The Hawthome factory of the Western Electric Company, located outside Chicago, USA, was a specialized factory for the manufacture of telephones. It was well-equipped, had excellent benefits, good recreational facilities, a medical system and a pension system. But the workers were still unhappy and productivity was unsatisfactory. For this reason, in 1924, the American Academy of Sciences organized a research team including experts from various fields to conduct a comprehensive investigation and various experiments on the relationship between the working conditions and productivity of the factory. This is the famous Hawthorne test. From 1924 to 1932, in a period of nearly eight years, the Hawthorne test went through two rounds. The first round was conducted from November 1924 to May 1927, mainly under the auspices of the U.S. National Science Board. The second round, from 1927 to 1932, was conducted by Elto Mayo, a professor at Harvard University. The whole experiment before and after *** is divided into four parts.
One, lighting experiments
The experiment was carried out in the Hawthorne factory *** two and a half years, the test was carried out in the middle of the selected two groups of winding workers. One group was the "test group" and one was the "reference group". During the test, the "test group" increased the intensity of the illumination from 24, 46 and 76 candelas, while the illumination of the "reference group" remained constant.
The researchers initially intended to examine the relationship between illumination and output, and to find an ideal level of illumination at which workers could maximize their productivity. But to the researchers' surprise, as a result of the experiment, the output of both groups continued to increase. Later, they took the opposite measure, gradually reduce the intensity of the "test group" of lighting, but also the two test group of female workers in a separate room labor, so that the illumination has been reduced, from 10 candelas, 3 candelas all the way down to 0.06 candelas, almost and moonlight almost the same degree, and then, and only then, the production began to decline.
The researchers concluded that workplace lighting is only one factor affecting production, and a less important one at that. There must be something else besides lighting that affects production.
Because the researchers were baffled by their inability to find a reason, many quit. Only C. Pennock, the company's director of inspections, speculated at the time that the increase in production could be due to the workers' enthusiasm for their work, which had been boosted by the experiment. Later, in the winter of 1927, Pennock told Harvard professor Mayo his thoughts at a personnel manager's presentation and invited Mayo to participate in the Hawthorne experiment. Mayo accepted the invitation and organized a group of Harvard professors to form a new research team together with electrical company personnel. And so began the second phase of the study.
Two, relay assembly test
In order to be able to better control the factors affecting work performance, Mayo selected six female workers, in a separate room to engage in the assembly of relays, they told the female workers can maintain the usual pace of work, because the purpose of the test is not to improve production, but to study a variety of working conditions, in order to find out the most suitable working environment. During this period, the researchers appointed an observer at the test site, whose task was mainly to create a friendly atmosphere with the workers to ensure their cooperation. He also did some administrative work, talking informally with the women workers on a daily basis to dispel any doubts they might have about the experiment. This resulted in freer conversations with the women workers and a closer relationship than in the past. During the course of the experiment, welfare measures such as shorter working days, longer breaks, free refreshments, etc., were added. As productivity increased, the researchers initially thought that the welfare measures had stimulated the workers' motivation to produce. They then withdrew these measures, and production continued to rise rather than fall. This proves that changes in material conditions are not the only cause of increased production. After analyzing the possible reasons for these results, the researchers concluded that the change in management methods could be the main reason for the change in workers' attitudes and the increase in production.
Three, large-scale interview experiments
In more than two years, Mayo et al. organized a large-scale attitudinal survey, the number of conversations among workers reached more than 20,000 times. In the course of the interviews, most of the questions asked by the interviewers were "direct questions", such as the supervision of the factory and the working environment, etc. Although the interviewers declared in advance that they would keep the questions strictly confidential and asked the workers to rest assured, the interviewees still answered the questions in a veiled manner and were wary of retaliation for fear of being known to the factory authorities. The conversations were always platitudinous and irrelevant. Later, "non-direct questions" were used, allowing interviewees to choose their own appropriate topics, and then the workers had nothing to worry about in their conversations. As a result, a large amount of information on workers' attitudes was collected during the large-scale interviews and, after research and analysis, it was learned that workers' performance, position and status depended on both the individual and the members of the group. Interpersonal relations are a major factor affecting performance. At the same time, this large-scale experiment also received an unexpected effect, that is, after this conversation experiment, the factory's output appeared to increase significantly. After the researchers analyzed that this is due to the workers have long been on the factory management system and management methods have a lot of dissatisfaction, but there is no place to vent, this test, the workers have nothing to talk about, venting the grievances of the heart, and thus feel happy, so that the output rose significantly.
Four, relay winding machine group of studio test
This test is also known as the group test. Experimenters in order to systematically observe the interaction between people in the group, in the workshop selected 14 male workers, of which nine winding workers, three welders, two inspectors, working in a special separate room.
At the start of the experiment, the researchers explained to the workers that they could work as hard as they wanted, and that they would be paid on an individual piece-rate basis. The researchers thought the incentives would make the workers work harder and increase production. However, it turned out that production remained at a moderate level, and the daily output of each worker was similar. According to the theory of "time-one-action" analysis, the company calculated that the standard quota proposed to them is to complete 7312 welds per day, but the workers completed only 6000-6600 welds per day and quit, even if there is still a period of time from the end of the day, they also stop working by themselves. After deeper observation, the researchers learned that workers automatically limit their output for the following reasons: if they work too hard, they may cause other peers to lose their jobs, or the company will then set a higher production quota.
At the same time, the researchers gave each of the experimental group a sensitivity test and an intelligence test to see how their abilities differed. It was found that the three slowest winders scored higher on the agility test than the three fastest winders, with one of the slowest workers scoring first on the intelligence test and third on the agility test. This relationship between test results and actual production led the researcher to recognize the importance of the group to these workers, with one worker receiving a larger share of the group's total "wage fund" for increasing his production, as well as reducing the likelihood of unemployment. However, these material rewards can lead to criticism and punishment by the group. Thus, as long as the group's approved workload is accomplished each day, the group can get along just fine.
The researchers observed that workers sometimes exchanged their work and helped each other, which was against company rules, but this behavior greatly enhanced their friendship, and at times promoted resentment among them, and who liked and disliked whom could be shown as a result. Things such as these led the researchers to discover that there were two factions, or subgroups, among them, one known as Faction A and the other as Faction B. The researcher gained the following conclusions from his observation of them:
(1). The factions among them were not formed because of different jobs, for example, Faction A included three wire winders, along with one welder and one inspector.
(2). The formation of factions is more or less influenced by the location of the work, e.g. several workers of faction A are at the front end of the workshop, while several workers of faction B are at the back end of the workshop.
(3). There were also members of the test group who did not belong to any faction. For example, one of the testers had always been ostracized by the other members. The reason is that he once complained to the test section, that the workers in the studio are lazy, this matter was later known to everyone, they all keep a certain distance from him, and a winding worker, always like to make a splash in the B faction, although he wanted to join the B faction, the B faction has not therefore fully accepted him.
(4). Each faction thinks it is better than the others and has its own set of behavioral norms.
The researcher, in observing each of them in the performance of the norms of behavior which they had set up for themselves, found that some of the norms had to do with restricting production, while others were concerned with the character of the individual, and that, as far as the effect of their norms on the individual was concerned, the chief ones were as follows;
1. No one should do too much or too little, so as not to affect everyone.
2. No one is allowed to inform the administration and do anything harmful to his fellow men.
3. No one is allowed to stay away from everyone and be alone; nor is he allowed to make official remarks and look for trouble.
4. No one shall harangue or boast among the people, and be self-righteous and bent on leading them.
These norms are mainly enforced through a number of social sanctions such as sarcasm, ridicule and exclusion from social activities. If anyone violates these norms, they are sanctioned by the group. The most popular people in the group were those who strictly adhered to the group norms; while the most disliked people were those who violated the group norms and snitched privately to the foreman.
The researcher argues that the function of such naturally occurring informal groups, which generally have naturally occurring leaders, lies internally in controlling the behavior of their members and externally in protecting them from interference from management.
The results of Hawthorne's experiments were later collated by Mayo and formally published in 1933 in a book entitled The Problem of Man in Industrial Civilization. In this book, Mayo proposed the "doctrine of human relations" for the first time, which had a significant impact on the development of management science.
Thinking questions:
1. Hawthorne's experiment used the specific methods of organizational behavior research?
2. What are the advantages and disadvantages of the experimental method as a method of studying organizational behavior?
---------------------------------
Was this helpful?