Hawthorne a Half Century Later: Relay Assembly Participants Remember

Journal of Management1983, Vol 9. No 2, 217-231

Hawthorne a Half Century Later:Relay Assembly Participants Remember

Ronald G. GreenwoodGMI Engineering & Management Institute

Alfred A. BoltonNova University

Regina A. GreenwoodFlint, Michigan

The Hawthorne Experiments are among the most well-known experi-ments ever conducted in the field of management and social research.The data from the experiments have been reinterpreted and mis-interpreted and the conclusions have been both lauded and criticized.We interviewed three of the original participants in the experiments inorder to clarify some of the events and to answer many of ourquestions concerning the methodology and conclusions of the experi-ments. Although a half century has passed since the research wasperformed, Theresa Layman, Wanda Blazejak, and Donald Chipmanhave vivid memories and provided us with valuable insights about theHawthorne Experiments.

The Hawthorne Experiments (1924-1933) are among the most famous groupsof experiments ever conducted in the field of management and social research.The results of these experiments led to a number of equally famous conclusionsand, subsequently, criticisms (Bramel & Friend, 1981; Friend & Bramel, 1982;Pitcher, 1981; Wardwell, 1979). As recently as February, 1982, the popularmagazine Psychology Today presented a major article on Hawthorne (Rice,1982). The most well-known conclusion drawn from the Hawthorne Experi-ments is summarized in a typical manner as follows:

Regardless of the conditions, whether there were more or fewer restjjeriods, longer or shorter workdays,. .the women worked harder andmore efficiently. Although this effect was prohably due to severalreasons, the most important was that the women felt they weresomething special..,They were happy, a lot of attention was paid tothem, and they complied with what they thought the experimenter(their boss) wanted. (Freedman, Sears, & Carlsmith, 1981, p, 338).

This statement reflects what is generally believed to be true about theexperiments; it is presented as fact to students in textbooks on a regular basis,and even to scholars in journals (Parson, 1974,1978; Peters & Waterman, 1982).

Address all correspondence to Ronald G, Greenwood. GMI Engineering & Management Institute. 1700West Third Avenue, Flint, Michigan 48502,

Cc^yright 1983 by the Southern Management Association 0149-2063/83/52,00,

217

218 RONALD G. GREENWOOD, ALFRED A. BOLTON AND REGINA A GREENWOOD

Such a conclusion is not necessarily supported by the actual studies.No experiments rival the Hawthorne tests for generating discussion among

management scholars. The constant flow of the collected data—the interpre-tation, reinterpretation, and misinterpretation—is all of interest to the manage-ment theory historian. The Hawthorne tests are part of almost every collegemanagement text; and will continue to be, we suspect, for many decades tocome. The Relay Assembly Test Room and Bank Wiring Observation Room arethe two most discussed sections of these tests. (Appendix A lists the various testsof the Hawthorne Experiments.) This paper concentrates on the Relay AssemblyTest Room participants.

Because the Hawthorne Experiments predate much current managementtheory, it is not uncommon for people to believe the participants in the studymust have long since passed away. We found that five of the original participantsand the room supervisor were alive, and were living in the Chicago area. Wevisited three of them, and found their memories of the experiments to beextraordinarily clear. From the answers they gave, we were able to gain valuableinsight into the quality of the experiments themselves; and to infer that many ofthe conclusions drawn from the experiments, particularly the most recent ones,are not supported by fact.

In 1981 we spoke with Theresa Layman, operator #3 ; Wanda "Lottie"Blazejak, operator #4 (these are their maiden names); and Donald Chipman, theroom observer who replaced the experiment designer and first room observer(Homer Hibarger) in October of 1928, the second year of the tests. Chipmanstayed in that position for the remaining 3'/2 years of the experiment. JeannieSirchio, operator #2 , is in a nursing home; although she is often visited by friendssuch as Theresa and Wanda, we were told she would not be able to beinterviewed. Mary Volango, operator # 1 , is considering being interviewed;although she will discuss the experiments on the telephone, she has resisted pleasfor a meeting. Anna Haug, operator #5 , emigrated to Norway during thedepression and has since died. Bea Stedry, the layout operator, has not beenlocated (Switters, Note 1).

Design and Interpretation of the ExperimentsMany textbooks have implied, and some have even stated, that G. Elton Mayo

of Harvard University either designed or had a significant impact on the varioussteps in the tests. As Charles Wrege (Note 2) of Rutgers University hasdiscovered, the illumination tests began in November of 1924 and the famousRelay Assembly section of the tests began in April of 1927. Harvard faculty andMayo first visited the Test Room for two days in 1928 and four days in 1929, butitwasn'tuntil 1930 that Mayo and his staff really became involved. (AppendixBlists the experimental periods in the Relay Assembly Test Room.)

Fritz Roethlisberger, in his splendid autobiography. The Elusive Phenomena(1977), wrote of the Hawthorne tests and Mayo:

Again and again Mayo perfomKd this function of interpretation. Thedata were not his; the results were not his; the original hypotheses andquestions were not his; but as tte researches continued, tte interpre-

HAWTHORNE A HALF CENTURY LATER 219

tations of what the results meant and the new questions and hypothesesthat emerged from them were his. Also, the way of thinking which hebrought to the researches and which finally gave them a sense ofdirection and purpose was his. (p. 50)

It was the work of Mayo and his colleagues at Harvard which helped topopularize the experiments and set the tone of further scholarship on theHawthorne Experiments.

One of the greatest outside influences on the thrust of the experiments wasmade by Professor Clair E. Turner of MIT. It was Turner who altered thedirection towards the mental attitude and health habits ofthe operators. Turnerarrived at Hawthorne in May of 1928 (Turner, 1933, 1974; Wrege, Note 3).Donald Chipman was asked if he remembered Professor Clair E. Turner.

He replied that Professor Turner was remembered well, stating that MIT had agreater association with us in those days than Harvard, at the onset of this thing.'

Later, in response to our comment that Mayo has been given much un-warranted credit for directing the tests, he volunteered that he thought Mayocorresponded with some ofthe individuals in the organization [Hawthorne tests\that is supervisors, and probably had more to do with direction than we knew,we in the Test Room.

The Importance of Money and Attitude Toward Work

To say that money is not a major motivator would be an inaccurate con-clusion to be drawn from the Hawthorne tests. Yet such a conclusion has beenreached by some authors (Carey, 1967; Landsberger, 1958). Parson (1974,1978), on the other hand, argues that the pay rate might have been the singlemost important variable in the test room. In Management and the Worker (1939)Roethiisberger, Dickson, and Wright conclude:

There was absolutely no evidence in favor of the hypothesis that thecontinuous increase in output of the Relay Assembly Test Roomduring the first two years could be attributed to the wage incentivefactor alone; the efficacy of a wage incentive was so dependent on itsrelation to other factors that it was impossible to consider it as in itselfhaving an independent effect on the individual, (p. 160)

Later, they state:

Tliis experiment, designed to test the effect of a single variable,succeeded only in exposing a most complex social situation. Con-clusions about the efficacy of a wage incentive drawn from it,unrelated to the basic social situation, would have been entirelymisleading, (p. 577)

Many scholars have assumed from this statement that Mayo and Roethiisbergerbelieved money was no motivator and have reported that the experiment proved

•ComiMnts transcribed from the 1981 interviews with Donald Chtjmian. Wimda Blazejak, and TheresaLayman afqiear in it^ics throughoul ttiis paper.

220 RONALD G. GREENWOOD, ALFRED A. BOLTON AND REGINA A. GREENWOOD

the point. Yet, money should not be overlooked as having great impact on theRelay Assembly workers. The people at Western Electric understood the role ofeconomic factors, as evidenced by a memorandum written to Mayo on No-vember 12, 1930, which said:

Economic and financial factors are of considerable importance in theTest Room. The employees are anxious for high earnings. The TestRoom has apparently removed the doubt in the employees' minds thatthe company would pennit them to make very high earnings. (Wrege,Note 4)

The Relay Assembly workers, as well as the workers in the Mica Splitting andBank Wiring tests, were factory workers on tight financial budgets. The womenin the Relay Assembly tests were all first-generation Americans (except operator#5 who was bom in Norway).

When we asked what they liked about being in the Test Room, Theresaimmediately replied, We made more money in the Test Room.

No record has been found indicating what wages were paid these workersbefore entering the tests, but Theresa remembered, When we were working in thedepartment we were making $16.00 [a week].

The Illinois Department of Labor iMbor Bulletin reports that weekly earningsfor electrical apparatus workers (which would include the Hawthorne employ-ees) averaged between $25.26 in 1923 and $26.83 in 1928 (Note 5). Yet, recordsfrom the Test Room indicate that earnings of $28-$50 per week were paid;average operator pay for periods 11 and 12 was $30.08 and $33.55 (Wrege, Note6). If these figures are accurate, then the earnings in the Test Room weresignificantly above the state average and, even more dramatically, above theregular department pay the workers recall receiving before the tests.

Wages earned by the women were turned over to the family, a fairly commonpractice in the 192O's. Whitehead (1938) reports correctly that Theresa "lived athome with her mother and father and a fairly numerous family... [and] was one ofthe principal wage earners in her family.... She was not consulted in theexpenditure of her money; she handed it to her mother every week, and wasgiven a small sum for her own needs.'' However, Whitehead then concluded that"since Operator 3 had no understanding or interest in its disposal, her weekly

cheque had no meaning to her'' (p. 155). It is true that Theresa came from a largefamily.

She explained. There were seven kids in our family—five girls and two boys. Ihad two sisters and a brother younger than me and two sisters and a brotherolder than me. I was in the middle.

But Whitehead's conclusion is flawed. Theresa was one of the principal wageearners in this family of nine; her income was important, and she certainlyunderstood its value to the family.

It should also be understood that Theresa was younger than the records in thevarious books on Hawthorne indicate because she lied about her age to get thejob. Theresa told us that she was only 14 when she began working fuUtime,although she claimed to be 17. This resulted in Parson's (1974) error in stating


she was nearly 70 years old and still assembling relays in 1974, Theresa retired atage 65 in 1976, and built relays as late as 1975, Her need to get a job to assist inthe support of the family was understood by Theresa at age 14.

Don Chipman noted that, Theresa was the kid in the outfit, really. She was thebaby in the gang, so everybody looked out for Theresa.

The fact that "her weekly cheque had no meaning to her" might be aconclusion of a sociologist when it appeared that Theresa was not driven to earnthat extra dollar, but doubling one's wage by moving from the regular depart-ment to the Test Room was a significant change in the wage level for theworkers,

Theresa did explain. My grandmother lived with us too. When my folks camein from Europe they brought my mother's mother along and she stayed with us.She lived to 97. Those days, I think that's what made people good workers—theyneeded the money. You had to go [to work], if you wanted something.

During our conversation with the Hawthorne participants the change inemployee attitude toward work was a frequent topic. They believed you had towork hard to earn the money you needed. It is a subject which is not mentioned inthe literature related to the experiments, yet each participant thought it had a greatdeal to do with her performance,

Wanda expressed similar feelings about the importance of money.When we asked if she had turned all of her money over to her parents, she said,

Yes.We then asked if she received an allowance; she remembered. They'd just give

you a dollar. We thought that was a lot of money. You almost got your headknocked off when you wanted a pair of stockings. "You spend more than youearn."

Theresa added, 5^^ got more than I did. I didn't even get a dollar!Don Chipman noted, / think all the girls turned their money over to their

family, except Anna, of course. Operator #5, who was away from home. Shecame from Norway, you know, and went back.

Even Jeannie Sirchio (Note 7), Operator #2 , in an unpublished 1933 interview(the only post-experiment interview), simply said, "Pay is important, youknow,"

There is some confusion as to the method used to figure wages,Don Chipman explained it quite simply: Each girl had a day rate. These rates

were reviewed in accordance with their performance periodically. Wanda, forinstance, had a base rate of $.50 an hour and a girl who was making more mighthave had $.55 an hour; maybe a girl making less had $.45 an hour—these ratesare probably not right. But, their percentage was tacked on to their day rate. Inother words, if they were making 50%, they make 50% above the $.45 that youwere making. Jeannie made 50%, above the $.55 she was making and the othergirl made 50%. That was the differential.... They were making the samepercentage, but it was on a percentage of a base rate, which made thedifferential among the girls.


Supervision

Supervision has always been mentioned as having an effect on the RelayAssembly Room. Certainly this is true, but the literature on this subject isincomplete without understanding how Frank Platenka, the Relay Assemblysupervisor, was viewed by the operators in the Test Room. During the interviewwe remarked that in the literature Mr. Platenka appeared to be an unpopularperson with the operators.

Theresa was quick to reply: No, he was mean. I was almost fired by him. I gotapiece of wire inmyfinger andMr.Chipmantookitoutfor me; andhe[Platenka]came and he read the report. And he came by me, and he said, ' 'Don't you knowwhat you have to do when you get a wire in your finger?" And I said, ' 'Yes.'' Hesays, ' 'What do you have to do?" I says, ' 'You have to go to the hospital.'' Andhe stood by me and looked, he wanted me not to forget that he's still the boss inthe department. We figured he had nothing to do with us.

Wanda also had a story to illustrate her perception of Mr. Platenka: Well, onetime I know, he came in; and, like I say, I always had a habit of watching mywork. So I was talking to Theresa quite a bit; and I was doing my work, like this.And he [Platenka] asked the inspector, Bea Stedry, "What is Lottie doing?Talking or singing?" Then he came up to me and said, "Why didn't you worklike that in the [regular] department?'' / looked at him, you know, not looking upand I said, ' 7 always work like that. That's my way of working.'' He didn't likethat! "Oh, you didn't do that in the department!" Andyou get used to workinglike that and it stays with you. You couldn't tell him, he thought he was right. Iknow we were getting more steady runs, and I guess a lot of people didn't likethat.

Both Theresa and Wanda said they did not like Frank Platenka and were gladto stay in the Test Room away from him.

Supervision, in general, was different in the 192O's. Don Chipman noted.Supervision in those days was a different thing... .See, he [the supervisor] was thedepartment head, and the department head was IT. He was the boss. He had theright to hire, fire, discipline in any manner he saw fit, and so forth and so on.

Many theorists attributed the positive change in output to the change insupervision (Franke, 1979; Friend, 1982; Roethlisberger, 1939, Note 8; Son-nenfeld, 1982,1983, Note 9; Wrege 1980). When we asked the participants whyoutput kept rising throughout the tests an interesting dialogue took place:

Q: Why do you think output kept going up?Theresa: / think we were more relaxed. We didn't see the boss, didn't hear

him; and I hated him (tfter he bawled me out about the wire in my finger.Q: He evidently put f^ar into a tot of pec^ie?TTieresa: Oh, yes, he was mean. He died; I didn't even go see him.Wanda: We used to go to Mr. Pennock's office once a month, didn't we? Oh,

he was a nice person. (I^nnock was Superintendent of Inspection in 1927.)Q: What did yiw do m the ctffitx?Wanda: Just talked. They just let us do more of the talking, I think.Chipman: One of my jobs, when I came into that organization, was to go to his

office and post the total output for the day. He had a chart where we posted the


output; he was interested in the output. He was interested in the tests in general.Wanda: / think when you're more relaxed you just work, you produce

more / think, in anything, if you're relaxed you can do a better job onanything.

The Hawthorne EffectThe Hawthorne Effect has been defined many ways; one of the simplest

definitions is that people act differently when they know they are being observedthan when they do not know that they are being observed. With this in mind weasked about the effect being watched had on their productivity (knowing full wellthat the response might not be accurate).

Q: Did the watching and fussing have any effect?Theresa: No, we kept working. It didn't matter who watched us or who talked

to us.Wanda: Although, one time I remember it was Mr. Hibarger; he was standing

behind, and he was timing me or something. And he said, "You droppedsomething." Andl said, "That's because you are watching me." I don't like tohave people watch me when I work.

Chipman: / agree. I think early in the study it had some bearing but as webecame, as you say, a family, that just wore off... .The watching system as suchdeteriorated.

The Role of the Room ObserverThe room observer was not the supervisor, which perhaps eased him into a

friend role more easily. The first room observer was Homer Hibarger, whoplayed a major hand in designing the tests. He left this post in 1928, and wasreplaced by Don Chipman. Chipman remained the room observer until the end ofthe tests in May of 1933, although the original Test Room assemblers had allbeen laid off by the end of November, 1932, because of the deepening de-pression (Wrege, Greenwood, & Mundy, 1983; Wrege, Note 4; Chipman, Note10).

Speaking of Mr. Hibarger, Theresa fondly remembers that the company held aformal dinner to celebrate the first anniversary of the Relay Assembly Tests andshe came to work that day not aware of this event.

Mr. Hibarger drove me home so I could get dressed and come back.Wanda also remembers both Mr. Hibarger and Mr. Chipman: Yeah, they were

great. Mr. Chipman was very young {actually he was 1-5 years older than thegirls, except for Anna and Bea]; Mr. Hibarger was a little older. And we hadrespect for him, you know, but he was a very nice person, intelligent. He wasnice; he was friendly, but he was kind of quiet, wasn't he?

Don Chipman replied. He was rather quiet, he was a fine fellow and he had alot to do with the study. Illumination Study and the origination of the HawthorneStudy.

C A . Cole of Dennision Manufacturing Company, in an unpublished reporton the Hawtfiome experiments, wrote:

Mr. Hibarger, tiie man who originally suggested the proposition [to run

224 RONALD G, GREENWOOD, ALFRED A, BOLTON AND REGINA A, GREENWOOD

the tests], has been located in the laboratory as an observer and tocompile data pertinent to the experiments. This man is about 40 yearsold and had worked at many jobs before coming to Western Electric,He has been with W.E, about 10 years and during this time has had avaried experience including the checking and adjusting of question-able rates in various sections of the plant. He has an odd {sersonalityand has t)een regarded by management as rather difficult to handle. Heis apparently very well liked by the employees. He is very muchresearch-minded and has accumulated data about innumerable thingsas well as having worked out 52 definite questions which he hopes tofmd the answers to during his experiments. The man is intenselyinterested in his work and probably cannot help but instill an intereston the part of those he is in daily contact with. (Note 11)

Don Chipman explained his role as an observer: You think of an observer as aperson who is intently watching something. We weren't doing that at all. Afterwe got into the study, we were going about our business analyzing some of thesethings, checking output by periods, and so forth and so on; and unless we heardsomething that these girls remarked that we felt was unusual, then we had atablet here and we'd make a note of it for that particular day. It was just aninformal situation, more or less.... We did a lot with output. We studied output by15 minute periods, and someone had to take these tapes [output recordingsconnected to the chutes on the work bench] and mark them off in 15-minuteperiods; this tape ran at a constant speed. And then check for each girl thenumber of relays they made during that period. Arui that showed the ups anddowns during the day. Then we'd try to associate with a lot of these girls: moves,and what they had to eat; and we even had a period, you remember, where wehad the nurse come in each day and put a microphone [s/c] over your hearts andwe studied your pulse rates and tried to associate.. ..There were so many thingsthat we did, many of which we thought were somewhat significant; but whichother people, such as Dickson and Roethlisberger, did not feel quite as sig-nificant and never got any publicity.

There was no secret that notes were being made, beyond the medicalexaminations.

Don Chipman said, / think everybody in the test room, that is all theobservers, established a rapport with these girls to where we just carried onconversations; and I asked Lottie iWanda] what she had for breakfast. She justtold me like she would any friend. I wasn't a boss as such, 1 was part of thegroup.

Wanda replied, // was just family, you know, real friendly. They used to takenotes as we talked; remember, a lot offiinny things are in that book. (She wasreferring to the 1938 Whitehead book.)

Chipman added. Through the entire day, anything we thought was pertinentwas taken down These girls would have their outside spats, with boyfriendsand that sort of thing. We were kind of interested in how that would affect theirproduction and the overall humor of the gang, and so we used to take notes. Andthey knew we were taking them.


Conversations During WorkPeople who were bom after World War 11 or have never worked in a clerical

group environment might not realize that before managerial enlightenmentworkers were not allowed to talk to each other during working hours. Thedifference in the work environment when talking was allowed made a strongimpression on the participants,

Q: Did Mr. Platenka ever tell you to stop talking?Wanda: He thought I was talking and I wasn't paying attention when I was

talking and working; you know, that time he told me about it.Q: Could they talk as much in the regular department?Wanda: Well, those days supervisors didn't allow it. If they saw you look up

and smile they'd ask you if you were on a picnic. I remember, somebody said thatto me: " You think you 're at a picnic ?" And I put my head down. We were afraidin those days!

Q: The Test Room was a real different environment?Theresa: That's why we all worked better.Wanda: / think so. I think we were happy, you know, together. You didn't have

to be afraid to look up; if we saw a couple of people—Mr. Chipman, andothers—we'd smile, and we'd talk like a happy family. I think that made thedifference. We had the desire to work; you just couldn't help it. You got therhythm, and it wasn't hard.

Chipman: You know there were a lot of comments, probably rather casual;and some of them have had some significance attached to them. They just weremaybe idle chatter. I don't mean to say that some of them weren't pertinent; butothers weren't, because the girls just talked all day long.

Management and the Worker (Roethlisberger, et al,, 1939) and The IndustrialWorker (Whitehead, 1938) quote the Relay Assembly Operators and reportsome of their comments about their personal lives. This information was mainlysupplied by Don Chipman,

For example, when we mentioned something from Roethlisberger et al, whichTheresa couldn't remember, Mr, Chipman jokingly commented. You better saythey're right, Theresa. I wrote those notes for them!

The studies provided a wealth of material about the work place and thepersonal life of the workers, but no attempt was ever made to discriminatebetween what should be reported or eliminated. The raw data were all-inclusive;it was up to the interpreters to choose what was important.

Interesting Side LightsOur curiosity was piqued by a report Whitehead (1938) made that much

laughter occurred in the Test Room because of Professor Turner's accident. Wewanted to know what type of accident he had had,

Theresa supplied the answer: He fell backwards out of his chair. We laughed;and we didn't want him to see us laughing, so we put our heads down. Mr.Chipman couldn't laugh; he had to help him up.

In response to our questions on Management and the Worker Mr, Chipmanmentioned, Fritz andDickson collaborated in writing., .but Fritz spent very little

226 RONALD G. GREENWOOD, ALFRED A. BOLTON AND REGINA A, GREENWOOD

time in the Test Room, very little time compared to the fellows we were speakingabout like Turner and Mayo and some of the others. His work was really ananalysis of the test results, not actual contact with the girls. Harold Wright wasthe department chief in charge of the interviewing program. Harold spent notime in the test room. He might have been in and out.

We asked if Dickson had ever spoken to the girls, and Don Chipman replied.Very little.

The operators at one time tried to foil the mechanism used to measure output.Chipman: There were individual tapes for each girl; and as each girl dropped

a completed relay down a chute, it triggered a punch, it punched a hole. That'sthe way we could measure the output. We measured the output by 15-minuteintervals. Each day we checked that out.

Wanda: We knew every day what we made.Theresa: We knew just how many relays we'd built; we could tell by that. We

didn't have to look at the tape.Wanda: We'd see the little dots on there.Theresa: We tried to drop them down at the same time.Wanda: They caught up with us.Theresa: She'd get done with one of hers, and I'd get done with one of mine;

and we'd drop them down the chute at the same time.Chipman: / don't know whether you girls were familiar with this, but each one

of you had a separate spot on that tape and it made no difference when youdropped it down; you couldn't change the apparatus.

This exchange is indicative of the accuracy of the participants' memories andthe enjoyment and comradede with which they worked in the Test Room.

Test Selection

Some researchers have speculated about how the participants were chosen forthe Relay Test Room; some researchers have also stated complete falsehoods onhow it was done.

Wanda remembers: The supervisor—the department head, Platenka—calledme and asked me if I would like to work in the Test Room. And I said, at first, Ididn't know. I was kind of frightened, but I said I'd try anything. And then hesaid to pick out five girls that I thought wouldn't be married soon. Theresaaccepted; and the other two, the ones who didn't stay long [Adeline Bogotowiczand Irene Rybacki, operators lAand2A}. I don't remember too much any more.It seems I had the five girls together.

Q: Who were in Mr. Hibarger's special flluminadon tests of February,1927?

Wanda: / thing Gerry [Jeannie Sirchio]andl were. They put us in a darkenedroom. Mr. Hibarger was there. They were wondering if we could do our workwell and we performed just as well. (Jeannie Sirchio became Relay AssemblyTest Room Operator # 2 in 1928, replacing the original #2 , Irene Rybacki.)

Wanda: / remember when they brought Gerry in. I was afraid of her in thedepartment. I said to Theresa, "Ooh, lookwho they're bringing in here." Gerrywas always hyper / heard about her having a hair-pulling fight with some girl


there in the department, and I was afraid of her. Then we got to be the best offriends. We used to go dancing together. I go see her as much as I can. Where Ilive I have no transportation. I visit her at the nursing home.

Q: In the beginning of the tests what did they tell you?Theresa: / wanted to know what are we going to test? I thought this was a

special room where you had to do some testing. And they said you' re going to dothe same thing like you're doing now. And I said ' 'OK. As long as I'm doing thesame thing as I'm doing now, it's all right."

Wanda: /rfon'r remember. I was afraid of my own shadow; I wouldn't ask thesupervisor nothing; I just went along with them.. ..They said they were going totry different things.

Q: How did the rest of the factory treat you, getting ail this specialattention?

Wanda: They didn't like it.Theresa: They didn't like it, but we didn't worry about it.Q: But they weren't making the kind of money you were making!?Wanda: No! I know at one time we made 100%; that was a lot of money! (This

was about $40-50 for the week.)Q: What were some of the impacts on the rest of Hawthorne as a result of

these tests?Chipman: The longest studies, as I remember, were made with a 15-minute

break in the morning and a 10-minute in the afternoon, and that was the mostpopular; and that was the one that was adopted throughout the plant ratheruniversally / know, because I went out when this thing was phased out [thetests^; the first thing I did was to go out and set rest periods throughout the plant, tset rest periods for several thousand people in different organizations. Thatincluded making studies of output (as a total) for the organization for a time,then making a comparison as compared to not putting in rest periods anddetermining what the output was after that, to see if there was any increase,decrease, or whether it stayed the same.

Conclusion

Mr. Chipman's closing comment summarized the results of the tests for us: Ifyou were to ask me what was the most significant thing that came out of this, Iwould say it was the change in management attitudes as well as individual; it wasa cooperative deal throughout the entire plant. That result originated, let's say,in the Test Room. Then, as this thing expanded to a number of people who did theinterviewing and supervisory training, the supervisors began to get an insightinto how people felt.

This paper attempts to clarify some popular misconcejrtions about the Haw-thorne Experiments and give added insight into these most famous tests. It isinspired by an interview with three people who actually participated in thefamous experiments. Despite the length of time since the tests, the memories ofTheresa Layman, Wanda Blazejak, and Donald Chipman ast still vivid.

As Don Chipman put it, I'm typical of a lot of people. I remember the physical

228 RONALD G. GREENWOOD, ALFRED A, BOLTON AND RBGINA A. GREENWOOD

characteristics of the Test Room down to the nth degree. And the things we did inthose days You lose recent things, but you can remember things way back.

After rereading the ever-growing mound of literature which analyzes theHawthorne Tests, interviewing the participants was a great joy. It reaffirmedthat these participants were, and are, real people—which is what the testsdiscovered.

Reference Notes

L Switters, H. Personal communication. May 5, 1983.2. Wrege, C D . Men before Mayo: Historical documents reveal new data on the Hawthorne

studies. Unpublished manuscript, 1978(7). (Available from author, Rutgers University,New Brunswick, N.J.)

3. Wrege, C D . Personal communication, June 10, 1983.4. Wrege, C D . Review of 'The Hawthorne myth dies hard'. Unpublished manuscript, August

1, 1979. (Available from author, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, N.J.)5. Average weekly earnings in Illinois. Labor Bulletin. October, 1928. Illinois Department of

Labor.6. Wrege, C D . Charting the Hawthorne studies: 'Day by day' analysis of historical

document reveals errors of 'armchair' critics. Unpublished manuscript, 1982. (Availablefrom author, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, N.J.)

7. Sirchio, J. Unpublished transcript of interview, April 30, 1933. (Available from Academyof Management History Archives, Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y.)

8. Roethlisberger, F., & Dickson, W.J. Management and the worker: Technical vs. socialorganization in an industrial plant (Business Research Studies No. 9). Cambridge, Mass.:Harvard University Graduate School of Business Administration, Division of Research,1934.

9. Sonnenfeld, J. A. Hawthorne hoopla in perspective: Contextual illumination and criticalillusions (Working Paper HBS 81-60). Boston, Mass.: Harvard Business School, 1980.

10. Chipman, D. Personal communication. May 31, 1982.11. Hawthorne study records, relay assembly test room studies, record of interviews

1927-1932. (Available from Academy of Management History Archives, Cornell Univer-sity, Ithaca, N.Y.)

References

Bramel, D., & Friend, R. Hawthorne, the myth of the docile worker, and class bias in psychology.American Psychologist, 1981, i6 , 867-878.

Carey, A. The Hawthorne studies: A radical criticism. American Sociological Review, 1967,32. 403-416.

Franke, R.H. The Hawthorne experiments re-view. American Sociological Review. 1979, 44,861-867.

Freedman, J., Sears, D.O., & Carlsmith, J.M. Social psychology (4th ed.). Englewood Cliffs,N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1981.

Friend, R., & Bramel, D. More Harvard humbug. American Psychologist, 1982, 37,1399-1401.

Landsberger, H.A. Hawthorne revisited. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press, 1958.Parson. H.M. What happened at Hawthorne? Science, No. 183, 1974, 922-932.Parson, H.M. What caused the Hawthorne effect? Administration and Society, 1978, 10,

259-283.Peters, T.J., & Waterman, R.H., Jr. In search of excellence: Lessons from America's best run

companies. New York: Harper & Row, 1982.Pitcher, B.L. The Hawthorne experinrents: Statistical evidence for a learning hypothesis.

Social Forces. 1981,60, 133-149.


Rice, B. The Hawthorne defect: Persistence of a flawed theory. Psychology Today. February,1982, pp. 70-74.

Roethlisberger, F.J. The elusive phenomena. Boston: Harvard University Press, 1977.Roethlisberger, F.J., Dickson, W.J., & Wright, H.A. Management and the worker. Cam-

bridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1939.Sonnenfeld, J. Clarifying critical confusion in the Hawthorne hysteria. American Psycholo-

gist, 1982, 37, 1397-1399.Sonnenfeld, J. Commentary: Academic learning, worker learning, and the Hawthorne studies.

Social Forces, 1983, 61. 904-909.Turner, C.E. Test room studies in employee effectiveness. American Journal of Public Health.

1933, 23. 577-584.Turner, C.E. / remember. New York: Vantage Press, 1974.Wardwell, W.L Critique of a recent professional "put-down" of the Hawthorne research.

American Sociological Review. 1919. 44. 858-861.Whitehead, T.N. The industrial worker (2 vols.) Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University

Press, 1938.Wrege, C D . Discovering the real Hawthorne: Historic manuscripts clarify Parson's "infor-

mation feedback" hypothesis concerning the relay test room. Proceedings of the EasternAcademy of Management. 1980, 12-17.

Wrege, C D . , Greenwood, R.G., & Mundy, J. Decisions at Hawthorne: A neglected factor inthe Hawthorne studies. Proceedings of the Eastern Academy of Management. 1983, 120-123.

Received February 25, 1983 •

Revision received May 31, 1983 •

Second revision received August 2, 1983 •

Ronald G. Greenwood is Professor of Managementat GMI Engineering & Management Institute.

Alfred A. Bolton is connected with Nova University.

Regina A. Greenwood resides in Flint. Michigan.

Appendix AChronology of the Hawthorne Studies

Illumination Tests: November 24, 1924-April 30, 1927

The illumination tests were an outgrowth of earlier tests which tried to show a connectionbetween illumination and productivity. The early pre-Hawthome tests were under the closesupervision of the General Electric Company. The tests at Hawthorne had begun with the sameexpectation for discovering an illumination-productivity link, but soon turned towards looking atthe effects of supervision and sociological/psychological effects. The actual illumination testswere as outlined:

1. Three Departments—Induction Coil Winding, Relay Assembly, Jack Shell and JackSpring Inspection—1924-1925.

2. Psychological Illumination Tests—Coil Winding and Coil Induction—1926.3. Controlled Conditions Tests—Coil Winding operators in two identical

enclosures~1926-1927.4. Supervision Tests—continuation of the controlled tests (3).5. Hibarger's "Moon Light" Tests—two operators from the Relay Assembly Department

working with as low as .06 foot-candles (.645834 lx) of illumination—February 4-7, 1927.


Relay Assembly Test Room: May 10, 1927-May 4, 1933

This is the most famous set of experiments, which consisted of five relay assemblers, one layoutoperator, and a room observer. The room observer (who was not the supervisor) was the designerof' the experiments. Homer Hibarger. In the second year of the tests a new room observer, DonaldChipman, replaced Hibarger. Also in the second year of the tests, two of the original operatorswere replaced. In late 1932, due to the Depression, many of the original assemblers were laid off;and the tests were continued into early 1933 with workers from other parts of the plant. Hence, forall practical purposes, the tests ended in late 1932 (although records were kept until May 4,1933).Appendix B lists in outline form the schedule of the 24 test periods for this Relay Assembly Group.

Second Relay Assembly Group: August 27, 1928-March 16, 1929

Five relay assemblers were placed in a special room, paid a group rate, but not given restperiods. The objective was to isolate the effect of a small group rate on production. Other factorsdid creep in, such as group isolation and special small group feeling.

Mica SpUtting Group: October 22, 1928-September 13, 1930

This was an attempt to parallel the Relay Assembly Test Room, with similar changes, but to usean individual piecework payment system. It was hoped that longer periods could be used than weretried in the Relay Assembly Test Room.

Typewriting Group: February 4, 1929-February 16, 1929 (?)

Very little is known about this experiment. The female typists involved were paid a weeklysalary with increases based primarily upon output. Output was determined by an automaticrecording device on the typewriter indicating the number of keys struck. Rest pauses, fatigue, andworking conditions were studied; but no final report has been found of this experiment.

Bank Wiring Observation Room: November 13, 1931-May 21, 1932

This study was planned by Clair E. Turner of MIT and was to parallel the Relay Assembly TestRoom, but use men. With ihe assistance of Lloyd Wamer of Harvard, it became a sociologicalstudy, often reported in the literature for its study of the action of cliques as they developed in thisindustrial environment.

Interviewing Phase: 1925-1930

As early as 1925, Homer Hibarger and Charles Snow interviewed the employee participants inthe Illumination Tests. When the list of formal questions did mA lend any insights, what wastermed "undirected" interviewing was tried. The plant-wide interviewing program began inSeptember, 1928, in the Inspecting Branch; over 21,000 interviews were logged through 1930,when the Depression forced their suspension in that year. The "indirect" approach, which is sofamous, was adc^)ted in July, 1929.


Appendix BSchedule of Test Periods—First Relay Assembly Group

Experi-mentalPeriod

1234567

g

91011

12

13

14

1516

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

Dura-tion

TotalLengthof Day

(Weeks) (Hours]

Appr.258544

11

7

4129

12

31

9

314

25

15

15

25

2-3?

6-7?

16?

8:458.458.458.458:458:458:45

8:15

7:458:45845

8:45

8:45

845

8:458:45

8:

8:

8-

8:

8:

->

DaysPer

1 Week

5-'/!5-'/65-1/!

5-'/:5-'/!

5-1/^

5-'/:5-'/i5

5-'/!

S-Vi

5

5-1/*5-i/i

5

4-W

4-16

5

4

4

4

No. ofDallyRestPeriods

NoneNoneNone2262

2

222

None

2

2

22

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

DailyRestPeriodTime(Min.)

NoneNoneNone:10:20:30.25

:25

.25

.25:25

None

:25

.25

.25

.25

:25

:25

.25

:25

:25

:25

:25

NetWeeklyWorkingHours

48484847:05461045 1545:40

43:10

40:4045-4041 40

48:

45:40

41:40

454045:40

37.55

34:35

34:35

37:55

30:20

June 1932—Febniary 1933—All new workers—short hours, 1otfa»(biys off as depression deepens

; DatesIncluded

4-25-27 to 5-105-10 to 6-116-13 to 8-68-8 to 9-109-12 to 10-810-10 to 11-511-7 to 1-21-28

1-23-28 to 3-10

3-12 to 4-74-9 to 6-307-2 to 9-1

9-3 to 11-24

11-26 10 6-29-29

7-1-29 to 8-31

9-2 to 4-5-304-7-30 to 5-3

5-5 to 10-25

10-27 to 2-7-31

2-9-31 to 5-23-31

5-25-31 to 11-14-31

11-16-31 to 12-4-31(?)

12-7-31(?) to l-29-32(?)

2-l-32(?)to6-13-32(?)

Mmday. Saturday

SpecialFeature

Regular deptTest rootnSpecial gang rateTwo 5 min. restsTwo 10 mm restsSix 5 min restsRests (15 mm. A M.lunch and 10 min.P.M. rests)Rests and 4.30 stopOriginal operators1 & 2 replaced1-26-28Rests and 4:00 stopRests—check periodRests and SatA.M offNo lests full 48hrs (check per )Rests (opers.furnish ownlunch, com-pany furnishesbeverage)Rests and Sat.A.M. offRestsRests & opers.changed positionsRests 4 15 stop& Sat. A.M. offRests 4:15 stopFn. P.M. andSat. A.M. offRests 4.15 stopFn P.M &Sat. A.M. off—opers. returned toonginal positionsRests, 4.15 stop—Sat A.M. offRests. 4:15 stop—Mon. off andSat. A.M offEvery other Monoff and Sat A.Moff. Many "novice"workersOnly #2 oforiginal staffworking

Note. Periods 1-M are from The Industrial Worker by T.N. Whitehead. CandwWge. Mass.: HarvardUniversity ftess, 1938, p. 39. Rejwinted by pwmissitm of the (wblisher. Periods 21-24 have beendeveloped ftom original data in Havvthome Test Records.

Hawthorne a Half Century Later: Relay Assembly Participants Remember

Documents

Transcript of Hawthorne a Half Century Later: Relay Assembly Participants Remember