morgan management concepts

+Home  +Programs  +About Us  +Services  +Resources  +Contact Us

Studies in Motivation and Behavior
Compiled by Don Morgan, Ph.D.

Morgan Management Consulting provides busy executives with insight and systems to more effectively manage their organizations. Many organizations promote their most competent engineers, accountants, technicians and professional employees into management positions. Prior to becoming a manager, it was all about one’s own work. As a leader, it is all about them. As a manager, there is never enough time to prepare.  It is not feasible to go back for an MBA. We can help.

We provide summaries of landmark management research and theory as sort of a crash course for busy leaders. We design programs and systems to implement concepts derived from the research findings and management theories. We train consultants and in-house facilitators to implement our programs. This article is a digest of landmark studies that are the basis of effective management practices. 

Scientific Management

This philosophy and methods stressed the scientific study and organization of work at the operational level for improving efficiency. It is associated with Frederick Winslow Taylor who is called the “Father of Scientific Management.” The scientific management movement dominated management theory from 1880 to 1930. Scientific Management has contributed the following techniques that are used even today:

  • Scientific method of doing work
  • Planning tasks
  • Standardization
  • Specialization and division of labor

This approach has dehumanized workers by treating them as interchangeable factors of production. It was believed that workers were motivated by the need for money. Scientific management is personified by a person holding a stop watch and a clipboard. When I worked for the US Postal service, efficiency experts were busy counting our steps as we worked our routes. A seasoned carrier called me aside during my first week on the job and told me that if I ever saw anyone watching me, to walk at a normal, unhurried pace and to avoid taking shortcuts. He said that if I hurried, then I would be expected to work at that pace all the time. If I walked too slowly or loafed, I would be disciplined.

An experiment by Elton Mayo and W. Lloyd Warner between 1931 and 1932 found that although the workers were paid according to individual productivity, productivity did not go up. The men were afraid that the company would change the base rate. They formed cliques, ostracized coworkers, and created a social hierarchy that was only partly related to the difference in their jobs. The cliques served to control group members and to manage bosses; when bosses asked questions, clique members gave the same responses, even if they were untrue.

When I worked for Swift and Company, a meat packing plant in South Saint Paul, Minnesota, we had a bonus system. Each job had a production standard that we were expected to meet. My crew was in shipping. We usually finished packing the orders for the day with time to spare. We never qualified for bonuses because there wasn’t enough work for us to do beyond the established standard. One of the best jobs at Swift was that of janitor. When the janitor finished cleaning early, he started over and kept on cleaning and accumulating “Bs” (our name for bonus points) for cleaning more areas than the standard number. Elements of scientific management still exist in many organizations.

The Hawthorne Studies

Starting in 1924, Harvard professor Elton Mayo and his associates conducted a decade-long series of experiments to demonstrate that factors other than money also influenced worker productivity. By manipulating such factors as lighting and rest periods, they could prove the importance of adequate working environments. The Hawthorne Studies challenged the scientific management paradigm that workers were primarily economic beings who worked solely for money. The landmark research was conducted at the Hawthorne Works of the Western Electric Company near Chicago. 

The researchers refused to accept defeat when experiments to demonstrate the effect of illumination on work seemed to lead nowhere. The conditions of scientific experiment had been fulfilled—experimental room, control room; changes introduced one at a time; all other conditions held steady. The results were perplexing. With improved lighting in the experimental room, production went up; but it rose also in the control room. Then when the lighting was turned down from 10 foot-candles to 3 foot-candles, production went higher.  Illumination in the control room was held constant, and production also rose there.

They conducted additional experiments and got similar results. Changing a variable increased productivity, even when the variable was changed back to the original condition or to a worse condition. Researchers were at a loss to explain the increased productivity.

At every point in the program, the workers had been consulted with respect to proposed changes; they had arrived at the point of free expression of feelings and ideas to management. During the whole time there was no downward trend. The interviewers were specially trained in how to listen. The Hawthorne research protocol included the following five rules for interviewing.

  • Give your whole attention to the person interviewed, and make it evident that you are doing so.
  • Listen—don’t talk.
  • Never argue; never give advice.
  • Listen to:
    • What he wants to say.
    • What he does not want to say.
    • What he cannot say without help.
  • As you listen, plot out tentatively and for subsequent correction the pattern (personal) that is being set before you. To test this, from time to time summarize what has been said and present for comment (e.g., “Is this what you are telling me?”). Always do this with the greatest caution, that is, clarify but do not add or twist.

Mayo’s instructions to the Hawthorne interviewers are very similar to the instructions for ”Active Listening” as advocated years later by Carl Rogers and which serve as one of the major skills taught by Thomas Gordon in “Leader Effectiveness Training.”  Active listening is one of the essential skills for leaders in the “Leadership By Objectives” program available from Morgan Management Consulting.

    Studs Terkel found that conventional interviews were meaningless.  Conditioned clichés were certain to come.  “The question-and-answer technique may be of some value in determining favored detergents, toothpaste and deodorants, but not in the discovery of men and women.” (Working, 1972, p. xxv)

Workers wanted to talk, and talked freely. The interviewers were intelligent, attentive, and eager to listen without interruption to all that the workers had to say. They felt themselves to be participating freely and without afterthought, and were happy in the knowledge that they were working without coercion from above or limitation from below.

In summary, there were many different experiments conducted on employees, but the purpose of the original ones was to study the effect of lighting on workers’ productivity. When researchers found that productivity increased, no matter what the level of illumination was, a second set of experiments began.  They experimented on other types of changes in the working environment. No matter the changed conditions, the workers produced more. The researchers reported that they had accidentally found a way to increase productivity. The effect was an important milestone in industrial and organizational psychology and in organizational behavior.

Mayo says that the workers felt better in the situation, because of the sympathy and interest of the observers. It is not so much an experimenter effect as it is a management effect: how management can make workers perform differently because they feel differently. It has a lot to do with feeling free, not feeling supervised closely and more in control as a group. The experimental manipulations were important in convincing the workers to feel that conditions were different. The experiment was repeated in other settings and the results were similar.

The Hawthorne Studies led to four unexpected discoveries. First, the unique listening technique aided individuals to get rid of useless emotional complications and to state the problem clearly—much more effective than advice accepted from another. Second, the process facilitated communication with others—fellow workers and supervisors. Third, the listening technique developed interest in and capacity to work effectively with management. Fourth, the process was and still is of considerable importance for training leaders.

Studs Terkel’s Working

The popular best seller Working: People Talk About What They Do All Day and How They Feel About What They Do (1972) presents the text of Terkel’s interviews with 134 people from a cross section of Chicago area working people.  His subjects were farmers, truck drivers, executives, waitresses, policemen, publishers, brokers, professional athletes, and representatives from a myriad of other careers. The book explores what makes work meaningful for people in all walks of life. It is about a search, too, for daily meaning as well as daily bread, for recognition as well as cash, for astonishment rather than torpor; in short, for a sort of life rather than a Monday through Friday sort of dying.

Terkel’s approach was an unstructured casual conversation with an audio recorder taping the stories of working people.  He penetrated the thought and feeling of American workers. Although not considered “research” in the academic sense, the book has captured the feelings and flavor of in a pure form. The following quotes show the authenticity, depth, and richness of the interviews.

Ralph Helstein said, “Learning is work. Caring for children is work.  Community action is work. Once we accept the concept of work as something meaningful—not just as the source of a buck—you don’t have to worry about finding enough jobs” (p. xxviii). Nora Watson said, “I think most of us are looking for a calling, not a job. Most of us, like the assembly line worker, have jobs that are too small for our spirit. Jobs are not big enough for people” (p. 675).

The problem, Lilith Reynolds observed, is that, “An employee’s advancement depends on what his supervisor thinks of him, not on what the people working for him think. So the best thing to do is not challenge the system, not make waves. His future depends on being nice to people who are making the decisions to make the cuts that are hurting his employees. So he’s silent. But the people down here who know what’s going on, make waves. So the director tries to get rid of the most troublesome” (p. 452). Walter Lundquist, who gave up a “safe” job for “sanity,” put it this way: “Once you wake up the human animal you can’t put it back to sleep again” (p. 682).

The importance of listening was noted by Terkel. “My experiences tell me that people with buried grievances and dreams unexpressed do want to let go.  Let things out. Lance the boil, they say; there is too much puss” (p. xxiv). “I was constantly astonished by the extraordinary dreams of ordinary people” (p. xxix).

Herzberg’s Two-Factor Theory

Starting in 1959, Frederick Herzberg conducted 12 studies involving 1685 participants. Most subjects were specialists and professionals. Specifically, the 1685 participants were supervisors, professional women, administrators, managers, hospital employees, nurses, food handlers, military officers, engineers, scientists, house keepers, teachers, technicians, female assemblers, accountants, and foremen.

The studies validated Maslow’s hierarchy of needs. Herzberg's original 1959 study surveyed 200 Pittsburgh engineers and accountants. He demonstrated that satisfaction and dissatisfaction at work arose from different factors, and were not simply opposing reactions to the same factors, as was believed.  He showed that certain factors truly motivate ('motivators'), where the inadequacy of a different set of factors lead to dissatisfaction (hygiene factors).

According to Herzberg, man has two sets of needs; one as an animal to avoid pain, and two as a human being to grow psychologically. This parallels Maslow’s hierarchy. Herzberg's ideas relate strongly to modern ethical management and social responsibility.

A half-century later, many managers in businesses and organizations still do not grasp the concepts that are more relevant now than when first suggested.  For most people money is not a motivator—despite what they might think and say.

Herzberg's research proved that people will strive to achieve 'hygiene' needs because they are unhappy without them, but once satisfied the effect soon wears off and satisfaction is temporary. Poorly managed organizations fail to understand that people are not 'motivated' by addressing 'hygiene' needs.  People are motivated by real motivators, such as personal growth, development, etc.—deeper levels of meaning and fulfillment. Herzberg pioneered “job enrichment.” Examples of Herzberg's 'hygiene' needs (or maintenance factors) in the workplace are:

  • policy
  • relationship with supervisor
  • work conditions
  • salary
  • company car
  • status
  • security
  • relationship with subordinates
  • personal life

For all people there are bigger more sustaining motivators than money.  Herzberg's research identified true motivators listed below:

  • achievement
  • recognition
  • the work itself
  • responsibility
  • advancement
  • personal growth

Recent studies support Herzberg’s Two-Factor Theory. A Development Dimensions International survey published in the UK Times (2004) interviewed 1,000 staff from companies employing more than 500 workers, and found many to be bored, lacking commitment and looking for new jobs.  Pay came in fifth as the reasons people gave for leaving their jobs. The main reasons were lack of stimulating jobs and no opportunity for advancement—43 percent left for better promotion chances, 28% for more challenging work, 23% for a more exciting place to work, and 21% for more varied work.

If you think money brings satisfaction, consider the situation of many big lottery prize winners who give up their jobs. Some do not because they know their work is part of their purpose in life. Others buy or start their own businesses.  They are pursuing their dream to achieve something special for them. The motivation is not to make money, or they would just keep what they've got?  Why take a risk on a project that will involve lots of effort and personal commitment? People invest in ventures for achievement, responsibility, personal growth, etc., the real motivators. The people who focus on spending their money are usually unhappy. The lottery prize-winners who give up work and pursue material lifestyles find life empty and meaningless. Spending money is not enough to sustain the human spirit. Money is important if you are in need, but it is not a sustainable motivator in itself. 

If you think that empowering employees will erode a leader’s power, consider the influence inherent in expectations as discovered in the studies that follow.

Jastrow's Expectancy Effect

Workers were being trained on the then new IBM Hollerith punch card machines in the US census bureau.  The first group was expected by the inventor to produce 550 per day, and did so, but had great difficulty in improving on that. However a second group of keypunchers who were isolated from the expectation were soon doing 2100 per day.  (In Rosenthal & Jacobson, Pygmalion In The Classroom, 1968)

The Pygmalion Effect

The "expectancy advantage" is a self-fulfilling prophecy. Teachers' expectations strongly affect pupil development. Rosenthal and Jacobson (Pygmalion In The Classroom, 1968) demonstrated that if teachers were led to expect enhanced performance from some children, then the children did indeed show that progress, which was about twice that of other children in the same class.

The biggest study was at "Oak School," a US primary school. Teachers were deceived into believing that a set of one fifth of their class were expected to develop much faster than the rest, as measured by IQ points. In fact, this set was selected randomly. They did “blind” retesting by an examiner who was not the teacher, and who did not know which children were “superior,” and got results showing an even greater difference.

Rosenthal and Jacobson’s study is the biggest and most scientific of expectancy studies. The Pygmalion effect has been demonstrated in a university setting and in an Air Force Academy algebra class.

Leaders need to understand the influence they exert, even unconsciously, over others.  When workers are closely supervised, they tend to follow directions without thinking.  People seem to be preconditioned to blindly follow their leaders rather than to think through their behavior.  We play our roles all too well, as demonstrated in the following studies.

The Milgram experiments

At Yale University, psychologist Stanley Milgram measured the willingness of participants to obey an authority figure who instructed them to perform acts that conflicted with their personal conscience (Source: Wikipedia). The experiments began in July 1961, three months after the start of the trial of Nazi war criminal Adolf Eichmann. Milgram devised the experiments to answer this question: "Could it be that Eichmann and his million accomplices in the Holocaust were just following orders? Could we call them all accomplices?"

In The Perils of Obedience (1974), Milgram wrote, “I set up a simple experiment at Yale University to test how much pain an ordinary citizen would inflict on another person simply because he was ordered to by an experimental scientist. Stark authority was pitted against the subjects' strongest moral imperatives against hurting others, and, with the subjects' ears ringing with the screams of the victims, authority won more often than not. The extreme willingness of adults to go to almost any lengths on the command of an authority constitutes the chief finding of the study and the fact most urgently demanding explanation. Ordinary people, simply doing their jobs and without any hostility on their part, can become agents in a terrible destructive process. Moreover, even when the destructive effects of their work become patently clear, and they are asked to carry out actions incompatible with fundamental standards of morality, relatively few people have the resources needed to resist authority.”

The teacher (participant) was given a list of word pairs which he was to teach the learner (confederate). The teacher read the list of word pairs to the learner.  The teacher would then read the first word of each pair and read four possible answers. The learner would press a button to indicate his response.  If the answer was incorrect, the teacher administered an “electrical Jolt” to the learner, with the voltage increasing with each wrong answer. If correct, the teacher moved on and read the next word pair.

The subjects believed that for each wrong answer, the learner was receiving actual shocks. In reality, there were no shocks. After the confederate was separated from the subject, the confederate set up a tape recorder integrated with the electro-shock generator, which played pre-recorded sounds for each shock level. After a number of voltage level increases, the actor started to bang on the wall that separated him from the subject. After several times banging on the wall and complaining about his heart condition, the learner gave no further responses to questions and no further complaints.
At this point, many people indicated their desire to stop. Most continued after being assured that they would not be held responsible. If at any time the subject indicated his desire to halt the experiment, he was given a succession of verbal prods by the experimenter, in this order:

  • Please continue.
  • The experiment requires that you continue.
  • It is absolutely essential that you continue.
  • You have no other choice, you must go on.

If the subject still wished to stop after all four successive verbal prods, the experiment was halted. Otherwise, it was halted after the subject had given the maximum 450-volt shock. In Milgram's first set of experiments, 65 percent (26 out of 40) of experimental participants administered the experiment's final 450-volt shock.

The Stanford Prison Experiment

In 1971, Philip Zimbardo of Stanford University conducted a study to explain conflict in the Marine Corps prison system. The research was funded by the U.S. Navy. Twenty-one male volunteers were divided at random into groups of "prisoners" and "guards," and lived in a mock prison in the basement of the Stanford psychology building. Prisoners and guards rapidly adapted to their assigned roles, stepping beyond the boundaries of what had been predicted and leading to genuinely dangerous and psychologically damaging situations. One-third of guards were judged to have exhibited "genuine" sadistic tendencies, while many prisoners were emotionally traumatized and two had to be removed from the experiment early.

Interestingly, prisoners later said they thought the guards had been chosen for their larger physical size, but in reality they had been picked by a fair coin toss and there was no objective difference in stature between the two groups.  Despite the highly unsanitary and out-of-control conditions evident, only one of 50 observers, graduate interviewer Christina Maslach, objected to the experiment.  Zimbardo then ended the experiment early.

The day before the experiment, guards attended a brief orientation meeting, but were given no formal guidelines other than that no physical violence was permitted. They were told it was their responsibility to run the prison, which they could do in any way they wished. Zimbardo briefed the guards: “You can create in the prisoners’ feelings of boredom, a sense of fear to some degree, you can create a notion of arbitrariness that their life is totally controlled by us, by the system, you, me, and they'll have no privacy... We're going to take away their individuality in various ways. In general what all this leads to is a sense of powerlessness. That is, in this situation we'll have all the power and they'll have none.” (The Stanford Prison Study, Haslam & Reicher, 2003)

The experiment very quickly got out of hand. Prisoners suffered—and accepted—sadistic and humiliating treatment at the hands of the guards, and by the end many showed severe emotional disturbance. Zimbardo decided to terminate the experiment early when Christina Maslach, a graduate student previously unfamiliar with the experiment, objected to the appalling conditions of the "prison" when she was brought in to conduct interviews. Zimbardo has noted that of the over fifty outsiders who had seen the prison, she was the only one who ever questioned its morality. After only six days of the planned two weeks, the experiment was shut down.

From the research we gain insights into the power of authority and the impressionability and obedience of people in a legitimizing social or institutional setting.

For more complete descriptions of the research presented above, I recommend the following sources:
 
www.businessballs.com
http://wikipedia.org

This is a work in progress. If you come across any research that you think should be included please contact us. The Organizational Theory page contains brief descriptions of Maslow’s hierarchy, McGregor’s X-Y Theory, Tuckman’s Forming-Storming-Norming-Performing model of group dynamics, and other theories.

About Us  +  Services  +  Contact Us

Copyright © Don L. Morgan, 2007. All rights reserved.