Index:

Human Relations Movement

Elton Mayo

Early Experiment: The First Inquiry

Hawthorne Studies

Great Illumination Experiment (1924-27)

Relay Assembly Test Room Experiment (1927-1932)
Human Attitudes and Sentiments (1928-31)
Social Organisation / Bank Wiring Expt (1931-32)
Absenteeism in the Industries

Principal Conclusions of Hawthorne Studies

F. W. Taylor vs. Elton Mayo

Human Relations vs. Classical Approaches

Criticisms

Significance

The scene today

Practice Questions

HUMAN RELATIONS MOVEMENT

Classical approach focused mostly on the structural aspects of the organisation. It has not paid
much attention on the human aspects of the organisation.
Subsequently, a few scholars devoted their attention to the human aspects of the organisation,
thereby contributing to the emergence of the human relations approach.
The classical organisation theory has focused attention on the physiological and mechanical
aspects of organisational functioning. These variables were tested in the field to increase the
efficiency of the organisation.
But researchers found that the positive aspects of these variables could not evoke a positive
response in work behaviour --> researchers tried to find out the reasons for human behaviour at
work.
The human relations movement:
Emerged in the late 1930s as an outgrowth of scientific management.
Came from number of sources: psychologists, sociologists and anthropologists.
They were mainly against the de-humanisation of organisation and against treating human
beings as cogs in the machine.
However, a major change in organisation theory came after the results of the Hawthorne
experiments, conducted by Elton Mayo and others in the late 1920s.

ELTON MAYO

Elton Mayo is regarded as the founder of the ‘Human Relations Movement’.

An Australian by birth, he studied medicine.
In 1923, he immigrated to the United States. In 1926, Mayo joined Harvard University as
associate professor of Industrial Research.
In all his research programmes, Mayo focussed his attention on the behaviour of the workers
and their production capacity keeping in view physiological, physical, economic and
psychological aspects. He called this approach a clinical method.
Mayo published a few books:
“Democracy and Freedom: An Essay in Social Logic” (1919): In it, Mayo preached a gospel of
human cooperation and group solidarity in the workplace.
“The Human Problems of an Industrial Civilization” (1933) contained an analysis of the famous
Hawthorne experiments of 1927 to 1932.
Mayo’s another key work is “The Social Problems of an Industrial Civilization” (1949).
In the late 1920s and early 1930s, the Harvard Business School, under the leadership of Elton
Mayo and his associates, conducted research at the Hawthorne plant of the Western Electric
Company.

EARLY EXPERIMENT: THE FIRST INQUIRY

Before studies at the Hawthorne plant, Mayo undertook his 1st research in a textile mill near
Philadelphia in 1923 --> known as “The First Inquiry”.
The employees of the mill were provided with all facilities, by the management, which was
highly enlightened and humane. The mill was considered to be a model organisation.
The general labour turnover (absenteeism) in all the depts. was estimated to be approx 5% p.a.;
while in the mule-spinning dept. the turnover was approximately 250% p.a. Elton Mayo studied
the problem of the mule-spinning dept.

Mayo’s Expt.:
Mayo’s diagnosis --> lack of adequate rest --> causing fatigue to the workers.
He introduced rest periods (4 in a day of 10 mins. each) --> workers motivated & their morale
increased --> labour turnover almost came to an end. In addition, the production also rose.
Further, Mayo suggested a new bonus formula: if the workers were to produce more than a
certain percentage, they would earn bonus proportionate to their extra production. With this
scheme (rest periods and new bonus) the workers were highly motivated and happy.

Further, the management placed the ‘control of rest periods’ in the hands of workers:
This led to consultations among the workers.
Social interaction was set in motion. A new awakening began. Workers began taking collective
decisions.
With this, the assumption of ‘rabble hypothesis’, which assumes ‘mankind as a horde of
unorganised individuals actuated by self-interest’ was reversed.

[Employee retention is the ability of a firm to convince its employees to remain with the
business. It is often measured by the labour turnover of a business. Labour turnover is defined
as the proportion of a firm's workforce that leaves during the course of a year.]

HAWTHORNE STUDIES

There was a strong feeling that there exists a clear-cut cause and effect relationship between
the physical work, environment, the well-being and productivity of the worker.
If proper ventilation, temperature, lighting, improvement in other physical working conditions,
and wage incentive schemes, are provided to the workers, in turn they will produce more, was
the opinion of the management.
Taking this clue into consideration, the National Research Council of the National Academy of
Science under the leadership of George Pennock decided to examine the relationship between
illumination and the efficiency of the worker with a research programme at the Hawthorne Plant
of Western Electric Company (WEC).
The WEC employed around 30,000 men and women.
Why Western Electric Company?
The WEC, located in Chicago, was engaged mainly in the manufacture of telephone apparatus.
The employees of WEC were drawn from 60 nationalities, representing a typical cross section of
American population.
More over, within each of the national groups there was a wide variety of skills.

GREAT ILLUMINATION EXPERIMENT (1924-27)

Parallel observation of 2 groups: Test (or experimental) group & Control group.
Aim: to examine the level of production on the basis of varying levels of illumination.
The control group remained with constant illumination of the level and the type with which the
two groups started. Where as in the test group’s room, experimental changes were introduced
periodically. The researchers observed the groups & kept accurate records of production. Study
went on for 2 years.
Result --> regardless of the level of illumination, production in both the groups increased.
The researchers were surprised and abandoned the illumination theory and began manipulating
wage payments, rest periods, duration of working hours. Instead of group incentives plan, an
individual piece rate plan and provision of refreshments were introduced. All yielded a further
rise in production.
Surprised by the outcome, the research team decided to withdraw all the above-mentioned
privileges and return to the conditions prevailing at the beginning of these expts. For a while the
output fell a little, but soon it rose to a point higher then at any other time. The research team
was totally puzzled over the outcome.
In 1927, Mayo was invited to unravel the problem through further studies.
In these studies Mayo collaborated with Fritz Jules Roethlisberger.
After interpreting the outcome of the Hawthorne studies, Mayo was of opinion that the test room
girls became a social unit and because of the increased attention of the research team to them,
the unit developed a sense of participation in the project. Thus, Mayo had opened the door to
research into social man.
Then they picked up the loose threads of the earlier WEC studies and found far more valuable
insights into the industrial man. They came up with 5 hypotheses. After eliminating various
explanations they proposed the following two hypotheses to explain the failure of the original
illumination project:
The first hypothesis: the individual wage payment incentive had stimulated increase in the
output.
The second hypothesis: the changes in supervisory techniques had improved the attitudes and
output.

RELAY ASSEMBLY TEST ROOM EXPERIMENT (1927-1932)

To test the above two hypotheses, two new groups were formed.

Testing the 1st Hypothesis:

They were placed in a special test room, apart from all the other workers.
The groups were placed on an individual incentive plan on a piecework basis. Initially the total
output went up and after sometime it remained constant.
The second group, although they were placed on individual incentive plan, was experimented
with variations in rest periods and duration of work. Changes in the output were recorded.
In this group there was an average rise of output in the production over a period of 14 months.
The research team concluded that the first hypothesis was not confirmed since it was not
wages, but something else that led to greater output in the both groups.

Testing the 2nd hypothesis:

Atmosphere was made more relaxed and congenial. The girls were allowed to interact freely
with fellow workers and supervisors. Supervisors were told to behave more as democratic
oriented supervisors.
Managerial practices were modified --> before any change or move, the workers were consulted
and advised about changes, their suggestions were also considered sympathetically.
Allowed the workers to feel free to air their problems.
The workers responded favourably to the improved style of supervision.
The workers realised that they were a team of individuals, not cogs in a machine. Such work
satisfaction led everyone to feel more valued and responsible for his or her performance and
that of the group as a whole. The production increased when work groups felt that they were
important and their efforts were meaningful.

Mayo felt that work satisfaction depends to a large extent on the informal social pattern of the
working group.
He said that change in the style of supervision improved the morale of worker, which in turn
increased production. This link between supervision, morale and productivity became the corner
stone of the human relations.

HUMAN ATTITUDES AND SENTIMENTS (1928-31)

The next study of Mayo and his team, conducted during 1928-31, was on human attitudes and
sentiments.
The workers were given an opportunity to come out and express freely and frankly about:
their likes and dislikes on the programmes and policies of the management,
working conditions,
how they were treated by their boss, etc.
They interviewed over 20,000 workers, each one given an adequate time to comment or
complain on his or her own thoughts on any aspect of employment or condition.
Later, these complaints were analysed and it was found that there was no correlation between
the nature of complaints and the facts:
Although no reforms were introduced, the workers thought that in view of their complaints the
working conditions were improved.
They also felt that the wages were better although the wage scale remained at the same level.
It appeared that there was an opportunity to ‘let off steam’ which made the workers feel better
even though there was no material change in the environment.

The study team of Mayo and Roethlisberger identified the following two aspects:
First, the workers appreciated the method of collecting the information on the problems of the
company from them. They thought they had valuable comments to offer and felt elated on the
feeling that they had an equal status with management. They also realised that they were
allowed to express themselves freely and felt satisfied with it. They also entertained a feeling
that the conditions in the environment were changed to the better although no such change took
place.
Second, there was a change in the attitude of the supervisors because they realised that the
research team closely observed their methods of supervision and the subordinates were
allowed to comment freely about their supervisors.

Mayo and his team finally led to the conclusion that the explanation for these unexpected
findings lay in the informal social forces at work in the organisation.
They became convinced that the behaviour of workers cannot be separated from their feelings
and sentiments, which are the products of the individual’s personal history and his or her social
situation in the organisation.
Therefore, to explain behaviour in the workplace, it was necessary to move beyond the limited
idea that organisation was simply an economic and technological structure; the organisation
was also to be seen as a social structure, “an intricate web of human relations bound together
by a system of sentiments”.

SOCIAL ORGANISATION / BANK WIRING EXPT (1931-32)

This was the last study undertaken by Elton Mayo and his team in WEC --> to observe a group
of workers performing a task in a natural setting. It is a detailed study of a social organisation
and the operation of intra-group forces within a work group.
Three groups of workmen whose work was inter-related were chosen for observation. It was
known as ‘The Bank Wiring Experiment’.
In this expt., wages were paid on the basis of a group incentive plan, and each member got his
share on the basis of the total output of the group.
It was expected that highly efficient workers would bring pressure on less efficient workers to
increase output and take advantage of group incentive plan. But results didn’t come as
expected:
Most illogically, the men did not increase the overall group output.
Work-group evolved its own norm of standard output, which was lower than the management
target. Although they were capable of producing more, the output was held down to maintain
uniform rate of output.
The work group developed a highly integrated social structure / work culture of their own. They
used informal pressure on the members. They had become a cohesive & compact group with
their own codes, rules & norms:
One should not turn out too much work. If one does he is a ‘rate buster’.
One should not turn out too little work. If one does he is a ‘chesler’.
One should not tell a supervisor anything negative about an associate. If one does he is a
‘squealer’.
One should not attempt to maintain social distance or act officious.
If one is an inspector, for example, he should not act like one.

After the study Mayo and his team identified the following views of the workers:
The workers felt that the behaviour of the research team had nothing to do with the
management or general economic conditions of the plant.
The workers viewed the interference of the extra departmental personnel, such as ‘efficiency
men’ and other ‘technologists’ as disturbance.
They thought that the experts follow the logic of efficiency with a constraint on their group
activity.
The supervisors as a separate category represented authority, to discipline the workers.
The logic of efficiency did not go well with the logic of sentiments, which had become the
cornerstone of ‘social system’.

The Mayo and his team concluded that:

One should not miss the human aspect of organisations, while emphasising technical and
economic aspects of the industries.
The Hawthorne experience suggested a new mix of managerial skills. In addition to technical
skills, the management should handle human situations, motivate, lead and communicate with
the workers.
They also felt that overemphasis on the technical progress and material life at the expense of
social and human life was not good.
The concept of authority should be based on social skills in securing cooperation rather than
expertise.

HAWTHORNE STUDIES (contd…)

Harmony between the informal social system and the formal organisation is the key concept in
Mayo’s approach to human relations. An internal equilibrium has to be established and
maintained in the organisation.
The logic of organisation behaviour is primarily non-rational in economic terms; it is more social
and psychological in its roots.
Accordingly, management would have to develop diagnostic skills and the capacity to deal
effectively with the dynamics of informal groups and the sentiments of the workers.

ABSENTEEISM IN THE INDUSTRIES

During World War II, the turnover of labour in most of the industries in USA was more than 70%
and absenteeism was chronic. Alarmed at this state of affairs, the managements of three
industries requested Mayo to study this unjustified absenteeism problem in the industries and
suggest remedial measures. The research began in 1943.
In one industry in which the turnover was minimum and absenteeism was negligible:
Mayo and his team found that, the management had introduced group wage scheme and made
it clear that workers would earn group wage without any shortfall in any shift in a day.
In the event of any shortfall in any shift, the cut in the wages was uniformly applied.
Therefore, all the workers became alert and formed into a group under the leadership of a
natural leader who devoted time and energy in consolidating group solidarity.
Now it was the turn of the employees to ensure high productivity & smooth functioning of
industry.
Mayo found out how an informal group demonstrated its strength and capacity in raising the
level of production by cooperating with the management.
In the present case, the positive response was possible because the supervisor and his
assistants were too busy otherwise and rarely paid any visit to the department. All the work was
under the charge of a man who had no official standing and this person emerged as a natural
leader of the team.
In the case of the other two factories there were neither informal groups nor natural leaders to
knit the workers into a team. In fact, they were not given any opportunity to form informal teams.
Hence, there was heavy turnover and absenteeism of the labour in the production centres of
these industries.

PRINCIPAL CONCLUSIONS OF HAWTHORNE STUDIES

The results of the Hawthorne expts & subsequent studies led to the discovery of the informal
organisation and to the inference that the social and psychological factors at work place are the
major determinants of workers’ satisfaction and organisational output.
However, Fritz Roethilsberger, the principal research associate of Mayo, arrived at different
conclusion. According to him, the Hawthorne studies reveal that the primary group had as much
– if not greater – impact upon productivity as the formally physical surroundings and economic
benefits derived from the job.
Based on the Hawthorne studies, scholars have identified the following concepts:

Social Norms:

The level of organisational effectiveness is determined by social norms.

Principles of administration such as division of work or the physiological capability of the worker
are not critical factors in productivity.
Workers are essentially social beings. They must first be understood people if they are to be
understood as organization members.
Their attitudes and effectiveness are conditioned by social demands from both inside and
outside the work plant.

The Group:

Group standards are a major influence on the behaviour of individuals in organisations; workers
do not act or react as individuals, but they do as members of the group.
Groups set standards of productivity and enforce them upon all members. The group also
provides a shield against executive reprisals.
In both ways, the informal group acts as a restraint on executive power.
Work is a group activity. Workers may react to management, the organisation, and work itself as
members of groups of informal organisations rather than as individuals.

Rewards and Sanctions:

Instead of economic incentives, non-economic rewards such as social rewards and group
sanctions are the strong job motivators. They influence the behaviour of the workers.
Supervision:

Supervision is most effective when the supervisors involve and consult the group and its
informal leaders in order to ensure their acceptance of organisational objectives.
Participative management.
Human relations scholars believe that effective communication, supplemented by a willingness
to allow workers to participate in decision-making, is the key to effective supervision.

Democratic Administration:

Workers achieve the highest level of effectiveness when they are allowed to manage their own
affairs without bossism from their formal supervisors.

F. W. TAYLOR vs. ELTON MAYO

Mayo’s human relations theory is frequently presented as somewhat opposite to that of Taylor’s
S.M.
Some basic differences between the two approaches:
Taylor associated productivity with physical factors and monetary incentives; whereas in Mayo’s
theory, the informal work group norms could affect productivity in a positive way.
Taylor looked at workers as self-centered rational economic men. In contrast, Mayo looked at
them as basically social beings and members of small informal work groups.
Sources of conflict between management & workers: Taylor traced the causes of such conflict
to the objective difficulties in the work situation, while Mayo thought that such conflict was the
result of the basic emotional attitudes of workers.

But, Mayo was really not against Taylorism. What he did was that he debunked Taylor’s rigid
application of S.M.

In a sense, however, Mayo’s human relations theory and Taylor’s S.M. are allied:
Both believed that friendly cooperation between workers and management would eliminate
nearly all causes of conflict, dispute and disagreement between them. But they suggested
different methods to achieve cooperation and harmony.
Taylor felt that high wages would generally suffice to elicit employee’s cooperation and
compliance.
Mayo, on the contrary, suggested such devices as participative style of supervision.
However, Taylor did not completely neglect behavioural side of administration. He always
insisted that the understanding of human factors such as workers’ morale was important to his
system.
Both were motivated to improve the productivity of American industries.

HUMAN RELATIONS vs. CLASSICAL APPROACHES

The human relations theory is called the ‘neo-classical theory’ because, just as the classical
theory, it also accepts efficiency, economy and productivity as the legitimate values of
organization. However, to achieve these values, the human relations approach relies on
techniques that are quite different from those of the classical approach.
The human relationists seek to maximize the values of efficiency, economy and productivity by
eliminating:
the dysfunctions caused by overspecialization,
alienating hierarchical arrangements, and
general de-humanization of the classical approach.
The classical and human relations theories are, thus, alike in their objective, but they differ in
the methods and techniques adopted to accomplish those objectives.

Differences:
Classical theory emphasizes the formal organisation structure consisting of jobs and job
descriptions as spelled out in organisation charts & manuals. In contrast, the human relations
theory is concerned with the informal organisation, i.e., the life of individual workers and
workgroup within the organisation.
Classical theory takes the atomistic view of man --> considers workers as various cogs in a
machine. On the contrary, the human relations theory considers workers essentially as social
beings who react to management, organisation & work itself as members of groups rather than
as individuals.
In determining worker’s motivation, economic rewards and physical conditions of work are
regarded as important factors by the classical theorists. In contrast to this, the social-
psychological rewards and group sanctions are considered by the human-relationists as
important motivators to work.
The classical theory emphasises the authoritarian style of supervision, while the human
relations theory lays emphasis on democratic type of supervision.

Complementary, Not contradictory:

The preceding discussion clearly shows that both approaches have taken two different views of
organizations. If the classical theory viewed organisations as formal structures, the human
relations approach emphasized informal relations within organisations. Neither of the two
approaches is wholly right, although each is partially right.
In reality, an organisation comprises both: a formal structure and informal relations. These
aspects of an organisation are not contradictory, but allied to each other.
It is well to recognize that informal organizations exist in all formal organisations and are not
necessarily harmful, but may facilitate teamwork and collaboration.

CRITICISMS

Preoccupied with efficiency (just like classical theorists): Both wanted to increase material
wealth through greater productivity. Human relationists did not go far enough to assert that the
ultimate objective of an organisation is to ensure the employee happiness.

Tried to substitute human relations-oriented supervisors for union representatives:

Not understanding the role of unions in a free society.
Scholars like Loren Baritiz and other criticise ‘Mayoists’ as anti-union and pro-management.

Daniel Bell: Mayo practiced ‘not a science of man, but cow sociology’
Humans, like cows, are seen not as ends in themselves, but merely as means to an end.
Make the workers content and satisfied, so they would produce more.
Mayo was solely concerned with “adjusting men to machines”, rather than with enlarging human
capacity/ freedom.

In its emphasis on informal relations and harmony, the human relations theory almost totally
ignored the roles of formal structure, technology and conflict in influencing the behaviour of
workers. Hence, it is also one-sided (just like S.M.). Thus, it does not adequately explain the
multifaceted organisational behaviour & organisational relationships.

The human relations theory has overdrawn the contrast between the formal & informal
organisation, and does not attempt to synthesise these two aspects of an organisation to an
adequate extent.

Peter F. Drucker criticises human relationists for their lack of awareness of the economic
dimension. He feels that they neglect the nature of work and instead focus a great deal on inter-
personal relations.

Lack of scientific base:

Hawthorne studies covered the behaviour of small groups only and did not deal adequately with
the entire organisation.
Carey criticises the groups selected by the Hawthorne expts on methodological grounds. He
calls the small groups of ‘cooperative girls’ (samples of 5 & 6) as an inadequate and unreliable
sample to make sweeping generalisations. He is also of the opinion that the data only supports
the old view about the importance of monetary incentives, leadership and discipline as
motivating factors for better performance. His overall criticism is that the Hawthorne
investigations lack a scientific base.

SIGNIFICANCE

In spite of its shortcomings, Mayo’s human relations approach marked a major turning point in
the history of administrative theory and practice. According to Bertram Gross, Mayo made an
attempt to understand the problem of the workers from an angle different from that of the
traditional approach of the scientific management era.
Mayo’s findings have profoundly changed the nature of organisation theory. His most important
finding is to identify the roots of work satisfaction as non-economic and to connect it with the
interest taken in a worker’s performance. These findings reverse Taylor’s emphasis on the
incentive of monetary rewards and disprove the rigid Taylorist philosophy of self-interest of the
worker.
The Hawthorne studies developed a more realistic model of human nature. As a consequence,
human beings are recognised as social entities and an influential input into organisational
performance.
An important discovery of Mayo and his team is the concept of proper management-workers
communication, especially between the lower rungs of the organisation and the higher levels.
Communication with the leaders of the informal groups is also considered equally important.

THE SCENE TODAY

Although the human relations heyday (1930s to 1950s) was over, the research and theory
building continue today on many of the issues first raised in the Hawthorne studies in the late
20s and the early 30s.
The human relations approach has great impact initially on business administration and later on
public administration. Indeed, it is regarded as a major development in the American
administrative thought for the period 1900-1939. This approach marked a major turning point in
the history of administrative theory and practice.
In 1973, Peter Ducker wrote, “The human relations prescription, though rarely practiced,
remains the classic formula.” Today, it is still too rarely practiced, though every management
pays lip service to it.

PRACTICE QUESTIONS

Discuss in what way the findings of the Hawthorne experiments are considered as historic
landmark in administrative thought.
(15 marks)
Discuss the similarities and differences between M. P. Follett and Elton Mayo.
(15 marks)
It appears that HRT has continued to draw more interest in the business administration than in
public administration, where its impact has been described as minimal. Analyse the statement.
(15 marks)
Although the human relation school main focus is socio-psychological factors, yet it is criticised
for ignoring the dignity of man. Analyse the statement.
(10 marks)
Examine the basic postulates of HRT and how far it differs from the classical theory of
organisations.
(20 marks)
From Taylorism to Mayoism, the organisation theory has travelled a long road in quest of
“Organisational Effectiveness”. Explain.
(10 marks)
“The conditions existing in pre–20th century America caused an ethic of individualism to make
sense for management. Equally, the changing conditions in 20th century America created a
climate in which the social ethic has progressively enlarged its role in management philosophy”
[William G. Scott]. In the light of the given statement, discuss how Taylorism and Mayoism are
complementary to each other, and not contradictory.
(20 marks)