• Distinguish the human relations approach from the mechanistic approach
• List and explain the various experiments that brought out these new
"facts"
3.1.2 The experiment with rest breaks
You may also recall that under scientific management, Taylor had said that a worker produced much more when he was given a rest break of 57% of the time. At Hawthorne. 5 workers were taken out of a group of workers on the same job for the purpose of experiment. They were put in a special room with a special working condition - this condition was that unlike the large work group, they (these 5) were given rest breaks. It varied from 5 minutes to 10 to 15 minutes. The result was in the words of Etzioni. that "while the rate of production showed a fairly consistent and general increase, it was related to
increases in the rest breaks and hence could not be attributed to them".
Further, "this fact was surprisingly demonstrated when after the rest breaks were abolished at the end of the experiments, and the longer "fatiguing" work day was restored, production continued higher in the experiment (5 worker group) than the general factory rate". The conclusion was that "there was `...
no evidence in support of the hypothesis that the increased output rate ...was due to relief from fatigue".
These findings became the bases for another set of hypothesis for further study. The new hypothesis was that "increased production was the result of
the changed social situation of the workers, modification in their level of psychological satisfaction, and new patterns of social interaction, brought about by putting them into the experiment room and the special attention involved". This new hypothesis led to the most involving of the Hawthorne studies:
3.1.3 The Bent Wiring Room Experiment
You will recall that under scientific management (unit 12) all efforts were made to keep worker from worker. At the time of this experiment, worker groups were already in existence and had made ineffectual the pay system which management had set up. Etzioni says, "The workers were producing far less than they were physically capable of, they were following a social
norm enforced by their co-workers which defined the proper amount of
production, rather than trying to fill the quota management thought they could achieve even though this quota allowed workers to earn as much a they
physically could. The phrase `artificial restriction of output' was coined by observers of this phenomenon, to contrast it with the `natural' output that was physically possible".
The bank wiring experiment consisted of 14 workers who worked for 6 weeks. The condition set to guide their output was that the workers were paid
individual hourly rates based on their individual average output plus a bonus
that was determined by the average group output. In line with Taylor's
theories on incentives, the managerial assumptions were that the workers would work as much as, people since that would bring the individual worker
more money, and that the group would cooperate and produce more to earn more money. In practice however, the men set a norm for what constituted the day's work and anyone who "broke" the rules was ridiculed for being a
"speed king" or "rate buster" if he exceeded the group norm or labelled as a
"chiseler" if he performed far below expectation.
3.1.4 At the end of the experiments, the following, in the words of Amitai Etzioni, are the findings and conclusions of the Hawthome;
(1) The level of production is set by social norms, not by physiological capacities.
(2) Non-economic rewards and sanctions significantly affect the behaviour of the workers and largely limit the effect of economic incentive plans. In the experiments above, two rewards and sanctions which are symbolic rather than material, were particularly powerful.
Workers who did confirm to the group norms lost the affection and respect of their co-workers and friends. It was found in the wiring room experiment that all the workers preferred the amicable relations with their friends to making more money. Although Amitai Etzioni reported that a later study by Melville Dalton point to the fact that it is not always the case, it did not debunk the Hawthorne findings.
Later studies by Dalton found that "those who were `rate busters' were individuals whose education and social experience taught them how
to get along with less affection and respect, at least in the work context". Dalton also found that Catholics were fewer rate busters than Protestants. This is based on the belief that Catholics are
more "sociable" and sensitive to affection and respect of others while Protestants are believed to be more self-oriented.
Dalton also found that the rate busters "often grew up on farms or in small towns, while the conformers came from big cities where they learnt loyalty to their peer groups in street gangs".
One other non-economic factor that influence the rate of production of the workers was their belief - that if they worked harder and thus produced more, their pay rates would be reduced, and that if they did not produce a given amount, they would be unfair to management and might be fired. Meanwhile, management had not given optimum rate of production it expected from workers, although it desired increased
production. Thus, in the words of Etzioni they influenced, if not determined, the level of production in the factory".
(3) Often, workers do not act or react as individuals but as members of
groups. A group norm is set by the group and individuals who
deviated from it and are penalized by their workers l . 1
(4) The importance of Leadership for setting and enforcing group norms and the difference between informal and formal leadership constitutes another major modification of scientific management caused by these studies. Scientific management placed the onus of getting things done on the foreman and supervisors. In the wiring room experiment one of the workers emerged as an informal leader in the group. He was the
most liked. It was he whose advised was solicited. In the final
analysis, he helped the workers to function as a group. This is the human relation approach. It is in many ways diametrically opposed to the scientific management approach.
4.0 Conclusion
This unit has shown that the human relations approach to motivation is. It has cited and explained the experiments that gave it its existence. The tenets on which the scientific management approach was built were used as hypotheses for the numerous studies and in the end the findings of the human relations approach say that non-economic factors are more important in influencing productivity than the economic ones.
5.0 Sum mary
This unit has explored and explained all the bases of the human relations approach including all the experiments performed to establish it.
6.0 Tutor Marked Assignm ent
Q.1 List all the non-economic factors that influence productivity. Explain any one of them supported by an appropriate Hawthorne experiment.
7.0 References and other resources
Etzioni, Amitai (1964) Modern organizations, Prentice - Hall, Inc, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey.
MODULE THREE UNIT 15
MOTIVATION: THE BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES MOVEMENT
Table of Contents s
1.0 Introduction 2.0 Objectives 3.0 Main Contents
3.1 The Work of Douglas McGregor 3.1.1 The Conventional View - Theory X 3.1.2 Is the Conventional View Correct?
3.1.3 The Carrot-and-Stick Approach
3.2 A New Theory of Management - Theory Y 4.0 Conclusion
5.0 Summary
6.0 Tutor Marked Assignment 7.0 References and other Sources 7.1 References
1.0 Introduction
Unit 13 dealt with the mechanistic theory of motivation. Unit 14, with the Human relations approach to motivation. This unit - unit 15 deals with the
behavioral science approach to motivation. Its major thrust, as its name
suggests, is on the behavior of the individual in the work place. It is a
natural follow-up of the human relations approach. Whilst the human relations approach shifts attention to the human elements as a collectivity, the
behavioral approach shifts attention to the individual.
2.0 Objectives
By the end of this unit, you should be able to:
• Identify the behavioral science approach to motivation
• Identify the contributions of Abraham Maslow and Douglas McGregor to this
approach
• List and explain the various steps in Abraham Maslow's hierarchy of needs
• Distinguish between McGregor's theory X and theory Y 3.0 Main Contents