Mark Shead at Productivity 501 writes:

The Hawthorne effect refers to some studies that were done on how training impacts employees’ productivity at work. The studies found that sending someone to training produces employees that work harder. The funny part about it is that you still get the productivity increase even if the training doesn’t teach them how to be better at their jobs. Sending someone to training helps them feel like they are important, like the company is investing in them and they are valuable. Because of this, they work harder.

There’s an explanatory note at the bottom of Shead’s post pointing out the original tests were to do with changing light levels. You can read Shead’s original story at Hawthorne Effect : Productivity501.

It’s also worth reading the Wikipedia entry on the Hawthorne effect. There’s also a good definition of the effect at Donald Clark’s site: The Hawthorne effect.  Clark writes:

The Hawthorne effect – an increase in worker productivity produced by the psychological stimulus of being singled out and made to feel important.

Clarke links The Hawthorne effect to work done by Frederick Taylor who gave birth to the idea of industrial psychology.

My own common sense experience as a manager says you should be paying attention to workers as a matter of course. Sadly this isn’t obvious to everyone and it certainly wasn’t back in the 1920s and 1930s when these ideas were fresh and new. My view is that if the Hawthorne effect is apparent among knowledge workers at your workplace, it’s a sign you aren’t managing people correctly.

See also: Taylor’s scientific management doesn’t apply to knowledge work

Related articles by Zemanta

• Peter Drucker says knowledge workers are an asset (billbennett.co.nz)

Management guru Douglas McGregor first described his two different styles of management,  Theory X and Theory Y in his 1960 book; “The Human Side of Enterprise”.

Theory X says people dislike work and try to avoid it.

Which means:

1. Because people hate work, bosses must force, threaten or bribe them before they work hard enough.
2. People like being ordered about. They seek security in authority and go out of their way to avoid responsibility.
3. Money is the main motivating force. Personal security comes second.
4. The only creativity most people display is avoiding work or finding ways around management edicts.

On the other hand Theory Y says people need to work as much as they need to rest or play. Work is an important part of a person’s psychological growth; many people find it interesting and even enjoy working.

This gives rise to four statements which contrast with their Theory X equivalents:

1. People are generally happy to direct themselves towards any acceptable goal or target.
2. Self-discipline is more effective and often more severe than external direction. Under the right conditions people will seek out and accept responsibility.
3. Once they’ve met certain basic needs, people are motivated more by their internal need to realise their full potential than any base incentive.
4. Everyone is basically creative and capable of intelligence, most of the time these qualities are underused.

McGregor regards the two theories as basic attitudes. Most managers fall squarely into one camp or the other but  the theory followed can depend on circumstances.

For example, armed services depend on Theory X, so do many factory managers.

Although his research took place before modern knowledge-based industries appeared, McGregor recognised Theory Y style management as better for problem solving. Most knowledge workers work along Theory Y lines however there are still some companies and people subscribing to Theory X.

McGregor believed if you treat people according to one of these theories, they’d act as expected. In other words, if you assume people are lazy, they will be.

Douglas McGregor Wikipedia entry

Related articles by Zemanta

• Johnny Moore’s tyranny of the explicit (billbennett.co.nz)
• Peter Drucker: The comeback charlatan (billbennett.co.nz)

It’s an oversimplification, but Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs says that you can figure out how people will behave at any moment by looking at their underlying needs. Maslow believed, for example, a starving person would find food first, putting aside every other consideration including social niceties.

While Maslow’s theory has its uses, most modern management experts and psychologists regard it with suspicion. One obvious criticism is that the hierarchy doesn’t take into account acts of selflessness, bravery, charity and heroism.

You might ask yourself why some German citizens hid Jews from the Nazis. Or why starving servicemen in Japanese prisoner of war camps would give up their own food supplies to help the weak and dying. But then most economists and biologists would also find these seemingly irrational acts hard to explain.

Likewise, many of the best and most creative painters and poets – who Maslow would describe as self-actualising – were in fact starving in attics when they did their best work. Where does Vincent van Gogh sit on the hierarchy of needs?

And we can all think of examples of filmmakers, musicians and other artists whose creativity dried up when they hit the big time. Years ago I worked as a music journalist and discovered that many financially challenged rock bands would deliver a brilliant first album, score a huge contract and then wallow self-indulgently in the studio for album number two. Many never got the opportunity to make a third record.

Jim Clemmer and Art MacNeil make an important criticism of Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs theory in their book “Leadership skills for Every Manager” (ISBN 0861889630). The book is out of print, but you may find a copy of it in a decent university library (If you’ve got it and no longer want it, get in touch with me).

Clemmer and McNeil suggest that Manslow misses the point because he left people’s spiritual dimension out of the picture. They say that humans look for meaning in their lives and that meaning transcends any animalistic drives. In their words, “even starving people are not immune to the lure of higher values.” Think about van Gogh.

A more scientific criticism was published in the 1977 edition of the learned journal, “The Annual Review of Psychology”. Here, A.K. Korman, J.H. Greenhaus and I.J. Badin wrote that there’s no empirical (that is, researched) evidence to support Maslow’s ideas. In fact, they argue the empirical evidence points in the opposite direction. Other critics have pointed out that Manslow came up with his theories after observing only a handful of people and it lacks scientific rigor.

We’ll leave these debates for the academics. In my opinion, the important thing about Maslow’s idea is that it is a good, maybe crude, starting point for understanding what drives other people. From our point of view, managing and motivating other Knowledge Workers, the Hierarchy of Needs provides a useful template that can help explain how and why people behave.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Maslow’s hierarchy for geeks on the road (hyperorg.com)
• maslow’s hierarchy of needs (counselingonlinesite.com)
• Where I Tell Maslow and Career Gurus to Suck It (punkrockhr.com)

In Good Boss, Bad Boss published by Psychology Today, writer Willow Lawson explains your personal relationship with your immediate boss has a huge influence on both your working life and your private life. If the boss is unhappy, he or she will bring you down. The story also reveals a Gallop poll showing bad relationships with the boss is the number one reason people quit.

In romantic relationships, emotions are symbiotic. If one partner is feeling bad, the other suffers. One person’s good mood can give the other a lift, too. But between boss and employee, emotion tends to flow in one direction—downhill. A supervisor’s negativity pools with employees like stagnant water.

Read the full story at Psychology Today.