Academic Learning, Worker Learning, and the Hawthorne Studies - Literature review Example

Management in Context College: Name: Students ID: Date: Course Name: Unit Code: Time: Instructor: Introduction Between the years of 1924 and 1933 several studies were conducted at a Western Electric Company manufacturing plant near Chicago. The purpose of these studies was look at the working conditions and productivity at the Western Electric Hawthorne Works (WEHW), a company that was producing electrical equipment. The key effort of the researchers was to explore, scientifically, the manner in which environmental factors influence the productivity of the workers. The studies led to what came to be called the Hawthorne Effect. The Hawthorne Effect is a sensation that is thought to increase production, not attributed to a change in the working conditions, but because the administration exhibited interest to make improvements. As a result, the worker feels as part of a team and that they have a sense of belonging (Sonnenfeld, 1983). Quite a number of studies were conducted, but three studies that stand out are: (1) Illumination studies, (2) Bank wiring room experiments, and (3) Relay Assembly test room. For this paper, I will pay attention to the studies that explored the effect of varying the lights levels. All works that have been published on the Hawthorne Effect will be considered, both in the pre-2000s and post-2000s. There paper is focused on the workers that participated in the original study and who have been referred to in various writings (Parsons, 1974). Hawthorne Studies The research work that transpired between the years of 1924 and 1933 characterises one of the most essential historic proceedings in human resource development. This collection of research work is named after the plant in which they were conducted, thus called the Hawthorne Studies. The Hawthorne Studies have been dominant in the progress of the human relations crusade and operated as a robust impetus in evaluating the intricacies of variables that drive human conduct at the workplace (Sonnenfeld, 1983). In general, four conclusions have been drawn from the Hawthorne studies: (1) Individuals’ abilities are imperfect predictors of job performance. The predictors may well give some clue of the physical and mental capability of the individual, but the volume produced is very much swayed by social factors, (2) Work-group customs affect productivity. Even though the Hawthorne scientists were not the first to identify that work groups are likely to hash out norms of what is "a fair day's work,” they offered the best organised explanation of this phenomenon, (3) Casual organisation upsets productivity. The Hawthorne scholars learnt of a group life amongst the workers. Moreover, they revealed that the relationships that managers cultivate with workers are disposed to sway the way in which the workers implement instructions, and (4) The place of work is a social system consisting of mutually dependent parts. Impact of Hawthorne Effect on Non-Managerial Workers The Hawthorne Effect has been described as a mental sensation in which participants in behavioural research transform their conducts or performance in rejoinder to being observed by the researcher. In the place of work, the Hawthorne effect can describe how the more responsiveness a worker has from the managers, co-workers besides customers, the higher the worker’s level of effort and productivity. In essence, a worker’s productivity goes up just the once they think that they are being observed watchfully. At the time the National Research Council instigated a set of experimentations WEHW, its aim was focused on answering the narrow question of whether improved lighting improves worker productivity. Therefore, the first research work at WEHW from 1924 to 1927 studied the effect of lighting on productivity. The findings from this research work did not show any link concerning the volume of production and lighting. Nonetheless, the study opened the way for future research studies on what may possibly have an effect on worker output. In the subsequent collection of studies, the plant’s lights intensities were steadily varied for workers carrying out repetitive jobs. One such study focused on evaluating the effect of three varying illumination levels on the output of the workers. Another study set up a control group that was given steady lighting intensities while an experimental group was given gradually increasing lighting levels. The researchers were surprised to realise that each one of these situations led to a rise in worker productivity. The workers output also went up even once light intensities were reduced. A clear conclusion from these experiments was that participant workers’ productivity changed. However, the changes were not attributed to the lights intensities. The investigators noted that there was some different motivation for the overall increase in productivity. Consequently, in an attempt to repair the findings of the lighting studies, a chain of more tests were embarked on. WEHW brought in educational advisors to aid in the research work in 1928. Elton Mayo is one prominent consultant whose findings stood out from the rest. Using the wealth of data from the second series of experiments, Mayo (1933) claimed that the improvement in worker productivity was observed because the test worker participants thought that the changes would boost their performance and were thrilled and motivated by the care they received in the course of the study. Mayo’s (1933) findings have been construed as telling that people become more productive once they realise that they are being studied. The new experimental outcomes strengthened the earlier discoveries. In total, the studies conducted at WEHW led to a different understanding of the workshop as a structure, mainly as social, and consisting of numerous mutually dependent parts. This realisation has had a profound influence on the research work involving human relations, leadership, organisational development and behaviour, also the design of place of work. Carey (1967) terms their impact as follows: “There can be a small number of scientific disciplines or fields of study in which a solo set of studies…has drilled so excessive a power.” Blalock and Blalock (1982) state that to the amusement of the scholars, “every time an alteration was instigated, worker productivity went up…..As a final check, the researcher went back to the initial poor conditions of poor illumination….It would appear abnormal, but worker productivity still increased.” In summarising the results of the subsequent set of experimentations, Freedman (1981) states that: “Notwithstanding the situations, whether there were additional or littler rest times, extended or shorter workdays…the women toiled harder.” On the other hand, several scholars have come out to squash the findings, particularly by Mayo (1933). The main scholars who have opposed the findings have been Parsons (1974), Sonnenfeld (1983) and Rice (1982). Parsons (1974) argues that the improvements in worker productivity could definitely be explained by mechanisms other than those suggested by Mayo. Parsons (1974) held that the Hawthorne effect would be better enlightened by learning and feedback mechanisms. Moreover, he holds that these learning and feedback mechanisms were clearly understood prior to the Hawthorne studies, and that there was no need for the expression “Hawthorne effect” at all. He made notable efforts to rectify what he observed as Mayo’s flawed explanation, but then again in due course accepted that this version was so embedded that it had come to be part of the believed insight in the circles of the research community. Later, Sonnenfeld (1983) challenged Parsons’ explanation of the Hawthorne effect, albeit this challenge was only limited. He conquered with Parsons that the experimenters’ feedback was a key factor in the effect, but probed whether the workers at Hawthorne were actually learning something different as regards their responsibilities in the course of the study. Rice (1982) too disputed Mayo’s explanation of the Hawthorne effect. He claims that it had come to be one of the ‘scientific myths’ that get propagated since writers recycle the generalities of others instead of reviewing the original sources. He stated that: “just like various other formerly generally accepted but faulty principles…., the Hawthorne effect has its own existence that in the face of it defies endeavours to correct the record. He also recounted that there have been a lot of shots to corroborate Mayo’s explanation of the Hawthorne studies, comprising the lots of studies carried out at the Hawthorne Works itself. Rice (1982) argues that no one of these studies seemed to totally support Mayo’s explanation while a lot of the studies were against Mayo. In some way, Rice (1982) tended to closely provide support for the explanation of the Hawthorne effect as suggested by Parsons (1974). Nonetheless quite a few authors have demanded that there is a bit of experiential proof to support Mayo’s explanation. One such author is Draper (2006), who has made a wide-ranging scrutiny of the Hawthorne effect. Though, he cites little of this proof, Draper (2006), also points out that the evidence is erratic and, generally, inadequate. He uses the intermittent nature of this evidence to state that the Hawthorne effect cannot be generalised, as Mayo had indicated. Regardless of the critique against Mayo’s explanation, it remains pervasive in the present day. Without a doubt, its rebuttal to pass away is still given the consideration of present-day authors. Nonetheless, those who have studied the Hawthorne effect are cognisant of the several explanations of the Hawthorne effect, of which Mayo’s is just one. Moreover, the stability of well-versed view look as if it has moved sturdily away from Mayo’s explanation and more in the direction of that offered by Parsons (1974). Conclusion The conclusion from the Hawthorne studies demonstrates the significance of bearing in mind both the social as well as the human relational desires of workers. It follows that individuals improve their work conduct due to a modification in the setting of their place of work, not in reaction to the nature of the variation itself. In the case of the Hawthorne experimentations, workers improved their output owing to the being there of the researchers who had a motivational effect on them.  It is also key to note that the rise in productivity was not only due to being there of the researchers, but also of the concern they took in the workers. In fact, Elton Mayo, the most prominent scholar at Hawthorne, termed this change in productivity as a “helpful responsive effect owing to the discernment of a caring or attentive onlooker”. The initial findings of the Hawthorne experiments may well have been very much disapproved since their conclusion, but they have more or less come to be truisms by now both in the social sciences as well as in the management practices (Draper, 2006). References Blalock, A.B. & Blalock Jr., H.M. (1982). Introduction to social research. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall. Carey, A. (1967). The Hawthorne Studies: A radical criticism. American Sociological Review, 32, 403-16. Draper, S. (2006). The Hawthorne, Pygmalion, placebo and other effects of expectation: some notes. Retrieved January 1, 2015, from . Freedman, J.L., Sears, D.O., & Carlsmith, J. M. (1981). Social psychology, 4th ed. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall. Mayo, E. (1933). The human problems of an industrial civilization. New York: MacMillan. Parsons, H. M. (1974). What happened at Hawthorne? Science, vol. 183, no. 4128, pp. 922-32. Rice, B. (1982). The Hawthorne defect: Persistence of a flawed theory. Psychology Today, vol. 16, no. 2, pp. 70-4. Sonnenfeld, J. (1983) Commentary: Academic Learning, Worker Learning, and the Hawthorne Studies, Social Forces, vol. 61, no. 3, pp. 904-9. Appendix: Annotated Bibliography Eriksson-Zetterquist, U., MüLlern, T., & Styhre, A., 2011. Organization theory: a practice-based approach. Oxford, Oxford University Press. This source provides a multi-level perspective on the role of management in contemporary society. The book provides a profound analysis the changing face of contemporary management practices with a keen emphasis on the role of organization theory in steering growth and development in organization. The authors provide quite convincing overview on the role that management has played over the years in bringing about organization success even amid turbulent economic times. A fundamental strong point of this source is that it outlines important concepts in management such as streamlining the operations process, making effective communication a priority in organizations, as well as the role played by delegation in organization. However, a major weakness of the source is that it does not recognize the barriers that come about in the communication process where feedback is not encouraged in an organization. While it is quite undeniable that the authors’ main target in their book is to both academicians and practitioners, there are critical insights contained in the book that build up to substantial arguments that can be used by students in analysing management in modern organizations. Particularly, this book is essential in my essay as it is going to provide substantial material on a multi-level perspective in management. As such, the book differs from other sources as it presents management from the point of view of the management, the employees and the customers. Moreover, it provides additional information by insisting on the use of real life illustrations to clarify what may be seen as new concepts for the reader. Van Dam, N. and Marcus, J. (2012). Organization and Management. Hoboken: Taylor and Francis. Van and Marcus’s approach to the topic of organization and management is rather profound. The book perfectly fits the students and academician as it provides a well analysed yet simplicity approach to the topic of management. The two authors argue that for any organization to gain competitive advantage in the dynamic contemporary business world, it has to align its goals and objectives to proper management practices. The book intimates among the key roles of management is making the recruitment process as efficient as possible. The authors are of the opinion that human resource management is the fundamental yardstick for assessing the prospects of future profitability and performance in an organization. This book delves into the subject of training employees, and conducting talent search. Further, the authors argue that besides having a capable team on board, there is a great advantage of adopting internal promotion strategies as well as carrying out consultations every time important company decisions need to be made. The major strength of this source is that it clearly explains the importance of having a well-defined decision making process in any organization. What makes the book practically different from other sources is the fact that it introduces the aspect of ethical in management. However, the book fails to appreciate that while making recruitment a priority, there are inherent challenges associated with certain concepts such as internal promotions and the associated costs incurred in continuous recruitment. The two authors discuss in depth on the significance of ethical conduct on management and performance of any organization. The authors clearly dictate that organizations should have strict and well understood ethical code of conduct and the management should not be exempted from the rule as this compromises long term performance of organizations. Consequently, the concepts on recruitment, ethical organizational practice, and decision making as presented by this source are going to be pivotal in writing my essay. Miles, J. A. (2012). Management and Organization Theory a Jossey-Bass Reader. Hoboken, John Wiley & Sons As organizations expand into new geographical horizons, they are faced with the ever changing rules and regulations ranging from political, legal, economic, and cultural challenges. Miles takes us through a contextual analysis of the critical role that every organization’s management plays in effectively creating a transition and blending in these changes to the company’s internal environment. This source is distinctly unique from the rest as it maintains a delicate balance between the external and internal business environment of organizations. As such, the author presents several theories that address workable strategies that can keep an organization competitive and deliver stellar performance even in new environments. The source takes an analysis of each business environment, defining the characteristics, challenges, and effective strategies that management can use to overcome each. Moreover, the author maintains that there is need for the management to motivate employees in a bid to create a conducive working environment. The major strength of this source is that it introduces several management theories such as the contingency theory and the chaos theory as it explains the need for management to upraise productivity and quality in service delivery. The book also relates the importance of having candidly defined mission and vision in an organization and taking employees through coaching sessions to improve performance. Finally, the author argues that top management should also be constantly trained through seminars to understand the changes in the modern business world as well as to hone their leadership skills. Undeniably, this source captures a wide audience, from the academician and students to the practitioners. The source will prove useful for the essay due to the various theories and will provide balance in making arguments for the role of management in steering changes. However, the author fails to appreciate the role played by employees in contributing towards success of an organization. Read More