Reflections on the Wildcat Strikes

Liguori

Lovett

et al. 2021

MRR

Purpose This paper aims to analyze the political background of the Hawthorne criticisms, positing that the political atmosphere of the 1940s, influenced by the decline of the new deal liberalism and the rise of the conservative coalition, stimulated scholars to challenge the Hawthorne studies. Design/methodology/approach Primary sources used in the guise of archival commentaries, journal articles and other published works (books and book chapters). Secondary sources are offered to provide additional insight and context. Findings The findings show that politics unnecessarily discredited Mayo. As a result, contemporary scholars failed to recognize Mayo’s work as an important part of the basis for modern management theory. Research limitations/implications The purpose of the research is to look into the political context of the Hawthorne studies to understand how management practice and research is impacted by ongoing political issues. Originality/value To date, no work has fully accounted for or understood the political climate of the time in considering the criticisms of the Hawthorne studies. By more fully understanding the political context, scholars can reevaluate the weight they place on the then criticisms of the Hawthorne studies.

Section: Unionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

For whom does the bell toll: a political analysis of criticisms of the Hawthorne studies

Liguori

Lovett

et al. 2021

MRR

“…We should not ignore the work Homans did in industrial sociology (Appold, 2006). For instance, Homans' work with Jerome Scott (Scott and Homans, 1947) demonstrated the importance of personal social relationships in the organization as a means of combating a wildcat strike. His article with Scott was an important contribution to the literature regarding leadership, echoed in research conducted 40 years later by Robert Jackall (Appold, 2006).…”

Section: Homans and His Space In Management Historymentioning

confidence: 99%

Revisiting perspectives on George Homans: correcting misconceptions

Liguori²,

Bendickson

et al. 2018

JMH

Purpose This paper aims to correct some misconceptions about George Homans. Specifically, it clarifies the relationship between Homans and Malinowski, explains why Homans is rightfully considered the father of social exchange, shows Homans’ perspective on altruism and self-interest and analyses Homans’ place in management’s complex history. Design/methodology/approach This is a conceptual paper which synthesizes both primary and secondary sources on Homans, social exchange theory (SET), Malinowski and other Homans’ contemporaries and theories, which, in aggregate, help dispel some common misconceptions in the literature today. Findings This paper disperses several common misconceptions about Homans and his work. First, the findings show that beliefs that Homans was unaware of Malinowski are not justified, as Homans was not only aware of Malinowski but also significantly influenced by Malinowski’s work. Second, this manuscript clarifies that while Homans, for specific reasons, focussed on self-interest, his work accounted for altruism. Lastly, this paper also further cements Homans’ place in history as the father of social exchange. Originality/value Recent misconceptions have emerged in the literature calling to question not only Homans’ legitimacy as the father of social exchange but also some of his views on the theory itself. By clarifying these misconceptions, this paper enables scholars from a variety of management fields to better understand historical foundations of SET and its impact on current research.

“…Other critics of Mayo's work suggest that the relationship between worker attitudes and outcomes is much more complex than even Bell thought. Scott and Homans (1947), for example, contend that social relationships formed in the plant may prevent wildcat strikes from occurring, and Kerr and Siegel (1955) go one step further and posit that neither informal groups nor management alone can fully explain harmony and cooperation within the industry. Similarly, Blumer (1947) suggests that the worker-management relationship exists within a much larger nexus of societal relationships including, but not limited to, government, unions and other aspects of the community.…”

Section: Institutional Influencesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In their research, Scott and Homans identify a foreman who evaded a wildcat strike by reasoning with his workers. During the Second World War, it was more common for workers to eschew striking out of professional respect for their co-workers than because of pressure from leadership, capitalism or even patriotism (Scott and Homans, 1947). As Mayo would point out, it was only the respect they shared with their cohort -their informal group -that truly mattered in helping to bring about and maintain cooperation.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

The Hawthorne studies: an analysis of critical perspectives, 1936-1958

2017

JMH

Purpose The purpose of this paper was to analyse the academic context of the Hawthorne studies from 1936. More specifically, great attention was paid towards those articles that were critical of the Hawthorne studies. This study aimed to analyse why the Hawthorne studies were so criticized during the time period. Design/methodology/approach The author analysed various critical articles/books from the time period. The author developed the sample through the use of Landsberger’s Hawthorne Revisited. The author used one of the first critical articles, Daniel Bell’s, as a means to analyse the critics. In addition, secondary literature was used to place the articles in context. Findings The author found that the majority of the critics were sociologists; these criticisms reflected larger debates in sociology in terms of theory, method and ethics of research. They reflected the great changes that occurred in sociology during the time period, as opposed to industrial/organizational psychology, for example, where there was little criticism at the time. Originality/value The purpose of this study was to continue the work of Muldoon (2012) and Hassard (2012) and place the work of the Hawthorne studies in a larger academic context.