1
Meg Cichantk
LIS 770-02
Fall 2010
September 15, 2010
The Hawthorne Studies and Management Theory
Management has been around for a long period of time in various formats but until the
twentieth century, was largely unstudied. At the turn of the twentieth century, management
theories began to develop in scholarly circles. These classical approaches to management theory
included the Scientific Management School, the Administrative Management School and the
theory of bureaucracy. In early management theories, the worker was merely a part of the
business machine and the role of managers was to control the individual parts of the business.
However, other schools of thought about management were also being considered in the early
twentieth century American industrial world. In the mid 1920s a series of experiments conducted
at the Hawthorne Works of Western Electric Company in Cicero, Illinois gave researchers from
Harvard University new insight into management and the worker. These experiments and the
data they garnered revealed new possibilities to help explain how management impacts worker
behavior. The Hawthorne Studies and subsequent results marked a notable shift in management
theory. Where classical theories emphasized a structured organization, with a clear division of
labor, the Hawthorne Studies refocused attention on social interactions within the work
environment and the ways in which these interactions influenced management and productivity.
Although the studies were not perfectly conducted experiments, they have had a significant
impact on managerial theory and practice. In a library setting, the results from the Hawthorne
Studies have some application. The emphasis on positive interaction between management and
workers, as well as the importance of social interaction in the workplace can easily be
incorporated into a library’s management organization.
2
The Hawthorne Works Plant of the Western Electric Company was located in Cicero,
Illinois and produced telephones and phone wire, among other things. At the beginning of the
experiments, the company employed almost thirty thousand workers in various positions
(Roethlisberger and Dickson 1943, 6). The original purpose of the Hawthorne Project was not to
examine the social influences within an industrial setting, but to examine whether environmental
changes could impact productivity. However, the results of the first experiment only led
investigators to more questions, ultimately leading to five years of experimentation, from 1927 to
1932 (Roethlisberger and Dickson 1943, 3). The original experiment meant to test the effects of
various levels of illumination on productivity. The study, which was done in two phases,
surprisingly revealed that productivity went up regardless of the amount of light. It was only
when the workers could no longer see what they were doing that productivity decreased
(Roethlisberger and Dickson 1943, 17). These results showed investigators that light was only
one factor in productivity. It also revealed to investigators that the original experiments involved
too many variables.
These early experiments led to another experimental phase, known in the literature as the
Relay Assembly Test Room experiment (Roethlisberger and Dickson 1943, 19).
In this
experiment, the investigators separated five girls from the main work floor. The investigators
moved the girls into a smaller test room and then tested whether changing various factors
impacted productivity. The first variables the investigators changed were the size and condition
of the work room. Then, they introduced wage changes, where the girls were paid based on the
amount of work the smaller group produced, as opposed to being paid by the amount of work a
large group produced. Rest periods and shorter hours were also introduced at various points in
the experiment. One of the most notable changes, however, was that the girls were allowed to
3
talk to each other and to the supervisor in the room, who was not a foreman but a test operator.
The girls also began to view themselves as a “group” (Landsberger 1958, 10). Productivity rose
over the course of the experiment, with some minor fluctuation.
In the studies done after the testing was completed, researchers offered five
interpretations to explain the rising output. One suggestion was that the improved material
conditions and methods of work caused the increased output. This was quickly disproven as the
investigators noted the room the girls worked in was much smaller than their regular work room.
The room was less airy and lit with artificial light. The work performed in the test room was
similar to work the girls did on the main floor, without machine assistance. Another suggestion
to explain output was that the shorter hours and rest pauses provided relief from physical fatigue
(Roethlisberger and Dickson 1943, 87). However, the girls underwent multiple physical exams
before, during and after the experiments and at no point did doctors find obvious physical effects
from fatigue. In fact, even after the girls went back to work in the main department, they were
deemed “healthy” (Roethlisberger and Dickson 1943, 87). The investigators argued that the rest
periods and shorter hours made no noticeable impact on productivity. The investigators then
suggested that the rest periods were helpful in reducing the monotony of the work. The girls
assembled telephone relays, which involved a series of steps that could be more readily
monitored (Roethlisberger and Dickson 1943, 20). This work was repetitive and required
standing in one place while working. Rest pauses did not seem to be the sole cause of reduced
monotony, however, because the girls were in a smaller group and were able to talk with each
other as they worked. It was also noted in written results of the study that monotony is a state of
mind and is therefore difficult to assess based only on productivity (Roethlisberger and Dickson
1943, 127). A fourth suggestion was that the wage incentives were the motivation for the
4
increased output. Roethlisberger and Dickson could find no solid evidence to support this result
however, and believed that the wage incentives were interdependent on other factors (1943, 160).
The last possible explanation for the increased output was that the supervision in the room had
been changed. Instead of an impersonal or strict foreman, the supervisor in the room was a
friendly test observer, who would talk with the girls and listen to their opinions (Carey 1967,
414). There was even self supervision within the group, when one girl would encourage the
others to keep working (Carey 1967, 411). The investigators of the study realized that there was
“a function to be performed in an industrial organization with [had] not . . . been clearly
recognized” (Roethlisberger and Dickson 1943, 591). The relationships between management
and workers and among workers were of a personal, human nature. Some of the results from the
Relay Assembly Room Test “suggested a close relation between supervision and morale” and
while there was not much hard data to prove it, the results gave the management at the plant a
new way to look at worker management relations (Roethlisberger and Dickson 1943, 190). The
Hawthorne Studies showed management that it was important and vital to understand the roles
human relationships played in a work setting. Formal rules and incentives were only two factors
that impacted work behavior; social interactions in a work place were just as motivating to
workers. The Hawthorne Works plant used the results of this study to implement a program to
improve management (Roethlisberger and Dickson 1943, 189). The Hawthorne Studies
illustrated that work behavior is comprised of a complex set of factors. The girls in the test room
were given positive attention, which positively impacted their productivity.
The theory that worker behavior is motivated by more than formal processes and
economic factors, and that managerial attention and attitude towards workers can positively
benefit production was radical for the early twentieth century. The union movement had been
5
gathering steam since the turn of the twentieth century and workers were being seen as members
of institutions and not just parts of institutions. It is for this reason many early criticisms of the
theory claimed the studies had a “pro-management bias” (Sonnenfeld 1985, 116). At the time the
studies were being conducted, management in industry was still deeply entrenched. The worker
in industry was still facing an old system of management where individuality and variation were
traits to be feared and removed from the factory floor (Sonnenfeld 1985, 125). The Hawthorne
studies were conducted to discover what factors influenced productivity. The results trended
toward a pro-management organizational system because they found management had an
important role to play in productivity. The Hawthorne studies showed how positive management
could be. The charge of a “pro-management bias” is not wholly correct. The results of the study
encouraged a more involved and reasonable management system, which was a radical concept
for the mid twentieth century, even in the face of the rising union movement. The investigators
saw the need for a management system within the factory setting, but they believed that
managers could be more positively involved in their workers’ professional lives. Other critics
were concerned with the way the experiments were performed and the way the results were
interpreted (Carey 1967, 404). While the methodology of the experiments was flawed in many
ways, including the large number of variables that were not controlled, the interpretation of the
results were “presented in a fashion which [was] intended to generate hypotheses rather than to
test and refute theory” (Sonnenfeld 1985, 119). Initially, the studies were not meant to examine
human behavior and work relations but to test the effects of various physical and environmental
controls. The investigators were required to reexamine existing theory about the causes of certain
types of worker behavior in light of new facts (Sonnenfeld 1985, 119). The resulting theory
began to move management study towards the study of human behavior.
6
This theory is fairly easy to implement. It can mean simply being less rigid in regulations
and rules, although, like the test room observer found, being too lenient can backfire. The girls in
the Relay Assembly Test Room were allowed to talk with each other and the test room observer
but eventually the talking impacted the working and the amount of talking had to be restricted
(Carey 1967, 410). However, encouraging a better management and worker relationship can also
just mean fostering better communication and a sense of teamwork. The girls in the Relay
Assembly Test Room formed a close team because there were only five girls working together as
opposed to hundreds of people in a room. The bond between the girls impacted their
performance; there were several occasions when the other girls would work extra to compensate
for a girl who felt ill (Roethlisberger and Dickson 1943, 189). The sense of belonging can
positively impact productivity. Not only does this sense of belonging attach an individual to a
company, it also allows an individual to take pride in his own work. However, while the human
factor is important to a healthy and successful working environment, it can also cause problems.
While the Hawthorne Study shows that group interaction in the workplace can be rewarding and
can positively impact productivity, this same interaction can also be a source of conflict. People
do not always get along with their coworkers or their managers. It is not easy to predict what
problems will arise within a group. One day might bring different social interactions as people
bring outside problems into the workplace. Workers and management need to be prepared to
address these difficult interactions. Management should take a more active and positive role in
relation to workers, but there should also be a clear distinction between the management and
working groups. If the lines blur too much, there can be personality problems as well as
employees overstepping their roles. It is also important to remember that managers cannot
always watch employees to maintain productivity. A constant sense of vigilance is not practical
7
for most modern work environments. Security cameras can take the place of a manager or
supervisor paying constant attention to workers, the type of supervision is not positive and can
instead feel like a violation of trust. Interaction between management and staff must be positive.
Information centers can be places of almost constant social interaction. People come in
and out of libraries looking for information. The people who are employed in libraries are also
part of a social network. The Hawthorne studies and their results can be applied to library
management organizations in several ways. The studies emphasized the need for management to
actively engage with workers. At the Hawthorne plant, interaction between management and
workers was on the factory floor or in workshops. In libraries, interaction between management
and staff can occur in offices or on the floor of the library. Managers in libraries, therefore, can
participate with staff in many ways. In a public library, for example, managers should spend time
working on the floor with the public and with other staff. This will help ensure that the managers
stay aware of what is needed in the library as well as helping managers see how library staff
behaves on the floor. When managers spend time on the floor in libraries, library staff can see
how involved the managers are in the institution. This will not only improve morale but it will
also positively aid behavior. A manager present on the floor can also be useful in the event of
problems with patrons.
Another simple way for managers to interact with staff in libraries is to encourage
communication. Whether this communication is written, verbal or electronic, it is important for
library staff to inform managers of issues, concerns, complaints and comments. It is also
necessary for managers to communicate with their staff in return. An increase in communication
between managers and library staff shows a willingness on the part of management to understand
staff needs. If there are regular staff meetings, emails, and office conversations, managers and
8
staff can have fruitful interaction and communication. The Hawthorne Studies also showed that
social interactions among workers are an important and motivating factor in the workplace.
Management in libraries should encourage teamwork, including team building exercises.
Teamwork, however, can be difficult to encourage. Not all people work well together and it is a
manager’s job to be aware of these conflicts. In the Hawthorne studies, workers were in constant
contact with only a few other people in the test room, which showed researchers that social
interaction at work was important. In libraries, staff can be any size and work in various parts of
a building, which can impact interaction. To encourage teamwork, management can hold inservice days where each department learns about jobs in other departments. However, the human
component of the theory means that it is impossible to predict how different types of people will
react in any given situation. Applying the theory to a library, which is a social institution, can
have varying degrees of success.
Before the Hawthorne studies were conducted, most managers saw their workers as
pieces of a machine. The worker was seen to be motivated by purely economic reasons.
However, as the social climate in the United States changed, so did the beliefs about the
relationship between management and the worker, as well as between the worker and the work.
The extensive experimentation performed at the Hawthorne Works Plant for the Western Electric
Company showed that there were complex factors motivating workers. Positive attention shown
to workers by their managers increased worker productivity, as did the interaction between
workers. Despite the methodological flaws in the experiments, the Hawthorne studies still have
merit within the modern workplace. As libraries are social institutions, the Hawthorne studies
have value in libraries. Management in libraries must be aware of the major weakness of the
theory. The human component of the theory can cause otherwise predictable situations to spiral
9
out of control. Through increased communication and teamwork measures, libraries can
effectively implement this theory to some degree of success.
10
Bibliography
Carey, Alex. “The Hawthorne Studies: A Radical Criticism.” American Sociological Review 32,
no. 3 (June 1967): 403-416. http://www.jstor.org/stable/2091087 (accessed September 9,
2010).
Landsberger, Henry A. Hawthorne Revisited: Management and the Worker, its Critics, and
Developments in Human Relations in Industry. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press,
1958.
Roethlisberger, F.J. and William J. Dickson. Management and the Worker: An Account of a
Research Program Conducted by the Western Electric Company, Hawthorne Works,
Chicago. Cambridge, MA.: Harvard University Press, 1943.
Sonnenfeld, Jeffrey A. “Shedding Light on the Hawthorne Studies.” Journal of Occupational
Behavior 6 no. 2 (April 1985): 111-130. http://www.jstor.org/stable/3000246 (accessed
September 11, 2010).