and having a sympathetic supervisor.

Analysis of the Experiments

In case of the first experiment, where light intensity was altered to examine its effect on worker productivity, the results recognized the fact that the experimental groups responded to the fact that they are provided with special attention and supervision, instead of responding to any particular experimental manipulation. It was suggested that the productivity increased because the workers were moved by the motivational effect of the interest being shown in them. Although illumination research of workplace lighting formed the basis of the Hawthorne studies, other changes such as maintaining clean work stations, clearing floors of obstacles, and even relocating workstations resulted in increased productivity for short periods. Then in case of piecework incentive pay plan, the assumptions of the researchers turned out to be wrong as wage incentives were less important than social acceptance in determining output level. In short, Elton Mayo and his associates came to the conclusion that, individual and social processes play major role in shaping up worker behavior.

Criticism
A number of industrial/occupational psychology and organizational behavior textbooks refer to the illumination studies. Evaluation of the Hawthorne Studies continues even today, although some of the pioneers of management have seen it from a different angle. They have mentioned some points which criticized the issue, for example H Mcllvaine parsons argues that in the studies where subjects received feedback on their work rates, the results should be considered biased by the feedback compared to the manipulation studies. He also argues that the rest periods involved possible learning effects, and the fear that the workers had about the intent of the studies may have biased the results.

Explanation in Favour of the Experiment

Elton Mayo says Hawthorne Studies is to do with the fact that the workers felt better in the situation, because of the sympathy and interest of the observers. He does say that this experiment is about testing overall effect, not testing factors separately. He also discusses it not really as an experimenter effect but as a management effect: how management can make workers perform differently because they feel differently. A lot has to do with feeling free, not feeling supervised but more in control as a group. The experimental manipulations were important in convincing the workers to feel that conditions were really different.

Conclusion
Thus it can be concluded that, the Hawthorne Studies has been well established in the empirical literature beyond the original studies. The concerned output was human effort and the results can be expected to be similar. The experiments stand as a caution about simple experiments which view human participants as if they were only material systems. There is less certainty about the nature of the surprise factor, other than it certainly depended on the attributes of the participants; like their knowledge, beliefs etc.