Managing THE HAWTHORNE EFFECT

Recently, General Electric Co. announced it was closing its Hawthorne plant in Chicago, Ill. For those of us who have followed the evolution of “human resources management” in business, the closing of the Hawthorne plant means much more than just the passing of another manufacturing facility. For this plant was the site of one of the most important and influential studies ever conducted into management behavior. The so-called “Hawthorne Study” revolutionized how we think about motivation in the workplace, and it made us realize the enormous potential for business improvements that lay untapped in our people. More than 60 years ago, in 1927, Elton Mayo and a group of researchers from Harvard University chose the Hawthorne plant in Chicago, then owned by Western Electric, to study how changing an office’s physical working conditions can affect the level of productivity of employees. A group of plant workers were asked to be study subjects and were assigned to an area of the plant where they could be easily observed.

The workers involved in the study were consulted by the researchers. They were asked what physical changes would help them work more efficiently and these suggestions were then introduced. Improved lighting was suggested and implemented. This boosted productivity. Then better ventilation was introduced, and again productivity jumped. Even the introduction of coffee and snack breaks resulted in productivity increases. The physical changes, derived through consultation with employees, had a very positive impact on the efficiency of the plant.

Eventually, however, the investigators became suspicious about what was going on. It seemed to them that seemingly minor changes were causing large productivity effects, out of all proportion to the physical benefit one would expect was provided by the change. They then decided to try something else, and the experiment took a new and totally unexpected turn.

Without letting the subjects know, the researchers slowly reverted some of the working conditions to their original state to see the effects. These changes were made slowly enough that the workers were unaware that they were taking place. To the surprise of the study group, productivity continued to climb, even though many of the physical working conditions were now the same as they had been at the beginning of the experiment. For example, productivity kept climbing even when the light intensity was reduced to half that of moonlight.

It was clear that another, unseen, factor was at work in promoting increased productivity. Physical conditions alone couldn’t explain the increased efficiencies. What was happening? The researchers discussed and argued for a long time before they found the answer. The improvements were not a result of the physical changes at all. The attitude of the workers toward their jobs was by far the biggest factor. Their motivation to work harder and better had been boosted by pulling the group of workers together into a team, and asking them for their help and co-operation in designing their jobs and the company had grown more positive because they felt that they had a purpose, were members of a team and were contributing to solving an important problem.

The Hawthorne studies revolutionized the way managers think about motivation. The studies provided irrefutable, scientific evidence to show that related factors, such as physical conditions, money and job security, are not the primary sources of motivation. It is job-centred factors that are important, such as the work itself, recognition and growth potential. The studies taught us that people desperately want to be cared for and to contribute and that there are substantial benefits for a company that takes this approach.

Sadly, the results of this milestone study are often ignored or forgotten today. Even though we have come a long way in our understanding of what motivates people, much of this knowledge and understanding has never been able to escape the classroom and make it into practice in the real world. Of course, there are many companies that do understand and use motivational principals. But there are at least an equal number that do not. Absenteeism, employee turnover, etc. stem from poor motivation.

Some years ago, a poll of managers and workers was conducted. Both groups were asked to name the factors they thought led to high morale. Managers ranked good wages and job security as the highest, while workers ranked “full appreciation of work done” and “feeling in on things” as the top two. Obviously, much work in implementing motivational theory needs to be done. William Stanley is director of national mine services at Coopers & Lybrand Consulting Services.