The Hawthorne Experiment (Elton Mayo, 1927)
“In 1927, in a factory in the United States, an experiment was conducted in the field of Industrial and Organizational Psychology that is still referenced today. Workers were divided into two groups; while the working conditions of one group were changed, the aim was to compare the productivity difference with the group whose conditions remained constant. Over a certain period, the experiment involved first increasing and then lowering the voltage of the lighting to the point where the workers reported having difficulty seeing. The result revealed that even when workers had difficulty seeing, their productivity increased. When it was observed that not only the productivity of the group whose lighting was changed but also the productivity of the group whose conditions were unchanged increased, perhaps a completely new window opened in the organizational world.The main reason for this increase in productivity despite deteriorating conditions and no changes being made was the fact that the workers felt an interest was being shown in them while they were working they were being observed and cared about, which positively affected them. The presence of the scientists conducting the experiment in the same environment with the employees, occasionally asking them questions, inquiring about how they felt within the company and how the conditions affected them, and having this interest directed at them emerged as the real factor increasing the workers’ productivity (Mayo, E., 1927).”
Today, for various reasons, organizations inevitably undergo “change,” and the way managers and employees communicate with each other has evolved far beyond that of the 1920s. In the rapidly developing technology and changing world, when companies embark on a change process to maintain or increase their productivity, they usually focus first on the “technical part” in other words, if we take the above example, the “environmental factor” of “the voltage of the lighting.” Yet, as we have seen, productivity results from a whole. The change process encompasses not only the environmental and technical aspects but also the organization’s own culture and its employees.
Returning to the example, in fact, in the Hawthorne Experiment, the organization perhaps inadvertently made a change in its own organization culture as well; managers and the higher-level scientists conducting the experiment were present in the same environment with the workers, thus reducing the previously existing physical distance between management and labor. In addition, by interacting with the employees every day, the organization contributed to the workers feeling more comfortable, valued, secure, and most importantly — experiencing a sense of belonging as a result.
With the inclusion of human factors in the change process alongside environmental factors such as the operation of the machines in the factory and the voltage of the lights, a new corporate culture was acquired, and the importance of the “human” factor in change and productivity was emphasized and understood; because effective change, wherever it occurs, begins with its smallest building block.It is clear that today everything is more complicated. Internal corporate culture change, or a change process in general and reaching and communicating with employees, is not as easy and simple as it was in the 1920s. Everything is more complex and competitive.This is exactly where RNA Change Management stands by you and your organization.
Elif BAZİKİ
Mayo’nun araştırmalarını daha ayrıntılı olarak merak edip okumak isteyenler için metnin orijinali;
http://www.practiceselfreliance.com/wa_files/Hawthorne_20Studies_201924_20Elton_20Mayo.pdf
Türkçe olarak çevrilmiş hali ise bir blog sayfasında mevcut;
https://tr.triangleinnovationhub.com/hawthorne-studies-industrial-psychology