hawthorne experiment contribution

Hawthorne Effect: Definition, How It Works, and How to Avoid It

Ayesh Perera

B.A, MTS, Harvard University

Ayesh Perera, a Harvard graduate, has worked as a researcher in psychology and neuroscience under Dr. Kevin Majeres at Harvard Medical School.

Learn about our Editorial Process

Saul McLeod, PhD

Editor-in-Chief for Simply Psychology

BSc (Hons) Psychology, MRes, PhD, University of Manchester

Saul McLeod, PhD., is a qualified psychology teacher with over 18 years of experience in further and higher education. He has been published in peer-reviewed journals, including the Journal of Clinical Psychology.

Olivia Guy-Evans, MSc

Associate Editor for Simply Psychology

BSc (Hons) Psychology, MSc Psychology of Education

Olivia Guy-Evans is a writer and associate editor for Simply Psychology. She has previously worked in healthcare and educational sectors.

On This Page:

Key Takeaways

• The Hawthorne effect refers to the increase in the performance of individuals who are noticed, watched, and paid attention to by researchers or supervisors.
• In 1958, Henry A. Landsberger coined the term ‘Hawthorne effect’ while evaluating a series of studies at a plant near Chicago, Western Electric’s Hawthorne Works.
• The novelty effect, demand characteristics and feedback on performance may explain what is widely perceived as the Hawthorne effect.
• Although the possible implications of the Hawthorne effect remain relevant in many contexts, recent research findings challenge many of the original conclusions concerning the phenomenon.

The Hawthorne effect refers to a tendency in some individuals to alter their behavior in response to their awareness of being observed (Fox et al., 2007).

This phenomenon implies that when people become aware that they are subjects in an experiment, the attention they receive from the experimenters may cause them to change their conduct.

Hawthorne Studies

The Hawthorne effect is named after a set of studies conducted at Western Electric’s Hawthorne Plant in Cicero during the 1920s. The Scientists included in this research team were Elton Mayo (Psychologist), Roethlisberger and Whilehead (Sociologists), and William Dickson (company representative).

There are 4 separate experiments in Hawthorne Studies:

Illumination Experiments (1924-1927) Relay Assembly Test Room Experiments (1927-1932) Experiments in Interviewing Workers (1928- 1930) Bank Wiring Room Experiments (1931-1932)

The Hawthorne Experiments, conducted at Western Electric’s Hawthorne plant in the 1920s and 30s, fundamentally influenced management theories.

They highlighted the importance of psychological and social factors in workplace productivity, such as employee attention and group dynamics, leading to a more human-centric approach in management practices.

Illumination Experiment

The first and most influential of these studies is known as the “Illumination Experiment”, conducted between 1924 and 1927 (sponsored by the National Research Council).

The company had sought to ascertain whether there was a relationship between productivity and the work environments (e.g., the level of lighting in a factory).

During the first study, a group of workers who made electrical relays experienced several changes in lighting. Their performance was observed in response to the minutest alterations in illumination.

What the original researchers found was that any change in a variable, such as lighting levels, led to an improvement in productivity. This was true even when the change was negative, such as a return to poor lighting.

However, these gains in productivity disappeared when the attention faded (Roethlisberg & Dickson, 1939). The outcome implied that the increase in productivity was merely the result of a motivational effect on the company’s workers (Cox, 2000).

Their awareness of being observed had apparently led them to increase their output. It seemed that increased attention from supervisors could improve job performance.

Hawthorne Experiment by Elton Mayo

Relay assembly test room experiment.

Spurred by these initial findings, a series of experiments were conducted at the plant over the next eight years. From 1928 to 1932, Elton Mayo (1880–1949) and his colleagues began a series of studies examining changes in work structure (e.g., changes in rest periods, length of the working day, and other physical conditions.) in a group of five women.

The results of the Elton Mayo studies reinforced the initial findings of the illumination experiment. Freedman (1981, p. 49) summarizes the results of the next round of experiments as follows:

“Regardless of the conditions, whether there were more or fewer rest periods, longer or shorter workdays…the women worked harder and more efficiently.”

Analysis of the findings by Landsberger (1958) led to the term the Hawthorne effect , which describes the increase in the performance of individuals who are noticed, watched, and paid attention to by researchers or supervisors.

Bank Wiring Observation Room Study

In a separate study conducted between 1927 and 1932, six women working together to assemble telephone relays were observed (Harvard Business School, Historical Collections).

Following the secret measuring of their output for two weeks, the women were moved to a special experiment room. The experiment room, which they would occupy for the rest of the study, had a supervisor who discussed various changes to their work.

The subsequent alterations the women experienced included breaks varied in length and regularity, the provision (and the non-provision) of food, and changes to the length of the workday.

For the most part, changes to these variables (including returns to the original state) were accompanied by an increase in productivity.

The researchers concluded that the women’s awareness of being monitored, as well as the team spirit engendered by the close environment improved their productivity (Mayo, 1945).

Subsequently, a related study was conducted by W. Lloyd Warner and Elton Mayo, anthropologists from Harvard (Henslin, 2008).

They carried out their experiment on 14 men who assembled telephone switching equipment. The men were placed in a room along with a full-time observer who would record all that transpired. The workers were to be paid for their individual productivity.

However, the surprising outcome was a decrease in productivity. The researchers discovered that the men had become suspicious that an increase in productivity would lead the company to lower their base rate or find grounds to fire some of the workers.

Additional observation unveiled the existence of smaller cliques within the main group. Moreover, these cliques seemed to have their own rules for conduct and distinct means to enforce them.

The results of the study seemed to indicate that workers were likely to be influenced more by the social force of their peer groups than the incentives of their superiors.

This outcome was construed not necessarily as challenging the previous findings but as accounting for the potentially stronger social effect of peer groups.

Hawthorne Effect Examples

Managers in the workplace.

The studies discussed above reveal much about the dynamic relationship between productivity and observation.

On the one hand, letting employees know that they are being observed may engender a sense of accountability. Such accountability may, in turn, improve performance.

However, if employees perceive ulterior motives behind the observation, a different set of outcomes may ensue. If, for instance, employees reason that their increased productivity could harm their fellow workers or adversely impact their earnings eventually, they may not be actuated to improve their performance.

This suggests that while observation in the workplace may yield salutary gains, it must still account for other factors such as the camaraderie among the workers, the existent relationship between the management and the employees, and the compensation system.

A study that investigated the impact of awareness of experimentation on pupil performance (based on direct and indirect cues) revealed that the Hawthorne effect is either nonexistent in children between grades 3 and 9, was not evoked by the intended cues, or was not sufficiently strong to alter the results of the experiment (Bauernfeind & Olson, 1973).

However, if the Hawthorne effect were actually present in other educational contexts, such as in the observation of older students or teachers, it would have important implications.

For instance, if teachers were aware that they were being observed and evaluated via camera or an actual person sitting inside the class, it is not difficult to imagine how they might alter their approach.

Likewise, if older students were informed that their classroom participation would be observed, they might have more incentives to pay diligent attention to the lessons.

Alternative Explanations

Despite the possibility of the Hawthorne effect and its seeming impact on performance, alternative accounts cannot be discounted.

The Novelty Effect

The Novelty Effect denotes the tendency of human performance to show improvements in response to novel stimuli in the environment (Clark & Sugrue, 1988). Such improvements result not from any advances in learning or growth, but from a heightened interest in the new stimuli.

Demand Characteristics

Demand characteristics describe the phenomenon in which the subjects of an experiment would draw conclusions concerning the experiment’s objectives, and either subconsciously or consciously alter their behavior as a result (Orne, 2009). The intentions of the participant—which may range from striving to support the experimenter’s implicit agenda to attempting to utterly undermine the credibility of the study—would play a vital role herein.

Feedback on Performance

It is possible for regular evaluations by the experimenters to function as a scoreboard that enhances productivity. The mere fact that the workers are better acquainted with their performance may actuate them to increase their output.

Despite the seeming implications of the Hawthorne effect in a variety of contexts, recent reviews of the initial studies seem to challenge the original conclusions.

For instance, the data from the first experiment were long thought to have been destroyed. Rice (1982) notes that “the original [illumination] research data somehow disappeared.”

Gale (2004, p. 439) states that “these particular experiments were never written up, the original study reports were lost, and the only contemporary account of them derives from a few paragraphs in a trade journal.”

However, Steven Levitt and John List of the University of Chicago were able to uncover and evaluate these data (Levitt & List, 2011). They found that the supposedly notable patterns were entirely fictional despite the possible manifestations of the Hawthorne effect.

They proposed excess responsiveness to variations induced by the experimenter, relative to variations occurring naturally, as an alternative means to test for the Hawthorne effect.

Another study sought to determine whether the Hawthorne effect actually exists, and if so, under what conditions it does, and how large it could be (McCambridge, Witton & Elbourne, 2014).

Following the systemic review of the available evidence on the Harthorne effect, the researchers concluded that while research participation may indeed impact the behaviors being investigated, discovering more about its operation, its magnitude, and its mechanisms require further investigation.

How to Reduce the Hawthorne Effect

The credibility of experiments is essential to advances in any scientific discipline. However, when the results are significantly influenced by the mere fact that the subjects were observed, testing hypotheses becomes exceedingly difficult.

As such, several strategies may be employed to reduce the Hawthorne Effect.

Discarding the Initial Observations :

• Participants in studies often take time to acclimate themselves to their new environments.
• During this period, the alterations in performance may stem more from a temporary discomfort with the new environment than from an actual variable.
• Greater familiarity with the environment over time, however, would decrease the effect of this transition and reveal the raw effects of the variables whose impact the experimenters are observing.

Using Control Groups:

• When the subjects experiencing the intervention and those in the control group are treated in the same manner in an experiment, the Hawthorne effect would likely influence both groups equivalently.
• Under such circumstances, the impact of the intervention can be more readily identified and analyzed.
• Where ethically permissible, the concealment of information and covert data collection can be used to mitigate the Hawthorne effect.
• Observing the subjects without informing them, or conducting experiments covertly, often yield more reliable outcomes. The famous marshmallow experiment at Stanford University, which was conducted initially on 3 to 5-year-old children, is a striking example.

Frequently Asked Questions

What did the researchers, who identified the hawthorne effect, see as evidence that employee performance was influenced by something other than the physical work conditions.

The researchers of the Hawthorne Studies noticed that employee productivity increased not only in improved conditions (like better lighting), but also in unchanged or even worsened conditions.

They concluded that the mere fact of being observed and feeling valued (the so-called “Hawthorne Effect”) significantly impacted workers’ performance, independent from physical work conditions.

What is the Hawthorne effect in simple terms?

The Hawthorne Effect is when people change or improve their behavior because they know they’re being watched.

It’s named after a study at the Hawthorne Works factory, where researchers found that workers became more productive when they realized they were being observed, regardless of the actual working conditions.

Bauernfeind, R. H., & Olson, C. J. (1973). Is the Hawthorne effect in educational experiments a chimera ? The Phi Delta Kappan, 55 (4), 271-273.

Clark, R. E., & Sugrue, B. M. (1988). Research on instructional media 1978-88. In D. Ely (Ed.), Educational Media and Technology Yearbook, 1994. Volume 20. Libraries Unlimited, Inc., PO Box 6633, Englewood, CO 80155-6633.

Cox, E. (2001).  Psychology for A-level . Oxford University Press.

Fox, N. S., Brennan, J. S., & Chasen, S. T. (2008). Clinical estimation of fetal weight and the Hawthorne effect. European Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology and Reproductive Biology, 141 (2), 111-114.

Gale, E.A.M. (2004). The Hawthorne studies – a fable for our times? Quarterly Journal of Medicine, (7) ,439-449.

Henslin, J. M., Possamai, A. M., Possamai-Inesedy, A. L., Marjoribanks, T., & Elder, K. (2015). Sociology: A down to earth approach . Pearson Higher Education AU.

Landsberger, H. A. (1958). Hawthorne Revisited : Management and the Worker, Its Critics, and Developments in Human Relations in Industry.

Levitt, S. D., & List, J. A. (2011). Was there really a Hawthorne effect at the Hawthorne plant? An analysis of the original illumination experiments. American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, 3 (1), 224-38.

Mayo, E. (1945). The human problems of an industrial civilization . New York: The Macmillan Company.

McCambridge, J., Witton, J., & Elbourne, D. R. (2014). Systematic review of the Hawthorne effect: new concepts are needed to study research participation effects. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 67 (3), 267-277.

McCarney, R., Warner, J., Iliffe, S., Van Haselen, R., Griffin, M., & Fisher, P. (2007). The Hawthorne Effect: a randomised, controlled trial. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 7 (1), 1-8.

Rice, B. (1982). The Hawthorne defect: Persistence of a flawed theory. Psychology Today, 16 (2), 70-74.

Orne, M. T. (2009). Demand characteristics and the concept of quasi-controls. Artifacts in behavioral research: Robert Rosenthal and Ralph L. Rosnow’s classic books, 110 , 110-137.

Further Information

• Wickström, G., & Bendix, T. (2000). The” Hawthorne effect”—what did the original Hawthorne studies actually show?. Scandinavian journal of work, environment & health, 363-367.
• Levitt, S. D., & List, J. A. (2011). Was there really a Hawthorne effect at the Hawthorne plant? An analysis of the original illumination experiments. American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, 3(1), 224-38.
• Oswald, D., Sherratt, F., & Smith, S. (2014). Handling the Hawthorne effect: The challenges surrounding a participant observer. Review of social studies, 1(1), 53-73.
• Bloombaum, M. (1983). The Hawthorne experiments: a critique and reanalysis of the first statistical interpretation by Franke and Kaul. Sociological Perspectives, 26(1), 71-88.

Module 6: Motivation in the Workplace

The hawthorne effect, learning outcome.

• Explain the role of the Hawthorne effect in management

During the 1920s, a series of studies that marked a change in the direction of motivational and managerial theory was conducted by Elton Mayo on workers at the Hawthorne plant of the Western Electric Company in Illinois. Previous studies, in particular Frederick Taylor’s work, took a “man as machine” view and focused on ways of improving individual performance. Hawthorne, however, set the individual in a social context, arguing that employees’ performance is influenced by work surroundings and coworkers as much as by employee ability and skill. The Hawthorne studies are credited with focusing managerial strategy on the socio-psychological aspects of human behavior in organizations.

The following video from the AT&T archives contains interviews with individuals who participated in these studies. It provides insight into the way the studies were conducted and how they changed employers’ views on worker motivation.

The studies originally looked into the effects of physical conditions on productivity and whether workers were more responsive and worked more efficiently under certain environmental conditions, such as improved lighting. The results were surprising: Mayo found that workers were more responsive to social factors—such as their manager and coworkers—than the factors (lighting, etc.) the researchers set out to investigate. In fact, worker productivity improved when the lights were dimmed again and when everything had been returned to the way it was before the experiment began, productivity at the factory was at its highest level and absenteeism had plummeted.

What happened was Mayo discovered that workers were highly responsive to additional attention from their managers and the feeling that their managers actually cared about and were interested in their work. The studies also found that although financial incentives are important drivers of worker productivity, social factors are equally important.

Practice Question

There were a number of other experiments conducted in the Hawthorne studies, including one in which two women were chosen as test subjects and were then asked to choose four other workers to join the test group. Together, the women worked assembling telephone relays in a separate room over the course of five years (1927–1932). Their output was measured during this time—at first, in secret. It started two weeks before moving the women to an experiment room and continued throughout the study. In the experiment room, they were assigned to a supervisor who discussed changes with them and, at times, used the women’s suggestions. The researchers then spent five years measuring how different variables affected both the group’s and the individuals’ productivity. Some of the variables included giving two five-minute breaks (after a discussion with the group on the best length of time), and then changing to two ten-minute breaks (not the preference of the group).

Changing a variable usually increased productivity, even if the variable was just a change back to the original condition. Researchers concluded that the employees worked harder because they thought they were being monitored individually. 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.

The Hawthorne studies showed that people’s work performance is dependent on social issues and job satisfaction. The studies concluded that tangible motivators such as monetary incentives and good working conditions are generally less important in improving employee productivity than intangible motivators such as meeting individuals’ desire to belong to a group and be included in decision making and work.

Candela Citations

• Boundless Management. Provided by : Boundless. Located at : https://courses.lumenlearning.com/boundless-management/ . License : CC BY-SA: Attribution-ShareAlike
• Revision and adaptation. Authored by : Linda Williams and Lumen Learning. Provided by : Tidewater Community College. Located at : https://courses.lumenlearning.com/wmopen-introductiontobusiness/chapter/introduction-to-the-hawthorne-effect/ . License : CC BY-SA: Attribution-ShareAlike
• AT&T Archives: The Year They Discovered People. Provided by : AT&T Tech Channel. Located at : https://youtu.be/D3pDWt7GntI . License : All Rights Reserved . License Terms : Standard YouTube License
• Hawthorne Works. Provided by : Western Electric Company. Located at : https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Hawthorne_Works_aerial_view_ca_1920_pg_2.jpg . License : Public Domain: No Known Copyright

Overview of the Hawthorne Effect

The field of organizational behavior is built on a foundation of research and studies that aim to understand the complexities of human behavior within the workplace. One of the most influential studies in this field is the Hawthorne Studies, conducted at the Western Electric Hawthorne Works in Chicago between 1924 and 1932.

Led by a team of researchers from Harvard Business School , these studies revolutionized the understanding of human behavior in a work setting and continue to shape organizational behavior research today.

The Hawthorne Effect, named after the studies that uncovered it, refers to the phenomenon where individuals modify their behavior simply because they are being observed.

• 1 The Context of the Hawthorne Studies
• 2 The Initial Experiments and Findings
• 3 The Significance of the Hawthorne Studies
• 4 The Legacy of the Hawthorne Effect in Organizational Behavior
• 5.1.1 Benefits and Impact
• 5.1.2 Limitations

The Context of the Hawthorne Studies

The Hawthorne Studies were conducted by a team of researchers from Harvard Business School, including Elton Mayo, Fritz Roethlisberger, and William J. Dickson. Elton Mayo , considered the father of the Hawthorne Studies, played a crucial role in shaping the research and interpreting the findings.

The Hawthorne Studies were originally initiated to examine the relationship between lighting levels and worker productivity. The researchers believed that by increasing lighting levels, they could improve worker efficiency.

However, the results of the initial experiments surprised them. Not only did productivity increase when lighting was increased, but it also increased when lighting was decreased. This unexpected finding prompted further investigations into the psychological and social factors that influence worker motivation and performance.

The Initial Experiments and Findings

The initial experiments of the Hawthorne Studies focused on the relationship between lighting levels and worker productivity. The researchers divided the workers into two groups and manipulated the lighting conditions for each group. Surprisingly, both groups showed increased productivity regardless of whether the lighting was increased or decreased. This phenomenon became known as the “Hawthorne Effect” and led the researchers to delve deeper into the factors that influence worker behavior.

Further experiments were conducted to explore factors such as rest breaks, incentives, and supervisory styles. The researchers found that regardless of the specific changes made, productivity tended to increase. This led to the realization that it was not the specific changes themselves that influenced productivity, but rather the attention given to the workers and the social interactions within the workplace.

The Significance of the Hawthorne Studies

The Hawthorne Studies challenged traditional management theories that focused solely on the technical aspects of work. They demonstrated that the human element within organizations plays a crucial role in productivity and job satisfaction.

The studies highlighted the importance of worker attitudes, group dynamics, and social interactions in influencing employee performance. This shift in perspective paved the way for a greater emphasis on creating supportive and collaborative work environments that prioritize employee well-being and engagement.

The findings of the Hawthorne Studies also led to the development of new management practices. The researchers advocated for a more participative management style that encouraged open communication, employee involvement in decision-making, and a focus on developing positive relationships between managers and workers. These practices aimed to create a sense of belonging and foster a positive work culture, ultimately leading to improved performance and job satisfaction.

The Legacy of the Hawthorne Effect in Organizational Behavior

The Hawthorne Studies have left a lasting legacy in the field of organizational behavior. They shifted the focus from a purely technical approach to a more holistic understanding of employee behavior.

The studies highlighted the importance of considering the human element within organizations and recognizing the impact of social interactions and group dynamics on productivity and job satisfaction.

The Hawthorne Studies also paved the way for further research in the field, inspiring subsequent studies that explored topics such as leadership styles, employee motivation, and organizational culture .

Criticisms of the Hawthorne Studies

One criticism is that the studies were c onducted in a specific context – the Hawthorne Works factory – which may limit the generalizability of the findings to other industries or settings.

Some argue that the Hawthorne Effect itself may have influenced the results , as the workers may have changed their behavior due to the awareness of being observed.

Another criticism is that the studies did not take into account external factors that could have influenced productivity, such as changes in technology or market conditions.

And critics argue that the studies focused too heavily on the social and psychological aspects of work , neglecting other important factors that contribute to productivity.

Quick Overview of the Hawthorne Effect

Human Relations Approach : Emphasized the importance of social relations and employee attitudes in the workplace.

Effect of Observation on Behavior : Known as the “Hawthorne Effect,” it suggests that workers modify their behavior in response to being observed.

Increased Productivity : Found that changes in physical work conditions (like lighting) temporarily increased productivity.

Social Factors in Work : Identified the significant role of social groups and norms in the workplace.

Employee Motivation : Highlighted non-economic factors like camaraderie and attention as motivators for workers.

Management Practices : Suggested that more attention to workers’ needs could improve worker satisfaction and productivity.

Benefits and Impact

Humanizes the Workplace : Shifted focus from strict task orientation to considering workers’ social needs and well-being.

Foundation for Modern HR Practices : Influenced the development of employee-centered management and human resource practices.

Importance of Social Dynamics : Emphasized the role of group dynamics, leadership, and communication in work efficiency.

Broader Understanding of Motivation : Contributed to understanding that motivation is not solely driven by pay or working conditions.

Limitations

Methodological Flaws : Critics point out flaws in experimental design, lack of proper controls, and subjective interpretations.

Exaggerated Effects : Some argue that the studies overemphasized the impact of social and psychological factors on productivity.

Overgeneralization : Critics believe that conclusions drawn from the studies were too broad and not universally applicable.

Potential Bias : The presence of researchers may have influenced worker behavior, questioning the validity of the results.

Key Takeaways

• The Hawthorne Studies have had a profound impact on our understanding of human behavior in the workplace.
• These studies revolutionized management theories by highlighting the significance of worker attitudes, group dynamics, and social interactions in influencing productivity and job satisfaction.
• The findings of the studies continue to shape modern-day organizations, emphasizing the value of employee engagement, teamwork, and creating a positive work culture for optimal performance.

What is the Hawthorne Effect?

The Hawthorne Effect refers to the phenomenon where individuals change or improve an aspect of their behavior in response to their awareness of being observed.

How was the Hawthorne Effect identified?

It was identified during the Hawthorne Studies conducted at the Western Electric Hawthorne Works, where changes in work environment led to increased productivity, believed to be due to the workers’ awareness of being observed.

What were the Hawthorne Studies?

The Hawthorne Studies were a series of experiments on worker productivity conducted at the Hawthorne Works of Western Electric Company in Chicago between 1924 and 1932.

Why is the Hawthorne Effect important in research?

In research, the Hawthorne Effect is important because it highlights the need to consider how the presence of researchers or the awareness of being studied can influence participants’ behavior.

Can the Hawthorne Effect affect the outcome of an experiment?

Yes, the Hawthorne Effect can significantly affect the outcome of an experiment as participants might alter their natural behavior due to the awareness of being observed or studied.

Is the Hawthorne Effect only observed in workplace settings?

No, the Hawthorne Effect can occur in various settings, including clinical trials, educational research, and workplace studies, essentially anywhere subjects are aware they are being observed.

How can researchers minimize the Hawthorne Effect?

Researchers can minimize the Hawthorne Effect by using control groups, ensuring anonymity, employing blind or double-blind study designs, and minimizing the intrusion of observation.

Does the Hawthorne Effect have implications for management?

Yes, in management, it suggests that giving attention to employees and making them feel valued can improve productivity and job satisfaction.

What criticisms have been made about the Hawthorne Effect?

Critics argue that the original studies had methodological flaws, and some suggest the effect might be overestimated or not as universal as once thought.

How is the Hawthorne Effect relevant in today’s workplace?

In modern workplaces, understanding the Hawthorne Effect is relevant for designing work environments and management practices that acknowledge the impact of observation and attention on employee behavior and productivity.

About The Author

Geoff Fripp

Related posts, theories of multiple intelligences.

The theory of Multiple Intelligences, introduced by Howard Gardner in 1983, challenges the traditional view of intelligence as a single, general ability.

Find out more...

Goal-setting Theory: Motivation

Motivation Definition: The reason or reasons to act in a particular way. It is what makes us do things and carry out tasks for the organisation.…

Fundamental Attribution Error

The Fundamental Attribution Error often means there are false reason why something happened, we have to look into why something happened, but look at it…

Personality in Organisations

Personality Definition: A personality is a mixture of a person’s characteristics, beliefs and qualities which make them who they are. What is the Definition of Personality?…

• HBS Home HBS Index Contact Us
• A New Vision An Essay by Professors Michel Anteby and Rakesh Khurana
• Introduction
• The Hawthorne Plant
• Employee Welfare
• Illumination Studies and Relay Assembly Test Room
• Enter Elton Mayo
• Human Relations and Harvard Business School
• Women in the Relay Assembly Test Room
• The Interview Process
• Spreading the Word
• Next The "Hawthorne Effect"

The “Hawthorne Effect”

What Mayo urged in broad outline has become part of the orthodoxy of modern management.

In 1966, Roethlisberger and William Dickson published Counseling in an Organization , which revisited lessons gained from the experiments. Roethlisberger described “the Hawthorne effect” as the phenomenon in which subjects in behavioral studies change their performance in response to being observed. Many critics have reexamined the studies from methodological and ideological perspectives; others find the overarching questions and theories of the time have new relevance in light of the current focus on collaborative management. The experiments remain a telling case study of researchers and subsequent scholars who interpret the data through the lens of their own times and particular biases. 12

Mayo and Roethlisberger helped define a new curriculum focus, one in alliance with Dean Donham’s desire to address social and industrial issues through field-based empirical research. Harvard’s role in the Hawthorne experiments gave rise to the modern application of social science to organization life and lay the foundation for the human relations movement and the field of organizational behavior (the study of organizations as social systems) pioneered by George Lombard, Paul Lawrence, and others.

“Instead of treating the workers as an appendage to ‘the machine’,” Jeffrey Sonnenfeld notes in his detailed analysis of the studies, the Hawthorne experiments brought to light ideas concerning motivational influences, job satisfaction, resistance to change, group norms, worker participation, and effective leadership. 13 These were groundbreaking concepts in the 1930s. From the leadership point of view today, organizations that do not pay sufficient attention to ‘people’ and ‘cultural’ variables are consistently less successful than those that do. From the leadership point of view today, organizations that do not pay sufficient attention to people and the deep sentiments and relationships connecting them are consistently less successful than those that do. “The change which you and your associates are working to effect will not be mechanical but humane.” 14

• Research Links
• Baker Library | Historical Collections | Site Credits | Digital Accessibility
• Contact Email: [email protected]

© President and Fellows of Harvard College

MBA Knowledge Base

Business • Management • Technology

Home » Management Concepts » Understanding the Significance of Hawthorne Studies to Management

Understanding the Significance of Hawthorne Studies to Management

The Hawthorne experiments were conducted at Western Electric’s Hawthorne plant in Illinois, running from 1924 through 1932. These experiments were intended to examine how people would react to certain conditions such as light, heat, and humidity. These variables were altered and produced both expected and unexpected results. Further trials embarked as Professor George Elton Mayo brought an academic research team into the factory, which were among the most extensive social science studies ever conducted. These investigations have been heavily criticized for merely serving the interest of management. However, these accusations can be argued. The Hawthorne investigations did not only have enormous influence on the ‘human factors’ to management but also on the development of industrial psychology and sociology. Some maintain their opinion that the human relations approach is misinterpreted, leading to major failures.

The Hawthorne studies were initially undertaken to investigate the relationship between physical work conditions and employers productivity. But the experiments represented revolutionary work in the field of management and lead to the creation of the human relations movement. These studies broke the boundaries of the management theory of the time, Taylorism . Scientific management, developed by Frederick W. Taylor , was a concentration exclusively on the physical aspects of work, ignoring the psychological needs and capabilities of the worker. Taylor’s view of management became inadequate due to the findings of the Hawthorne researchers, who revealed that the physical work environment was one of the only many aspects which influence employee productivity. This style of management became known as authoritarian. The human relations school was concerned with the human aspect of work, meaning that interpersonal relations, especially the feelings within working groups were of importance. Group harmony, satisfaction of individual needs, and the care for people were vital. By the individual worker being able to participate and involved in the decision making related positively to the productivity. In other words, this represents a democratic way of leadership . Nonetheless, particular studies also point out that productivity is sometimes positively connected to the authoritarian style. Showing that certain people do prefer to be controlled and directed.

The primary experiment for the Hawthorne studies was to examine the connection between the illumination intensity and employee productivity . It showed that as the lightning improved in the experimental room, production increased. But production also rose in the control room. Followed by a slight amount of light in the experimental room, production was still rising, while there was constant illumination in the control room However, the results by 1927 were so confusing, that Elton Mayo and an academic research team were invited to continue a variety of inquiries on productivity and the motivation of worker.

The next experiment that took place from 1927 to 1933 was the Relay assembly test room. This engaged a small group of female staff taken to work in a Relay assembly room, away from the regular workforce, varying the number and lengths of breaks and working days. The women were cautiously studied and a total of thirteen periods with different rest pauses, hours of work, and breaks for refreshment were conducted. The result of this phase showed that regardless the changes, there was almost no persistent increase in output. This became known as the ‘Hawthorne Effect’. This effect refers to the tendency that people act differently when being observed during a research. The results were influenced by this reaction of the small group of women due to the observation of the researchers. The women were not motivated by the improvements of their working conditions or money, but a reason was that working in a group had increased their output. However, in the group work the productivity rose by 15 percent and management made rest breaks more common. Psychologists were especially interested in this particular study. They found it phenomenal that people’s attitudes changed as they were being watched since it seemed more important than changes to the physical work conditions.

The Interviewing programme took place from 1928 until 1930. In this period of time 21,000 employees were interviewed. Interviewers began through asking highly structured questions on work and its conditions and then about non-related work issues, e.g. on family and social issues. The friendlier, the more interest the supervisors showed in the individual worker, and the less harsh discipline existed, the more increases in productivity and morale became significant. The researchers learned a great deal about the staff’s attitude towards their job. This finding’s reveal that workers actually lacked social support and that placing individuals in groups had a positive effect. A famous psychologist, Rensis Likert , contended that organizations should be managed as a collection of groups, rather than individuals.

The Bank wiring observations room experiments commenced in 1931 until 1932. This test was conducted without any alteration in the working condition. A group of fourteen workers were taken from the production line and observed for six months. Each employee had three different jobs but worked together in order to produce one output. During this time, the group developed its own procedures to defend its own interests. Productivity remained constant and was unaffected by work payments. The group had developed informal rules of behavior and determined what was a fair days payment for a fair day’s work. The worker’s were afraid that if they produced considerably more output, that the daily unit output would be replaced by an increase of expected output. These results show that the social forces were far more important for the worker than the controls and regulations of the organization. Again stressing the meaning for the worker to belong to a group and not be isolated. Communication from the superior to the employee would eliminate such misunderstandings.

The Hawthorne studies did contribute an immense amount to management and served them enormously as we have seen from the various experiments discussed. It was a revolutionary research project at that point of time and discovered a whole new era in the human relations movement. Nevertheless, the Hawthorne reports did affect psychology and sociology. It affected especially the industrial psychology, meaning the observation of specific human behavior. Especially, the ‘Hawthorne effect’ was in the interest of the psychologists and it became one of the best-known psychological results. The effect has been generalized to every kind of psychological study. However, recently the Hawthorne effect has been reanalyzed and considering it to be a myth. There is no solid evidence that the workers in the relay room felt better in response to personal attention by supervisors and the participation in a new programme.

Criticisms always exist with each single new discovery; someone will always have something to declare. It is up to the manager to know how to handle its business. However, it may be true that Mayo’s conclusions of human relations movement cannot always be applied. Some organizations need more direction and a specific structure for their employees. Finding a midpoint with both the Taylorism and Mayonism would be an effective way of leadership .

Further criticisms pronounce that the Hawthorne studies cannot be seen as an accurate research. They insist that there was a ‘lack of adequate control’ in the study. There were rumors that Elton Mayo did not appear, accurately controlled the variables of the experiment, nor noted them down correctly. Supposedly, changes in the number of participants, misinterpretations, and inaccurate history of work circumstances during the study, provided false results. Yet, these factors are minor when considering the real contributions the Hawthorne studies have brought to management and psychology. These are determent’s that exist but not make the study any less valuable to knowledge. Another ideological critique argues that ‘the studies showed a pro-management bias in favor of manipulating the workforce.’ However, the key view of management at that time was Taylorism, which entirely ignored the human element. No matter how many critiques and debates there are about the faults of the Hawthorne studies, the contributions well over take all assumptions. The discovery that physical work conditions were not the prime importance of the worker but also social factors was a break through.

The main conclusions that can be drawn from Elton Mayo’s experiments are it is essential that work is a group activity, the necessity of recognition, need for security, and job satisfaction. Organizations are social systems, not just technical economic systems. It was proven that management requires social skills and not just technical skills. Only giving the employee specific instructions and demands will give the worker the wrong impression. It is necessary to have some contact in order to achieve knowledge of what is going on between the workers. This knowledge can effectively improve the boss’s management skill and through this contact earn the necessary respect. Since, the Hawthorne studies are not methodologically precise, it does not reduce the importance of their findings. They were revolutionary, no one before had noticed that human relations were that important to organizational output. Humans were seen as ‘machines’ until the studies came along. Then the well being of employees became of significant and changed the way managerial style.

In conclusion, it has become evident that there are various approaches to organizational efficiency. The first significant method was scientific management, where the main focus was on the physical aspect of work, also on the individual worker and not group work. Taylor furthermore ignored the importance of other rewards than money, such as achievement and job satisfaction . As the Hawthorne studies were conducted and moved away from Taylorism, which indicated a paradigm shift, redefining the field of management research. It had broken the traditional theory of Taylor and no study had ever had such an impact on management as the Hawthorne investigations. Elton Mayo was known as the main supporter of the human relations movement in management. He stated that in order to motivate people, meaning increase in output and efficiency, the individual worker has to believe that their corporation cares about them, is concerned, and willing to listen. The emotional and social sides were major attributes of organizational behavior . These studies did have an enormous amount of influence on management but also on sociology and psychology. In spite of all criticisms, the Hawthorne studies still contributed a significant amount and redefined management. It also brought one of the most important results to psychology.

Related posts:

• Elton Mayo’s Hawthorne Experiment and It’s Contributions to Management
• 4 Phases of Hawthorne Experiment – Explained
• Analysis of Problems in Management Case Studies
• Leadership vs. Management: Understanding the Differences
• Case Studies on Debt Recovery Management
• Receivable Management – Meaning, Significance and Purpose
• Case Study of Apple iPod: Significance of Strategic Innovation Management within the Business
• Role of Case Studies in Employee Training and Development

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Your Article Library

Hawthorne experiments on human behavior: findings and conclusion.

ADVERTISEMENTS:

Hawthorne Experiments on Human Behavior: Findings and Conclusion!

George Elton Mayo was in charge of certain experiments on human behaviour carried out at the Hawthorne Works of the Western Electric company in Chicago between 1924 and 1927. His research findings have contributed to organizational development in terms of human relations and motivation theory.

From the findings of these investigations he came to certain conclusions as follows:

1. Work is a group activity.

2. The social world of the adult is primarily patterned about work activity.

3. The need for recognition, security and sense of belonging is more important in determining workers’ morale and productivity than the physical conditions under which he works.

4. A complaint is not necessarily an objective recital of facts; it is commonly a symptom manifesting disturbance of an individual’s status position.

5. The worker is a person whose attitudes and effectiveness are conditioned by social demands from both inside and outside the work area.

6. Informal groups within the work area exercise strong social controls over the work habits and attitudes of the individual worker.

7. The change from an established society in the home to an adaptive society in the work area resulting from the use of new techniques tends to continually disrupt the social organization of a work area plant and industry generally.

8. Group collaboration does not occur by accident; it must be planned and developed. If group collaboration is achieved, then the human relations within a work area may reach a cohesion which resists the disrupting effects of adaptive society.

To his amazement, Elton Mayo discovered a general upward trend in production, completely independent of any of the changes he made. His findings didn’t blend with the then current theory of the worker as motivated solely by self-interest. It didn’t make sense that productivity would continue to rise gradually when he cut out breaks and returned the women to longer working hours.

Mayo began to look around and realized that the women, exercising a freedom they didn’t have on the factory floor, had formed a social atmosphere that also included the observer who tracked their productivity. The talked, they joked, they began to meet socially outside of work.

Mayo had discovered a fundamental concept that seems obvious today. Workplaces are social environments and within them, people are motivated by much more than economic self-interest. He concluded that all aspects of that industrial environment carried social value.

When the women were singled out from the rest of the factory workers, it raised their self-esteem. When they were allowed to have a friendly relationship with their supervisor. They felt happier at work. When he discussed changes in advance with them, they felt like part of the team.

He had secured their cooperation and loyalty; it explained why productivity rose even when he took away their rest breaks. The power of the social setting and peer group dynamics became even more obvious to Mayo in a later part of the Hawthorne Studies, when he saw the flip side of his original experiments. A group of 14 men who participated in a similar study restricted production because they were distrustful of the goals of the project.

The portion of the Hawthorne Studies that dwelt on the positive effects of benign supervision and concern for workers that made them feel like part of a team became known as the Hawthorne Effect; the studies themselves spawned the human relations school of management that is constantly being recycled in new forms today, witness quality circles, participatory management, team building, etc.

Incidentally, the Hawthorne Works—the place where history was made, is history itself now. Western Electric closed it in 1983.

The Hawthorne Effect:

In the training world, the Hawthorne Effect is a chameleon. Ask several trainers and you’ll probably get several definitions, most of them legitimate and all of them true to some aspect of the original experiments by Elton Mayo, in Chicago that produced the term.

It has been described as the rewards you reap when you pay attention to people. The mere act of showing people that you’re concerned about them usually spurs them to better job performance. That’s the Hawthorne Effect.

The Hawthorne Effect at Work:

Suppose you’ve taken a management trainee and given her specialized training in management skills she doesn’t now possess. Without saying a word, you’ve given the trainee the feeling that she is so valuable to the organization that you’ll spend time and money to develop her skills.

She feels she’s on a track to the top, and that motivates her to work harder and better. The motivation is independent of any particular skills or knowledge she may have gained from the training session. That’s the Hawthorne Effect at work.

In a way, the Hawthorne Effect can be construed as an enemy of the modern trainer. Carrying the theory to the edges of cynicism, some would say it doesn’t make any difference what you teach because the Hawthorne Effect will produce the positive outcome you want.

A Sense of Belonging:

Some executives denigrate training and credit the Hawthorne Effect when productivity rises. Effective training performs a dual function: It educates people and it strokes them. And there’s nothing wrong with using the Hawthorne Effect to reach this other training goal. In fact, the contention is that about 50% of any successful training session can be attributed to the Hawthorne Effect.

The Hawthorne Effect has also been called the ‘Somebody Upstairs Cares’ syndrome. Those who think that Hawthorne effect means that you simply ‘have to be nice to people’, are under a misconception because it is more than etiquette’.

Actually, when people spend a large portion of their time at work, they must have a sense of belonging, of being part of a team. When they feel that they belong, they produce better. That’s the Hawthorne Effect. There is a different interpretation of the Hawthorne Effect. It has a Big Brother ring that’s far less benign than other definitions. It is about workers under the eye of the supervisor.

It questions the reliability of the idea of observing workers on the job to see if they truly apply new procedures they’ve learned in a training course. Most managers object saying that observation isn’t a valid test as it is obvious that the workers will do a good job if you’re watching them.

In essence the Hawthorne Effect really is not just about “positive outcomes” the positive effect of “attention” wore off later in the life-span of the Hawthorne Studies. It is about the absence of definite correlation (positive or negative) between productivity and independent variables used in the experiments (monetary incentive, rest pauses, etc.).

Related Articles:

• Human Relations Approach to Management
• Criticisms Faced by Hawthorne Experiments | Management

Hawthorne Experiments

No comments yet.

Leave a reply click here to cancel reply..

You must be logged in to post a comment.