UPI Study › Courses › Human Resources Management › Free lessons › Lesson 3.5 Free with a free account
How the Human Relations Movement Changed the Way Companies Treat Workers
Human Resources Management · Chapter 3: How Management Theories Shape the Way Jobs Are Built and OrganizedSection 3.5 · lesson 15 of 9115 min · free with a free account
Free preview
Create a free account to keep watching
It takes a minute and costs nothing. Your free account unlocks all of Chapter 1 and 3 more lessons of Human Resources Management.
Lesson complete
Earn the 3 college credits for Human Resources Management
Enrolling adds a quiz after each lesson, the graded work and the official transcript. Recommended for credit by NCCRS.
Next lesson: McGregor’s Theory X and Theory Y: Two Views of Employees →← Fayol’s Rules for Organizing Work Across DepartmentsNext lesson: McGregor’s Theory X and Theory Y: Two Views of Employees →
In this lesson
Read the informal organization alongside the formal one.
- Describe the Hawthorne origins
- Separate defensible findings from overclaims
- Identify social controls on output
- Distinguish participation from its appearance
Free study notes
Get this lesson's notes by email
The key points and 4 practice questions with answers, in your inbox. One email, free.
One email. Unsubscribe in one click.
Transcript
Everything said in the video, section by section (1,856 words). Read along, or search it.
How Management Theories Shape the Way Jobs Are Built and Organized
The Human Relations Movement
The human relations movement changed where managers looked, when explaining what people produced at work. It developed from the late nineteen twenties, treating social and psychological experiences as consequential. Group membership, relationships, and perceived attention entered the analysis, alongside physical tasks and economic rewards. The movement began with research intended to identify the best physical conditions for output. Unexpected results opened questions the original design could not answer adequately, especially about groups and attention. This lesson separates that origin story, from what the evidence can honestly support. Later research supports informal relationships, group norms, perceived concern, and the supervisor relationship as important variables. We examine the shift in managerial attention, and the HR practices that followed it. The criticisms also matter: apparent consultation can manipulate. Genuine conflicts cannot always be talked away. Our fictional forum case asks what participation requires, when employees expect influence rather than attention alone.
An Unexpected Result
A Classical Study Opened a Different Question
The Hawthorne studies took place at a large electrical manufacturing plant, over roughly a decade. They began classically: vary physical conditions and measure output. The aim was to identify the arrangement that works best. The first phase examined illumination, expecting an output curve with an identifiable optimum. Instead, output rose under varied conditions, including some that should have reduced it. Some groups improved without receiving the experimental change, further complicating the expected explanation. Later research changed rest breaks, hours, and payment arrangements, for a small assembly group. Those results also proved puzzling, leading to an extended program of interviews and observation. Investigators eventually emphasized the attention employees received, and the cohesion created within the group. That interpretation launched a new tradition, shifting attention beyond the physical conditions of the task. It did not make the original research a conclusive modern experiment, as its limitations show.
Evidence Limits
The Studies Raised Questions, Rather Than Settling Them
The Hawthorne studies were not controlled experiments in the modern sense, so their interpretation needs care. The groups were very small, and the composition of some groups changed during the research. Changed payment arrangements and removal of ordinary supervision were among the variables not isolated adequately. Those concurrent changes make it difficult to assign the output movement to one explanation. The original interpretations have also been reanalyzed and contested extensively, in the decades that followed. The honest position is that the studies raised questions. They did not settle those questions conclusively. What survives in the movement's contribution rests on later work, rather than Hawthorne alone. It is unsupported to say these studies proved physical conditions do not affect output. It is equally unsupported to claim they established a guaranteed productivity gain from managerial attention. Keep the productive questions, while separating them from stronger conclusions the research design could not establish.
Hawthorne Effect
Observation Can Change What Is Observed
The Hawthorne effect describes behavior changing, when people know they are observed or unusually attended to. The term now appears widely in research methodology, as a potential source of measurement bias. Observation can become part of the intervention, complicating the attempt to measure its independent effect. Two qualifications keep the term useful. They prevent the origin story from overpowering the evidence. First, the original effect's size and durability remain disputed, with other concurrent changes offering alternative explanations. The name does not establish a numerical magnitude, or show how long any particular change lasts. Second, managers sometimes dismiss real improvements as merely attention, which is another unwarranted conclusion. A possible observation effect does not prove that the substantive change produced no genuine benefit. The defensible claim is narrow: knowing one is observed can change behavior, and measurement should consider that possibility. Use the term to investigate competing explanations, rather than to guarantee or dismiss an intervention's success.
Informal Organization
Group Expectations Operate Beside Formal Rules
The informal organization consists of relationships, influence, and understandings, developing independently of the official chart. It exists in every workplace. It is not confined to places where formal management is weak or absent. Tightening the official structure does not make those relationships disappear, or stop their effects on work. Group norms are shared, largely unwritten expectations, about what behavior and output the group considers acceptable. They operate alongside formal rules, and may override them through social enforcement among colleagues. Norms can restrain output from above and below, sanctioning people who depart from the accepted range. Classical writers understood restriction as an incentive response, while human relations emphasized its social enforcement. Both questions matter: what the payment system rewards, and what colleagues will tolerate. A formal standard therefore may not explain actual output, without examining the expectations surrounding it. Read the informal organization alongside the formal one, rather than treating the chart as the whole workplace.
Attention and Supervision
The Relationship Is a Variable of Its Own
Perceived concern affects behavior, even independently of the actual changes made to the work. Employees who believe their circumstances receive consideration can respond differently from employees who do not. This makes attention a relevant variable, while leaving its particular magnitude and durability open to investigation. The supervisor relationship is another variable, separate from the task, pay, or physical conditions. First-line supervision experienced as support differs from supervision experienced mainly as policing. The difference affects output, cooperation, and turnover, making supervisor development a substantial practical concern. Two teams with the same formal conditions may therefore operate differently, because their daily relationships differ. The manager's role includes understanding the group and supporting individuals, rather than only specifying methods. This does not remove the task or incentive question. It adds conditions the classical account neglected. An effective diagnosis examines both, asking how work is designed and how people experience its supervision.
Compare the Views
Different Units Suggest Different Interventions
The classical view locates productivity problems in the task, its measurement, and the economic reward attached. It directs managers toward a studied method, a standard, deliberate training, and payment against output. The human relations view shifts attention toward the person and the group, alongside pay. Belonging, recognition, and the experience of concern become relevant sources of motivation and cooperation. Managers are asked to understand informal relationships, support employees, and attend to group composition and morale. That implies interventions such as better supervision and consultation, rather than only more exact work measurement. The largest disagreement concerns informal groups: an irrelevant obstacle in one account, a real determinant in the other. Once the group is considered consequential, ignoring it can no longer be a sufficient management strategy. The distinction changes what a manager asks, before deciding whether to redesign a task or improve a relationship. Neither perspective alone proves every intervention successful. The problem's actual conditions still require evidence.
What It Produced
4 Substantial Lines of Work
Four substantial lines of work developed from the shift toward social and psychological conditions. The study of human needs and motivation became a distinct research field, rather than an incidental management concern. Participative management involves employees in decisions affecting their work, giving practical form to that changed attention. Job enrichment applies the insight to the work itself, rather than only improving conversations around an unchanged role. Organizational behavior studies individuals and groups empirically. It builds a broader discipline from the same shift. HR also inherited employee voice mechanisms, including forums, engagement surveys, and consultative arrangements. Supervisor training became a distinct activity, because first-line relationships were understood as consequential in their own right. Climate and engagement measurement made the social dimension something organizations could investigate systematically. The durable professional habit is to ask what the informal organization is doing, alongside official structure. That habit broadens the diagnostic question, without replacing evidence with a new assumption about universal employee preferences.
Serious Criticisms
Concern Must Have Substance
The first serious criticism concerns manipulation, when an appearance of concern substitutes for actual influence. Pseudo-participation creates a consultative experience, without transferring any meaningful power over the decisions discussed. Employees usually discover the gap, and the resulting trust loss can exceed the trust initially created. The second criticism concerns genuine conflicts of interest. Improved communication does not necessarily resolve them. Pay, staffing, and reasonable workload can involve distributive disagreement, even when both parties understand each other perfectly. They may want different outcomes, rather than need a clearer explanation of the same shared interest. Treating that conflict as a relationship failure can become a way to avoid addressing its substance. The third criticism is empirical: productivity claims often outran their evidence, beginning with the original studies. Satisfaction and output have a more complicated relationship, while any intervention's effect depends strongly on circumstances. The movement's useful contributions remain substantial, provided these limits stay visible when designing the response.
Composite Case
Elena’s Forum at Harlow Mutual
Elena manages a processing center at fictional Harlow Mutual, concerned about morale after a restructure. She creates a monthly employee forum, with two representatives from each team and team-set agendas. Elena chairs it, but its first four meetings expose limits on her authority over the concerns raised. Shift patterns are set centrally, staffing depends on a fixed headcount budget, and another department owns case allocation. She can arrange resurfacing of the parking lot, but cannot decide those major work issues herself. At the fifth meeting, attendance is half the first meeting's level, signaling a problem with the mechanism. Elena's intentions are genuine, and the employee concerns are real. The constraints she describes are real too. Nobody needs to deceive for a forum without authority to fail, when attention creates expectations of influence. HR must decide how consultation can have substance, rather than simply asking members to keep attending. The trade-off concerns decision rights and truthful scope, not whether the employees appreciate the manager's goodwill.
Real Participation
Narrow the Scope, Give the Forum Decisions
The accepted response narrows the forum's scope, while granting genuine decisions inside that boundary. It now decides break rotation, overtime allocation among volunteers, and the layout of the floor. Elena commits to implementing those decisions without another approval, transferring authority she previously held herself. That surrender is the real cost. It exceeds merely spending time chairing another meeting. For issues outside the forum's scope, employees can make representations but cannot decide the result. The limit is stated at the outset, rather than discovered after people spend months discussing an impossible change. Elena then reports what happens to the representation, keeping the route visible even when the outcome disappoints. The arrangement now combines meaningful influence with clear limits, instead of an unlimited agenda without usable authority. Participation gains substance, while constraints remain acknowledged rather than hidden behind assurances of concern. The alternative would preserve the experience of consultation, without giving employees control over any relevant decision.
Reverse Problem
A Formal Standard Can Miss the Group’s Control
The packing exercise shows output clustering between thirty-six and forty-four units, around a formal standard of forty. Two newcomers initially produce fifty-two and fifty-one, then both fall to forty-three within three weeks. A worker producing thirty-three is never reported by colleagues, suggesting formal targets do not describe the group's enforcement. The convergence of faster workers raises the question of an informal norm, limiting what colleagues tolerate. Management's conclusion that the formal target is correct ignores that possible social control over the observed cluster. Raising the target to forty-eight would not by itself remove the norm or its social sanctions. Investigate how the group defines acceptable output, and what happens to workers who depart from it. The case supports inquiry into informal controls. It does not prove every motive behind each employee's output. Human relations adds groups, concern, and supervision to the diagnosis, while requiring real influence and honest evidence. The next lesson examines McGregor's theories, and the assumptions about people embedded in management practice.
About Human Resources Management at UPI Study
Human Resources Management (Business 306) is a self-paced online course of 91 video lessons in 12 chapters, from what HR does and how jobs are designed to hiring, training, performance reviews, pay and benefits, safety, employment law, unions, global staffing and remote work. It carries a NCCRS credit recommendation for 3 semester credits.
Every lesson transcript is free on pages like this one, and the videos are free with a free UPI Study account. Enrolling adds a practice quiz after each lesson, the graded work and final exam that earn the credit, lifetime access, and an official transcript on completion. UPI Study has helped over 130,000 students with college credits. ACE and NCCRS have over 2,100 cooperating colleges that will consider accepting credits; the final decision is with the universities.
Enroll now → Course details Download the syllabus All Business courses
Why take it here
Why students take Human Resources Management with UPI Study
Where the credit goes
Universities that work with NCCRS
Human Resources Management carries a NCCRS credit recommendation. These universities work with NCCRS; some are UPI Study's signed partners. ACE and NCCRS have over 2,100 cooperating colleges that will consider accepting credits; the final decision is with the universities.
Thomas Edison State UniversitySigned partner
University of the PeopleSigned partner
Charter Oak State CollegeSigned partner
Strayer UniversitySigned partner
Columbia Southern UniversitySigned partner
Indiana TechSigned partner
Penn StateWorks with NCCRS
Southern New Hampshire UniversityWorks with NCCRS
SUNYWorks with NCCRS
+many more cooperating universitiesFind my college →Find my college → Not listed? Ask Athena in the corner of this page, or book a 15-minute call.
FAQ
Questions students ask us
About How the Human Relations Movement Changed the Way Companies Treat Workers
What were the Hawthorne studies?
What is the Hawthorne effect?
What is the informal organization in a workplace?
What are the criticisms of the human relations movement?
About the Human Resources Management course
How many college credits is Human Resources Management?
How much does Human Resources Management cost and what is included?
Which universities accept UPI Study credits?
How long does Human Resources Management take?
How are the exams done?
How do my credits reach my college?
Ready for the full course? Earn 3 credits in Human Resources Management.
91 video lessons, a quiz after each one, and the graded work that earns the credit. Recommended for credit by NCCRS.
3 credits · NCCRSEnroll →