Lessons from the Hawthorne Studies and the Roles of Norms in the Workplace - Coursework Example

Lessons from the Hawthorne studies and the roles of norms in the workplace Student Name: Instructor’s Name: Course Code and Name: University: Date Assignment is due: Lessons from the Hawthorne studies Hawthorne studies were carried out in 1927-1932 at Chicago at the Hawthorne works plant. The studies were aimed at examining the impacts of working conditions on the employees’ productivity. The environmental and physical influences in the workplace were first examined followed by the psychological influences. Harvard business school led by Professor Elton Mayo is widely known for carrying out these studies. He had begun the study through looking for the right formula of productivity. He later developed the Hawthorne effects (Carey 1967, 403-406). One of the major purposes of the Hawthorne studies was to examine to what effect fatigue and monotony had on the productivity of workers. The study also sought to establish how to control these effects using variables such as work hours, rest breaks, temperature and humidity. There are a number of lessons that can be learnt from the Hawthorne studies. This paper will discuss some lessons that are learnt from the Hawthorne studies. This paper will also discuss the role of norms at the workplace and how they affect the performance of employees. There are various general conclusions drawn from the Hawthorne studies (Franke, & Kaul 1978, 623-643). One of the conclusions was that the aptitudes of employees are not perfect predictors of job performance. Aptitudes give some indications of the mental and physical potential of an individual worker; however, the amount produced is highly influenced by social factors. The other assumption is that informal organizations affect productivity. A group life among employees was discovered by the Hawthorne researchers. The studies indicated that the relationship developed by supervisors towards the employees influences the manner in which employees carry out their directives. The third conclusion is that was drawn from Hawthorne studies was that work group norms affect productivity. The researchers at Hawthorne studies were not the only ones to realize that work-groups arrive at norms of a fair day’s work (Franke, & Kaul 1978, 623-643). However, a work group norm gives the best systematic interpretation and description of this phenomenon. The last conclusion drawn from the Hawthorne studies is that the workplace can be regarded as a social system. Researchers at the Hawthorne studies viewed the workplace as a system that is social and made up of several interdependent parts. For a long time, Hawthorne studies provided a rationale in many organizations for human relations (Franke & Kaul 1978, 623-643). When workers are treated with dignity and respect, their performance tends to improve according to the Hawthorne studies. Employees who are treated fairly by their supervisors, were observed to have improved performance. Financial incentives alone cannot be used to improve the performance of employees. The psychological and social needs should also be put into account, so as to improve productivity in an organization (Pride, Hughes & Kapoor 2011, 281). Good communication among the employees and their superiors is crucial in an organization according to the Hawthorne studies. Good communication helps to improve the productivity and relations among the subordinates. Interests should be expressed towards the workers so as to improve their productivity. When employees believe that the management is interested in them and their welfare, they tend to perform better. Other factors that were proved by the Hawthorne studies to improve employees’ productivity include, giving employees freedom to express their grievances. There have been scholars who have criticized the Hawthorne studies, citing several shortcomings of the studies. One of the critics of the Hawthorne studies is that they lack validity. The studies were conducted under several controlled situations. Some scholars argue that these findings cannot work in a real setting. The employees who were involved in these studies were much aware of the studies hence; they could improve their performance from the sake of the experiments. The Hawthorne studies put more importance to human aspects in the workplace. The experiments were giving much importance to the human aspect alone, bearing in mind that there are other issues that affect production. Some factors of production, such as technology, were not put into consideration (Pride, Hughes & Kapoor 2011, p.281). The study was laying a lot of emphasis on group decision making. In a real life situation, individual decision making cannot be neglected totally especially when making quick decisions having limited time to consult others. The Hawthorne experiments put a lot of importance on freedom of workers. It does not recognize the importance of the roles played by supervisors. In real life situation, too much employees’ freedom can lower their productivity or performance. The roles of norms in the workplace Norms are generally agreed-upon roles that guide behaviors of group members in an organization. Organizational norms are informal and unwritten and, differ from one organization to the other. Many norms are subtle in that the members may not be aware that they are operating even though their effects can be profound. Some key behaviors such as honesty may be regulated by the group norms. Other key behaviors that can be influenced by group norms are manners of dressing and punctuality of appointments and meetings. In such cases, norms helps in the regulation of the group and keeping them functioning in an orderly manner. Norms in an organization can be either proscriptive or prescriptive. Prescriptive norms dictate what should be done in the organization while proscriptive norms dictate what should be avoided in the organization. For example, a group may develop a prescriptive norm to follow their leaders or assist group members who require assistance (Brown 2000, p.85-112). Some proscriptive norms that can be developed in an organization include avoiding absences or refraining from blowing whistles against each other. In many organizations, the pressure to conform to norms is subtle, for example, the bad picture portrayed by a manager to his peers by going for lunch with one of the subordinate workers. On the other hand, the normative pressures can be quite severe for example if a subordinate worker sabotages another work after performing at a high level and making his co-workers look bad. Some key questions about norms in an organization are how norms are developed and how they work. There are various keys factors that are involved in the development of norms. First of all, norms come about as a result of precedents set over time. Any behavior that emerges during the first group meeting determines the operation of the group. The initial pattern of behavior in a group frequently become a normative, for example where people sit or hoe informal or formal the meeting will be (Neff 2006, p.50-53). After these norms are developed, they help to establish an orderly and predictable interaction pattern. Norms may also be developed from carry-overs from other situations. A previous situation may be used to formulate a norm in a group. Group members tend to use their previous experiences to decide their behaviors in a new situation. Norms that govern professional behavior can be applied here. A good example is the norm of a physician who is expected to behave ethically from one hospital to the other. Such carry over norms especially those that generalize different contexts are useful in making interaction easy in a new social situation. A norm may also develop from a response to explicit statements made by a co-worker or a superior. Any new comer into a group quickly learns the ropes when other members describe what is expected of them. The explanations can be termed as implicit statements of the organization or group norms. It describes what a member should avoid doing or should do so as to be accepted in the group. Finally, group norms can be developed from critical events that have occurred in the group’s history (Brown 2000, p.45-160). For example, when a worker releases crucial organizational secrets to a competitor leading to a loss in the organization, a norm of maintaining the secrecy in the organization may be developed. This is just one of the several incidents in an organization that lead to development of a norm. Such norms guide people to avoid similar mistakes in the future. They are a helpful way of ensuring that the organization or group members learn from the past experiences. In conclusion, there are several lessons that can be derived from the Hawthorne studies. From these studies, the experimental group was seen to have considerable freedom of movement compared to employees at the plant. An increased discipline and sense of responsibility was developed in the group and no longer needed to come from the high authority after solving the welfare of the employees. In the real world situation, workers improve their productivity when they perceive that the management is highly concerned with their welfare. Also from the Hawthorne studies, productivity can be improved through paying attention to the employees’ social environment and their informal groupings. Some critics of the outcomes of Hawthorne studies have been developed. There have been arguments that these experiments lack validity. The study has been criticized for laying more importance on the workers in the production and not putting into consideration other factors of production. Norms in any organization are crucial are play a role. Two types of norms have been identified and they are proscriptive and prescriptive. It has been seen that there are several ways in which norms in an organization develop and their importance in the organization. The importance of these norms in the organization cannot be underestimated. List of References Brown R., 2000, Group processes: dynamics within and between groups, Wiley-Blackwell, New York. Chevalier, R 2007, A Manager's Quide to Improving Workplace Performance, AMACOM Div American Mgmt Assn, New York. Carey, A 1967, The Hawthorne Studies: a Radical Criticism, Ardent Media publishers, New York. Franke, R. H., & Kaul, J. D 1978, The Hawthorne experiments: First statistical interpretation, American Sociological Review, 1978, vol43, (1978), p.623-643. Pride, W. M., Hughes, R. J., & Kapoor, J. R 2011, Business, Cengage Learning, Connecticut. Neff, W.S 2006, Work & Human Behavior, Transaction publishers, New Jersey Rainey, H. G 2009, Understanding and Managing Public Organizations, John Wiley and sons, New York. Read More