The Hawthorne Effect
The central idea behind the Hawthorne effect, a term used as early as 1950 by John R. P. French, is that changes in the behavior of participants during the course of a study may be "related only to the special social situation and social treatment they received. " The term gets its name from a factory called the Hawthorne Works, where a series of experiments on factory workers was carried out between 1924 and 1932 . This effect was observed for minute increases in illumination.
The Last Vestige of the Hawthorne Works Plant in Cicero, Illinois
The term Hawthorne effect was applied in reference to a set of studies begun in 1924 at the former Hawthorne Works plant.
Evaluation of the Hawthorne effect continues in the present day. Most industrial and occupational psychology and organizational behavior textbooks refer to the illumination studies. Only occasionally are the rest of the studies mentioned. In the lighting studies, light intensity was altered to examine its effect on worker productivity. In one of the studies, experimenters chose two women as test subjects and asked them to choose four other workers to join the test group. Together the women worked in a separate room over the course of five years (1927–1932) assembling telephone relays. Output was measured mechanically by counting how many finished relays each worker dropped down a chute. This measuring began in secret two weeks before moving the women to an experiment room and continued throughout the study.
Relay Assembly Experiments
In the experiment room, they had a supervisor who discussed changes with them and at times used their suggestions. Then the researchers spent five years measuring how different variables impacted individual and group productivity. Some of the variables were: giving two five-minute breaks (after a discussion with them on the best length of time), and then changing to two ten-minute breaks (not their preference). Productivity increased, but when they received six five-minute rests, they disliked it and reduced output.
Providing food during the breaks shortened the day by 30 minutes (output went up), while shortening it more increased the output per hour, but decreased overall output. Changing a variable usually increased productivity, even if the variable was just a change back to the original condition. However, it is said that this is the natural process of the human being to adapt to the environment without knowing the objective of the experiment occurring. Researchers concluded that the workers worked harder because they thought that they were being monitored individually. Researchers hypothesized that choosing one's own coworkers, working as a group, being treated as special (as evidenced by working in a separate room), and having a sympathetic supervisor were the real reasons for the productivity increase.
One interpretation, mainly due to Elton Mayo, was that "the six individuals became a team and the team gave itself wholeheartedly and spontaneously to cooperation in the experiment. " (There was a second relay assembly test room study whose results were not as significant as the first experiment. )
Bank Wiring Room Experiments
The purpose of the next study was to find out how payment incentives would affect productivity. The surprising result was that productivity actually decreased. Workers apparently had become suspicious that their productivity may have been boosted to justify firing some of the workers later on. The study was conducted by Elton Mayo and W. Lloyd Warner between 1931 and 1932 on a group of fourteen men who put together telephone switching equipment. The researchers found that although the workers were paid according to individual productivity, productivity decreased because the men were afraid that the company would lower the base rate. Detailed observation between the men revealed the existence of informal groups or "cliques" within the formal groups. These cliques developed informal rules of behavior as well as mechanisms to enforce them. The cliques served to control group members and to manage bosses; when bosses asked questions, clique members gave the same responses, even if they were untrue. These results show that workers were more responsive to the social force of their peer groups than to the control and incentives of management.