The school of human relations

Elton Mayo (1880-1949)

At the end of the 1920's (1927 - 1932), a series of experiments was carried out in the Hawthorne Western Electric factory within the framework of a research project aiming to define the relationship between ambient lighting and worker productivity. This research followed on from "illuminating" experiments undertaken between 1924 and 1927, by MIT electricians.

As the first research project did not make it possible to separate the influence of lighting from that of other working conditions (incentive pay scheme, a shorter working day, the introduction of breaks and a snack service), the researchers decided to build a relay assembly test room for their experiments, a sort of laboratory. The guinea pigs were five voluntary workers, daughters of recent immigrants, who were supplied with parts by a sixth worker, who was not taken into account in the study. The work was monitored by an ergonomics expert, C.Turner (MIT hygiene specialist), while the experiments were performed by company management. Different "improvements in working conditions" were successively and cumulatively introduced. After 16 months, a 30% increase in productivity was noted. Then the improvements introduced were suspended for 5 months, except for the incentive-based pay scheme; the workers were informed of the new situation. There was a slight decrease in productivity.

To isolate the influence of wage on the other factors, two other experiments were set up, each involving five new workers. Then, in order to isolate the effect of the workers' relationship with management, a series of interviews was carried out with the workers. The four parts of this research project were performed simultaneously. The second experiment was carried out in "real conditions", e.g. in the assembly workshop where five workers were chosen to benefit from an incentive-based pay scheme. Their productivity increased by almost 13% for 9 weeks, until the other workers asked to benefit from the same pay scheme. Those in charge of the experiment refused and, so as not to demoralise the team in the workshop, they put an end to the experiment. This caused a drop in productivity of over 16%. The third experiment was performed according to the same conditions with the introduction of breaks, a snack service and a 13% decrease in the working day in the eighth month, but no incentive pay system. Productivity increased by almost 16% for 14 months, then dropped again. The workers explained that following the 1929 crisis they were afraid to lose their jobs.

The report of these experiments, which is the most cited by organisational specialists, is that of W. DICKSON (Western Electric executive) and F. Roethlisberger {colleague of Elton Mayo at Harvard University). In this report the following conclusion was drawn:

"None of the research data gave the slightest backing to the theory that workers are essentially motivated by financial incentives", (p. 575). On the contrary, these authors defend the idea of "benevolent command", according to which commitment to work depends on the quality of the relations woven between management and workers. Later on, this idea was developed further to say that an increase in production is the result of a new type of hierarchical relationship.

A lot can be learnt from a detailed examination of the experiment, but its influence on organisational theory stems above all from later

interpretations, notably that of Elton Mayo. This Australian psychologist and doctor arrived in the United States in 1922. He started work at Harvard in 1926 where he taught industrial research and set up a research team within the Fatigue laboratory (Graduate school of business administration). He joined in with the Hawthorne experiments later. Mayo is known for having identified the non-economic grounds for satisfaction at work; in this, he therefore takes the opposite stance to the works of Taylor. The controversy between the two men was a lively one: The Great Stupidity (MAYO)/The Great Obsession {Bulletin of the Taylor Society). He also attacked the Homo oeconomicus, a degrading image of the human being. Mayo underlined that social progress did not follow technological progress; he deplored the degradation of the social fabric (with reference to the works of Frederic Le PLAY on the physical and moral state of people and of Emile Durkheim on anomie). He saw in braking and trade unionism a reactionary attempt to preserve human values. He wanted industrial managers to become social leaders. He emphasised the importance of the quality of the relationship between management and employees.

MAYO's involvement in the Hawthorne experiments introduced an about turn in research. He undertook a vast programme of interviews with the workers (over 20,000 people interviewed, by about a hundred members of management!) about the way they perceived their managers and what they expected of them. With respect to the Hawthorne experiments and others that he supervised in Chicago, he underlined the individual psychological component, the importance of emotions and the logic of feeling governing employees. Workers attribute less value to their personal economic interest (which was behind "false management principles" according to Mayo), than to the quality of cooperative relations and the desire to feel comfortable with their colleagues. He introduced a humanist reading of the Hawthorne experiments, which was to have a major impact on the direction taken by later research in psychology and industrial sociology.

The Hawthorne experiments later served as an unavoidable reference. They are mentioned in practically all works on organisational sociology and are basically summarised as follows: "Elton MAYO's discovery stems from the surprising results of experiments to improve working conditions. By improving the lighting conditions of only one of two experimental groups, the group's productivity was seen to substantially increase, although the same phenomenon was observed when the lighting was decreased. Developing the experiment further, Mayo successively changed various working conditions while his collabourators talked with the workers. Mayo noticed that theperformance levels improved every time an improvement was introduced. When he re-introduced the initial conditions (48~hour working week and no breaks), production continued to rise and absenteeism decreased by 80%. Mayo concluded that the workers were satisfied with their work since they formed a homogeneous team whose value was appreciated by management and not just by anonymous members of staff. This cohesion within the group and the quality of the relations with management were more important than the improved working conditions.

Elysée SARIN, who studied the writings about this experiment, considered that the conclusions that would be remembered from this famous experiment were based more on the authors' convictions than on the data actually collected. He in particular underlined the fact that the workers were told off for talking, that two workers were changed because of this, that one of the new workers imposed a discipline on the group and that the group started to exert pressure on its members. Countering these facts, Elton Mayo wrote that the executive in charge of the experiment helped the workers to seek the freedom that they so often talked about and that they did not feel they were working under pressure.

Whatever might be said about the experiment, the biggest impact on organisational theory was the interpretation that MAYO gave and the summaries of it that can be found in basic manuals: the discovery of the human factor, of the need to be recognised by the group and by management. Whether or not this is demonstrated in the Hawthorne experiments, this discovery became part of the "facts" to be taken into account in organisational analysis. Industrial sociology chose to retain the following series of principles from MAYO:

- Work is the activity of a social group, which is all the more important given that the adult world is structured around work.

- Individuals need recognition, security and a feeling of belonging to a group. These factors have a greater influence on their work than material and economic working conditions.

- Individuals' complaints stem less from objective facts than from difficulties relating to their situation with respect to status, recognition and belonging.

- Behaviour at work depends on the social requirements coming from the social world inside and outside work.

- In the workplace, informal social groups exert a strong influence on the behaviour of individuals.

- The members of a working group do not work together by chance; this is something that can be organised and developed, notably to help individuals face the regular upheavals taking place within the organisation.

Mayo is thus the cornerstone of an important school of thought about organisations: the movement or school of human relations, notably bringing together authors such as Abraham Maslow (the pyramid of needs), Frederick Herzberg (factors of motivation at work), Chris Argyris (the development of staff potential) and Tom Peters and Robert Waterman (the passion for excellence). The ideas stemming from their research work were also to have an influence on managers who, besides economic and taylorian rationalisation, began to take the human factor into account. An organisation was based on two complementary, although at times conflicting, logics: the logic of costs and efficiency and the logic of feeling. This meant that, from then on, management would have to keep an eye on how these two logics operated together if they were to generate considerable increases in productivity. The spontaneous cooperation between employees and their informal organisation would have to be taken into account. It was also a question of creating a favourable climate for this spontaneous cooperation between employees. The School of Human Relations set itself the ambition to study and define what motivates individuals and commits them to achieving an organisation's goals. As far as management was concerned, this nevertheless required training courses in human relations, as explained by F. Herzberg, in which executives were invited to remember the first name of their subordinates, greet them, smile at them and treat them as if they were human beings. MAYO's suggestion about working on the quality of the relationship between social groups of employees and management was nevertheless neither fully understood nor taken into account seriously.

Further reading on the school of human relations:

Dickson, W. and F. Roethlisberger (1939). Management and the worker. An account of aresearch program conducted by the Western Electric company, Hawthorne Works.Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press.

Dubin, R. (1963). The world of work. Industrial society and human relations, Englewood ciiffs: prcntice-hall. Hcrzberg, F., B. Mausner, Snyderman, B. (1959). The motivation to work. New York, Wiley.

Herzberg, F. (1968). "One More Time: How Do You Motivate Employees?" HarvardBusiness Review.

Herzberg, F. (1966). Work and the Nature of Man, New York, World Publishing. Herzberg, F. (1976). Managerial Choice: To be Efficient and to be Human. Irvine, CA, Dow Jones.

Maslow, A. H. (1954). Motivation and Personality, Harper.

Maslow, A. H. (1968). Toward a psychology of being, New York, J.Wiley & Sons (reprint 1999). Mayo, E. (1933). The human problems of an industrial civilisation. Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press.

Mayo, E. (1975). Tiie social problems of an industrial civilisation. London, Routlcdge and Kegan Paul. (Éd. Originale, Harvard University Press, 1945)

Villette, M. (2003). Sociologie du conseil en management. Paris, La Découverte.

Date: 2016-03-03; view: 1042