The Hawthorne studies were conducted between 1927 and 1932 at Western Electric`s Hawthorne plant near Chicago.

(General Electric initially sponsored the research but withdrew its support after the first study was finished.) Several researchers were involved, the best known being Elton Mayo and Fritz Roethlisberger, Harvard faculty members and consultants, and William Dickson, chief of Hawthorne`s Employee Relations Research Department. The first major experiment at Hawthorne studied the effects of different levels of lighting on productivity. The researchers systematically manipulated the lighting in the area in which a group of women worked. The group`s productivity was measured and compared with that of another group (the control group) whose lighting was left unchanged. As lighting was increased for the experimental group, productivity went up-but, interestingly, so did the productivity of the control group. Even when lighting was subsequently reduced, the productivity of both groups continued to increase. Not until the lighting had become almost as dim as moonlight did productivity start to decline. This led the researchers to conclude that lighting had no relationship to productivity-and at this point General Electric withdrew its sponsorship of the project! In another major experiment, a piecework incentive system was established for a nine-man group that assembled terminal banks for telephone exchanges. Proponents of scientific management expected each man to work as hard as he could to maximize his personal income. But the Hawthorne researchers found instead that the group as a whole established an acceptable level of output of its members. Individuals who failed to meet this level were dubbed "chiselers," and those who exceeded it by too much were branded "rate busters." A worker who wanted to be accepted by the group could not produce at too high or too low a level. Thus, as a worker approached the accepted level each day, he slowed down to avoid overproducing. After a follow-up interview program with several thousand workers, the Hawthorne researchers concluded that the human element in the workplace was considerably more important that previously believed. The lighting experiment, for example, suggested that productivity might increase simply because workers were singled out for special treatment and thus perhaps felt more valued or more pressured to perform well. In the incentive system experiment, being accepted as a part of the group evidently meant more to the workers than earning extra money. Several other studies supported the general conclusion that individual and social processes are too important to ignore. Like the work of Taylor, the Hawthorne studies have recently been called into question. Critics cite deficiencies in research methods and offer alternative explanations of the findings. Again, however, these studies were a major factor in the advancement of organizational behavior and are still among its most frequently cited works.

The Hawthorne studies created quite a stir among managers, providing the foundation for an entirely new school of management thought that came to be known as the human relations movement. The basic premises underlying the human relations movement are that people respond primarily to their social environment, that motivation depends more on social needs than on economic needs, and that satisfied employees work harder than unsatisfied employees. This perspective represented a fundamental shift away form the philosophy and values of scientific management and classical organization theory. The behavioral theory of management holds that all people (including employees) have complex needs, desires, and attitudes. The fulfillment of needs is the goal toward which employees are motivated. Effective leadership matches need-fulfillment rewards with desired behaviors (tasks) that accomplish organizational goals.

The values of the human relationists are perhaps best exemplified by the works of Douglas McGregor and Abraham Maslow. McGregor is best known for his classic book The Human Side of Enterprise, in which he identified two opposing perspectives that he believed typified managerial views of employees. Some managers, McGregor said, subscribed to what he labeled Theory X. Theory X, which takes a pessimistic view of human nature and employee behavior, is in many ways consistent with the tenets of scientific management. A much more optimistic and positive view of employees is found in Theory Y. Theory Y, which is generally representative of the human relations perspective, was the approach McGregor himself advocated. Assumptions of Theory X and Theory Y are summarized in Exhibit 2. EXHIBIT 2 THEORY X AND THEORY Y In 1943, Abraham Maslow published a pioneering psychological theory applicable to employee motivation that became well known and widely accepted among managers. Maslow`s theory assumes that motivation arises from a hierarchicalseries of needs. As the needs of each level are satisfied, the individual advances to the next level. Although the Hawthorne studies and the human relations movement played major roles in developing the foundations for the field of organizational behavior, some of the early theorists` basic premises and assumptions were found to be incorrect. For example, most human relationists believed that employee attitudes such as job satisfaction are the major causes of employee behaviors such as job performance. However, this is usually not the case at all. Also, many of the human relationists` views were unnecessarily limited and situation specific. As a result, there was still plenty of room for refinement and development in the emerging field of human behavior in organizations. Toward Organizational Behavior Most scholars would agree that organizational behavior began to emerge as a mature field of study in the late 1950s and early 1960s. That period saw the field`s evolution from the simple assumptions and behavioral models of the human relationists to the concepts and methodologies of a scientific discipline. Since that time, organizational behavior as a scientific field of inquiry has made considerable strides, although there have been occasional steps backward as well. Many of the ideas discussed in this book have emerged over the past two decades. We turn now to contemporary organizational behavior.

THE EMERGENCE OF ORGANIZATIONAL BEHAVIOR

The central themes of both scientific management and classical organization theory are rationality, efficiency, and standardization. The roles of individuals and groups in organizations were either ignored altogether of given only minimal attention. A few early writers and managers, however, recognized the importance of individual and social processes in organizations. PRECURSORS OF ORGANIZATIONAL BEHAVIOR In the early nineteenth century, Robert Owen, a British industrialist, attempted to improve the Scondition of industrial workers. He improved working conditions, raised minimum ages for hiring children, introduced meals for employees, and shortened working hours. In the early twentieth century, the noted German psychologist Hugo Munsterberg argued that the field of psychology could provide important insights into areas such as motivation and the hiring of new employees. Another writer in the early 1900s, Mary Parker Follett, believed that management should become more democratic in its dealings with employees. An expert in vocational guidance, Follett argued that organizations should strive harder to accommodate their employees` human needs. The views of Owen, Mansterberg, and Follett, however, were not widely shared by practicing managers. Not until the 1930s did notable change occur in management`s perception of the relationship between the individual and the workplace. At that time, a series of now classic research studies led to the emergence of organizational behavior as a field of study.

Four Parts of Hawthorne Studies / Experiments

Part I - Illumination Experiments (1924-27) These experiments were performed to find out the effect of different levels of illumination (lighting) on productivity of labour. The brightness of the light was increased and decreased to find out the effect on the productivity of the test group. Surprisingly, the productivity increased even when the level of illumination was decreased. It was concluded that factors other than light were also important.

Part II - Relay Assembly Test Room Study (1927-1929) Under these test two small groups of six female telephone relay assemblers were selected. Each group was kept in separate rooms. From time to time, changes were made in working hours, rest periods, lunch breaks, etc. They were allowed to choose their own rest periods and to give suggestions. Output increased in both the control rooms. It was concluded that social relationship among workers, participation in decision-making,

etc. had a greater effect on productivity than working conditions.

Part III - Mass Interviewing Programme (19281930) 21,000 employees were interviewed over a period of three years to find out reasons for increased productivity. It was concluded that productivity can be increased if workers are allowed to talk freely about matters that are important to them.

Part IV - Bank Wiring Observation Room Experiment (1932) A group of 14 male workers in the bank wiring room were placed under observation for six months. A worker's pay depended on the performance of the group as a whole. The researchers thought that the efficient workers would put pressure on the less efficient workers to complete the work. However, it was found that the group established its own standards of output, and social pressure was used to achieve the standards of output.

Conclusions of Hawthorne Studies / Experiments

The conclusions derived from the Hawthorne Studies were as follows :1. The social and psychological factors are responsible for workers' productivity and job satisfaction. Only good physical working conditions are not enough to increase productivity. 2. The informal relations among workers influence the workers' behaviour and performance more than the formal relations in the organisation. 3. Employees will perform better if they are allowed to participate in decision-making affecting their interests. 4. Employees will also work more efficiently, when they believe that the management is interested in their welfare. 5. When employees are treated with respect and dignity, their performance will improve. 6. Financial incentives alone cannot increase the performance. Social and Psychological needs must also be satisfied in order to increase productivity. 7. Good communication between the superiors and subordinates can improve the relations and the productivity of the subordinates.

8. Special attention and freedom to express their views will improve the performance of the workers.

Criticism of Hawthorne Studies / Experiments

The Hawthorne Experiments are mainly criticised on the following grounds :1. Lacks Validity : The Hawthorne experiments were conducted under controlled situations. These findings will not work in real setting. The workers under observation knew about the experiments. Therefore, they may have improved their performance only for the experiments. 2. More Importance to Human Aspects : The Hawthorne experiments gives too much importance to human aspects. Human aspects alone cannot improve production. Production also depends on technological and other factors. 3. More Emphasis on Group Decision-making : The Hawthorne experiments placed too much emphasis on group decision-making. In real situation, individual decision-making cannot be totally neglected especially when quick decisions are required and there is no time to consult others.

4. Over Importance to Freedom of Workers : The Hawthorne experiments gives a lot of importance to freedom of the workers. It does not give importance to the constructive role of the supervisors. In reality too much of freedom to the workers can lower down their performance or productivity.