OT

-

• Fritz J. Roethlisberger
• William J. Dickson
• Elton Mayo (later involvement in the experiments)

• Illumination Experiment
• Bank Wiring Experiments
• Phase 1: Relais Assembly Test
• Phase 2: Relais Assembly Test
• Phase 3: Mica-Splitting Test

Purpose: Effect of light intensity on workers' productivity

Result: Increased productivity of all groups

Interpretation: Effect of socio-psychological factors on workers' productivity

Puropse: Effect of distribution/lenght of breaks and working hours on productivity (controlling for socio-psychological influences)

Variation measured:

• Breaks and working hours (intended)
• Change of payment plans (unintended)
• Confidence building measures (unintended)
• Change of working place to laboratory (unintended)

Result: 30% increase in output (after 2 years)

Interpretation: Increasing efficiency is primarliy explained by socio-psychological factors (but simultaneous variation of several variables)

Purpose: Clarifying the results of phase 1 and testing solely for the effects of payment

Variations measured: Change of payment plans

Result: Immediate increase in output of 13%

Consequence: experiment had to be terminated since the difference in payment plans between the members of the test group and "normal" workers provoked agitation.

Purpose: Clarifying the result from phase 1

Variations measured:

• Breaks and working hours (intended)
• Change of working place (intended)
• Confidence building measures (intended)

Result: 15% increase in output (15 months)

Interpretation: max. 15% of the increase in output is caused by monetary incentives; remaining 15% of the increase has mostly socio-psychological reasons. (But task and payment plan are different from phase 1)

Phase 1: 30% because of all the factors (Breaks & working hours, socio-psychological factors and payment plans)

Phase 2: 13% because of the payment plans

Phase 3: 15% because of the breaks & working hours and socio-psychological factors

Purpose: Influence of group behavior on productivity

Result:

• Emergence of norms of appropriate daily output
• Manipulative stabilization of level of daily output
• Creation of capacity reserves
• Influence of personal relations on quality tests

Consequence: Discovery of "the informal organization"

Informal aspects are no longer considered solely as causing problems in the organization

Existence of a "human" organization besides the technical one:

• The organizational reality comprises more than the formal and technical structure
• Readiness to work is dependent on the "informal organizaiton" (social conventions, rules, traditions, personal relationships)
• Possibility to increase output through attention to employee's social needs

-

1. Systematic mitigation of the effects of factors other than social-psychological ones (e.g. wage increase, breaks)
2. "Employee-oriented leadership" is in fact not all the time as employee-oriented as declared

Purpose: Secondary data analysis on the Relais Assembly Experiments/ Phase 1

Results: Three variables explain most of the observed effects:

1. Disciplinary reassured of the management
2. Impact of the economic depression
3. Recreation breaks

Interpretation: Socio-psychological factors and variations in wages have little effect

Academic objectives get mixed with the propagation of social reform

-

• Integration of socio-psychological factors into organization research
• Discovery of the "informal organization"
• Switch from the concept of "economic man" to the concept of "social man"

-

-

• Trend for empirical methods
• Higher employee qualification
• More complex organizations
• Progess of IT-systems and static software

→ Empirical analysis of organizational structures

Starting point is the attempt to test Max Weber's description of bureaucracy

• Experiments not applicable in context of larger structures
• Transformation to "exact and objective science

-

• How can you describe and operationalize organizational structures to account for differences between organizations in empirical analysis?
• Which organizational and environmental contingencies can explain differences between organization structures?
• What effect do specific structures and environments have on the behavior of the organizational members and efficiency? Is there one particularly efficient structure for every contingency?

• of the situation (i.e. contingencies) on the organizational structure
• of the organizational structure on behaviour
• ot the behaviour efficiency

→ derived empirically rather than theoretically

• product range
• size
• production and IT technology
• legal form and ownership
• age

• competition
• customers
• technical progress
• society
• culture

1. Specialization (division of labour)
2. Standardization (procedure directives)
3. Formalization (*the files")
4. Centralization (locus of authority to make decisions)
5. Configuration ("shape" of the role structure)
6. Coordination

Organizational Structure → Behaviour of Members (?) → Degree of Organizational Efficiency

Operationalization of the structure's influence on behaviour and on efficiency is problematic!

-

• higher degree of specialization: more positions
• higher degree of coordination: greater hetrogeneity of positions
• higher degree of formalization
• lower degree of centralization

positive correlation between size (more employees) and specialization

Shop Fabrication:

1. Low
2. High
3. Personal instruction, self-determination

Assembly Line

1. High
2. Production: low; Divisions: high
3. Program, plan

Automation

1. low
2. Production: low
3. Personal instruction, planning, mutual adjustment

→ Production technology influences structure!