The document discusses the contributions of Elton Mayo and the Hawthorne experiments to the human relations movement in management, emphasizing the psychological and social factors influencing worker productivity. Key findings indicate that good communication, respect, and employee involvement in decision-making lead to improved productivity, while physical working conditions alone are insufficient. The document also critiques these experiments for their lack of real-world applicability and overemphasis on worker autonomy.

1. Professor & Lawyer
Puttu Guru Prasad
Expert Resource Person for APHRDI
M.Com., M.B.A., L.L.B., L.L.M., M.Phil., Pre PhD., PGDFTM.,
AP.SET., ICFAI TMF., (PhD) at JNTUK.,
ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR
Senior Faculty for Management Science,
S&H Department, VVIT, Nambur, NSS P.O
Mail Id:- puttuvvit@gmail.com
My Blog: puttuguru.blogspot.in
93 94 96 98 98, 807 444 95 39, 9885 96 36 36, 89 857 43 663

2. Great Management Lessons
from the Pioneers of
Industrial Management
1. F.W. Taylor
(Scientific Productivity Management)
2. Henry Fayol
(14 Principles of Office Administration)
3. George Elton Mayo
(Human Relations & Productivity)
First time in the Management History,
Elton Mayo developed the concept of
Group Dynamics @ work

5. ELTON MAYO
The Great Fatherof
Human Relations Movement
HAWTHORNE
EXPERIMENT/
EFFECT

6. In the 1920s Elton Mayo, a professor of Industrial
Management at Harvard Business School, and his protégé
Fritz J. Roethlisberger led a landmark study of worker behavior
at Western Electric, the manufacturing arm of AT&T.
Unprecedented in scale and scope, the nine-year study took
place at the massive Hawthorne Works plant outside of
Chicago and generated a mountain of documents, from hourly
performance charts to interviews with thousands of employees.
Harvard Business School’s role in the experiments represented
a milestone in the dawn of the human relations movement and a
shift in the study of management from a scientific to a multi-
disciplinary approach.
Baker Library’s exhaustive archival record of the experiments
reveals the art and science of this seminal behavioral study—and
the questions and theories it generated about the relationship of
productivity to the needs and motivations of the industrial worker.
Harvard Business School and the Hawthorne Experiments (1924-1933)
The Human Relations Movement:

10. Findings OF HAWTHORNE STUDIES /
EXPERIMENTS
 The social and psychological factors are responsible for workers’
productivity and job satisfaction. Only good physical working
conditions are not enough to increase productivity.
 The informal relations among workers influence the workers
behavior and performance more than the formal relations in the
organization.
 Employees will perform better if they are allowed to participate in
decision-making affecting their interests.
 Employees will also work more efficiently, when they believe that
the management is interested in their welfare

11. Findings OF HAWTHORNE STUDIES /
EXPERIMENTS
 When employees are treated with respect and
dignity, their performance will improve.
 Financial incentives alone cannot increase the
performance. Social and Psychological needs must
also be satisfied in order to increase productivity.
 Good communication between the superiors and
subordinates can improve the relations and the
productivity of the subordinates.
 Special attention and freedom to express their views
will improve the performance of the workers.

18. ELTON MAYO
HAWTHORNEEXPERIMENT

19. ELTON MAYO
George Elton Mayo (1880–1949) was an
Australian born psychologist, researcher and
organizational theorist.
Mayo is known as the founder of the Human
Relations Movement
The research he conducted under the rubric of
the Hawthorne Studies in the late 1920s and
early 1930s showed the importance of groups in
affecting the behavior of individuals at work.
He carried out a number of investigations to
look at ways of improving productivity

20. •Gray and Barton, a telephone industry supply
company founded in 1869 by Elisha Gray and
Enos Barton
•In 1872, the company changed its name to the
Western Electric Manufacturing Company
•In 1881, when the annual sales had already
grown to nearly $1 million, the firm was
purchased by the American Bell Telephone
Company, it was renamed the Western Electric
Company and became Bells manufacturing arm
WESTERN ELECTRIC COMPANY

22. HAWTHORNE EFFECT
• The Hawthorne Effect is the idea that “behavior
during the course of an experiment can be
altered by a subject’s awareness of participating
in an experiment”
• The initial Hawthorne effect took place in the
Hawthorne plant of Western Electric Company in
the 1920’s and 1930’s
• The studies were composed of many long
“investigations into the importance for work
behavior and attitudes of a variety of physical,
economic, and social variables.”

24. • The Hawthorne experiment were first conducted in November,
1924 at Western Electric Company’s Hawthorne plant in Chicago
• The initial tests were sponsored by The National Research
Council (NRC) of the National Academy of Sciences
• In 1927, a research team from Harvard Business School was
invited to join the studies after the illumination test drew
unanticipated results
• A team of researchers led by George Elton Mayo from the
Harvard Business School carried out the studies
• (General Electric originally contributed funding, but they withdrew
after the first trial was completed)
HAWTHORNE EXPERIMENT

25. 4 PARTS OF HAWTHORNE
EXPERIMENT
I. Part I - Illumination Experiments (1924-
27)
II. Part II - Relay Assembly Test Room Study
(1927- 1929)
III. Part III - Mass Interviewing Programme
(1928- 1930)
IV. Part IV - Bank Wiring Observation Room
Experiment (1932)

27. PART I - ILLUMINATION
EXPERIMENTS (1924-27)
These experiments were performed to find out
the effect of different levels of illumination
(lighting) on productivity of labor.
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

29. • Result :
– Higher worker productivity and satisfaction at all
light levels
– Worker productivity was stopped with the light
levels reached moonlight intensity.
• Conclusions:
– Light intensity has no conclusive effect on output
– Productivity has a psychological component

31. ILLUMINATION STUDY

33. 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

34. Relay Assembly Room 1
• Manipulated factors of production to measure effect on
output:
– Pay Incentives (Each Girls pay was based on the other 5 in
the group)
– Length of Work Day & Work Week (5pm, 4:30 pm, 4pm)
– Use of Rest Periods (Two 5 minutes break)
– Company Sponsored Meals (Morning Coffee & soup along
with sandwich)
• Results:
– Higher output and greater employee satisfaction
• Conclusions:
– 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

35. Relay Assembly Room 2
• Measured effect on output with compensation rates
– Special observation room
– 1st Session- Relay Assemblers changed from departmental
incentive to small group incentive
– 2nd Session - Adjusted back to large group incentive
• Results:
– Small group incentives resulted in highest sustained level of
production – 112% over standard output base
– Output dropped to 96.2% of base in 2nd session
• Conclusion:
– Pay relevant to output but not the only factor

36. WOMEN IN THE RELAY TESTASSEMBLY
ROOM

37. PART III - MASS
INTERVIEWING
PROGRAMME (1928-1930)
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.

39. • Conducted 20,000 interviews.
• Objective was to explore information, which could be used
to improve supervisory training.
• Initially used the method of Direct Questioning and changed
to Non Directive.
• Results:
-Merely giving an opportunity to talk and express
grievances would increase the morale.
-Complaints were symptoms of deep-rooted disturbances.
-Workers are governed by experience obtained from both
inside and outside the company.

40. • Measured output with changes to work conditionsonly:
– Special Observation Room
– Length of WorkDay
– Useof RestPeriods
– Workers stayed on established Piece-ratecompensation
• Result:
– Productivity increased by 15%over standard output base
• Conclusions:
– Productivity is affected by non-payconsiderations
– Social dynamics are abasisof worker performance

42. 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.

43. • Limited changes to work conditions:
– Segregatedwork area
– No Management Visits
– Supervision would remain thesame
– Observer would record data only – no interactionwith
workers
• Small group payincentive
• Result:
– No appreciable changes in output
• Conclusions:
– Pre-existing performance norms
– Group dictated production standards - SystemicSoldiering
– Work Group protection from managementchanges.

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

46. The Hawthorne Experiments are mainly
criticized on the following grounds :-
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.
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.
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.
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.

48. Professor & Lawyer
Puttu Guru Prasad
Expert Resource Person for APHRDI
M.Com. M.B.A., L.L.B., L.L.M., M.Phil. PGDFTM.
AP.SET., ICFAI TMF., (PhD) at JNTUK.
ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR
Senior Faculty for Management Science,
S&H Department, VVIT, Nambur, NSS P.O
Mail Id:- puttuvvit@gmail.com
My Blog: puttuguru.blogspot.in
93 94 96 98 98, 807 444 95 39, 9885 96 36 36, 89 857 43 663

49. For more information kindly click the below link
https://www.library.hbs.edu/hc/hawthorne/anewvision.html#e
THAK
YOU