Lloyd Warner and William J. Warner was on Mayo's Harvard team, trained as an anthropologist and primarily interested in Hawthorne from an entirely different perspective, that of an observer of the social behavior of a group. Dickson was a Hawthorne employee, with an even keener interest in the tests than the Harvard team; he remained with the company until retiring in Their contributions were to adapt social anthropology research methods to industrial conditions.
Dickson conducted the interview phase of the tests. Perhaps the most revealing aspect of the bank-wiring tests was that the workers combined to slow down production—a clear indication of the need for analysis of the social relationships of workers.
Research showed the most admired worker among the group was the one who demonstrated the greatest resentment of authority by slowing down production the most. The bank-wiring tests were shut down in the spring of in reaction to layoffs brought on by the deepening depression. Layoffs were gradual, but by May the bank-wiring tests were concluded.
These tests were intended to study the group as a functioning unit and observe its behavior. The study findings confirmed the complexity of group relations and stressed the expectations of the group over an individual's preference.
The conclusion was to tie the importance of what workers felt about one another to worker motivation. Industrial plants were a complex social system with significant informal organizations that played a vital role in motivating workers. Employees had physical as well as social needs, and the company gradually developed a program of human relations including employee counseling and improved supervision with an emphasis on the individual workers.
The results were a reinterpretation of industrial group behavior and the introduction of what has become human relations. The Hawthorne studies were conducted in three independent stages—the illumination tests, the relay-assembly tests, and the bank-wiring tests. Although each was a separate experiment, the second and third each developed out of the preceding series of tests. Neither Hawthorne officials nor NRC researchers anticipated the duration of the studies, yet the conclusions of each set of tests and the Hawthorne experiments as a whole are the legacy of the studies and what sets them apart as a significant part of the history of industrial behavior and human relations.
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. The most disturbing conclusion emphasized how little the researchers could determine about informal group behavior and its role in industrial settings.
Finally, the Hawthorne studies proved beyond certainty that there was a great deal more to be learned about human interactions in the workplace, and academic and industrial study has continued in an effort to understand these complex relationships.
Beyond the legacy of the Hawthorne studies has been the use of the term "Hawthorne effect" to describe how the presence of researchers produces a bias and unduly influences the outcome of the experiment.
In addition, several important published works grew out of the Hawthorne experience, foremost of which was Mayo's The Human Problems of an Industrial Civilization and Roethlisberger and Dickson's Management and the Worker. Other books focused on the various parts of the experiments, and researchers have written countless analyses and histories of the Hawthorne studies. The Hawthorne studies have been described as the most important social science experiment ever conducted in an industrial setting, yet the studies were not without their critics.
Several criticisms, including those of sociologist Daniel Bell, focused on the exclusion of unionized workers in the studies. Sociologists and economists were the most commanding critics, defending their disciplinary turf more than offering serious criticisms. For his part, Mayo called into question research findings of both economists and psychologists. More serious questions were raised by social scientists who termed the studies bad science due to Mayo's conservative views.
Others expressed serious concerns about undue pressure from corporate interests and called Mayo and his colleagues "servants of power. The studies had the impact of defining clearly the human relations school. Gale, E. The Hawthorne studies — a fable for our times? Quarterly Journal of Medicine, 7 , Henslin, J. Sociology: A down to earth approach. Pearson Higher Education AU. Landsberger, H. Levitt, S. Was there really a Hawthorne effect at the Hawthorne plant?
An analysis of the original illumination experiments. American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, 3 1 , Mayo, E. The human problems of an industrial civilization. New York: The Macmillan Company. McCambridge, J. Systematic review of the Hawthorne effect: new concepts are needed to study research participation effects. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 67 3 , McCarney, R. The Hawthorne Effect: a randomised, controlled trial.
Rice, B. The Hawthorne defect: Persistence of a flawed theory. Psychology Today, 16 2 , Orne, M. Demand characteristics and the concept of quasi-controls. Artifacts in behavioral research: Robert Rosenthal and Ralph L. Then two researchers Franke, Kaul, used a new procedure called time-series analyses. Using the original variables and including in the Great Depression and the instance of a managerial discipline in which two insubordinate and mediocre workers were replaced by two different productive workers, with one who took the role of straw boss see note below ; they discovered that production was most affected by the replacement of the two workers due to their greater productivity and the affect of the disciplinary action on the other workers.
The occurrence of the Depression also encouraged job productivity, perhaps through the increased importance of jobs and the fear of losing them. Rest periods and a group incentive plan also had a somewhat positive smaller effect on productivity.
These variables accounted for almost all the variation in productivity during the experimental period. Early social sciences may have readily to embrace the original Hawthorne interpretations since it was looking for theories or work motivation that were more humane and democratic. Hay is dried grass, sometimes with a little alfalfa thrown in, used as feed for horses and cattle. Straw, on the other hand, is the stalks of wheat or other grains left over after harvesting the good parts, and is used primarily for livestock bedding.
It is now a metaphor for any low-level supervisor. And since straw bosses rarely wield any real power aside from the ability to make those under them miserable, straw boss today is often a synonym for a petty and vindictive superior. The studies began when engineers at the Hawthorne Western Electric plant decided to examine the effects of varying levels of light on worker productivity—an experiment that might have interested Frederick Taylor.
The engineers expected brighter light to lead to increased productivity, but the results showed that varying the level of light in either direction brighter or dimmer led to increased output from the experimental group. In , the Hawthorne engineers asked Harvard professor Elton Mayo and a team of researchers to join them in their investigation.
From to , Mayo and his colleagues conducted experiments on job redesign, length of workday and workweek, length of break times, and incentive plans. The results of the studies indicated that increases in performance were tied to a complex set of employee attitudes.
0コメント