1 / 8

Hawthorne Experiments by Elton Mayo

Hawthorne Experiments by Elton Mayo. Illumination Studies – 1924-1927. Funded by General Electric Conducted by The National Research Council (NRC) of the National Academy of Sciences with engineers from MIT Measured Light Intensity vs. Worker Output

kipp
Download Presentation

Hawthorne Experiments by Elton Mayo

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Hawthorne Experimentsby Elton Mayo

  2. Illumination Studies – 1924-1927 • Funded by General Electric • Conducted by The National Research Council (NRC) of the National Academy of Sciences with engineers from MIT • Measured Light Intensity vs. Worker Output • Result – Each change (including decreases) resulted in higher output and reported greater employee satisfaction • Conclusions: • Light intensity has no conclusive effect on output • Productivity has a psychological component – Researchers interaction with the workers influenced higher performance • Concept of “Hawthorne Effect” was created

  3. Relay Assembly Test Experiments1927-1929 • Western Electric wanted more information • Harvard researchers brought in to analyze the results – Elton Mayo & Fritz Roethlisberger • Group of 6 Women – (5) Assemblers and (1) Layout Operator • One Observer – Explained every incremental change and recorded results • Manipulated factors of production to measure effect on output: • Pay Incentives • Length of Work Day & Work Week • Use of Rest Periods • Company Sponsored Meals • Management Visits / Special Attention • Result – Most changes resulted in higher output and reported greater employee satisfaction • Conclusions: • Experiments yielded positive effects even with negative influences – workers’ output will increase as a response to attention • Strong social bonds were created within the test group. Workers are influenced by need for recognition, security and sense of belonging

  4. Relay Assembly Room #2 - 1928-1929 • Measured output changes with pay incentive changes • Special observation room • Relay Assemblers changed from Departmental Incentive to Small group – 1st Session • Adjusted back to Large Group Incentive – 2nd Session • Results • Small Group Incentive resulted in new Highest sustained level of production – 112% over standard output base • Output dropped to 96.2% of base with return to large group incentive • Conclusion: Pay incentives were a relevant factor in output increases but not the only factor.

  5. Mica Splitting Test Group - 1928-1931 • Measured output changes with changes in work conditions only: • Special Observation Room • Length of Work Day • Use of Rest Periods • Workers stayed on established Piece-rate compensation • Result - Productivity increased by 15% over standard output base • Conclusions: • Productivity is affected by non-pay considerations • Social dynamics are a basis of worker performance

  6. Plant Interview Program – 1925-1932 • 1925-1927 – Objective Questions • Work Conditions • Work Relationships • Yes/No Answers • 1928-1932 – Conversational / Non-directive • Attentive Sympathetic Listening • Concern for personal needs • Increased in time from 30-90 minutes • Result – Remarkable positive employee perceptions: • Working Condition Improved (no real changes) • Better Wages (no real changes) • Conclusions: • New Supervisory Style improved worker morale • Complaints reflected personal and/or social barriers that needed attention in order to raise productivity

  7. Bank Wiring Observation Group – 1931-1932 • 14 Male Workers • Few Special Conditions • Segregated work area • No Management Visits • Supervision would remain the same • Observer would record data only – no interaction with workers • New incentive pay rate was established for the small group • Any increases in output would be included in departmental pay incentives • Result – No appreciable changes in output • Conclusions: • Well established performance norms existed in the group • Informal Social Organization dictated little deviation from established production standards – Systemic Soldiering • Informal Social Organizations protect workers from managers who • Raise production standards • Cut pay rates • Challenge workplace norms

  8. Sources of Information • Wren, Daniel A., and Arthur G. Bedeian. The Evolution of Management Thought. 6th ed. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 2009. Print. • "History of Management." ManagementGuru supports management studies and is maintained by Dr.Makamson. Web. 16 Nov. 2009. <http://www.mgmtguru.com/mgt301/301_Lecture1Page10.htm>. • "Baker Library Chronicles Human Relations Movement." Harvard Business School. Web. 16 Nov. 2009. <http://www.hbs.edu/news/releases/092407_hawthorne.html>. • "ProvenModels hawthorne effect - Elton Mayo." ProvenModels - Management Models | Management Theory | Business Models | Michael Porter | Henry Mintzberg | Management Model | Business School. Web. 15 Nov. 2009. <http://www.provenmodels.com/6/hawthorne-effect/elton-mayo>.

More Related