Hawthorne Studies - Leadership

What is Hawthorne Studies?

A series of experiments were conducted by Mayo and Roethlisberger in an electricity factory called the Western Electric company at their Hawthorne plant known as Hawthorne Works, at Illinois, in USA, on factory workers between 1924 and 1932. These studies are known as Hawthorne Studies. Initially, the study focused on effect of lighting on productivity and later was enhanced to study the social effects.

First Experiment on Lighting:

In the first experiment, the effect was observed for minute increases in illumination. In these lighting studies, light intensity was altered to examine its effect on worker productivity. One phase of these studies aimed at finding out if changes in illumination, rest period and lunch breaks can affect the productivity of the workers. It was found to the surprise of the researchers that less light, shorter and fewer rest periods and shorter lunch breaks resulted in increased productivity.

Once all these changes; were eliminated and the normal working conditions were resumed, it was also seen that the workers' productivity and the feeling of being together went up.

Two things emerged from the initial studies: (1) the experimenter effect, and (2) a social effect. The experimenter effect was that making changes was interpreted by workers as a sign that management cared, and more generally, it was just provided some mental stimulation that was good for morale and productivity. The social effect was that it seemed that by being separated from the rest and being given special treatment, the workers developed a certain bond that also increased productivity. Hence the increase in productivity was attributed to the attitude of workers towards each other, their feeling of togetherness and to the attention paid to the workers by the researches that made them feel important which resulted in improvement in their work performance. This is known as Hawthorne effect.

Second Experiment - Bank Wiring Room:

The second phase of the study, the Bank Wiring Room, helped in studying the social effects. The purpose of the next study was also to find out how payment incentives would affect productivity. The study was conducted by Elton Mayo and W. Lloyd Warner between 1931 and 1932 on a group of fourteen men who put together telephone switching equipment. During this study some workers were put in a special room, and placed an observer full time in the room to record everything that happened. The kind of work done was assembling telephone switching equipment. The process was broken down into three tasks: wiring, soldering and inspection. Besides looking at the social organization of the group, they kept track of performance variables, like quality of work and amount of work.

The researchers found that although the workers were paid according to individual productivity, productivity decreased, even though they were paid by the amount they did each day, they did not raise outputs. If somebody tried, he faced opposition from others as the team became afraid that if some started producing more, the company would change the base rate. The surprising result was that productivity actually decreased. Workers apparently had become suspicious that their productivity may have been boosted to justify firing some of the workers later on.

Detailed observation between the men revealed the existence of informal groups or "cliques" within the formal groups. These cliques developed informal rules of behavior as well as mechanisms to enforce them. The results show that workers were more responsive to the social force of their peer groups than to the control and incentives of management. Just as management tried to control worker behavior by adjusting piece rates, hours of work, etc., the workers responded by adjusting management toward goals that were not necessarily economically rational.

Leadership Lessons from Studies:

Researchers concluded that the workers worked harder because they thought that they were being monitored individually. Researchers hypothesized that choosing one's own coworkers, working as a group, being treated as special and having a sympathetic supervisor were the real reasons for the productivity increase. One interpretation was that "the six individuals became a team and the team gave itself wholeheartedly and spontaneously to cooperation in the experiment. This study established the behavioral change that happened due to an awareness of being observed, resulting in active compliance with the supposed wishes of researchers, because of special attention received, or positive response to the stimulus being introduced.

These findings made Mayo and Roethlisberger conclude that a leader has not only to plan, decide, organize, lead and control but also consider the human element. This includes social needs of being together and being recognized for the work interaction of the group members with each other and their wellbeing. A good leader ought to keep the above aspects in his style of working with people and supervising their work.