Elton Mayo on Modern Business
Elton Mayo and 'The Hawthorne Experiment '
George Elton Mayo’s groundbreaking 1930’s Hawthorne Experiment has been widely recognised as a revolutionary sociological study which laid the foundations for many of today’s modern management methods and concepts (Sarachek 1968; Smith 1998; Kennedy 1998; O’Connor 1999). The Hawthorne Experiment was conducted with the original intent to study the effect of a workplace 's physical factors on productivity (The British Library 2013) and the main conclusions reached by Sonnenfeld (1985) which challenges prior hypothesis of work behaviour are as follows:
(1) Individual work behavior results from a complex host of factors. It is seldom determined by simple interaction. (2) Employees developed a set of informal work norms which regulates individual needs with that of the work environment.
(3) Status pegged to the job position is carried down to that of social structures in informal settings.
(4) Management need to gather personal feedback to better understand and accommodate individual needs and satisfaction.
(5) Being aware of employee 's opinions and participation would help facilitate their resistance to change.
The above conclusions of Mayo’s findings have been instrumental in shaping industrial organisational psychology and present day businesses (Guion 1975). However, despite much praise of intellectual brilliance of the experiment by the wider community (Kimball 1946; Friedmann 1955), as with all famous research, it is not without its critics.
Critics of the 'Hawthorne Experinment '
Though many researchers acknowledge the significance of Mayo 's research, not all embraced it entirely due to fundamental differences in assumptions and perspective with regards to the nature of capitalism. Sociologist Bell (1947a) criticised Mayo for being a “cow sociologist” implying Mayo 's pro-managerial stance and his negligence of the role of trade unions in modern work society. Mayo 's call for
George Elton Mayo’s groundbreaking 1930’s Hawthorne Experiment has been widely recognised as a revolutionary sociological study which laid the foundations for many of today’s modern management methods and concepts (Sarachek 1968; Smith 1998; Kennedy 1998; O’Connor 1999). The Hawthorne Experiment was conducted with the original intent to study the effect of a workplace 's physical factors on productivity (The British Library 2013) and the main conclusions reached by Sonnenfeld (1985) which challenges prior hypothesis of work behaviour are as follows:
(1) Individual work behavior results from a complex host of factors. It is seldom determined by simple interaction. (2) Employees developed a set of informal work norms which regulates individual needs with that of the work environment.
(3) Status pegged to the job position is carried down to that of social structures in informal settings.
(4) Management need to gather personal feedback to better understand and accommodate individual needs and satisfaction.
(5) Being aware of employee 's opinions and participation would help facilitate their resistance to change.
The above conclusions of Mayo’s findings have been instrumental in shaping industrial organisational psychology and present day businesses (Guion 1975). However, despite much praise of intellectual brilliance of the experiment by the wider community (Kimball 1946; Friedmann 1955), as with all famous research, it is not without its critics.
Critics of the 'Hawthorne Experinment '
Though many researchers acknowledge the significance of Mayo 's research, not all embraced it entirely due to fundamental differences in assumptions and perspective with regards to the nature of capitalism. Sociologist Bell (1947a) criticised Mayo for being a “cow sociologist” implying Mayo 's pro-managerial stance and his negligence of the role of trade unions in modern work society. Mayo 's call for
References: Barro, Robert J. 1998, ‘THE EAST ASIAN TIGERS HAVE PLENTY TO ROAR ABOUT’, BUSINESS WEEK, 27 April, p. 24 (Economic Viewpoint) Bee Cheng Hiang 2013, Our History, Bee Cheng Hiang, Singapore, viewed 2nd September 2013, Bell, D. 1947a, ‘Book review of The Political Problem of Industrial Civilization, The Journal of Political Economy’ vol Bell, D. 1947b, ‘Adjusting men to machines’, Commentary, no. 3, New York Bendix, R and Statistics, vol. 31, p. 312-319 Buono, Anthony F, 2002, ‘Freedom and Accountability at Work: Applying Philosophical Insight to the Real World’, Personnel Psychology, vol Friedmann, G. 1955, ‘Industrial Society: The Emergence of the Human Problems of Automation’, Free Press, Glencoe, IL Grodzins, M Kennedy, C. 1998, ‘Great minds think alike’ vol. 51, issue 10, p. 52 Kimball, D.S Lynd, R.S. 1937, ‘Review of Leadership in Free Society’,Political Science Quarterly, vol. 52, no. 4, p Sarachek, B. 1968, ‘Elton mayo’s social psychology and human relations. Academy of Management Journal’ vol Smith, J.H. 1998, ‘The enduring legacy of Elton Mayo. Human Relations’ vol. 51, issue. 3, p. 221-249 Sonnenfeld, J.A