Hawthorne Experiments about Group Norms, Motivation, and Leadership - Essay Example

Order 146768 Hawthorne Experiments in relation to Group norms, motivation, and Leadership Introduction Hawthorne experiments were conducted during the period 1924–33 at the Hawthorne works of the Western Electric Company in Chicago to gauge the productivity of factory workers under varied manipulated conditions such as pay, light levels, rest breaks, etc. Elton Mayo of the Harvard Business School and his associates Fritz Roethlisberger and William J. Dickson conducted the studies. Roethlisberger and Dickson (1939) give a detailed account of the experiments but little interpretation about them, but Mayo (1933) gives a shorter account, and an interpretation which has been significant. Hawthorne Effects Mayo found a general increase in production and in productivity per worker as well as of the group in general, completely independent of any of the changes he made in the experiments. His findings were not in accordance with the then prevalent theory of the worker as being motivated solely by self-interest. It did not make sense that productivity would continue to rise even when he cut out breaks and returned the workers to longer working hours. The segment of the Hawthorne experiments that emphasised the positive effects of benign supervision and concern for workers that made them feel like part of a team became known as the ‘Hawthorne Effect’. The studies were instrumental for the emergence of the human relations school of management and motivational and related theories of worker-behaviour, of participatory management, team building, etc. However, in a true sense the Hawthorne Effect is not just about "positive outcomes”, it is about the absence of any definite correlation (positive or negative) between productivity and the independent variables used in the experiments such as monetary incentive, rest pauses, etc ‘Group dynamics’ While analyzing the “amazing” findings of his experiments, Mayo realised that the workers had exercised a freedom they did not have on the factory floor and which had created a social ambience that included the ‘supervisor’ also who tracked their productivity. ‘The talked, they joked, they began to meet socially outside of work’ It is as if Mayo had discovered a fundamental ‘fact’ that seems obvious today, that workplaces are ‘social environments’ and people there are motivated by much more than mere economic self-interest. He concluded that all features of that work environment had social value. This may be characterised as the ‘group dynamics’ of the experiment. When some workers were singled out from the rest of the factory workers, it raised their self-esteem; when they had a friendly relationship with their supervisor they felt happier at work; when he discussed changes with them, they felt like being part of the team. He had secured their cooperation and loyalty; it explained why productivity rose even when he took away their rest breaks. The influence of the social setting and peer group dynamics became even more obvious to Mayo in a later part of the Hawthorne Studies, when he saw the flip side of his original experiments. The ultimate objective of the Hawthorne experiments was to identify the factors that may be instrumental in helping to increase productivity of workers and to see how human behaviour was affected under “controlled” conditions. The aim of this paper is to analyse some of the theories about employee motivation, group behaviour, leadership requirements and managerial practices that have been developed on the basis of the experiments’ findings. Motivation and Performance It is a well-accepted maxim that motivation is the key to performance improvement. And performance is said to be a function of ability and motivation. Ability depends on education, experience and training and its improvement is a slow and long process. On the other hand motivation can be inculcated in a comparatively shorter period. Whether it is to excel on the workshop floor or in the ivory tower people need be motivated or ‘driven’ to it, either by themselves or through external stimulus. It is this aspect of human motivation that was sought to be manipulated by the Hawthorne experiments. As mentioned above, these experiments were the originator of motivation theories. One such theory is the theory x and theory propounded by Douglas McGregor. Theory X and Theory Y Douglas McGregor in his 1960 book, The Human Side of Enterprise formulated two theories about individual behaviour at work which he calls Theory X and Theory Y. McGregor felt that companies followed either one or the other approach. In Theory X management assumes employees are inherently lazy and will avoid work if they can. Because of this workers need to be closely supervised and be subjected to a comprehensive system of controls. A hierarchical structure with narrow span of control at each level is needed as an instrument of supervision. Theory X postulates that employees will show little ambition without a truly attractive incentive system and are prone to avoid responsibility whenever they can. In the 1960s many managers seemed to have subscribed to Theory X, and had entertained a rather pessimistic view of their employees. Theory X holds that manager believes that his or her employees do not really want to work, that they would rather avoid responsibility and that it is the managers job to organise the work and energise the employee. As a result of this line of thought the Theory X managers adopt an authoritarian style of functioning based on the threat of punishment and workers are completely devoid of self-motivation. Whatever motivation for better performance, hard work or higher achievement is required has to be ‘forcefully injected or instilled’ into the workers. This technique has been and continues to be a strong motivator. Yet it is not of the best kind. It may give rise to defensive or retaliatory behaviour, such as union organization, poor-quality work, and executive indifference, failure of a manager to take any risks in decision making or even dishonesty. But fear of penalty cannot be overlooked. Whether managers are first-level supervisors or chief executives, the power of their position to give or with hold rewards or impose penalties of various kinds gives them an ability to control, to a very great extent, the economic and social well-being of their subordinates. An example of Theory X is found in the following quote: “The military is a classic example of theory X…I enlisted in the United States Army in 1988…During the initial part of my six years of active military duty the general assumption was that soldiers fell squarely into theory X. Most senior enlisted officers I encountered for the most part seemed to have this mindset of soldiers having a natural dislike for work. I believed control and punishment are not the only ways to make people work, man will direct himself if he is committed to the aims of the organization. Needless to say once promoted through the ranks I chose a different approach than the one inherited with the system,” (Business – Motivation: at http://essay.studyarea.com/old_essay/Business/motivation_theory_x.htm/). In Theory Y management assumes employees are ambitious, self-motivated and anxious to accept greater responsibility, and exercise self-control and self-direction. They enjoy activities that require their mental and physical exertion. The employees are also believed to have the desire to be imaginative and creative in their jobs if they are given a chance. There is an opportunity for greater productivity by giving employees the freedom to be at their best. There is something of a sense of self-motivation among the workers if they are given the right kind of ambience in the workplace. A Theory Y manager believes that, given the right conditions, most people will want to do well at work and that they will open the pool of unused creativity in the workforce. They believe that the satisfaction of doing a good job is a strong motivation in and of itself. A Theory Y manager will try to remove the barriers that prevent workers from fully actualizing themselves. The following is a quote to exemplify Theory Y. “Two years ago, I was employed by SunTrust Bank working in their stocks &transfers department. Theory Y approach (basic assumption is that staff will contribute more to the organization if they are treated as responsible and valued employees) was utilize with great success through out our department. The most notable is self directed work teams which are defined as a small number of people with complementary skills, who are committed to a common purpose, performance goals and approach, for which they hold themselves mutually accountable”. (Kevin Johns, at Business – Motivation: at http://essay.studyarea.com/old_essay/Business/motivation_theory_x.htm/-) McGregors work was based on Maslows hierarchy of needs. He grouped Maslows hierarchy into "lower order" (Theory X) needs and "higher order" (Theory Y) needs. He suggested that management could use either set of needs to motivate employees. Today these theories are seldom used explicitly, largely because the insights they provided have influenced and been incorporated by further generations of management theorists and practitioners. (www.answers.com/topic/theory-x-and-theory-y) Abraham Maslow’s “Need Hierarchy Theory”: One of the most widely mentioned theories of motivation is the hierarchy of needs theory of Abraham Maslow. In his view human needs form a hierarchy, ascending from the lowest to the highest, and when one set of needs is satisfied, it ceases to be a motivator. The basic human needs according to him are: physiological needs (Lowest) safety needs; love needs; esteem needs; and self-actualization needs (Highest). (i) Physiological needs which are important for sustaining the human life like food, water, warmth, shelter, sleep, medicine and education are to be satisfied up to a degree to maintain life, before other motivating factors can work.;(ii) Security or Safety needs are required so that humans can be free of physical danger and of the fear of losing a job, property, food or shelter; (iii) Social needs are those felt by people are social beings, to belong and be accepted by others. People try to satisfy their need for affection, acceptance and friendship; (iv) Esteem needs crave for recognition and respect from others. Satisfaction of the esteem needs produces feelings of self-confidence, prestige, power. It includes both internal esteem factors like self-respect, autonomy and achievements and external esteem factors such as states, recognition and attention; (v) Need for self-actualization; Maslow regards this as the highest in his hierarchy of needs. It is the motivating factor to transform oneself from what one is to what one has the capacity of becoming, of self-fulfilment. The highest state of self-actualization is characterized by integrity, responsibility, magnanimity, simplicity and naturalness. (Maslow, A 1943). And at this level self-motivation is high As each of these needs is substantially satisfied, the next need becomes dominant. In terms of motivation, the theory would be that although no need is ever fully satisfied, a substantially satisfied need no longer motivates. So in order to motivate someone, it is necessary to understand at what level of the need-hierarchy that person is, and focus on satisfying those needs or needs above that level. Maslow’s need theory has received wide recognition, particularly among practicing managers. This is because of its simple and intuitive logic and ease of understanding. However, research does not seem to have validated this theory. Maslow provided no empirical evidence and several studies that sought to validate the theory found no support for it. Hygiene Theory and Motivation Two theories of motivation, the Hygiene Theory and the Motivation theory have been contributed by Frederick Hertzberg to human relations and human motivation. The hygiene factors include: The organization; its policies and its administration; The kind of supervision (leadership and management, including perceptions) which people receive while on the job; Working conditions (including ergonomics); Interpersonal relations; Salary; Status; Job security. These factors may not generate higher levels of motivation but without them there is dissatisfaction. The components in Herzberg’s motivation theory involve what people actually do on the job and are needed to generate and maintain intrinsic motivation with the workforce. The motivators are: Achievement; Recognition; Growth / advancement; and Interest in the job. These factors are the product of the inherent instincts in employees resulting in the required degree of motivation. Both these approaches (hygiene and motivation) need to be present simultaneously. Treat people as best you can so they have a minimum of dissatisfaction. Treat them such that they can achieve, and duly recognise their achievement, interest, and responsibility, and they will grow and advance in their work. (Herzberg 2003). McClelland’s Theory of Achievement David C. McClelland and his associates studied the intense urge to achieve found in some people. Their studies led McClelland to believe that the need for achievement is a distinct human motive that can be distinguished from other needs. More important, the achievement motive can be isolated and assessed in any group (McClelland, 1999). McClellands concept of achievement motivation is also related to Herzbergs motivation-hygiene theory. People with high achievement motivation tend to be interested in the motivators. Achievement-motivated people want feedback. They want to know how well they are doing on their job. On the other hand, people with low achievement motivation are more concerned about the environment. They want to know how people feel about them rather than how well they are doing. As an example, “McClelland illustrates some of these characteristics in describing a laboratory experiment. Participants were asked to throw rings over a peg from any distance they chose. Most people tended to throw at random-now close, now far away; but individuals with a high need for achievement seemed carefully to measure where they were most likely to get a sense of mastery—not too close to make the task ridiculously easy or too far away to make it impossible. In weight lifting, for example, strength cannot be in creased by tasks that can be performed easily or that cannot be performed without injury to the organism. Strength can be increased by lifting weights that are difficult but realistic enough to stretch the muscles.”(http://www.accel-team.com/human-relations/hrels_06_mccelland.html.html/). Group sense and Leadership In many theories of motivation developed to explain human behaviour, the importance of the influence of group and of managerial leadership was emphasized. A brief consideration of these influences in a few of such theories is given below. Hawthorne experiments had demonstrated how a ‘group-sense’ would alter individual behaviour. A group may be either a formal one or an informal one. As to what a group is, the ‘interaction theory’ is of the view that ‘human interaction defines a group’. Hare says: “for a collection of individuals to be considered a group, there must be some interaction” (Hare, 1962). ‘Interactionists’ believe that once interaction is established, four properties of groups emerge. They are (1) shared goal: members of a group share one or more motives or goals that the group will strive for; (2) norms: they have a code of conduct, or norms of behaviour, which set boundaries within which interpersonal relations may be established and activity carried out; (3) roles, which define the relative position and responsibilities of group members; and (4) Cohesion: group membership creates a network of interpersonal relation within and irrespective of individual “likes’ and ‘dislikes’. (Hare, 1962). Every group has a set of norms or a code of conduct about what is acceptable behaviour. The group usually has sanctions (e.g., disapproval) which it may apply in the case of "deviation".Norms are commonly discussed with respect to the ‘critical functions’ groups serve. The critical functions of a group are to maintain social order in the group and to accomplish the group task. Task functions enable the group to “solve the objective problem to which the group is committed” (Philip and Dunphy, 1959). Task behaviour includes all instrumental communication and “goal-directed” behaviour. Examples of task behaviour are initiating work, planning, opinion seeking, opinion giving, information seeking, information giving, decision making, elaborating, summarizing, evaluating, role and goal clarification (Gladstein Ancona and Caldwell. 1988). Maintenance functions are to “build, strengthen and regulate group life” (Philip and Dunphy, 1959). Examples of maintenance behaviour are encouragement, harmonizing, compromise, diagnosing problems and relieving tension (Gladstein Ancona and Caldwell. 1988). From the perspective of the formal group, norms generally fall into three categories-positive, negative, and neutral. That is to say, norms support, obstruct, or have no effect on the aims of the larger organization. If the informal group sets a norm supporting high output, that norm would have been more potent than any attempt by the management to coerce compliance with such a standard. The reason is simple: the norm is of the group members own making, and is not one imposed upon them. There is a big motivational difference between being told what to do and being anxious to do it. Leadership Motivation depends to a great extent on the qualities of leadership found in an organization. According to Argyris (2000) organization needs to be redesigned for a fuller utilization of the most precious resource, the workers, in particular their psychological energy. The pyramidal structure will be relegated to the background, and decisions will be taken by small groups rather than by a single boss. Satisfaction in work will be more valued than material rewards. Work should be restructured in order to enable individuals to develop to the fullest extent. At the same time work will become more meaningful and challenging through self-motivation. Rensis Likert identified four different styles of managerial leadership: exploitative-authoritative; benevolent-authoritative; consultative; and participative. The participative system was found to be the most effective in that it satisfies the whole range of human needs. Major decisions are taken by groups themselves and this results in achieving high targets and excellent productivity. There is complete trust within the group and the sense of participation leads to a high degree of motivation. (Likert, 1967). Fred Luthans (1973) advocates the contingency approach because certain practices work better than others for certain people and certain jobs. As an example, rigid, clearly defined jobs, authoritative leadership and tight controls lead in some cases to high productivity and satisfaction among workers. In some other cases just the opposite seems to work. It is necessary, therefore, to adapt the leadership style to the particular group of workers and the specific job in hand. Victor Vrooms expectancy theory is an extension of the contingency approach. The leadership style should be tailored to the particular situation and to the particular group. In some cases it appears best for the boss to decide and in others the group arrives at a consensus. An individual should also be rewarded with what he or she perceives as important rather than what the manager perceives. For example, one individual may value a salary increase, whereas another may, instead, value promotion. This theory contributes an insight into the study of employee motivation by explaining how individual goals influence individual performance. Vrooms Expectancy Theory is based upon the following three beliefs: (1) Valence (Valence refers to the emotional orientations of people with respect to outcomes [rewards]. The depth of the want of an employee for extrinsic [money, promotion, time-off, benefits] or intrinsic [satisfaction] rewards). Management must discover what employees value. (2) Expectancy (Employees have different expectations and levels of confidence about what they are capable of doing). Management must discover what resources, training, or supervision employees need. (3) Instrumentality (The perception of employees whether they will actually get what they desire even if it has been promised by a manager). Management must ensure that promises of rewards are fulfilled and that employees are aware of that. (Vroom, 1994). Vroom suggests that an employees beliefs about Expectancy, Instrumentality, and Valence interact psychologically to create a motivational force such that the employee acts in ways that bring pleasure and avoid pain. This force can be calculated via the following formula: Motivation = Valance x Expectancy (Instrumentality). This formula can be used to indicate and predict such things as job satisfaction, ones occupational choice, the likelihood of staying in a job, and the effort one might expend at work. Conclusion: In conclusion, it can be said that the fact that the theories of motivation have been many indicates the complex nature of human motivation as well as a tacit admission that the subject of motivation is yet to be clearly understood properly practiced. To understand motivation one must understand human nature itself. Human nature is a complex phenomenon too and so also human action. They are the product of both reason and emotion. Theories of motivation discussed above are mostly for the manipulation of the emotions, the instincts of workers. And emotions are often transitory in character unless they are hand-maidens of reason. An understanding and appreciation of this may be a prerequisite to effective employee motivation in the workplace and therefore effective management and leadership. In the face of many options regarding motivation the manager may not even know where to start. Probably, he could adopt a mix of strategies such as positive reinforcement of high expectations, effective discipline and punishment, fair treatment of workers, satisfying their needs, setting work related goals, rewards on job performance, etc. It may be that the mix in the final recipe will vary from workplace situation to situation, as motivation aims to reduce the gap between an individual’s ‘actual state and some desired state’. The goals as also the motivation system must conform to the corporate policy of the organization. The motivational system need to be suited to the situation and to the organization. References Argyrols Chris, 2000, Flawed Advice and the Management Trap: How Managers Can Know When Theyre Getting Good Advice and When Theyre Not. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press. Douglas McGregor, 1960, The Human Side of Enterprise: 25th Anniversary Printing: McGraw-Hill/Irwin; 1 edition (August 1, 1985) Feder, B.J. 2000, "F.I. Herzberg, 76, Professor and Management Consultant", New York Times, Feb 1, 2000, pg. C26. Frederick Irving Hertzberg 2003: One More Time: How Do You Motivate Employees? HBR Classic: Harvard Business Review Jan 1, 2003 Gillespie, Richard, 1991, manufacturing knowledge: a history of the Hawthorne experiments, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press Gladstein, Ancona, D., & Caldwell, D.F. (1988). Beyond Task and Maintenance. Group and Organizational Studies, 13(4), 468-494. Hare, P. 1962. Handbook of Small Group Research. New York: Free Press of Glencoe. http://essay.studyarea.com/old_essay/Business/motivation_theory_x.htm/ retrieved December 23, 2006 Landsberger, Henry A. 1958, Hawthorne Revisited, Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Likert, R., 1967, The Human Organization, Its management and value, New York, McGraw Hill, Luthans, Fred 1973, Organizational Behavior, McGraw-Hill, New York, N Y, USA Kevin Johns, Business – Motivation: at http://essay.studyarea.com/old_essay/Business/motivation_theory_x.htm/ Maslow, A. H.1943 A Theory of Human Motivation. Psychological Review, 50, 370-396. Mayo, E.1933, The human problems of an industrial civilization New York: Macmillan c McClelland, David, 1999, The Achieving Society. Free Press, Reissue Edition, 1999.NY. Roethlisberger, F.J. & Dickson, W.J. 1939, Management and the Worker (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press). [This is a large book (more than 600 pages) of details of the studies]. http://www.answers.com/topic/theory-x-and-theory-y/ retrieved December 23, 2006 Philip, J., & Dunphy, D. 1959. Developmental trends in small groups. Sociometry, 22, 162-174. Vroom, Victor H., November 1994, Paperback Work and Motivation, Jossey Bass Read More