THE HAWTH

THE HAWTHORNE EFFECTWHAT IS THE HAWTHORNE EFFECT? TheHawthorne effect(also referred to as theobserver effect) refers to a phenomenon whereby workers improve or modify an aspect of their behavior in response to a change in environment. The "Hawthorne effect" study suggested that the novelty of having research conducted and the increased attention from such could lead to temporary increases in productivity.

WHY WAS THE EXPERIMENT CONDUCTED?It was conducted to bring about motivational influences, job satisfaction, resistance to change, and effective leadership skills among the workers. Due to the Great Depression, in the early 1900s to inspire company loyalty, discourage high employee turnover and unionization, and present a good face to the public, corporate managers began to focus on the well-being of the employee through the practice of welfare capitalism.CASE STUDYProfessors from Harvard Business School conducted the Hawthorne experiments (the illumination room test, etc) at the manufacturing unit of AT&T namely- Western Electric.

THE MASTER BRAINS BEHIND ITElton MayoWhite HeadWilliam DicksonFritz Roethlisberger

Elton Mayo

The term HAWTHORNE EFFECT was coined in 1950 by Henry A. Landsbergerwhen analysing earlier experiments from 19241932 at theHawthorne Works(aWestern Electricfactory outside Chicago)

WHY HUMAN RELATIONS AND THE HAWTHORNE EXPERIMENT The Hawthorne plant of GENERAL ELECTRIC Co., Chicago, was manufacturing telephone system bells. It employed about 30,000 employees at the time of the experiment.In respect of material benefit workers this was the most progressive company with pension and sickness benefits and other recreational facilities, there was a great deal of dissatisfaction among the workers and productivity was not up to the mark.THE FOUR EXPERIMENTSIllumination experiment (nov.1924)Relay assembly test room experiment (1927-1932)Interviewing program (1928-1930)Bank wiring room observation experiment (1931-1932)

Harvard Business School, Western Electric undertook a series of behavioral experiments. The first, a sequence of illumination tests from 1924 to 1927, set out to determine the effects of lighting on worker efficiency in three separate manufacturing departments. Accounts of the study revealed no significant correlation between productivity and light levels. The results prompted researchers to investigate other factors affecting worker outputTHE ILLUMINATION EXPERIMENT (1924-1927)Funded by G.E.Conducted by The National Research Council of the National Academy of Sciences with engineers from MITPurpose: To study the effect of various lighting conditions on the workers productivityConclusion: Accounts of the study revealed no significant correlation between productivity and light levels.THE ILLUMINATION EXPERIMENT In a separate test room, an operator prepared parts for five women to assemble. The women dropped the completed relays into a chute where a recording device punched a hole in a continuously moving paper tape. The number of holes revealed the production rate for each worker. Researchers were unsure if productivity increased in this experiment because of the introduction of rest periods, shorter working hours, wage incentives, the dynamics of a smaller group, or the special attention the women received. RELAY ASSEMBLY TEST ROOM EXPERIMENT (1927-1932)Conducted by Elton MayoManipulated factors of production to measure effect on output (pay incentives, length of work, day and work week, use of rest periods, company sponsored meals)Giving two 5-minute breaks (after a discussion with them on the best length of time), and then changing to two 10-minute breaks (not their preference). Productivity increased, but when they received six 5-minute rests, they disliked it and reduced output.

RELAY ASSEMBLY TEST ROOM EXPERIMENT Providing food during the breaksShortening the day by 30 minutes (output went up); shortening it more (output per hour went up, but overall output decreased); returning to the first condition (where output peaked).Conclusion: Workers output increased as a response to attention, recognition, and sense of belonging.

Conducted 21,000 interviewsObjective: To explore information which could be used to improve supervisory trainingConclusion: Merely giving an opportunity to talk and express grievances would increase the morale.INTERVIEWING PROGRAM (1928-1930)Conducted byElton MayoandW. Lloyd WarnerPurpose: To find out how payment incentives would affect productivity.Conclusion: Productivity actually decreased. Workers apparently had become suspicious that their productivity may have been boosted to justify firing some of the workers later on.BANK WIRING OBSERVATION ROOM EXPERIMENT (1931-1932)CRITICAL ANALYSISAdair warns of gross factual inaccuracy in most secondary publications on Hawthorne effect and that many studies failed to find it.He argues that it should be viewed as a variant ofOrnes (1973) experimentaldemand effect. So for Adair, the issue is that an experimental effect depends on the participants' interpretation of the situation; this is why manipulation checksare important in social sciences experiments. So he thinks it is not awareness per se, nor special attention per se, but participants' interpretation that must be investigated in order to discover if/how the experimental conditions interact with the participants' goals. This can affect whether participants believe something, if they act on it or do not see it as in their interest, etc.

Possible explanations for the Hawthorne effect include the impact of feedback and motivation towards the experimenter. Receiving feedback on their performance may improve their skills when an experiment provides this feedback for the first time. Research on thedemand effectalso suggests that people may be motivated to please the experimenter, at least if it does not conflict with any other motive.They may also be suspicious of the purpose of the experimenter.Therefore, Hawthorne effect may only occur when there is usable feedback or a change in motivation.

Parsons defines the Hawthorne effect as "the confounding that occurs if experimenters fail to realize how the consequences of subjects' performance affect what subjects do" [i.e. learning effects, both permanent skill improvement and feedback-enabled adjustments to suit current goals]. His key argument is that in the studies where workers dropped their finished goods down chutes, the participants had access to the counters of their work rate.

CONCLUSIONHawthorne studies had a remarkable impact on management in organisations and how workers react to various situations.Stimulated interest on human behaviour in organisations.A lot of literature came out analysing the human behaviour in organisationsIn spite of the shortcomings of the experiments, it initiated a new approach to management (human relations approach)REFERENCESen.wikipedia.orgOrganisation behaviour by Fred LuthansOrganisation behaviour by PearsonHarvard Business School websiteDONE BY:

Group name: T H H I N CAbhishek-1411601 a a a me h Ankita-1411630 l p r p r eDevansh-1411608 k p d a d eHarsh-1411651 a y w t y rSharon-1411638 t o i fSushmika-1411645 i r e u v k n l e t