individuals. Rather, such factors and concepts as group influences, social status, informal communication, roles, norms, and the like were drawn upon to explain and interpret the voluminous data from these studies and other field investigations that followed them [ 7].

As a consequence, in social and management research, the study of static social structures practically disappeared after the publication of the Hawthorne research.

The Hawthorne studies significantly contributed to the development of research methodology for studying complex social situations. Hawthorne investigators were initially convinced that controlled experiment was the best methodology for their research.

Through the studies they made a
significant methodological shift, in
which they recognized the impossibility
of applying the controlled experiment
approach for the questions they
were addressing. Roethlisberger and
Dickson summarize this shift:

The difficulty, however, went much deeper than the personal feelings of failure of the investigators. They were entertaining two incompatible points of view. On the one hand, they were trying to maintain a controlled experiment in which they could test for the effects of single variables while holding all other factors constant. On the other hand, they were trying to create a human situation, which remained unaffected by their own activities. It became evident that in human situations not only was it practically impossible to keep all other factors constant, but trying to do so in itself introduced the biggest change of all; in other words, the investigators had not been studying an ordinary shop situation but a socially contrived situation of their own making.

With this realization, the inquiry changed its character. No longer were the investigators interested in testing for the effects of single variables. In the place of

many critiques of the Hawthorne studies were incorrect and out of context, claiming that “the gunsmoke of academic snipers can obscure the conceptual contribution of these pioneering efforts” [ 5]. He elaborated that the Hawthorne studies were conducted in a manner that led not to the testing of theories, but to their development. Consequently, their greatest contribution was to expand the concepts of organizational behavior beyond Frederick Taylor’s notion of scientific management. At that time the prevailing view was that people went to work purely for money and to earn a living. The Hawthorne studies showed convincingly that this view was deeply flawed. “Instead of treating the workers as an appendage to ‘the machine,’” Sonnenfeld noted, the Hawthorne studies brought to light ideas concerning motivational influences, job satisfaction, resistance to change, group norms, worker participation, and effective leadership [ 5]. In the 1930s, these were groundbreaking concepts. Under the influence of the Hawthorne studies, management teaching and practice changed significantly. The Hawthorne research stimulated thought on individual differences and job matching, work design, incentive plans, employee participation, the social nature of organizational activities, small work groups, and leadership. The findings from the studies have been credited with contributing to the later development of social science topics, including small-group behavior, client-centered theory, organization theory, and research methodology.

Porter, Lawler, and Hackman noted that the Hawthorne investigators were the first to highlight the social complexities of organization life:

From the time of the publication of the results of the Hawthorne Studies onward, no one interested in the behaviour of employees could consider them as isolated

Investigators made a shift from controlled
experiments toward approaching a
complex social situation as a system of
interdependent elements. T E R M

I N A L P L A T E A S S E M B L Y F O R D E S K S T A N D S , C A . 1 9 2 5 . W E S T E R N E L E C T R I C C O M P A N Y P H O T O G R A P H A L B U M , B A K E R L I B R A R Y , H A R V A R D B U S I N E S S S C H O O L ( O L V W O R K 2 7 8 4 1 9 ) .