Search results

This paper aims to conduct a historical study using both primary (archival data) and secondary sources to evaluate the social conditions of the community of employees at Hawthorne Works between 1907 and 1933.

This paper evaluates the historical and social context of the 1915 Eastland disaster, specifically, the effects of the Eastland disaster on the community and the company to improve understanding of the contextual background and conditions which influenced the Hawthorne studies. This will also serve as a case study of crisis management.

The findings of the paper argue that the Eastland disaster likely contributed to the expansion of welfare capitalism practices by Western Electric in the 1920s–1930s and established the social and communal conditions which made the Hawthorne studies (1924–1933) possible.

Rather than evaluating the Hawthorne studies themselves, this paper focuses on social factors which made the Hawthorne Works plant site and the community serving it an ideal locale to host the famous studies as part of Western Electric’s practice of welfare capitalism and a distraction from the traumatic event which scarred the community and urged the Western Electric company to react. This study also provides an early example of crisis management.

The purpose of this paper is to suggest Homans’ social exchange theory (SET), a management theory, as an explanation for some of the findings of some of the Hawthorne experiments (1924-1933), which demonstrated how social situations play an important role in task performance and productivity and how social exchanges can facilitate it. The authors also use SET to investigate Elton Mayo’s inquiry as to what caused spontaneous cooperation in Hawthorne.

The authors used a combination of published work by Homans, Roethlisberger and Dickson, Mayo and others, as well as oral histories conducted by Greenwood and Bolton in 1982-1984, to argue that some of the Hawthorne studies illustrate the principles of SET. Homans’ SET brought together concepts from multiple disciplines and offered a framework to explain social behaviors.

The relay assembly room and the bank wiring tests of Hawthorne studies can illustrate SET as developed by Homans. With the development of SET, Homans not only provided explanations for the creation of strong feelings of affiliation and trust through interactions and mutual dependence between group members but also provided evidence to Mayo’s concept of spontaneous collaboration.

The limitations of the paper are that the studies themselves can lend themselves to multiple perspectives due to design flaws. Therefore, our argument is only one interpretation – even if it is something that the researchers would have supported.

The paper augments the ongoing discussion about the Hawthorne studies in the literature and in the development of management theories such as SET. The authors provide support that it is through the attempts to explain the Hawthorne studies and the post-Second World War controversies over the studies that Homans developed social exchange. Building on previous work, the methods show perspectives beyond the motivations and sentiments of Homans by demonstrating observable behaviors from the Hawthorne studies.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

The purpose of this paper is to trace Douglas McGregor's Theory Y thinking back from pre‐industrial revolution philosophers up through McGregor and his contemporaries and to explore how Theory Y evolved after its introduction.

This is a review article relying on literature reviews and synthesizing concepts and ideas from related sources.

This article examines the emergence of Theory Y as one of the hallmark relationship management principles of the last half of the 20th century. McGregor stands in a unique place in management history. He has one foot in the early human relations movement, and another foot in the movement of scholars who advocated a heightened awareness of management's responsibility for the human side of employer‐employee relations. McGregor serves as a true facilitator for growth and advancement in the field of management, in general, and human relations, in particular.

This paper holds value to management scholars and practitioners in its utility as a means of tracing the evolution of one of the most important management concepts of the last half of the 20th century. While it may lack in originality (a flaw in many historical reviews) it certainly addresses important issues and provides a path for understanding the development of a key management concept (Theory Y).

The Holy Grail of leadership learning is to stimulate behavioural changes that continue beyond the learning environment into the workplace, ultimately leading to improved productivity and value. The purpose of this paper is to explore the interface between emotion and leadership learning and provides evidence from research undertaken in Wales (UK) to support further research on the use of emotion in this endeavour.

Unique access to a successful programme of guided leadership development for owner-managers of small and medium sized enterprises (SMEs) in Wales, UK, provided an opportunity to observe emotion being used and experienced by both learners and trainers. Literature reviews were used to inform initial inferences made during participant observations of a sample of the learners (n=91). Focus groups were undertaken with a sample (n=27) of participants in order to determine the emotional impact and perceived effectiveness of the method by the learners.

The data corroborated the authors’ observations that emotion plays a role in the leadership practice of the learners and in the learning process. No appropriate conceptual model exists that describes this learning method or its mode of impact upon learning. A gap exists in the academic understanding of this observed social reality and multi-disciplinary research is required in order to further characterise and understand it.

Improvements in leadership have been consistently linked to improvements in firm performance. Bringing new insights that lead to effective learning and constructive behaviour changes in the leaders of SMEs and their employees could have profound positive impacts on entrepreneurial economies.

This novel perspective on leadership development within the life world of the entrepreneur moves away from the established literature which has traditionally focused on cognitive or conative constructs, often focused on the corporate or large organisation leader, and calls for further research into the synthesis of leadership, entrepreneurship and emotion.

This paper seeks to analyze the contribution that the Hawthorne studies made to the discipline of management. The recent scholarly trend has been to attack the Hawthorne studies on the grounds of methodology and originality. However, the only way to accurately view the Hawthorne studies is to recreate the intellectual environment in which the studies were conducted. Why did this version of human relations rather than Dennison's or Williams's emerge as the scholarly contribution?

Both primary and secondary sources were utilized in the research. The focus was from the time period of 1930 to 1958. More contemporary work was considered as well.

Contemporary scholars viewed Hawthorne as being more thorough and complete than previous work. They also viewed the study as a contribution in light of some methodological issues and political biases.

Performing temporal analysis allows the perceived strengths and weaknesses of scholarly works to become more apparent.

Previous accounts of the Hawthorne studies have mostly studied their impact on practitioners. This study examines the impact on scholars.

Elton Mayo was a professor at a prestigious university, but not a researcher; a scholar, but more concerned with executives; a capitalist, but someone who downplayed monetary incentives; an insider, but someone whose own background was more of an outsider. These contradictions have resulted in scholars questioning Mayo’s impact on the field of management. Thus, this paper aims to critically review Mayo and his contributions to management through a lens calibrated to the context of his time, providing a more contextually accurate view of Mayo and his work and offering a clearer view of his meaningful impact on the field.

Using a combination of primary and secondary sources, the authors connect otherwise disparate information to critically review Mayo’s work within the context of its era.

The authors’ critical review of Mayo identified nine topical areas where Mayo and/or his work have been misunderstood or misinterpreted. For each area, the authors offer a more contextualized and appropriate interpretation of Mayo and his viewpoints, and thus more accurately informing the management literature.

This paper is the first to thoroughly revisit Mayo and his work through a contextualized lens, offering a more informed view of why Mayo’s seemingly controversial behaviors were actually quite standard behaviors given his context.