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
)
.