TM - January 2008 - (Page 14)

[human performance] by Harold D. Stolovitch, Ph.D., CPT O O Hawthorne Effect Revisited ne of the most frequently cited phenomena from workplace research is the Hawthorne Effect: improved participation resulting from participation in a study. There are many reasons for this effect, including respect for workers, cooperative teamwork, individual performance monitoring, a sense of being valued, caring management and varying routines, along with attribution of credibility by performers on management decisions. All have demonstrated links to work success. duced; productivity rises. • Break lengths increase to 10 minutes each; productivity rises. • Number of breaks increases to six, each five minutes; workers complain due to interrupted work patterns and productivity declines. • Back to two breaks and a free hot meal; productivity rises. • Day ends at 4:30 p.m. rather than 5:00 p.m.; productivity rises. He did not view this as an experimenter effect about novelty, but as a management effect, concluding what management does and how it makes workers feel strongly influences performance. He observed workers who feel free and more in control perform better. In 1955, Henry Landsberger coined the term “Hawthorne Effect” to describe the impact of being observed and tested in a study. Other scholars have drawn a variety of conclusions: • Workers work harder when they believe they are being individually monitored. Hawthorne Works, Cicero, Ill., 1924-1927 Western Electric engineers conduct experiments on relay assembly workers. In one study on lighting preferences, researchers vary lighting very widely. Each time, they convincingly explain how the new illumination level is helpful, resulting in worker-subjects expressing their preference for this new lighting. Throughout the study, productivity remains constant. The conclusion drawn is that preference on lighting is purely subjective and based on belief, which can be influenced by credible authorities. Hawthorne Works, Cicero, Ill., 1927-1932 Examinations of the Hawthorne studies have resulted in the interpretation that varying work conditions trigger learning, and, coupled with feedback on productivity, produce greater performance gains. • Day ends at 4:00 p.m.; productivity per hour rises, total declines. Bank Wiring Study , 1931-32, and Mica Splitting Study 1928-30 , About the author Harold D. Stolovitch, Ph.D., is a principal of HSA Learning & Performance Solutions LLC and is an emeritus professor of instructional and performance technology at the Université de Montréal. He can be reached at editor@TalentMgt.com. • Workers who choose their own co-workers produce better. • Having the perception of being treated as special increases productivity. • Having a caring supervisor encourages more productive outcomes. Recently, examinations of the Hawthorne studies have resulted in the interpretation that varying work conditions trigger learning, and, coupled with feedback on productivity, produce greater performance gains. In Mayo’s 1927-29 experiments, subjects reported despite productivity increases, they felt less work pressure. Medical checkups showed no signs of fatigue. Absenteeism declined by 80 percent. So, choose your own definition of “Hawthorne Effect.” My guess is any and all will work. Harvard Professor Elton Mayo and colleagues join in the experiments. They study six test subjects, starting with two relay assembly women, who then choose four others. During five years, in a separate room, they assemble telephone relays. Secretly, a baseline of 2,400 relays per week — 48 hours, no breaks — is established. Their new supervisor varies work routines, discussing these and often incorporating worker suggestions. Some of the changes and results include: • Pay for piecework during eight weeks; productivity rises. • Two five-minute breaks intro- Mayo and Warner examine the effect of paying for individual productivity in a study of 14 men assembling telephone switching equipment. Productivity does not rise. Experimenters discover that the men, fearing a potential decrease in their base work rate, exert social pressure on study colleagues not to increase productivity. They are concerned about the consequences of improved performance. In another study, mica-splitting workers are paid on an individual piece rate. During 14 months, working conditions are varied. The result is a steady productivity increase — up to 15 percent. Conclusions From all these studies, Mayo determined there was an overall effect. 14 January 2008 talent management magazine www.TalentMgt.com http://www.TalentMgt.com

Table of Contents Feed for the Digital Edition of TM - January 2008

TM - January 2008 Editor's Letter Contents Learning Connections: Working With Those People Leading Edge: Hub Caps for a Buggy Human Performance: Hawthorne Effect Revisited Beyond Affirmative Action: The Changing Face of Recruitment Assessment Centers in Talent Management: Strategies, Use and Value Nontraditional Benefits- How to Hook the Best Talent Intersection of Web 2.0 and Talent Management Cross-Training for Workforce Agility Mapping Talent Among Younger Workers Dashboard: Using Personality Data to Identify and Develop High-Potential Leaders Application: Shaffer Title Uses Myers-Briggs to Develop Common Corporate Language, Jump-Start Growth Insight: Dreier, Stein & Kahan LLP: Using Strategy to Bring Back the Law Profession Advertisers' Index Editorial Resources Full Potential: Stop in the Name of Leadership

TM - January 2008

For optimal viewing of this digital publication, please enable JavaScript and then refresh the page. If you would like to try to load the digital publication without using Flash Player detection, please click here.