St.

Vincent’s College Incorporated Graduate School

Master in Business Administration Program

A Written Report

submitted to the faculty of Master in Business Administration

In partial fulfillment of the requirements for

MANAGEMENT THEORIES AND LEGAL ISSUES (MBA 302)

Of

Prof. Raymond Chris P. Maribojoc, DMC, MPM, MBA, PHF, CTP, FRIM, AFBE

ARTEMIS O. JUMANGPANG

STUDENT
 General Management Theories

(Max Weber and Elton Mayo)

Max Weber

Max Weber was a German sociologist who argued bureaucracy was the most efficient

and rational model private businesses and public offices could operate in. His bureaucratic

theories influenced generations of business leaders and politicians well into the 20th century.

Weber was born in Germany in 1864 and grew up during the time when industrialization was

transforming government, business, and society. Weber was interested in industrial capitalism,

an economic system where industry is privately controlled and operated for profit. Weber wanted

to know why industrial capitalism was successful in some countries and not in others. He

believed that large-scale organizations such as factories and government departments were a

characteristic of capitalist economies.

While Weber's theory prioritizes efficiency, it isn't necessarily the best practice for

leaders to implement.

Weber was unlike most workplace leaders today. His theory of management, also called

the bureaucratic theory, stressed strict rules and a firm distribution of power. He would've

scolded today's managers, most of whom are open to new ideas and flexible work arrangements,

for their leadership style.

 "Precision, speed, unambiguity, knowledge of files, continuity, discretion, unity, strict

subordination, reduction of friction and of material, and personal costs – these are raised to the

optimum point in the strictly bureaucratic administration," wrote Weber.

Many of Weber's beliefs discourage creativity and collaboration in the workplace, and

oppose flexibility and risk.

What would Max Weber's ideal organization look like?

Weber believed that bureaucracy was the most efficient way to set up and manage an

organization, and absolutely necessary for larger companies to achieve maximum productivity

with many employees and tasks.

In an ideal bureaucracy, everyone is treated equally, and work responsibilities are clearly

divided by each teams' areas of expertise. A well-defined hierarchical management system

supports this, providing clear lines of communication and division of labor based on the layer of

management one worked in.

Advancement in the organization is determined solely on qualifications and achievements

rather than personal connections. Weber believed the work environment should be professional

and impersonal – "work relationships" are strongly discouraged. Overall, Weber's ideal

bureaucracy favors efficiency, uniformity and a clear distribution of power.

6 characteristics of bureaucracies identified by Weber

According to Weber, these are the six characteristics of bureaucracy:

1. Task specialization (division of labor). Weber felt that task specialization promotes the

timely completion of work at the highest level of skill. Tasks, therefore, in Weber's ideal

organization are divided into categories based on team members' competencies and areas

of expertise. Employees and departments have clearly defined roles and expectations in

which they are responsible solely for the labor they do best. This is designed to maximize

efficiency for the organization. Overstepping one's responsibilities, such as presenting

new ideas outside of your department's scope, is generally frowned upon.

2. Hierarchical management structure. Weber advocated that management should be

organized into layers, with each layer being responsible for its team's performance.

Weber believed that each layer of management should provide supervision to the layers

below them while being subject to the control of those above them. Thus, individuals at

the top of the management hierarchy have the most authority, while those at the bottom

have the least power. This hierarchical structure clearly delineates lines of

communication, delegation and the division of responsibilities.

3. Formal selection rules. In the ideal organization, Weber believed that employees should

be chosen based on their technical skills and competencies, which are acquired through

education, experience or training – no other factors should be considered. And since

workers are paid for their services, and services are divided by job position, an

employee's salary is entirely dependent on their position. Contract terms are also entirely
 determined by the organization's rules and regulations, and employees have no ownership

interest in a company.

4. Efficient and uniform requirements. Employees, argued Weber, should always know

exactly what is expected of them. In the ideal organization, the rules are clearly defined

and strictly enforced. This promotes uniformity within the organization and keeps the

company running as smoothly and efficiently as possible. If new rules and requirements

need to be introduced, higher-level management or directors are responsible for

implementing and enforcing them.

5. Impersonal environment. Under Weber's theory, relationships between employees are to

be only professional only. The impersonal environment characterized by bureaucracies is

designed to promote decision-making that is based solely on facts and rational thinking. It

prevents favoritism or nepotism as well as involvement from outsiders or political

influence, anything that could interfere with the mission of the organization.

6. Achievement-based advancement. Weber felt that promotions within an organization

should be based solely on achievement, experience and technical qualifications. Personal

favors, relationships or personality traits should not factor into personnel decisions.

Other characteristics of the ideal bureaucracy

Clearly defined job roles

Weber believed that responsibilities should be delegated based on skill and ability. There

should be no flexible roles. Rather, employees should be aware of their position's responsibilities

and stick to them. Straying outside of their designated roles only disrupts the hierarchy of
authority. Therefore, collaboration, creative thinking and idea pitching are also strongly

discouraged. Also, workers should respect their supervisors and not overstep boundaries.

Meticulous record-keeping

According to Weber, leaders should take notes on every position, occurrence or concern

that involves the company. That way, they can refer to it later and handle any issues accordingly.

For instance, managers should record every responsibility of every role in the company so there

are no misunderstandings. If an employee calls out sick or shows up late to a shift, their manager

should keep tabs to ensure there are no negative patterns.

Additionally, workers should track their hours, and record their daily assignments and

progress. Managers have the right to know how their employees are using (or abusing) their

time.

Hiring based solely on specific qualifications

Weber advocated that only the most ideal candidates with the exact skill set required for

the position should be hired to ensure the best results. There should be no nepotism or

exceptions; only those individuals with the right skills and expertise who meet the high standards

of the organization should be hired. If a person is not perfectly qualified, they are not a fit.

Work-appropriate relationships only

 Weber did not condone any type of personal relationship in the workplace. He supported

the notion that all work relationships are bound by rules and regulations. There should be no

small talk, collaboration or sharing of ideas. Work is work, it isn't a social outing.

Weber’s Three Types of Authority

Traditional Authority

According to Weber, the power of traditional authority is accepted because that has

traditionally been the case; its legitimacy exists because it has been accepted for a long time.

Britain’s Queen Elizabeth, for instance, occupies a position that she inherited based on the

traditional rules of succession for the monarchy. People adhere to traditional authority because

they are invested in the past and feel obligated to perpetuate it. In this type of authority, a ruler

typically has no real force to carry out his will or maintain his position but depends primarily on

a group’s respect.

A more modern form of traditional authority is patrimonialism, which is traditional

domination facilitated by an administration and military that are purely personal instruments of

the master (Eisenberg 1998). In this form of authority, all officials are personal favorites

appointed by the ruler. These officials have no rights, and their privileges can be increased or

withdrawn based on the caprices of the leader. The political organization of ancient Egypt

typified such a system: when the royal household decreed that a pyramid be built, every Egyptian

was forced to work toward its construction.

 Traditional authority can be intertwined with race, class, and gender. In most societies,

for instance, men are more likely to be privileged than women and thus are more likely to hold

roles of authority. Similarly, members of dominant racial groups or upper-class families also win

respect more readily. In the United States, the Kennedy family, which has produced many

prominent politicians, exemplifies this model.

Charismatic Authority

Followers accept the power of charismatic authority because they are drawn to the

leader’s personal qualities. The appeal of a charismatic leader can be extraordinary, and can

inspire followers to make unusual sacrifices or to persevere in the midst of great hardship and

persecution. Charismatic leaders usually emerge in times of crisis and offer innovative or radical

solutions. They may even offer a vision of a new world order. Hitler’s rise to power in the

postwar economic depression of Germany is an example.

Charismatic leaders tend to hold power for short durations, and according to Weber, they

are just as likely to be tyrannical as they are heroic. Diverse male leaders such as Hitler,

Napoleon, Jesus Christ, César Chávez, Malcolm X, and Winston Churchill are all considered

charismatic leaders. Because so few women have held dynamic positions of leadership

throughout history, the list of charismatic female leaders is comparatively short. Many historians

consider figures such as Joan of Arc, Margaret Thatcher, and Mother Teresa to be charismatic

leaders.
Rational-Legal Authority

According to Weber, power made legitimate by laws, written rules, and regulations is

termed rational-legal authority. In this type of authority, power is vested in a particular rationale,

system, or ideology and not necessarily in the person who implements the specifics of that

doctrine. A nation that follows a constitution applies this type of authority. On a smaller scale,

you might encounter rational-legal authority in the workplace via the standards set forth in the

employee handbook, which provides a different type of authority than that of your boss.

Of course, ideals are seldom replicated in the real world. Few governments or leaders can

be neatly categorized. Some leaders, like Mohandas Gandhi for instance, can be considered

charismatic and legal-rational authority figures. Similarly, a leader or government can start out

exemplifying one type of authority and gradually evolve or change into another type.

Inter-relationships

Weber’s theory of authority is very rich and intricate. Weber and others have detailed

many interesting relationships and processes occurring between the types. Blau’s “Critical

Remarks on Weber’s Theory of Authority” (1963) explains two of these in particular,

components that either strengthen or weaken an authority type in regards to another.

The three authority types may be re-enforced by traits that differentiate them from other

types. Traditional authority is impersonal (unlike charisma) and non-rational (unlike legal-

rational). Charismatic authority is dynamic (unlike tradition) and non-rational (again, unlike
legal-rational). Finally, legal-rational authority is dynamic (unlike tradition) and impersonal

(unlike charisma). Conversely, Blau means to say that traditional is un-dynamic, charisma is

personal, and legal-rational is rational. The likelihood of retaining a particular type of authority

may depend on the ability of that authority system to retain the traits that make it unique and

reject the traits that make it more conducive to another authority type.

To elaborate, particular authority types can lose their power to - and thus transition into -

other types by some of the following ways. Revolutionary ideals can be advocated by a

charismatic leader or the rational pursuit of ends via abstract formal principles can both weaken

traditional authority. Revolutionary charismatic movements can be crystallized into a traditional

order or bureaucratized into a rational formal organization. Finally, the irrational forces and

powers of tradition or charisma can weaken legal-rational authority.

Collins observes that, for Weber, these categories of authority “do not exist merely for

the sake of labeling and classifying history; they are embedded in a larger network of concepts

and in an image of how they work” (Collins 1986, 6). As such, Weber’s three types of authority

match up to his three categories of inequality: class, status groups, and parties. Traditional

authority is the basis for status groups. Charismatic authority lends itself to a market scheme

(such as the potential for life chances), and Weber considered it to be the outcome of class.

Finally, parties are the codification of legal-rational authority, especially in the case of

bureaucracies.

Present-Day Examples and Application

 How can this theory be applied to present-day phenomenon? Here are two contemporary

examples of dynamic forces in the US: the recent (and seasonal) push for the US to invade Iraq

and the North American anarchist movement, which played a sizable role in organizing against

the push.

Example 1: The push in the US to go to war against Iraq

Weber’s various authority types help to explain the US, pre-March 2003, in regards to

invading Iraq. If Weber were alive to analyze it, he would likely say that the strongest of the

types was charismatic authority, embodied by US President George W. Bush. Although he has

little military experience, he was able to project a sense of urgency to much of the American

populace about the need to attack Iraq. His “folksy” demeanor and the continual media attention

to his threats towards Iraq were likely the only messages most Americans received. According to

many polls, a good number of Americans were willing to simply trust Bush in whatever he did

on the matter, a sentiment repeated again during and after the US invasion.

Weber would also point towards traditional authority as the basis for the pro-invasion

sentiment of the country. The nation has a long tradition of foreign military invasion, many

hundreds of episodes since its founding, and the philosophy, means, and “necessity” to invade

other countries are entrenched in American institutions. The Pentagon and its corporate partners

(sometimes called the “military-industrial-complex”) have widespread and relatively consistent

powers over the government. Further, the institution of the presidency is what also gave Bush so
much persuasive ability - the executive branch is highly influential (possibly the most influential

of the three “branches of government”).

The tentative and dissident portions of the country relied on legal and rational authority

for their power and influence. Legal authority would require a mandate from the US Congress to

go to war (putting aside the War Power Act); but the charisma of Bush was great enough to push

aside this requirement for much of the pre-invasion debate (discussion should have originated in

a deliberative body, not from the Commander in Chief), and later enough to influence Congress

to permit it. Legal authority also conflicted with charismatic authority internationally, as Bush

flaunted international law and the United Nations by moving towards a clearly illegal act. Even

though it was illegal, the legal authority of the UN (and international community) was not

enough to enforce international law or to stop a US invasion.

Perhaps the most relevant authority for the anti-war constituency was a popular authority

- one part charismatic in that it attempted to be a movement for social change and one part legal-

rational in its attempts to use the legal system (nationally and internationally). This popular

authority can be viewed as an attempt to 1) force the US and Bush to adhere to the law, and 2)

use the political system as a mechanism for lobbying, as legally defined. But, in the background

of the anti-war movement, is an attempt to forge a truly popular authority, where the public

consensus would be one of peace-a perspective not derived from any of Weber’s types of

authority, but a perspective gained through public debate and political intervention (i.e. value-

rational authority).
Example 2: North American anarchist movement

Max Weber wrote during a high point for anarchism, in both the US and Europe.

Although he surely would have known about it - the press ran well-funded propaganda

campaigns against it for decades (Hong 1992) - he doesn’t seem to have taken it into account in

his scheme. Had he, it might have caused him to create another category of authority.

The anarchist reaction to various kinds of authority is fundamental. Simply, anarchism

opposes any authority that is placed above the individual and collective interest. More

specifically, anarchism rejects the authority of any idea or institution that supports itself merely

on the merit of being “tradition”. As such, anarchists were early critics of industrial capitalism

and advocates of women’s rights (including suffrage). Anarchism likewise rejects charismatic

leadership as the kind that frequently leads to despotism or reformism (various “socialist” and

liberal leaders are usually the primary examples offered). However, anarchism has an ambiguous

understanding of “leadership” itself. For instance, Crass (2003) points towards leaders who work

to create “group-centered leadership”, as opposed to “individual-centered leadership”, thus

circumventing the potential of manipulation and power-grab of individuals and thus diffusing

power. Finally, anarchists reject legal-rational authority since its power is lodged within the

confines of the State, which is bureaucratic (as Weber pointed out) and hierarchical. Anarchism

claims that laws are made and enforced to protect the few and the expense of the many. Like

Marx, they view the legal and political system as a tool of the bourgeoisie class.

By mere definition, the North American anarchist movement itself adheres to none of

Weber’s authority types. At its core, anarchism is explicitly anti-authoritarian. According to

George, “The fundamental principle of Anarchism is the rejection of authority, with the possible

exception of ‘natural authority’” (George 1997, 55). Or, as the anarcho-punk band Crass put it:

“there is no authority but yourself” - a sentiment that obviously contradicts authority, which must

be over others.

Although anarchism itself does not possess any of Weber’s three authority types, it is not

immune from norms. In fact, Spencer seems to suggest that norms are rather compatible to

anarchism, albeit informal norms: “Norms are rules of conduct towards which actors orient their

behaviour” (Spencer 1970, 124). As such, there are many unwritten rules or norms that

anarchists follow, norms which do closely sync with Weber’s authority types.

“Traditionally-legitimated norms” - rules with historic legitimacy and precedent - are

found in anarchist predilection for specific types of organizing, such as the use of affinity groups,

a practice common since its popularized usage in the Spanish Civil War of the 1930s. Customs,

such as the use of the “circle-A” symbol as an identifier, and parlance (words like “liberatory”

and “mutual aid” in particular) have been used for a long period in anarchist culture.

Individual anarchists also have quite a swaying power, an influence that approaches

charismatic authority, but still falls short - partially due to a general repulsion of leadership and

partially due to a rejection by these individuals of being used as idols. Noam Chomsky is a very

influential individual to many activists on the political Left, Murray Bookchin is a political force

in the New England states with his theories of social ecology and libertarian municipalism, and

John Zerzan is greatly admired in the Pacific-Northwest for his writings about primitivism. Thus,
it is an anarchist “norm” to read these charismatic writers, but not necessarily to be compelled to

agree with all they write or advocate.

The only sense in which Weberian authority might intersect with anarchism is with legal-

rational. Although anarchists oppose the hierarchically-ordered modern state, they do practice a

form of legal-rational authority within small organizations. In collectives, for instance, there are

often rules or guidelines that must be followed, or else sanctions are lobbied. This is a voluntary

reverence to authority, though, since any member of the collective can leave at any point. Also, it

differs from most other forms of legal-rational authority in that individuals make a conscious

effort to accept these rules, or even are involved in the rule formation themselves.

Even though it seems plausible to place some anarchist organizational structures within

the legal-rational framework, Weber’s work suggests otherwise. He writes that although “legal

rule” can be found in voluntary associations (such as anarchist collectives), it needs “an

extensive and hierarchically organized staff of functionaries” (Weber 1958, 2). Since there is no

hierarchy present in a collective, nor permanent functionaries, Weber’s own criteria discounts

this possibility.

Yet, as Spencer points out, there is a difference between Weber’s legal-rational authority

and an under-discussed fourth type, value-rational authority. The latter is “subordination to a

principle” (Spencer 1970, n. 2). In this respect, anarchist frequently submit to value-rational

authority, such as in consensus decision-making processes; decisions are made through a

formalized process and assisted by one of more facilitators who are empowered to help the group
reach a shared decision, but also enforce the rules of consensus. Thus, anarchists submit to the

authority of the values of consensus and direct democracy, but not necessarily the legality of it.

Elton Mayo

In 1924, Australian sociologist Elton Mayo, who later became an industrial research

professor at Harvard, began a series of studies that demonstrated that employee motivation is

heavily influenced by social and situational factors. Mayo’s findings, referred to as the

“Hawthorne Effect,” marked a radical change in motivational theory and management practice.

For example, Frederick Taylor’s principles focused on individual workers and how to optimize

that person’s work performance. The Hawthorne studies observed workers in a social context—

as part of a group—and determined that employee performance is influenced by not only innate

ability but by the work environment and their co-workers. Specifically, the studies found that

management attention and engagement with workers and the group dynamic had more of an

impact on productivity than factors such as lighting or benefits.

As management research continued in the 20th century, questions began to come up

regarding the interactions and motivations of the individual within organizations. Management

principles developed during the classical period were simply not useful in dealing with many

management situations and could not explain the behavior of individual employees. In short,

classical theory ignored employee motivation and behavior. As a result, the behavioral school

was a natural outgrowth of this revolutionary management experiment.

 The behavioral management theory is often called the human relations movement

because it addresses the human dimension of work. Behavioral theorists believed that a better

understanding of human behavior at work, such as motivation, conflict, expectations, and group

dynamics, improved productivity.

The theorists who contributed to this school viewed employees as individuals, resources,

and assets to be developed and worked with — not as machines, as in the past. Several

individuals and experiments contributed to this theory.

Elton Mayo's contributions came as part of the Hawthorne studies, a series of

experiments that rigorously applied classical management theory only to reveal its shortcomings.

The Hawthorne experiments consisted of two studies conducted at the Hawthorne Works of the

Western Electric Company in Chicago from 1924 to 1932. The first study was conducted by a

group of engineers seeking to determine the relationship of lighting levels to worker

productivity. Surprisingly enough, they discovered that worker productivity increased as the

lighting levels decreased — that is, until the employees were unable to see what they were doing,

after which performance naturally declined.

A few years later, a second group of experiments began. Harvard researchers Mayo and

F. J. Roethlisberger supervised a group of five women in a bank wiring room. They gave the

women special privileges, such as the right to leave their workstations without permission, take

rest periods, enjoy free lunches, and have variations in pay levels and workdays. This experiment

also resulted in significantly increased rates of productivity.

 In this case, Mayo and Roethlisberger concluded that the increase in productivity resulted

from the supervisory arrangement rather than the changes in lighting or other associated worker

benefits. Because the experimenters became the primary supervisors of the employees, the

intense interest they displayed for the workers was the basis for the increased motivation and

resulting productivity. Essentially, the experimenters became a part of the study and influenced

its outcome. This is the origin of the term Hawthorne effect, which describes the special attention

researchers give to a study's subjects and the impact that attention has on the study's findings.

The general conclusion from the Hawthorne studies was that human relations and the

social needs of workers are crucial aspects of business management. This principle of human

motivation helped revolutionize theories and practices of management.

The management theory of Elton Mayo can help you build more productive teams.

Mayo's contribution to management theory helped pave the way for modern human

relations management methods.

Based on his well-known Hawthorne experiments, Mayo's management theories grew

from his observations of employee productivity levels under varying environmental conditions.

His experiments drew a number of conclusions about the real source of employee motivation,

laying the groundwork for later approaches to team building and group dynamics. Mayo

management theory states that employees are motivated far more by relational factors such as
attention and camaraderie than by monetary rewards or environmental factors such as lighting,

humidity, etc.

Elton Mayo developed a matrix which he used to illustrate the likelihood that a given

team would be successful. His matrix demonstrates the role that varying combinations of group

norms and group cohesiveness play in team effectiveness.

The following are the four combinations of Mayo theory and the effect of each on team

dynamics:

1. Groups with low norms and low cohesiveness are ineffective; they have no impact, since none

of the members are motivated to excel, according to Mayo's theory.

2. Groups with low norms and high cohesiveness have a negative impact, since fellow members

encourage negative behavior (e.g., gangs).

3. Groups with high norms and low cohesiveness have some degree of positive impact through

individual member accomplishments.

4. Groups with high norms and high cohesiveness have the greatest positive impact, Mayo's

theory predicts, since group members encourage one another to excel.

Understand the concepts of Mayo's theory and how they can benefit you

Numerous websites provide valuable information about Mayo theory. In addition to

diagrams, summaries and explanations of Mayo management principles, you'll find various

videos and instructional materials that can help you develop the background knowledge and

practical expertise to put Mayo's theories to work for your company.

Take advantage of consulting services that can help give you greater insight into Mayo

theory

Consultants with knowledge and experience in the management theory of Elton Mayo can guide

you in maximizing the benefit of his principles in your own company's unique environment.

Take advantage of resources designed to help you make the most of Mayo's management

theories

Widely available online tools and resources can help you more easily implement Elton Mayo

management principles. Videos and various other Elton Mayo theory-based products,

information and services let you choose the resources most valuable to your business.

Consider the many benefits of putting the Elton Mayo management theory to work for

your business. If you decide to use it, why not go all out and practice it in all the areas it can

effectively address: your own leadership of the company, your managers' development and your

employees' engagement.

Hawthorne Effect
 The Hawthorne studies were conducted in three independent stages—the illumination

tests, the relay-assembly tests, and the bank-wiring tests. Although each was a separate

experiment, the second and third each developed out of the preceding series of tests. Neither

Hawthorne officials nor NRC researchers anticipated the duration of the studies, yet the

conclusions of each set of tests and the Hawthorne experiments as a whole are the legacy of the

studies and what sets them apart as a significant part of the history of industrial behavior and

human relations.

The tests challenged prior assumptions about worker behavior. Workers were not

motivated solely by pay. The importance of individual worker attitudes on behavior had to be

understood. Further, the role of the supervisor in determining productivity and morale was more

clearly defined. Group work and behavior were essential to organizational objectives and tied

directly to efficiency and, thus, to corporate success. The most disturbing conclusion emphasized

how little the researchers could determine about informal group behavior and its role in industrial

settings. Finally, the Hawthorne studies proved beyond certainty that there was a great deal more

to be learned about human interactions in the workplace, and academic and industrial study has

continued in an effort to understand these complex relationships.

Beyond the legacy of the Hawthorne studies has been the use of the term "Hawthorne

effect" to describe how the presence of researchers produces a bias and unduly influences the

outcome of the experiment. In addition, several important published works grew out of the

Hawthorne experience, foremost of which was Mayo's The Human Problems of an Industrial
Civilization and Roethlisberger and Dickson's Management and the Worker. Other books

focused on the various parts of the experiments, and researchers have written countless analyses

and histories of the Hawthorne studies.

The Hawthorne studies have been described as the most important social science

experiment ever conducted in an industrial setting, yet the studies were not without their critics.

Several criticisms, including those of sociologist Daniel Bell, focused on the exclusion of

unionized workers in the studies. Sociologists and economists were the most commanding

critics, defending their disciplinary turf more than offering serious criticisms. For his part, Mayo

called into question research findings of both economists and psychologists. More serious

questions were raised by social scientists who termed the studies bad science due to Mayo's

conservative views. Others expressed serious concerns about undue pressure from corporate

interests and called Mayo and his colleagues "servants of power." Despite these critical views,

the flow of writings on the Hawthorne studies attests to their lasting influence and the fascination

the tests have held for researchers. The studies had the impact of defining clearly the human

relations school. Another contribution was an emphasis on the practice of personnel counseling.

Industrial sociology owes its life as a discipline to the studies done at the Hawthorne site. This,

in part, led to the enormous growth of academic programs in organizational behavior at

American colleges and universities, especially at the graduate level.

The Hawthorne Effect is the inclination of people who are the subjects of an experimental

study to change or improve the behavior being evaluated only because it is being studied and not

because of changes in the experiment parameters or stimulus.

How the Hawthorne Effect Works

The Hawthorne Effect refers to the fact that people will modify their behavior simply

because they are being observed. The effect gets its name from one of the most famous industrial

history experiments that took place at Western Electric’s factory in the Hawthorne suburb of

Chicago in the late 1920s and early 1930s.

However, subsequent analysis of the effect by the University of Chicago economists in

2009 revealed that the original results were likely overstated.

The Hawthorne experiments were originally designed by the National Research Council

to study the effect of shop-floor lighting on worker productivity at a telephone parts factory in

Hawthorne. However, the researchers were perplexed to find that productivity improved, not just

when the lighting was improved, but also when the lighting was diminished. Productivity

improved whenever changes were made in other variables such as working hours and rest breaks.

The researchers concluded that the workers’ productivity was not being affected by the

changes in working conditions, but rather by the fact that someone was concerned enough about

their working conditions to conduct an experiment on it.

The Hawthorne Effect and Modern Research

 Research often relies on human subjects. In these cases, the Hawthorne Effect is the

intrinsic bias that researchers must take into consideration when studying their findings.

Although it can be challenging to determine how a subject's awareness of a study might modify

their behavior, researchers should nevertheless strive to be mindful of this phenomenon and

adapt accordingly.

While there is no universally agreed-upon methodology for achieving this, experience

and keen attention to the situation can help researchers prevent this effect from tarnishing their

results.

The Hawthorne Effect in Practice

As an example of the Hawthorne Effect, consider a 1978 study conducted to determine if

cerebellar neurostimulators could reduce the motor dysfunction of young cerebral palsy

sufferers. The objective testing revealed that the patients in the study claimed that their motor

dysfunctions decreased and that they embraced the treatment. But this patient feedback

countered the quantitative analysis, which demonstrated that there was scant increased motor

function.

Indeed, the increased human interaction with doctors, nurses, therapists, and other

medical personnel during these trials had a positive psychological impact on patients, which

consequently fostered their illusion of physical improvements to their conditions. When

analyzing the results, researchers concluded that the Hawthorne Effect negatively impacted the

data, as there was no evidence that the cerebellar neurostimulators were measurably effective.

How to Reduce the Hawthorne Effect

In order for researchers to trust the results of experiments, it is essential to

minimize potential problems and sources of bias like the Hawthorne effect. So what can

researchers do to minimize these effects in their experimental studies?

Conduct experiments in natural settings: One way to help eliminate or minimize demand

characteristics and other potential sources of experimental bias is to utilize naturalistic

observation techniques. However, this is simply not always possible.

Make responses completely anonymous: Another way to combat this form of bias is to

make the participants' responses in an experiment completely anonymous or confidential. This

way, participants may be less likely to alter their behavior as a result of taking part in an

experiment.

A Word From Very well

Many of the original findings of the Hawthorne studies have since been found to be either

overstated or erroneous, but the term has become widely used in psychology, economics,

business, and other areas. More recent findings support the idea that these effects do happen, but

how much of an impact they actually have on results remains in question. Today, the term is still

often used to refer to changes in behavior that can result from taking part in an experiment.