Introduction

The Hawthorne Studies were a couple of experiments conducted by researchers in 1927 to ascertain the optimal working conditions for the assembly of electronic components in a factory plant (McCarney et al, 2007, p. 30). They were conducted by a Harvard researcher by the name Elton Mayo and focused on the components of lighting, humidity and temperature. The experiments were aimed at exploring the socio-psychological components of human behavior within organizations. Workers in the plant were subjected to different outputs of the different components under study and their work performance assessed in the different conditions. The results confirmed that lighting had no influence on the rate of production among employees (Parsons, 1974, p. 925). The researchers were quite amused that not only did performance increase with increased light output but also increased when light output was reduced. The study observed that positive effects were only attained upon the changing of a common element in the working environment.

The results of the experiments confirmed that workers were not responding to the changes in the lighting conditions but to the fact that they were being watched by the researchers. The phenomenon displayed among the employees is famously known as the Hawthorne effect. It insinuates that the awareness among workers that they are being watched is enough to stimulate an increase in production (Fernald et al, 2012, p. 85). It is this discovery that prompted the recognition that employees have social and psychological factors that affect their productivity. The results further laid the foundation for future studies on the role of human factors in the workplace as pertains to the productivity of workers. The results of the study also pointed to the existence of social and psychological factors that must be fulfilled in order to improve the motivation of employees to perform at the workplace.

Review of the Literature

Despite the success of the Hawthorne Studies in transforming the treatment of employees from tools of production to important players in production, they have faced increased criticism. Perhaps, the majority of the criticism stems from the very fact that the experiment served the interests of management (Sonnefield, 1985, p. 121). The very nature of the experiments was to find solutions to the concept of management and make organizations more efficient in production. Scholars have argued that the results of the experiments were biased and cannot be used in other disciplines fairly. While such criticisms are valid in their disposition, they cannot be used as a basis against the validity of the experiments. Moreover, the criticism is only focused on the application of the results and not the very process of extrapolating the results. The criticism has not watered down the importance of the Hawthorne Studies in their contribution to the world’s body of knowledge.

According to Hart (1943, p. 160), the evolvement of most management theories in today’s business and science studies is dependent on the results of the Hawthorne Studies. The experiment conducted by Elton Mayo served as a foundation for future research into the subjects of management and especially the concept of labor. The findings of the Hawthorne Studies partly paint a grim picture of the necessary improvements in the development and reengineering of organizational behavior. Moreover, different studies are also based around the results of the experiment including several management theories. For instance, the results of the experiments form the basis and foundation for the human relations movement. The very nature of the Hawthorne Studies and their inclination towards the management disciplines seems to be their undoing as far as criticism is concerned. The Hawthorne Studies have faced numerous criticisms from latter day scholars with regard to their applicability in different disciplines other than management. Regardless of this, the criticism does not affect the contribution of the Hawthorne Studies to the attainment of knowledge.

One of the most cited criticism to the Hawthorne Studies involves the bias in the administration of the tests (Pitcher, 1981, p. 133). The subjects had to undergo long periods of work without toilet breaks during the experiments thus impairing the validity of the results. If this aspect of the experiments was changed maybe the experiment might have turned out differently. Scholars have cited this evidence as a source of bias through feedback as compared to other manipulation studies. In addition, there were other multiple sources of bias revolving around the fear among the workers on the intention of the studies and their facilitators. Some of the workers might have been afraid that the results of the studies would be used by the management to punish non-performers. Also, the possible learning effects as well as the varied periods of rest did contribute to the existence of bias, albeit minimally (McCambridge et al, 2014, p. 271). The experiment has been likened to a situation where researchers do not realize that the actions of the subjects are influenced by their perceived consequences of their performance. This argument is indeed supported by the fact that the workers dropped their finished goods down whenever the girls had access to their work rate counters. The workers responded clearly in such a manner as a response to prevailing conditions thus leading to bias.

According to Smith (1998, p. 233), Mayo admits to some of the criticism by stating that the experiment was about testing the overall effect rather than testing individual factors separately. Mayo rules out the fact that the illumination experiments were explained by a longitudinal effect as proposed by critics of the study in so doing. Mayo argues that the illumination experiments have to do with the fact that the workers actually felt better in the current situation partly due to the interest and sympathy of observers. Also, the experiments were not based around the notion of an experimenter effect but a management effect to test how organizations can motivate workers to perform differently using their different feelings. The results suggest that this concept has to do with the feelings of freedom and little supervision thus instilling a sense of control among the group of workers. Participants in an experiment are likely to act differently in this kind of situations due to the climate that has been created. In this case, therefore, the experimental manipulations were necessary in convincing the participants to feel good through the changing of the conditions of work.

The Hawthorne Studies have been termed as nothing but a glorified anecdote that resulted in the disposal of data. Scholars argue that the experiments had a preconceived intention and therefore did not attain the validity of research. The experiments were based on psychology of behavior and cannot be used in other disciplines other than management (Bramel & Friend, 1981, p. 867). As such, the objective of the experiment was to show that pre-hire testing could determine and predict the performance of prospective workers. Nonetheless, the studies showed that the workplace was a system of power and classicism with each faction fighting off the others. Indeed, the results did not support the bureaucratic formation of organizations that depicted workers as machines for hire. Also, the results further dispute the classification of organizations as a system comprising of informal group relations. The Hawthorne studies pointed out that the productivity of workers was not related to their abilities but instead depended on other inherent factors (Bornmann, 2012, p. 861). Scholars served a huge blow to managers that had intended to use behavioral sciences in manipulating workers to perform better by the virtue of raising this point.

Despite the criticism advanced on the Hawthorne Studies, their effect is well documented in literature. The experiment is a warning against the use of simple experiments on humans that are perceived as material systems. The adaptability humans and their ability to transform quickly render the Hawthorne Studies a joke. The element of surprise has been used to criticize the results of the experiments as the reaction of the participants depended on their metal state including the beliefs and knowledge (Levitt & List, 2011, p. 227). The participants must have purposed to please the experimenter in a bid to fulfill their motive and avoid any conflict. It appears that the participants had prior knowledge of the intentions of the experiment and therefore set a goal to please the researchers by providing results that suited their research goals. The experiment further provided a motivation to improve performance since it provided a channel of feedback. By having a tested experiment, the workers had a chance to record their performance and therefore aimed to achieve the very best. There is rarely a Hawthorne effect within the workplace for situations that provide attention and applicable feedback to the workers on normal circumstances.

The experiment faces criticism based on the fact that an experimental effect is dependent on the interpretation of a situation by the participant. Most of the publications regarding the Hawthorne effect are erroneous and cannot be used as reference points. The experiment has been accused of gross factual inaccuracy that is not easily identified through these publications (Broches, 2008, p. 83). The Hawthorne Studies are also criticized for failing to employ manipulation checks during the experiment. In this regard, therefore, the researchers failed to identify cases of bias among the participants arising from this scenario. Researchers must not only consider the level of participant awareness but also their interpretation of the situation presented accordingly. In so doing, the researchers have the opportunity to test the interactions between the experimental conditions and the participants’ goals within the setting of the experiment. It turns out that this interaction has an influence on the decision among participants to either believe in something or not by assessing whether they act on it.

Some of the scholars that have reviewed the Hawthorne Studies have alluded to the lack of objectivity in drawing the various conclusions of the experiments. In some instances, scholars have pointed out the existence of bias among the researchers in their attempt to achieve desired results (Izawa et al, 2011, p. 532). Most of the conclusions drawn are unsupported by the evidence presented in the experiment itself thus poking holes on the entire process. It is therefore almost surprising that the results of this experiment could have gained such an important place within the science field despite having so many flaws. The very fact that the experiment opened doors to management theories and future studies could be the reason. Maybe the upholding of the experiment among the very top is in line with the large contribution of the Hawthorne Studies to the field of management.

Conclusion

It is no doubt that the Hawthorne Studies have faced immense criticism built around the fact that they are centered on management (Jones, 1992, p. 461). While the fairness of these criticisms is not in question, the contribution of these experiments remains important to the attainment of knowledge. The results from these experiments form a foundation for numerous management theories applied in today’s modern world. It goes without saying, therefore, that the stature of the Hawthorne Studies remained unchanged even in the face of such criticisms. Moreover, the usefulness of the study’s results is still maintained in understanding the human relations concept. More organizations have embraced the role of human factors in determining the performance of individual workers.

Kompier (2006, p. 409) asserts that it is not surprising that the Hawthorne Studies continue to face such widespread criticism decade after the original publication. The existence of this criticism can only be explained as a success of the experiments in better understanding the dynamics of human relations. Although the results of the experiment have been termed as somewhat biased, their application in today’s organizations is still viable. Also, most of the criticism is based around the fact that the experiment served the interests of management alone. While this is entirely true, it cannot be used as a basis against the application of the results in other disciplines. It is good to note that the importance of the Hawthorne Studies in contributing to knowledge has not been altered by the existence of criticisms.

References

Bornmann, L., 2012. The Hawthorne effect in journal peer review. Scientometrics, 91(3), pp.857-862.

Bramel, D. and Friend, R., 1981. Hawthorne, the myth of the docile worker, and class bias in psychology. American Psychologist, 36(8), p.867.

Broches, R.S., 2008. Unraveling the Hawthorne Effect: An Experimental Artifact’Too Good to Die’. Honors Theses, p.83.

Fernald, D.H., Coombs, L., DeAlleaume, L., West, D. and Parnes, B., 2012. An assessment of the Hawthorne Effect in practice-based research. The Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine, 25(1), pp.83-86.

Hart, C.W.M., 1943. The Hawthorne experiments. Canadian Journal of Economics and Political Science/Revue canadienne de economiques et science politique, 9(02), pp.150-163.

Izawa, M.R., French, M.D. and Hedge, A., 2011. Shining new light on the Hawthorne illumination experiments. Human factors, 53(5), pp.528-547.

Jones, S.R., 1992. Was there a Hawthorne effect?. American Journal of sociology, 98(3), pp.451-468.

Kompier, M.A., 2006. The” Hawthorne effect” is a myth, but what keeps the story going?. Scandinavian journal of work, environment & health, pp.402-412.

Levitt, S.D. and List, J.A., 2011. Was there really a Hawthorne effect at the Hawthorne plant? An analysis of the original illumination experiments. American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, 3(1), pp.224-238.

McCambridge, J., Witton, J. and Elbourne, D.R., 2014. Systematic review of the Hawthorne effect: new concepts are needed to study research participation effects. Journal of clinical epidemiology, 67(3), pp.267-277.

McCarney, R., Warner, J., Iliffe, S., Van Haselen, R., Griffin, M. and Fisher, P., 2007. The Hawthorne Effect: a randomised, controlled trial. BMC medical research methodology, 7(1), p.30.

Parsons, H.M., 1974. What happened at Hawthorne?. Science, 183(4128), pp.922-932.

Pitcher, B.L., 1981. The Hawthorne experiments: Statistical evidence for a learning hypothesis. Soc. F., 60, p.133.

Smith, J.H., 1998. The enduring legacy of Elton Mayo. Human relations, 51(3), pp.221-249.

Sonnenfeld, J.A., 1985. Shedding light on the Hawthorne studies. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 6(2), pp.111-130.

Do you need an Original High Quality Academic Custom Essay?