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

Abstract

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.

Spontaneity Is the Spice of Management: Elton Mayo’s Hunt for Cooperation

“…Mills and coauthors have demonstrated that the Hawthorne studies did not receive notice in the textbooks until after World War II. My own work (Muldoon 2012(Muldoon , 2017 has found that many of the articles, especially criticisms, did not occur until after 1946, with Bell's article in Commentary serving as a jumping point for criticism. The largest explanation for this occurrence was that the economic hardship of the depression limited the spread of the Hawthorne studies' message (Blum 1976.…”

“…Scholars, including Ellen O'Connor (1999a, b), Bruce andNyland (2011), andRichard Gillespie (1991) have all argued that the Hawthorne studies were less science and more advocacy. Scholars have challenged Mayo's arguments over his opinions on unions, the originality of his ideas, and the roles of groups, attitudes, and social motivations in the workplace (Muldoon 2017). His most persistent and ablest critic, Bruce, pointed out that Mayo was more concerned with providing businessmen with the ammunition to fight off unions and coddling favors with the Rockefellers than true science.…”

“…C.W.M. Hart (1943) and others praised the Hawthorne studies for attempting to bend the boundaries between fields (Muldoon 2012;Muldoon 2017).…”

“…The best reason why would be to follow the money. Sociology received money from unions, and psychology and management from business (Muldoon 2017).…”

Human Relations’ invented traditions: Sociotechnical research and worker motivation at the interwar Rowntree Cocoa Works

“…Incentives and Contentment (1938) fell on stony ground from a scholarly sociological perspective. Notwithstanding the Tavistock’s creation in 1947, the focus of which was largely industrial, postwar British academic sociology was in a considerably weaker position than its American equivalent, even taking into account the relative size of each country (Calhoun, 2007; Muldoon, 2017; Steinmetz, 2005, 2007). As a former student of Mayo’s, George Homans, put it when he embarked on sociological studies in postwar Cambridge:It feels clear to me that sociology has a bad name in Britain but just what sort of bad name and why is not so obvious.…”