However, certain perplexing problems arose as a result of the program. For example, employees reacted differently to the same surroundings, Thus some expressed satisfaction with the same thing that others considered unsatisfactory. Comments during the interview were expressed as either fact or sentiment, but often no distinction was made in the mind of the person being interviewed. In other words. The employees were reacting to a personal situation on the basis of their previous social conditioning. Further, they were repenting as part of the social organization of the group in which they worked and in relation to their position in this group.
The program showed that such items as wages, hours of work, and physical conditions could not be considered as factors in themselves. Instead they should be considered as carriers of social values. They could be understood only through the acquisition of information about the individual’s position or status in the group in which he worked and in the company as a whole. Thus the meaning assigned to wages hours of work, locker rooms, etc.,. Varied according to the employee’s position in the group, the group attitude toward the specific item, and his relations with people outside the job.
From this it followed that information should be obtained not only about the individual’s attitudes and opinions but also about the social groups that existed. Evidence acquired in this phase of the study indicated that these groups, about which management knew nothing, could exercise considerable control over the work behavior of the individual members. Restricted output, which often occurs in industry, was found to exist in the plant. Hints indicated that it was probably the result of the formation of social groups and the resulting pressures. There was also some evidence of the development of informal personal leadership in these groups. The existence of this type of leadership was not recognized by management, even though it was likely to be as important as any other factor - in some case more so - in the group’s acceptance or rejection of management’s regulations. It was in this setting that the fourth study was begun.
Study 4 -
Bank Wiring Observation Room: -
This part of the Hawthorne studies attempted to obtain more exact information about social groups within the company. The preceding study had progressed form the proposed guided interview to a more intensive type of unguided interview, and then to a series of interviews with one person. In it, the emphasis was on obtaining information from large numbers of employees. The last phase of the program pointed to the need to go back to a study of the Relay Assembly Test Room type, in which information of an intensive nature would yield data on the social groups in existence. The reports of the interviewers will serve as a good introduction to the fourth of the Hawthorne Studies.
They (the employes) firmly believe that they will not be satisfactorily remunerated for any additional work they produce over the bogey, or that if they do receive more money it could only be for a brief period, at the end of which the job would be re-rated.
Because of the belief that rates many ultimately be lowered if output is too great, there seems to be a tacit agreement among the members of this group to limit their production to the bogey requirements on each operation. Seldom do they exceed the bogey by a large margin. Most of the work is turned out in the morning in order that they can “take it easy” during the latter part of the afternoon. When questioned as to whether or not their earnings would be greater if they turned out more work, they claimed that the difference, if any, would be negligible because the percentages made by the other groups tend to pull theirs downward. To this general scheme all their attitudes and behavior are related.
The leader in this group is one of the two group chiefs, undoubtedly a very significant factor in giving the group a strong feeling of security. This supervisor, A was at one time on the bench in the same group which he now supervise, but he refused to allow the change to alter his relations with the men. From observing the group one can hardly draw a line between supervisor and employees. It is obvious that he is very popular with them; no one has any adverse criticism to make of him. He is very close to the men, keeping them well informed at all times as to the group standing in the department, i.e., relative percentages, rates, output, etc. When asked why they consider him a good supervisor, his men replied with such statements as: “He knows his stuff,” “He’s fair and impartial,” “He’ll go to hell for you and make sure you get plenty of work.” In short all their statements implied a firm conviction that this group chief would protect their interests. By way of contrast, while A was on sick leave, another supervisor, B, took over the group. Toward B the employees expressed strong antagonism. B is an older man, further removed from the interests and sentiments of his subordinates. He is not quite trusted by the men and commands very little respect. As one employee sized him up, “When he bawls you out, he is more nervous than you are.” This group is only vaguely conscious of the other supervisors in the department; in fact, a confusion of the supervisory ranks is quite evident. For example, C, a section chief, has held the same position for a number of years; but the men cannot figure out what position he holds in the department, who reports to him, or what his duties are.
An attitude common to this group, but existing in varying degrees of intensity, may be characterized as a lack of ambition and initiative and a complacent desire to let well enough alone. Most indifferent is their attitude toward advancement, referring, of course, to promotion or higher-grade work, Whereas it is usual in any group to find several employees striving to improve their position, here only one or two seem to be interested. The others merely say, “All we are here for is the old pay check.” Sometimes they speak of the department as the “Old People’s Home” because, quoting one man: “The fellows get in here and don’t seem to want to get away. Take a fellow like me. I have been on this job ten years. If I was transferred out, I would have to start all over again and I would have a pretty tough time.”
