Elton Mayo's Social Psychology and Human Relations - Essay Example

The Hawthorne Studies It was not until 1926 that Mayo was introduced to sociological studies. Since then, he embarked on applying sociological to other management studies of the time. Thus, he became a pioneering researcher in the sociology of management in the infamous Hawthorne studies conducted between 1927 and 1932 which applied statistical methods in an effort to demonstrate the relevance of considering human factors in the workplace alongside physical factors, for instance, the environment and ergonomics (Gillespie, p. 45). In 1927 Elton mayo was in charge of several experiments about human behaviour, on his experiment or the Hawthorne studies he found theory of human relation in productivity and motivation in work condition, which work is a group activity, the worker is a person whose attitudes and effective are depend at social demands from internal and external, also the worker need for recognise, security and sense of belonging is more important in determining workers moral and productivity then the physical conditions. In addition those research and experiment didn't show a clear connection between productivity and influence output. The Hawthorne effect is used to describe the increase in productivity associated with individuals feeling identify or special with in the organisation (Dingley, and Durkhelm, p12). Basically, these studies were aimed at examining strategies of improving productivity by initiating various changes, for instance lighting conditions. When these studies were completed, Mayo derived a number of hypotheses. These included the articulation that individual workers must be seen as members of a group but not treated in isolation; that group affiliation supersedes monetary incentives and favourable working conditions; that informal groups formed at the workplace strongly influence the behaviour of those workers in a group; and that the management must understand and tend to the social needs of employees, rather than working against them (Mayo, p. 326). Through these studies, Mayo demonstrated that productivity is dependent on motivation and morale. Another insight provided by these studies is the Hawthorne effect, which highlighted that the productivity of workers would tend to increase on discovering that they are being observed or studied (Gillespie, p. 72). This revelation was a major breakthrough in management. The Hawthorne effect describe as the reward you get when you pay attention to people. It's mean the more act of showing people that you're concerned about them usually encourage them to make a better job performance and when the people spend their time at work, they must have sense of belonging of being a part of a team finally they become produce more then before. Elton Mayo found a general upward trend in production, His findings didn't have a link with the F.W. Taylor’s theory of the worker as motivated only by self-interest. It didn't make sense that productivity would continue to rise gradually when he cut out breaks and returned the worker to longer working hours. Mayo began to see around the work place and realized that the worker had formed a social atmosphere that could be included the observer who tracked their productivity. They chat, they gossip, and they joked. They will be begun to meet socially outside of work. For example if they were allowed to have a friendly relationship with their first line manager or supervisor. They felt happier at work. Mayo had discovered a fundamental concept. Those workplaces are social environments and people are motivated by much more than economic self-interest. He concluded that all part of that industrial environment will be carried social value. People aren't rational with classical theorists but they assume social interaction is more important. (Sarachek, 45) People will be work well and feel satisfy if they enjoy interaction each other which can make them feel valued. Mayo's presented two assumptions: people are inclined to form social alliances in order to perform productively with one another and that changes in one's working environment can improve ones mind and their relationships with other. There are certain limitations of Mayo's assumptions which are thought to be limited in thoroughly exploring human behaviour in different aspects of society. Even then, Mayo used politics and social sciences to shape the history of current management by providing business leaders with solutions to management-labour conflicts without affecting managerial control. (Mayo, 419) He addressed numerous issues that affected management during World War I by applying his knowledge of politics, sociology and industry. Mayo in his Hawthorne studies focuses on the concept of "humanism" and how it relates to management. The humanistic approach which was introduced by Mayo and also further explored by Follett is compared to other management theorists who focused more on scientific management concepts. The article points out how the humanistic approach went beyond the "mechanical side" of business. (Hoopes, 210) It also explores Mayo's humanistic management approach and how it affected productivity, showing that satisfaction in the workplace depended more on informal interactions than formal, structured ones. Elton Mayo's experiment and teachings influenced management to take into account the personal life of workers in determining their behaviour in the workplace. Mayo was successful in demonstrating that personal relationships of managers to employees had a profound affect on the productivity of those employees. Mayo felt that there was a need for people in management positions to be trained in behavioural sciences. Accepted as the "father" of the Human Relations Movement, Elton Mayo is best known for an experiment called the "Hawthorne Studies." The experiment took place at the Western Electric Plant in Illinois, and was conducted from 1927 to 1932. During this study, workers were led to believe that researchers were there to determine the effects of lighting on the productivity of the workers. Despite the decrease in lighting, salaries, and response to employee complaints, productivity continued to soar. According to Mayo, the workers remained motivated because they were being evaluated. His theory was that individuals have an innate need to feel needed. The fact that the "researchers" were conducting this "study" led the workers to believe that the organization cared about them. (O' Connor, 18) This theory was the beginning of a philosophy of management that was based on a humanistic approach. Some of the weaknesses cited by Mayo's critics were that the theory was based on something they termed "Cow Psychology": the belief that a content cow gives more milk. Critics felt this way of thinking was too naive in believing that the humanistic approach would address or resolve any conflicts the organization might experience. Others felt that it allowed irresponsibility and immaturity among many of the workers. Mayo's theory was seen as an easy explanation for a complicated issue: effective management and productivity. A major weakness found in these studies was the feeling that that there was too much compromise by management and too much control by the workers. However, supporters of Mayo's teachings felt that Mayo's theory also had its strengths. They felt that managers needed to act more like counsellors, teachers, and friends in the workplace in order to develop more personal relationships with their employees. They felt that this approach built employee morale and in turn had a positive effect on productivity. (Mayo, 33) The success of this theory was shown in a decrease in turnover rates, increased productivity and employee loyalty. The Hawthorne Experiment was a study on the effects of a humanistic management approach on the productivity of employees. This research showed the influence on productivity of changes in the workplace. Changes such as a friendly observer as opposed to a micro-manager; the explanation of changes rather than changes without prior knowledge by the employee; and flexibility in the hours of the working schedules rather than strict, rigid schedules that employees were forced to adhere to. Employees were also asked for their input and opinions on various aspects of the working conditions and the organization. (Gabor, 79) The research supported that a friendlier, supportive environment in which employees felt valued resulted in an increase in productivity and job satisfaction. The observation was that employees were willing participants rather than coerced labourers. The employees experienced more freedom and developed an increased sense of responsibility. Mayo's theory has become relevant in the 21st century in that many organizations are within themselves social organizations. In today's businesses, working relationships thrive on interaction by employees on all levels. The humanistic approach is the way that many organizations are training and educating their staff. The authoritarian, micro-managing approach is fading and employers are placing more emphasis on what their employees think and feel. (Mele, 100) Employees are now part of the mission and vision of an organization and managers rely on teamwork and positive relationships to achieve success. Mayo's Human Relations Movement is not just about how to increase productivity. It is about forming essential relationships and giving people the feeling that they are valued partners. Employees consist of more than a job description that they are expected to follow. It is important for organizations to recognize that leadership should include aspects of human relations which require effective social skills, not just technical skills. (Mayo, 118) It is also important to the success of an organization to recognize the correlation between the needs of an individual and the needs of an organization. To a large extent, Mayo’s ideas and theoretical conceptualizations were influenced by the social, political, intellectual and economic climate that prevailed during the time. (Smith, p. 491) Worthwhile to mention is the fact that he lived in era characterized by social and political unrest precipitated by the two world wars (Mayo, p. 144). During the First World War, mayo was involved in clinical treatment of well-shocked troops. Through this experience, he gained insights through observations and treatment of individuals. This became the basis of his general approach to the investigation of issues related to contemporary industrial society (Mayo, p. 116). Mayo also identified with the progressive politics of early 29th century, and he was thus able to understand the plight of workers, who were often oppressed. Similarly, the processes of industrialization and urbanization elicited deep concerns. Particularly, his observation of the high level of political conflict as well as industrial strife in Australia led him to derive a relationship between war neurosis and the psychological causes of industrial upheavals (Wood 83). To this end therefore, he argued that workers’ motivation was largely dependent on the social function of work. In his opinion, the solution to such industrial unrest was to not to be found in radical politics, but in sociological inquiry and industrial management (Riegly, p. 1-2). Conclusion The intellectual climate that prevailed at the time also contributed to the growth of his ideas. Intellectual inquiry and exploration was tolerated. When he was appointed to investigate high labour turnover at a textile firm as an associate professor at the University of Pennsylvania, Mayo did a commendable job, which saw him appointed as an associate professor at the Harvard School of Business Administration. Here, he was actively involved in inquiries aimed at ascertaining the relationships between social and personal factors and work output. Furthermore, the evolution of disciplines such as sociology, economics, political science and anthropology in the 20th century also influenced his worldview. More than 50 years after his death, Mayo’s ideas have not been rendered redundant. His observations of employees’ productivity under varying conditions provided deeper insights as to the real source of motivation for workers. Rather than the commonly held notion that employees are motivated by environmental factors and monetary incentives, his experiments highlighted that that social or relational factors, for instance companionship and attention are more important despite the tidings of these studies, some managers in contemporary enterprises still remain oblivious of this fact. Ironically, virtually every manager concurs that employee motivation encourages greater output, and thus higher returns on investment. It is commonplace to find a scenario where management improves the working conditions at the workplace and avails promotional opportunities, but fails to capture implicit issues like paying attention to the worries and woes of the employee fraternity, for instance, remaining ignorant of the potential sources of distress and possible solutions (Mayo, 1947, p. 124). Thus, embracing Mayo’s ideas could go a long way in improving productivity. Works Cited Dingley, J, and Durkhelm 1997, ‘Mayo, morality and management.’ Journal of Business Ethics, vol.16: no.11, pp. 1-18. Gabor, A 1999, The Capitalist Philosophers: The Geniuses of Modern Business—Their Lives, Times, and Ideas, New York: Times Business. 77-80 Gillespie, R 2003, Manufacturing Knowledge: A History of the Hawthorne Experiments. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 45-72 Hoopes, J 2003, False Prophets: The Gurus Who Created Modern Management and Why Their Ideas Are Bad for Business Today. Cambridge, MA: Perseus Publishers, 2003. 209-11 Mayo, 1945, The Social Problems of an Industrial Civilization. London: Routledge. p.116 Mayo, 1947, The Political Problem of Industrial Civilization. Division of Research, Graduate School of Business Administration, Harvard University, 33 Mayo, 1984, The Mad Mosaic: a Life Story, London, New Brunswick: Transaction Books. p.144 Mayo, E 1923, ‘The Irrational Factor in Society.’ Journal of Personnel Research, vol.1: no.10, pp. 419 Mayo, E 1930, ‘Changing Methods in Industry.’ Personnel Journal, vol.8: issue 5, pp.326. Mayo, E 1933, The Human Problems of an Industrial Civilization: Early Sociology of Management and Organizations. Routledge, 118 Mele, Domenec. (2003) "The Challenge of Humanistic Management." Journal of Business Ethics. 99-102 O' Connor, Ellen S. (1999) "The Politics of Management Thought: A Case Study of the Harvard Business School and the Human Relations School." Academy of Management Review. 13-20 Riegly, B 1995, ‘Lessons in productivity and people.’ Training and Development, vol.49:no.10, pp. 1-2. Sarachek, Bernard. (1968) "Elton Mayo's Social Psychology and Human Relations." Academy of Management Journal. 44-48 Smith 1998, ‘The Enduring Legacy of Elton Mayo.’ Human Relations, vol.51: no. 3, pp. 221. Wood, J 2004 George Elton Mayo: Critical Evaluations in Business and Management. Routledge. 83 Read More