Period 7; that is, the day was one hour longer than in period 9. In period 11 the group went on a five-day week. Period 12 saw the group return to the conditions of period 3 - no rest periods, no free lunches, and a full 6-day work week. Period 13 was essentially a repetition of periods 7 and 10 except that the operators furnished the morning lunch and the company supplied the beverages.
The variation in conditions produced extremely interesting results. The production of these girls climbed. Each test period had higher production records than the preceding one. Figure and Table present the general results.
However, to present the results of the second study in such an objective form as production records is to lose sight of the meaning and implications of the study.
The important qualitative aspects will therefore be summarized.
Periods 1 through 3 successfully accomplished the transfer of the girls from the factory to the test-room situation. A group formation began to take place among these girls. They were allowed to talk more freely, and the supervisor’s role, as they had known it, changed.
The second phase carried through four test periods and was mainly concerned with rest pauses. Although, on the basis of the data acquired. The experimenters believed that a rest periods should occur somewhere between 9:30 and 10 A.M., they had no idea as to where to place the afternoon rest pause. In accordance with the general policy followed in the test room, the girls were consulted. The girls suggested that rest periods occur at 10 A.M. and 2 P.M.
*Since output increased even though the rest period reduced the workweek from 48 to 47:05 hours per week, the two rest periods were doubled, the workweek thereby being reduced to 46:10 hours. An immediate and definite rise occurred in the average output. At this point the girls expressed happiness over the increase in production and earnings but disagreed among themselves as to how to explain it. They also showed some apprehension as to whether they really would receive the increased earnings-one girl said, “We earn 80 percent but we’ll only get 60 percent.”
The girls were offered the opportunity of getting their increases once a month but did not like the idea, for they believed that the company would find some way to avoid paying them. The experimenters State that these fears were irrational and unjustified; they sound as if they were proud that the girls were willing to express such fears. Right then they could have realized that the bonus system of payment was involved and that there was distrust. In this experiment the bonus idea was dropped. The implications are important and should be noted.
The girls were then put on six five-minute rest pauses, although they were unanimously in favor of two fifteen-minute periods. They did not favor this workday even though the workweek was reduced to 45:15 hours. Typical comments were:
“I’m getting ‘nuts’ on this job.” “I don’t know what I’m doing.” “I feel ‘goofy’ today.” “I don’t like these rest periods.” “I just get started to work and then have to stop.” In period 7 the workweek was increased to 45:40 hours and a mid-morning lunch was served. The girls favored this period.
Analyzing individual production records during these first seven periods shows that operators 3 and 4 tend consistently to increase production. Operator 5 tends to maintain production consistently with only one spurt. Operators 1A and 2 A are similar in production. Their trend is downward in periods 2 and 3, rises in 4 and 5, and drops in period 7. These two girls had been doing lost of free talking and were considered antagonistic and uncooperative . They were finally replaced in the experiment. This is another important clue that was overlooked by the experimenters.
The third phase of the Relay Assembly Test Room experiment was concerned with a shorter workweek (periods 8, 9, and 11). The three remaining periods (10, 12, 13) were checks. The operators were given the choice of starting work a half-hour later or ending a half-hour sooner. They chose the latter unanimously. This brought the workweek down to 43:10 hours. Output did not diminish and the girls liked the shorter schedule. Some comments were: “It’s fine, and we still make our rate too.” “I’ll never get tired of it. Last night I had a whole streetcar all to myself.” “I like it.” In period 9 the workday was reduced another half-hour, the total workweek being 40:40 hours. Although the girls were in favor of a shorter working day, this was “too drastic.” The total weekly output was lowered. The rate of output did not diminish, but the girls became quarrelsome. Operator 2, for example, scolded the other girls for not working hard enough. In period 10 they returned to the full 48-hour week with two rest periods of fifteen minutes in the morning with free lunch, and ten minutes in he afternoon. They did not like it; they claimed greater fatigue and expressed disinterest in their increased earning capacity. It is interesting to note that this “fatigue” was not mentioned in period 7, which was identical.
At this time the girls were given a questionnaire on health habits and psychological attitudes. They reported that they felt better in the test room but gave varied reasons. In answer to the question “What do you think has made it possible for you to increase your earnings since you have been on the test?” They replied: “Greater freedom,” “absence of bosses,” “more personal attention,” “opportunity to set one’s own pace.” Further questioning brought out the fact that freedom from rigid and excessive supervision was the important factor in determining the girls’ attitude toward work. In other words, rest pauses, a free lunch, shorter workweek, and higher pay did not, in the minds of these girls, count for as much as freedom from such supervision.
Period 11 introduced the five-day week with the same rest pauses an in periods 7. The girls were paid the basic hourly wage for the hours not worked on Saturday. No clear-cut drop in production was apparent; but since this period was disrupted by vacations, it is possible that it was introduced mainly as a “marking-time” period for all concerned. This is unfortunate in view of the popularity of the five-day week now, but in 1928 this was not so prevalent. Again, the experimenters missed an important clue.
