4.1 Hawthorne Experiment The Hawthorne effect is a formof reactivity whereby subjects improveor modify an aspect of their behaviorbeing experimentally measured simplyin response to the fact that they knowthey are being studied, not in responseto any particular experimentalmanipulation.The term was coined in 1950 by HenryA. Landsberger when analysing olderexperiments from 1924-1932 atthe Hawthorne Works (a WesternElectric factory outside Chicago).Hawthorne Works had commissioneda study to see if its workers wouldbecome more productive in higher orlower levels of light. The workersproductivity seemed to improve whenchanges were made and slumpedwhen the study was concluded. It wassuggested that the productivity gainoccurred due to the impact of themotivational effect on the workers as aresult of the interest being shown inthem. Although illumination researchof workplace lighting formed the basis of the Hawthorne effect, other changes such asmaintaining clean work stations, clearing floors of obstacles, and even relocating workstationsresulted in increased productivity for short periods. Thus the term is used to identify any typeof short-lived increase in productivity.History: The term gets its name from a factory called the Hawthorne Works, where a series ofexperiments on factory workers was carried out between 1924 and 1932.This effect wasobserved for minute increases in illumination. Evaluation of the Hawthorne effect continues inthe present day.
Most industrial/occupational psychology and organizational behavior textbooks refer to theillumination studies. Only occasionally are the rest of the studies mentioned. In the lightingstudies, light intensity was altered to examine its effect on worker productivity.Relay assembly experiments: In one of the studies, experimenters chose two women as testsubjects and asked them to choose four other workers to join the test group. Together thewomen worked in a separate room over the course of five years (1927–1932) assemblingtelephone relays.Output was measured mechanically by counting how many finished relays each workerdropped down a chute. This measuring began in secret two weeks before moving the women toan experiment room and continued throughout the study. In the experiment room, they had asupervisor who discussed changes with them and at times used their suggestions. Then theresearchers spent five years measuring how different variables impacted the groups andindividuals productivity. Some of the variables were: giving two 5-minute breaks (after a discussion with them on the best length of time), and then changing to two 10-minute breaks (not their preference). Productivity increased, but when they received six 5-minute rests, they disliked it and reduced output. providing food during the breaks shortening the day by 30 minutes (output went up); shortening it more (output per hour went up, but overall output decreased); returning to the first condition (where output peaked).Changing a variable usually increased productivity, even if the variable was just a change backto the original condition. However it is said that this is the natural process of the human beingto adapt to the environment without knowing the objective of the experiment occurring.Researchers concluded that the workers worked harder because they thought that they werebeing monitored individually.Researchers hypothesized that choosing ones own coworkers, working as a group, beingtreated as special (as evidenced by working in a separate room), and having a sympatheticsupervisor were the real reasons for the productivity increase. One interpretation, mainly dueto Elton Mayo, was that "the six individuals became a team and the team gave itselfwholeheartedly and spontaneously to cooperation in the experiment." (There was a secondrelay 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 paymentincentives would affect productivity. The surprising result was that productivity actuallydecreased. Workers apparently had become suspicious that their productivity may have beenboosted 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 puttogether telephone switching equipment. The researchers found that although the workerswere paid according to individual productivity, productivity decreased because the men wereafraid that the company would lower the base rate. Detailed observation between the menrevealed the existence of informal groups or "cliques" within the formal groups. These cliquesdeveloped informal rules of behavior as well as mechanisms to enforce them. The cliquesserved to control group members and to manage bosses; when bosses asked questions, cliquemembers gave the same responses, even if they were untrue. These results show that workerswere more responsive to the social force of their peer groups than to the control and incentivesof management.4.2 James Burnham - Theory of Management RevolutionJames Burnham (November 22, 1905 – July 28, 1987) was an American popular politicaltheorist, best known for his influential work The Managerial Revolution, published in 1941.Burnham was a radical activist in the 1930s and an important factional leader of theAmerican Trotskyist movement. In later years he left Marxism and produced his seminalwork The Managerial Revolution. He later turned to conservatism and served as a publicintellectual of the American conservative movement. Burnham is also remembered as a regularcontributor to the conservative publication National Review on a variety of topics.Theory of Management RevolutionBurnhams seminal work, The Managerial Revolution, attempted to theorize about the future ofworld capitalism based upon observations of its development in the interwar period. Burnhamargued three possible futures for capitalism: (1) thatcapitalism was a permanent form of social and economicorganization and that it would be continued for a protractedperiod of time; (2) that capitalism was a temporary form oforganization destined by its nature to collapse and bereplaced by socialism; (3) that capitalism was a temporaryform of organization currently being transformed into somenon-socialist future form of society. Burnham argued thatsince capitalism had a more or less definite beginning, whichhe dated to approximately the 14th Century, it could not beregarded as an immutable and permanent form. Moreover,Burnham observed that in the last years of previous forms ofeconomic organization, such as those of Ancient Greece andthe Roman Empire, mass unemployment was "a symptom
that a given type of social organization is just about finished." The worldwide massunemployment of the depression era was, for Burnham, indicative that capitalism was itself"not going to continue much longer."Burnham looked around the world for indications of the new form of society which wasemerging to replace historic capitalism and saw certain commonalities between the economicformations of Nazi Germany, Stalinist Russia, and America under Franklin D. Roosevelt and his"New Deal." Burnham argued that over a comparatively short period, which he dated fromthe first world war, a new society had emerged in which a "social group or class" whichBurnham called "managers" had engaged in a "drive for social dominance, for power andprivilege, for the position of ruling class." For at least a decade previous to Burnhams book, theidea of a "separation of ownership and control" of the modern corporation had been part ofAmerican economic thought, with Burnham citing The Modern Corporation and PrivateProperty by Berle and Means as an important exposition. Burnham expanded upon thisconcept, arguing that whether ownership was corporate and private or statist andgovernmental, the essential demarcation between the ruling elite (executives and managers onthe one hand, bureaucrats and functionaries on the other) and the mass of society was notownership so much as it was control of the means of production.Burnham emphasized that "New Dealism," as he called it, "is not, let me repeat, a developed,systematized managerial ideology." Still, this ideology had contributed to American capitalismsmoving in a "managerial direction":In its own more confused, less advanced way, New Dealism too has spread abroad the stress onthe state as against the individual, planning as against private enterprise, jobs (even if reliefjobs) against opportunities, security against initiative, "human rights" against "property rights."There can be no doubt that the psychological effect of New Dealism has been what thecapitalists say it has been: to undermine public confidence in capitalist ideas and rights andinstitutions. Its most distinctive features help to prepare the minds of the masses for theacceptance of the managerial social structure.In June 1941, a hostile review of The Managerial Revolution by Socialist Workers Partyloyalist Joseph Hansen in the SWPs theoretical magazine accused Burnham of having lifted thecentral ideas of his book "without acknowledging the source" from the Italian Bruno Rizzi andhis 1939 book La Bureaucratisation du Monde. Despite certain similarities, there is no evidenceBurnham knew of said book beyond Leon Trotskys brief references to it. Burnham was likelyinfluenced by Rizzi negatively and secondhand, as Trotsky mentioned Rizzis ideas in his debateswith Burnham. Burnhams arguments stemmed partly from the idea of bureaucraticcollectivism first introduced to Trotskyism by Yvan Craipeau, but in Burnhams case from aconservative Machiavellian rather than a Marxist viewpoint. This important philosophical
difference, explored in greater detail in The Machiavellians, made Burnhams theory distinctfrom the similar concepts that had been developing in Trotskyist circles in the 1930s.4.3 Maslow’s Theory of Motivation Abraham Maslow was a clinicalpsychologist in USA. His motivationtheory is widely accepted andstudied. Maslow suggested thatevery individual has complex set ofneeds at any particular momentand his behaviour is determined bythe existence of strongest need. Hestated that human beings have fivetypes of needs and physiologicalneed is the strongest hence theindividual behaves in a particularmanner to satisfy that need. Needsare hierarchal in nature and onlyone need dominates at any onepoint of time. Once the strongestneed is satisfied then the second need emerges as being the strongest need and humanbehaviour is regulated in process of achieving satisfaction in series of need requirements.Maslow further started that there is only one need satisfying process is underway at any onetime. They do not disappear once they are satisfied but their intensity is reduced (relegated)below the subsequent need.Let us discuss the hierarchy of needs theory:1. Physiological Needs - As per Maslow physiological need is strongest in every human beingand hence it has highest strength as compared to the other needs. Individual behaves in aparticular manner to satisfy basic bodily needs like hunger; thirst, shelter and clothing. Theseneeds keep dominating unless they are reasonably satisfied. Human being is thereforemotivated to work in that direction.2. Safety Needs or Security Needs - Once the physiological need of an individual is satisfied, thesafety need /security need arises and is dominant at that point of time. This need is related tothe following:–
(a) Every worker is concerned about his personal safety and wants to be free of physical danger.(b) There are various dangerous processes in the work setting. Individual desires to be free andwork toward self-preservation.(c) Safety need is also related to employee/employer relationship, which should be cordial andfree from any threat to job security.(d) There should be certainty in the job and non existence of arbitrary action on the part ofmanagement/employer.(e) Administration policy of any organization must cover various points that are related tosafety of an individual like pay, pension, insurance, and gratuity.Individual should be given opportunities for choice of job so that he derives satisfaction. Hemust also be given adequate security against being fired, laid off or demotion.3. Social Needs - Once the safety need is satisfied, third need i.e. social need arises. Peoplewant to belong to some social group where their emotional need of love, affection, warmth andfriendship are satisfied. Being member of sports club, social organizations or being the companyof friends and relatives, needs can satisfy social. In the work setting individuals want to bemember of work group and contribute towards it so that the social need of the individual isfulfilled.4. Esteem Need or Ego Need - Fourth need in the hierarchy of needs as suggested by Maslow isEsteem need orEgo need.Individual wantsself-recognition,appreciation forthe work done. Itis related to self-respect, self-confidence,praise, power andcontrol. It theseneeds aresatisfied it givesan individual asense self-worthand egosatisfaction.
5. Self-actualization Need - Self-actualization is the last need in the need hierarchy. Onceesteem need is satisfied, there appears the self-actualization need of human being. It is relatedto an intense carving for something supreme one wants to achieve in life. It is transcended andrelated to achieving the very best that may be possible of human endeavour. People set highgoals, achieve them and set a higher goals again and to achieve the same by utilising fullestpotential. It is related to development of intrinsic capabilities. An individual seeking to satisfyself-actualization need seek situations or jobs that are challenging in nature – achievement ofhighest value out of the work. Mahatma Gandhi wanted to achieve freedom for India by uniqueweapons of peace and non-violence. He strived hard, faced various challenges but ultimatelyachieved his goal. With his innovative ideas he bound the whole nation in one thread of togetherness for the cause of freedom.In essence Maslow’s Motivational Theory covers the following.(a) There are five levels of human needs.(b) These needs are hierarchical in nature.(c) A satisfied need is no longer a need. Once that need is satisfied, the next level need becomesstronger.(d) Needs do not diminish. It is the gravity that changes. Individual strives to satisfy the needthat has a strong appeal at any point of time.4.3 Herzberg’s Two Factor TheoryHerzberg analysed the job attitudes of 200 accountants and engineers who were asked to recallwhen they had felt positive or negative at work and the reasons why.From this research, Herzberg suggested a two-step approach to understanding employeemotivation and satisfaction: Hygiene Factors Hygiene factors are based on the need to for a business to avoid unpleasantness at work. If these factors are considered
inadequate by employees, then they can cause dissatisfaction with work. Hygiene factorsinclude:- Company policy and administration- Wages, salaries and other financial remuneration- Quality of supervision- Quality of inter-personal relations- Working conditions- Feelings of job securityMotivator FactorsMotivator factors are based on an individuals need for personal growth. When they exist,motivator factors actively create job satisfaction. If they are effective, then they can motivatean individual to achieve above-average performance and effort. Motivator factors include:- Status- Opportunity for advancement- Gaining recognition- Responsibility- Challenging / stimulating work- Sense of personal achievement & personal growth in a jobThere is some similarity between Herzbergs and Maslows models. They both suggest thatneeds have to be satisfied for the employee to be motivated. However, Herzberg argues thatonly the higher levels of the Maslow Hierarchy (e.g. self-actualisation, esteem needs) act as amotivator. The remaining needs can only cause dissatisfaction if not addressed.Applying Hertzbergs model to de-motivated workersWhat might the evidence of de-motivated employees be in a business?- Low productivity- Poor production or service quality- Strikes / industrial disputes / breakdowns in employee communication and relationships- Complaints about pay and working conditionsAccording to Herzberg, management should focus on rearranging work so that motivatorfactors can take effect.
Limitations of Two-Factor Theory FactorThe two factor theory is not free from limitations: tor 1. The two-factor theory overlooks situational variables. factor 2. Herzberg assumed a correlation between satisfaction and productivity. But the research conducted by Herzberg stressed upon satisfaction and ignored productivity. productivity 3. The theory’s reliability is uncertain. Analysis has to be made by the raters. The raters may spoil the findings by analyzing same response in different manner. 4. No comprehensive measure of satisfaction was used. An employee may find his job acceptable despite the fact that he may hate/object part of his job. pite 5. The two factor theory is not free from bias as it is based on the natural reaction of employees when they are enquired the sources of satisfaction and dissatisfaction at work. They will blame dissatisfaction on the external factors such as salary structure, dissatisfaction company policies and peer relationship. Also, the employees will give credit to themselves for the satisfaction factor at work. 6. The theory ignores blue collar workers. Despite these limitations, Herz blue-collar Herzberg’s Two-Factor theory is acceptable broadly.4.4 McGregor’s Theory X and Theory YMcGregor developed two theories of human behaviour at work: Theory and X and Theory Y.He did not imply that workers would be one type or the other. Rather, he saw the two theoriesas two extremes - with a whole spectrum of possible behaviours in between.Theory X workers could be described as follows:- Individuals who dislike work and avoid it where possible avo- Individuals who lack ambition, dislike responsibility andprefer to be led- Individuals who desire securityThe management implications for Theory X workers werethat, to achieve organisational objectives, a businesswould need to impose a management system of coercion, mposecontrol and punishment.Theory Y workers were characterised by McGregor as:- Consider effort at work as just like rest or play
- Ordinary people who do not dislike work. Depending on the working conditions, work couldbe considered a source of satisfaction or punishment- Individuals who seek responsibility (if they are motivated0The management implications for Theory X workers are that, to achieve organisationalobjectives, rewards of varying kinds are likely to be the most popular motivator. The challengefor management with Theory Y workers is to create a working environment (or culture) whereworkers can show and develop their creativity.