The following information, has been extracted from "Unit 3: Motivation and Individual Productivity" of the FEMA/USFA/NFA/Degrees at a Distance Program, Course Guide, Personnel Management for the Fire Service,January, 2000.

Before relating motivation theories to department life, the results of three classic research projects related to motivation should be examined briefly: The Hawthorne Effect; Theory X-Theory Y; and The Managerial Grid.

The Hawthorne Effect
During the early 1900s, gas and electric companies fought for control of the lighting business in industry and homes. Industries eventually turned to the less expensive tungsten filament electric light bulb. The electric companies predicted less energy usage due to the efficiency of the bulbs, and they began to advertise that better (more) illumination increased productivity, as had been stated in several studies funded by those same industries. To overcome skepticism, the electric companies formed a committee, with Thomas Edison as honorary chair, and convinced the National Academy of Sciences at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology to conduct additional studies. These studies took place at the Hawthorne Plant of Western Electric in Chicago, hence their name. Huse goes on to describe the studies and the apparent myths generated by them.

In all, seven studies took place at the Hawthorne plant between 1924 and 1932. A well-known early study involved a highly repetitive task—assembling telephone relays—done by six women. Accurate records were kept of such factors as light intensity, room temperature, humidity, and production. Production was measured by a continuously running output recorder, and information about the rate of production was available to the individual workers. As the research continued, the results became more puzzling; production rates kept rising no matter what was done. The researchers decided that illumination was not an important variable and began examining other factors, including weather conditions, wage payments, rest periods, and the workers' physical and emotional conditions. Apparently no single factor, least of all the level of lighting, could account for productivity levels.

Another widely reported study was done in the bank wiring observation room, where no changes were made in physical working conditions, methods of payment, or anything else. The workers were simply observed. There were only fourteen men in this department, and they were divided into three semi-autonomous but interdependent work groups. The men did piecework, and their output was easily measured. The study showed that the group had a clear-cut standard for production levels: a standard established by the group itself, not by management. Another finding, given little or no emphasis at the time, was that the workers did not increase productivity because of the observer's "interest."

For years, several important findings of the Hawthorne studies were reported in the literature as fact. Some major findings were that workers' individual characteristics and the social characteristics of both the work and its environment are highly important. "Solitary" people do not behave the same as people who belong to a group. The group itself is important. A group's production is better predicted by the standards or norms of the group than by incentive pay. Those who violate the group standards of productivity are likely to be punished in some way.

One of the most widely known "facts" about the studies is the "Hawthorne effect." A research or work situation involves the Hawthorne effect when workers' behavior changes and productivity increases because the workers are aware that persons important in their lives are taking an interest in them.

There have been many criticisms of the Hawthorne studies, including charges of scientific illiteracy, clinical bias, pro-management bias, and drawing unwarranted conclusions from groups as small as two to six workers. One specific example of an unwarranted conclusion is that output did not increase under all conditions. Rates of output dropped when piecework was eliminated, when the workday was lengthened, and when rest periods were eliminated. Furthermore, the researchers gave little attention to the importance of piecework rates, although in one of the studies an increase in piecework payment alone increased productivity by 12 percent in a few months. The conclusion that interest in the worker increases productivity clearly did not apply to the bank wiring observation room. Probably the major contribution of the Hawthorne studies (however poorly designed) was that they generated a great deal of interest in individual and group behavior.

The Hawthorne study suggests that positive work environment changes to benefit employee production may have an initial positive effect. Many current management theorists agree that a change of work environment, even to the point of creating chaos, can initiate a positive spurt of creative and productive energy. This is especially true when the leadership can promote the change process as a positive experience.

Theory X-Theory Y
In 1960, a psychologist named Douglas McGregor published a book, The Human Side of Enterprise.(4) The theories he described are still a part of management writings. Building on the earlier work of professors at Ohio State University, McGregor focused on the leadership act of "consideration," as it relates to mutual trust, respect, and consideration of others' feelings. McGregor categorized managers as having one of two possible beliefs about their workers. He termed these Theory X (authoritarian) and Theory Y (democratic).

Theory X is task-oriented and states that employees will not accomplish a task without a great deal of supervision and organizational mandates. The theory assumes that an employee's first inclination is to avoid work and that the tasks to be performed must be made priorities by the supervisor.

Theory Y assumes that people will work hard, take on increased responsibility, and are best "supervised" by their own internal controls. The theory is based on the interaction orientation in which a more democratic approach to supervision is considered the root of employee motivation.

Supervisors who align themselves closely with Theory X are controlling, directive, and push toward production. Theory Y-oriented supervisors are generally supportive of workers and provide minimal supervision. They are employee-centered, believing that production will stem from that.

McGregor described his "theories" not as distinct management styles, but as beliefs and values that influence management. Supervisors do not completely assume all of the traits of the X or Y theories. The theories simply describe traits of either task or interaction orientation.

After serving for six years as a college president, McGregor wrote that leaders must be more than advisors to their organizations, and that employee discord and disagreement may arise, in spite of a leader's good "human-relations" efforts. Leaders cannot avoid the exercise of authority. The tenets of both the X and Y theories should be blended into a leader's ability to build a productive team effort. We need both a clear understanding of the tasks to be achieved, and the ability to work toward productive results while exercising good humanitarian skills.

The Managerial Grid
Another classic in management research dealing with motivation of personnel was reported in 1964 by Robert R. Blake and Jane S. Mouton.(5) Their Managerial Grid illustrates the concern for people and the concern for production found in successful managers. There is an implication that the most successful managers emphasize both concerns strongly. This means that workers want leadership that provides good working conditions, job security, recognition, respect, and praise. It means that leaders should use management skills to push for production goals (however they may be defined) as well as team harmony.

Managerial Grid

The Managerial Grid recognizes the possibility that some managers may lean more toward one of the two concerns than the other, or that the leader's concerns may shift depending on the particular situation. An experienced leader can read the status of an organization and understand the current motivational experiences. Teams that were raised under a certain type of leadership orientation may not react well when exposed to another type of leadership (though the change of focus may be necessary).

Leaders should use the Managerial Grid more as a scale than as a thermostat that can be adjusted one way or the other. We cannot simply turn on the "X" or the "Y" to move the orientation to the most desirable position. The experiences that create a team feeling yielding an "X" or "Y" orientation are complicated and take years to develop. It is not uncommon for teams to take five to ten years to adjust to a different leadership style

Bakke's Contributions
Besides the three classic research projects on motivation described above, E. Wight Bakke(6) proposed a concept that helps explain what may underlie work behavior, and thus productivity. This concept deals with the conflicts resulting from the mixture of organizational and individual demands.

Organizational leadership impresses a pattern upon the individual employee and attempts to make the person an agent who will work toward the department goals. Conversely, the employee seeks to impress an orientation pattern upon the organization for personal purposes. The simultaneous operation of these two processes reconstructs both the individual and the organization in what Bakke terms a fusing of the two.

This "fusion process" implies that the goals and aspirations of both the department and its individual personnel are modified over time, probably because of their own counterbalancing pressures. Neither gets exactly what it sets out to achieve. Of course, sometimes the will of the organization is stronger, and dominates. In other cases workers' goals are obtained that may be different from organizational purposes.

ENDNOTES

4. D. McGregor, The Human Side of Enterprise. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1960.
5. R.R. Blake and J.S. Mouton, The Managerial Grid. Houston, TX: Gulf Publishing, 1964.
6. E.W. Bakke, The Fusion Process. New Haven, CT: Yale University, 1953. See also C. Argyris. Personality and Organization. New York: Harper and Row, 1957.