Journal of Management History

The Hawthorne legacy: A reassessment of the impact of the Hawthorne studies on

management scholarship, 1930-1958
Jeffrey Muldoon,
Article information:
To cite this document:
Jeffrey Muldoon, (2012) "The Hawthorne legacy: A reassessment of the impact of the Hawthorne studies
on management scholarship, 1930‐1958", Journal of Management History, Vol. 18 Issue: 1, pp.105-119,
https://doi.org/10.1108/17511341211188682
Permanent link to this document:
https://doi.org/10.1108/17511341211188682
Downloaded on: 13 July 2017, At: 11:55 (PT)
Downloaded by UNICAMP At 11:55 13 July 2017 (PT)

References: this document contains references to 102 other documents.

To copy this document: [email protected]
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 13926 times since 2012*
Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:
(2013),"Historic horizons of Frederick Taylor's scientific management", Journal of Management History,
Vol. 19 Iss 4 pp. 512-527 <a href="https://doi.org/10.1108/JMH-05-2012-0043">https://doi.org/10.1108/
JMH-05-2012-0043</a>
(1990),"Marketing Planning: A Seven-stage Process", Marketing Intelligence &amp; Planning, Vol.
8 Iss 7 pp. 21-28 <a href="https://doi.org/10.1108/EUM0000000001093">https://doi.org/10.1108/
EUM0000000001093</a>

Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-srm:161809 []
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for
Authors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines
are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company
manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as
providing an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee
on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive
preservation.

*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

 The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/1751-1348.htm

The Hawthorne
The Hawthorne legacy legacy:
A reassessment of the impact of the a reassessment
Hawthorne studies on management
scholarship, 1930-1958 105
Jeffrey Muldoon
Rucks Department of Management, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge,
Louisiana, USA

Abstract
Purpose – This paper seeks to analyze the contribution that the Hawthorne studies made to the
discipline of management. The recent scholarly trend has been to attack the Hawthorne studies on the
grounds of methodology and originality. However, the only way to accurately view the Hawthorne
Downloaded by UNICAMP At 11:55 13 July 2017 (PT)

studies is to recreate the intellectual environment in which the studies were conducted. Why did this
version of human relations rather than Dennison’s or Williams’s emerge as the scholarly contribution?
Design/methodology/approach – Both primary and secondary sources were utilized in the
research. The focus was from the time period of 1930 to 1958. More contemporary work was
considered as well.
Findings – Contemporary scholars viewed Hawthorne as being more thorough and complete than
previous work. They also viewed the study as a contribution in light of some methodological issues
and political biases.
Practical implications – Performing temporal analysis allows the perceived strengths and
weaknesses of scholarly works to become more apparent.
Originality/value – Previous accounts of the Hawthorne studies have mostly studied their impact
on practitioners. This study examines the impact on scholars.
Keywords Hawthorne studies, Historical manuscripts, Management history, Management techniques,
Management research
Paper type Research paper

Introduction
The Hawthorne studies (1924-1932) are the most famous of all management research
but also the most criticized (Bedeian and Wren, 2001). The recent trend has been to
attack both the studies’ methodological shortcomings and originality. This trend should
not surprise scholars, as the more original and important a study, the greater the
likelihood that the study will be criticized, especially as time passes (Sonnenfeld, 1985).
According to Sonnenfeld, the criticism often comes because either the younger scholars
hope to gain fame by attacking the studies or because the creator is no longer around to
defend them. Accordingly, the perceived value of a research project or a theoretical
advancement often does not outlive its creators. The Hawthorne studies are no
exception. This paper is not a defense of the Hawthorne studies, nor a synopsis of work
of the individual researchers – Elton Mayo, T.N. Whitehead, Fritz Roethlisberger, L.J.
Henderson, and George Homans. Rather its purpose is far more specific: to point out Journal of Management History
Vol. 18 No. 1, 2012
how contemporaries perceived the Hawthorne studies. Through an analysis of pp. 105-119
contemporary literature, we hope to allow modern scholars to understand how the q Emerald Group Publishing Limited
1751-1348
Hawthorne studies contributed to contemporary management thought. DOI 10.1108/17511341211188682
 JMH Several scholars have attacked the Hawthorne studies for lacking originality (Bruce,
18,1 2006; Wren, 1987). Others (O’Connor, 1999) have accused the Hawthorne researchers of
taking advantage of a time of great economic uncertainty to increase their own
respectability. Still others have called them consultants rather than researching
scholars (Yorks and Whitsett, 1985). There is a great deal of truth to these and other
charges levied at the Hawthorne studies. For example, Greenwood et al. (1983)
106 researched whether or not the claims of Whitehead that the participants did not care
about their pay. Based on interviews from participants many years later, it appeared
that the participants’ incomes were often their families’ most important wage. In
addition, Wren (1987) is absolutely correct in claiming that the Hawthorne researchers
should have quoted the work of Williams (1920), Mathewson (1931), and Taylor (1911)
– for they did anticipate many of the findings unearthed at Hawthorne. Other scholars
(e.g. Carey, 1967; Parsons, 1974) have noted that the researchers had methodological
problems; Carey viewed the studies as scientifically worthless.
The extent of this historical and methodological criticism begs several questions to
be asked – the most important was why did Hawthorne emerge as the dominant study
Downloaded by UNICAMP At 11:55 13 July 2017 (PT)

of human relations, rather than Whiting Williams or the executive Henry Dennison’s
work? Why did scholars follow the Harvard approach led by Australian Elton Mayo,
rather than Williams or Dennison? This question has several components, as
Hawthorne could be examined as either a scholarly or consulting contribution. I
examine the scholarly side of the equation, and seek to examine the temporal context
from which the Hawthorne studies emerged. In doing so, I examine scholarly research
from the first reports of the Hawthorne study until the first re-evaluation of the critics.
The temporal context in which the Hawthorne researchers worked will provide the
best explanation on how scholars saw the contribution of Hawthorne (Bedeian, 1998).
Kuhn (1970) argued that understanding the temporal context is the most effective way
to judge the scientific discovery, as it would be unfair to judge previous scholars on the
basis of what we know now. For example, we venerate Copernicus as a genius and we
view his doubters as ill informed because his model was generally correct. As Kuhn
notes, Copernicus’s model left some important questions unanswered and the
technology necessary to prove Copernicus’s ideas correct did not then exist, so his
contemporaries had reason to reject his paradigm. A generation of scholars, however,
led by Galileo and Kepler, built on the Copernican framework by providing the
empirical evidence necessary to model the solar system. Similarly, the Hawthorne
studies must be viewed in comparison with contemporary scholarship and the impact
that these other studies had on research. Therefore, rather than judging the Hawthorne
studies from a modern viewpoint, we must judge them in comparison with other
studies of that time period to understand why this particular study, rather than
Williams’s (1920) work, became the seminal study (Kuhn, 1970).
An analysis of contemporary commentary and book reviews of the various
Hawthorne studies demonstrates that reviewers were often aware of the brilliance and
originality of the research, but at the same time, recognized its ideological and
methodological limitations. Many of the critics sought either to redefine the Hawthorne
studies in different or less ideological terms or sought to use some of the Hawthorne
concepts and methods to study other workplace problems. Whereas reviews can be
contradictory, most of the reviews praised the Hawthorne studies for their originality,
use of new methods and overall empirical thrust.
 If, as Merton (1973) suggests, discoveries are products of their time, only through The Hawthorne
reconstructing the past can we truly gauge a work’s originality and why the legacy:
Hawthorne version of human relations, rather than Williams’s version, became the
standard. In doing so, this paper asks several empirical questions to explore how a reassessment
contemporaries felt about Hawthorne and why it was the most important version of
human relations. How did contemporary scholars perceive the Hawthorne studies?
Why did this version of human relations dominate the scholarly literature? How did 107
contemporaries perceive the methods of the Hawthorne studies? How did various
commentators view the political and managerial implications of the work?

Original work
Several historians (e.g. Bruce, 2006; Wren, 2005) claimed recently that the Hawthorne
researches were not as original as contemporaries suggested. Indeed, Wren (2005)
noted that the Hawthorne studies did not really discover anything new: Williams had
discovered most of the ideas that were believed to be initially derived from the
Downloaded by UNICAMP At 11:55 13 July 2017 (PT)

Hawthorne studies. Williams was a non-academic writer who would go undercover to

find out how workers interacted. He found that workers would form groups to protect
themselves from management. In White Collar Hobo, Wren criticizes the Hawthorne
researchers for being unaware of Williams’s reports, which he argues would have
produced a far different study. Wren also quotes Gilson (1940) who believed that a
good deal of time and energy would not have been wasted had the Hawthorne
researchers been aware of the “experiences of others” (p. 98). One of the “others” was
her good friend Williams (Wren, 1987).
Wren (2005) further argues that the discovery of the informal organization,
soldiering, and the restriction output had occurred years before by Williams, Taylor
and Mathewson (Wren, 2005). According to Wren, the major reason Williams’s work
was not as highly regarded as the Hawthorne researchers’ was that Williams lacked an
affiliation with a prestigious school like Harvard. Building on Wren’s claims that the
Hawthorne research did not represent anything new to the management discipline,
Bruce (2006) argues that although Henry Dennison and others developed the field of
human relations, Mayo’s concepts offered management a far more subtle means of
control. Until Wren rediscovered him, Whiting Williams had been all but forgotten, not
warranting a mention in George’s (1972) history of management. Williams’s absence
from the historical record was surprising, given his importance during the 1920s.
Perhaps one of the reasons why Williams may not have received his due was that his
work was published during the era of scientific management, when scholars were
concerned with different issues.
Yet, it would be wrong to assume that contemporaries were unaware of Williams’s
(1920) or Mathewson’s (1931) work. Contemporaries felt that the general difference
between Williams/Mathewson and Hawthorne was that the Hawthorne studies
gathered more evidence under scientific conditions, and combined several different
academic fields to develop new explanations for the challenges in industrial life such as
the restriction of output. For example, the contribution of the Hawthorne researchers
was that it was among the first studies to attempt to quantify a worker’s frustration
level, unlike Williams’s more impressionistic work (Lynd, 1939). Furthermore, the
consensus among scholars was that the works of Williams and Mathewson were
flawed and limited in scope. For example, scholars had noted that Mathewson’s work
 JMH contained statistical flaws (Stone, 1931) and that it was conducted in an uncontrolled
18,1 experiment. In comparison to Mathewson’s statistical flaws, the Hawthorne studies
were praised for their statistical sophistication (Betram, 1939). In addition, Williams’s
work was considered brilliant, but he lacked the follow-through to prove his
arguments. His contemporaries praised the Hawthorne studies, because they provided
rigorous detail in their analysis of worker interaction (Elliott, 1934; Miller and Form,
108 1951).
Hawthorne’s second contribution was that it provided researchers with a more
focused analysis of workers’ interactions within the organization, such as the social
interaction between workers and supervisors. Contemporaries understood that the
work of the Hawthorne researchers was not only more rigorous than the work of
Williams (Thompson, 1940), but also provided new paths and understandings for
future research. Whether the contribution was providing the concept of the man in the
middle or exploring the dynamics of social influence on production (Miller and Form,
1951; Whyte, 1956), scholars noted that the Hawthorne studies provided a new and
significant break from the work of Williams and other contemporaries. Hughes (1958)
Downloaded by UNICAMP At 11:55 13 July 2017 (PT)

summed up this idea when he conceded that the original and pioneering effort of
industrial sociology was Williams’s (1920) What’s on the Worker’s Mind. He also
noted, however, that Mayo’s group made the most influential contribution because it
focused attention squarely on the internal organization so that it became the dominant
concern of industrial sociology. The general conclusion from both Mayo and Williams
was that workers’ motivation a combination of both monetary and non-monetary
benefits (Hughes, 1947; Kalven, 1947; Parsons, 1940; Rogers, 1946).
The third contribution of the Hawthorne studies was its use of sociological and
psychological concepts to challenge the foundations of economic theory (Park, 1934).
Park’s sentiment received its most well developed argument in Lynd (1939), who
argued that for social science to receive more recognition it must be fully integrated
into one unified social science or scholars would lose relevance in society. A fully
integrated science would come from scholars studying the same phenomena from
different perspectives, each being aware of the terminology and concepts from the
other social sciences. Although Lynd did not approve of the capitalistic sentiments
behind the research, the Hawthorne studies could be viewed as a fulfillment of Lynd’s
vision regarding a fully integrated social science (Chase, 1946; Gillespie, 1991; Hart,
1943). Mayo had intended to use the studies as a bridge to build a real integrated social
science, to promote social peace and prosperity (Homans, 1949). Other scholars shared
Mayo’s view that the Hawthorne studies could be a bridge to peace and prosperity. For
instance, Hart (1943, p. 151) viewed the Hawthorne researchers attempt to eliminate the
growing compartmentalization of the social sciences to be as revolutionary as
“Galileo’s and Mendel’s”, a fact not lost on other scholars (Bladen, 1948; Chester, 1946;
Park, 1934; Tead, 1930; Weiss, 1949).
The fact that the Hawthorne studies would have such a broad appeal might surprise
the modern scholar, who thinks that the studies were mostly inspired by the ideas of
Vilfredo Pareto’s concept of the irrational man, which they were not. Indeed, some
scholars at the time overstated the influence of Pareto on the research and criticized
them on that basis (Friedmann, 1955; Hacker, 1955; Knox, 1955). Keller (1984) argued
that the Harvard connection provided legitimacy to Pareto’s work. Yet contrary to
Keller, the Mayo group’s embrace of Pareto was as much a hindrance as it was a
 blessing – even in their social status on the Harvard campus (Schlesinger, 2000). The Hawthorne
Whyte (1994), Mayo (Trahair, 1984) and Roethlisberger (1977) were never Pareto legacy:
disciples. Whitehead and Henderson (Roethlisberger, 1977) were, but to consider the
entire Harvard group Pareto inspired is an overstatement. a reassessment
Mayo was influenced by famous psychologists, and sociologists, such as Janet,
Freud, Piaget, and Durkheim. Mayo’s training was broad and he read a wide variety of
scholarly works. His prime influence may have been Janet; one of the few books that 109
Mayo published during his time at Harvard was a book that introduced the theories of
Janet. At least one reviewer faulted the work for being inspired more by Freud – who
the reviewer regarded as an apostate (Hart, 1949). Homans was a proponent of Pareto
and, outside of Henderson and Whitehead; he may have been the only one under the
direct influence of Pareto. Indeed, Homans’s selection to the prestigious Society of
Fellows at Harvard was due to a book he published on Pareto (Homans, 1984).
Therefore, it is important to view the Hawthorne studies as being influenced by many
social science fields and thinkers, not just sociology and Pareto.
Despite the desires of Lynd (1937), Hart (1943), Chase (1946) and others, the
Downloaded by UNICAMP At 11:55 13 July 2017 (PT)

unification of the social sciences failed. Social sciences were too idiosyncratic in the
1930s to be united, due to their different assumptions, jargon, and research methods.
That being the case, other scholars saw the Hawthorne studies as a means of
strengthening their own disciplines. Scholars from political science (De Grazia, 1951),
public administration (Platt, 1947), and industrial sociology (Parsons and Barber, 1948)
admired the contributions of the Hawthorne studies. Parsons and Barber went so far to
state that the Hawthorne studies were the pre-eminent work of scholarship in their
respective fields. Whereas there were important differences in regards to approach and
analysis, both sociometrics (Rogers, 1946) and industrial psychology (Hart, 1943;
Homans, 1949) were indebted to the study.
Initially, Hugo Munsterberg and Frank Gilbreth attempted to explain physical
fatigue through completely physical means (Wren, 2005). The inability to explain
physical fatigue left the door open for the Hawthorne studies to explain physical
fatigue using the informal group, a group of workers that functioned as a clique. Unlike
Hugo Munsterberg and Frank Gilbreth, the Hawthorne researchers found that the
informal group deeply mattered in ensuring the highest degree of performance from
their employees.
While the Mayo group’s arguments were similar to Williams, they had the
advantage of publishing their work during a period of economic upheaval. Williams’s
(1920) work was published during a time when Taylor’s scientific management was
still at the height of its influence. Perhaps the remarkable prosperity of the 1920s did
not allow economic man to be addressed or, as this paper argues, that Williams did not
empirically demonstrate his findings. In the subsequent decades of the 1930s and
1940s, scholars were willing to focus on different aspects of worker motivation.
The establishment of an intellectual movement takes more than the publishing of a
single study, no matter how brilliant that study may be. The Mayo group had their
ideas defined and redefined either by their students or by different fields. Establishing
a field requires students, colleagues, and other interested parties to challenge your
discovery (Kuhn, 1970). It also requires adhering to professional norms. For instance,
the complementary concepts of the informal group and group dynamics that Mayo and
Rogers (Rogers, 1942) initially developed were used, redefined and applied by new
 JMH academic groups such as the Committee on Human Relations at the University of
18,1 Chicago (Parsons and Barber, 1948). The new program of industrial sociology at
University of Chicago featured several professors with connections to the Mayo group
such as Whyte and Warner (Gardner and Whyte, 1946). In addition to the Chicago
group, the Hawthorne researchers also had a strong connection to the ongoing research
of the Lewin group at Iowa who studied the psychological inner workings of groups
110 (Davis, 1957). This connection was in part derived from similar outlooks on democratic
and authoritarian leadership (Parker-Weiss, 1958). Finally, the concept of the small
group interactions inspired educators (Horwitz, 1953), socio-metricians and other social
scientists (Rogers, 1946), who challenged the view that groups were simply a loose
collection of individuals motivated by nothing other than self-interest. As noted from
the citations in this paragraph, contemporaries were well aware of the influence that
the Hawthorne studies had on building a new field – industrial sociology.

Problems with methods

Downloaded by UNICAMP At 11:55 13 July 2017 (PT)

Scholars have criticized the design (Argyle, 1953; Carey, 1967), arguing that the
increased output could be explained by monetary factors (Parsons, 1974). Today, the
Hawthorne studies are perhaps more recognized for their methodological problems and
their flawed arguments rather than for their significant findings. However, scholars at
the time recognized some of Hawthorne’s methodological limits, e.g. such as theoretical
limits, situational bias, and a paucity of evidence regarding worker’s home life. In other
words, although contemporary scholars were aware of limitations regarding the
Hawthorne finding, they still recognized the Hawthorne studies as an important
contribution. The question is why, despite methodological problems, they recognized
the Hawthorne studies as an important contribution?
In terms of research methodology, several scholars (Briefs, 1940; Moore, 1947a, b;
Viteles, 1953) noted that the women selected for the study were not selected at random
and that Hawthorne’s findings were limited by the sample size. The small number of
operators studied created some serious questions relating to the generalizability of the
study. For example, Briefs (1940) questioned the external validity of the sample as the
women formed relationships that they might not have if the sample size had been
larger. Another major concern was that the sample size was too limited to make a
judgment regarding a full population (Grodzins, 1951; Hughes, 1958) and did not
sufficiently consider various minority populations such as African-Americans (Moore,
1947b). On the other hand, scholars at the time also understood that the sample size
provided strength in that it allowed for the creation of new research questions.
Although Briefs did criticize the small sample size, he also noted the novel approach
allowed for other interesting ideas to emerge. Florence (1938) argued that the small
sample size provided an advantage because it effectively allowed for workers’
activities to be studied in great detail, leading to the serendipitous discovery of the
informal group. Moore (1947b) criticized the study for not including
African-Americans. It must be noted, however, that the Hawthorne studies were
conducted before the great migration of African-Americans to the north, which would
change forever the composition of society during World War II. This work would be
conducted by Hughes (1946, 1949), who would examine and analyze the interaction
between various ethnic groups, including African-Americans, both within informal
groups and within management.
 Industrial psychologists, questioned whether the idiosyncratic elements of The Hawthorne
individual interactions of the Hawthorne studies could be replicated, creating a bias legacy:
(Viteles, 1941, 1953). In contrast, sociologists believed that industrial sociologists
created a situational bias when they failed to note the difference between the worker at a reassessment
home and what outside social interactions impacted his performance (Friedmann et al.,
1949; Kornhauser, 1934), creating perhaps a much richer study (Kornhauser, 1934).
Contemporary scholars hypothesized (Viteles, 1953) that researchers would have a 111
difficult time understanding the workers, anticipating a criticism that would be raised
30 years later (Greenwood et al., 1983). They suggested that this would occur because
of an inherent cultural gulf between worker and researcher such that workers might
tell researchers what the researchers wanted to hear, or nothing at all (Schneider, 1950).
This difference in methods and interests created a rift between sociologists and
industrial sociology that was never resolved.
Contemporary scholars also noted that economic benefits perhaps motivated the
Hawthorne workers more than social benefits (Viteles, 1941). For example, Roy (1952)
took umbrage with people who argued that workers did not care about money, because
Downloaded by UNICAMP At 11:55 13 July 2017 (PT)

the workers he had studied functioned like “calculating machines” in determining

output and their daily pay. Yet, Viteles noted later that criticisms regarding financial
rewards were incorrect because they did not operate at the same strength everywhere
and every time; thus weakening the economic explanation of worker/management
interactions (Viteles, 1953). Future scholars would have to research and theorize, using
concepts of sociology and psychology, to develop the link between economic and social
motivation (Weiss, 1949).
Homans, a student of Mayo and Whitehead, provided what may have been an
accurate statement regarding the limits of the discoveries of the Hawthorne studies.
Specifically, Homans noted that the experiments demonstrated that other kinds of
things were too vague; maybe “factors” besides the raw physical work conditions
determine output. This, of course, had been a problem that had plagued management
since the time of Taylor. Homans’s point hits on something that has been lost in
history. While he notes that his colleagues felt that the experiment had failed, he argues
that through the process revealed by the experiment, they were able to demonstrate the
worker output of the group was largely dependent on the informal group. This could be
attributed to social pressures that individuals placed on their fellow workers to restrict
output or to protect themselves from management. In Homans’s phrase, the Hawthorne
studies provided the basis of a science, “the experiments of light,” which under some
experimental control could provide the basis which would become the “experiments of
proof,” which would determine the effective relationships between two variables
(Homans, 1949).
By 1956, scholars had a far better understanding of the various forces beyond the
direct supervisor that affected workers (Whyte, 1956). The dynamics of group
interaction in industrial settings which the Hawthorne researchers examined led to a
series of studies that included department stores, hotels, restaurants, railroads,
insurance companies, and banks (Moore, 1947a; Whyte, 1956). Whyte noted that
whatever merits the initial Hawthorne approach had regarding the breakdown of the
traditional order, Mayo, and his research group’s work was too much of a broadside to
allow development of accurate inferences concerning the influences between interactions
within the industrial plant and the surrounding society. Later, scholars had a better
 JMH understanding of the interaction of society and the industrial plant than did Mayo, but
18,1 each of them was indebted to the techniques that the Hawthorne group had developed.
For example, Hughes, Jacobson/Rainwater, and Collins (Collins, 1946; Hughes, 1946;
Jacobson and Rainwater, 1953) examined how racial and ethnic interactions played out in
the workforce. Warner and Low (1947) showed how technology and unions changed the
interactions of workers at the plant. Work in the 1950s would bring studies on the bank
112 (Argyris, 1954) and among salesmen (Lombard, 1955). Part of the contribution that
Hawthorne studies made was that their work was able to be expanded and tested in
different circumstances, in order to demonstrate the junction between material and
immaterial benefits, junction modern scholars still examine.

Political and moral concerns

Yet another scholarly critic O’Connor(1999) argued that the Harvard Business School
sold the Hawthorne studies as a cure for the ills of the Great Depression and that this
marketing allowed the Harvard Business School to become a legitimate institution. Her
Downloaded by UNICAMP At 11:55 13 July 2017 (PT)

comments are largely correct in terms of creating legitimacy for business schools in
general and the Harvard Business School in particular. Nevertheless, scholars from
sociology and psychology were not happy with the consulting implications of the work.
The Hawthorne researchers were blasted for being totalitarians (Sheppard, 1950),
fascists (Lynd, 1937), encouraging Nazism (Kimball, 1946), capitalists (Lynd, 1937), “cow
sociologists” (Bell, 1947a) and anti unionists (Bendix and Fisher, 1949). Perhaps the
harshest of all critics was Grodzins (1951), who argued that the work encouraged
manipulative techniques that are designed to keep workers under control. One of
Grodzins’s major arguments is that applied scientists – bomb makers, army
psychologists, human relations scholars – confuse science with morality. Grodzins
believed that they develop brilliant concepts, but those concepts do not bring anything of
worth to humanity. Mayo’s advocacy and general arguments became something that
scholars were able to berate (Dunlop and Whyte, 1950). Even those scholars (Warner and
Low, 1947; Whyte, 1948) who basically described interactions within an industrial
setting and how change occurred were criticized because they assumed the existence of
capitalism (Bell, 1947b). Although the Hawthorne studies increased practitioner respect
for the Harvard Business School, many scholars were angered by their managerial bias.
While researchers noted the brilliance of the Hawthorne research (Friedmann, 1955)
and recognized its intellectual contribution (Kimball, 1946), they could not embrace it
fully because of the underlying differences in assumptions and viewpoints regarding the
nature of capitalism. Most critics of the Hawthorne studies were (like Friedmann, Lynd,
and Bell) to the left politically – ranging from firm believers in industrial democracy to
socialists. Industrial sociology followed several different courses, only one of which one
was the “human relations” or Harvard Business School approach (Sorensen, 1951). These
courses became two schools. The two schools of industrial sociology emerged: one based
on the concepts derived from Emile Durkheim, the other from Karl Marx. The argument
between these conflicting schools was that one viewed capitalism as a blessing and the
other desired a more socialistic society (Stone, 1952). This breach made some scholars
believe that the human relations movement was created merely to “manipulate and
control” workers to increase production (Koivisto, 1953).
Some scholars believed that human relations movement was designed to drive
workers away from unions (Gilson, 1940; Knowles, 1955). This gap in research occurred
 because scholars felt that Mayo et al. did not consider the impact of the union on the The Hawthorne
informal work group. Attempts to paint Mayo as a slave driver failed because Mayo legacy:
renounced the harsher and more oppressive forms of supervision (Freeman, 1936). In
contrast, the historic image of Mayo as a “manipulator” has endured. The Hawthorne a reassessment
studies did consider the role of unions, but the Hawthorne researchers sought to
understand production through the informal group, rather than through the formal group,
such as a union. For example, whereas Whitehead covered the role of unions, he argued 113
that they did not help the situation because they were basically conforming to the same
economic pressures as was big business (Starnes, 1937). Scott and Homans suggested that
unions were not a panacea for order – they argued that only human interactions could
unite the working class (Scott and Homans, 1947). In addition, the Hawthorne researches
were conducted before the Hawthorne plant was unionized. Attacking Mayo et al. for not
considering unions is akin to faulting Dmitri Mendeleev for not considering elements that
had yet to be discovered when he organized the periodic table.
It is important to note, as did Landsberger, that most of the early vitriolic attacks
were directed at Mayo’s preaching, rather than at the important findings of the more
Downloaded by UNICAMP At 11:55 13 July 2017 (PT)

scientific works that emanated from the Hawthorne studies, such as Management and
the Worker (Landsberger, 1968). Many scholars admired the general methods of
research and analysis that the Hawthorne studies produced, but sought to transform
findings and conclusions generated from Hawthorne into something less pro
management (Babchuk and Goode, 1951; Medalia and Miller, 1955). For instance,
Barkin outlined a program similar to that of Human Relations, which would include
unions, industrial democracy, and understanding outside values and commitments
(Barkin, 1955). Some of Mayo’s students and associates, such as Whyte, Warner, or
Agryis, who were either students during the 1930s or otherwise connected to the
Harvard Business School, would continue to analyze groups within the work
environment. Furthermore, Hart wrote that the need to examine unions would have to
be addressed, and this was done by Whyte and others (Hart, 1949; Powell, 1957). It is
important to note that while management scholars are concerned with issues such as
production, sociologists are concerned with issues such as alienation. Also, sociologists
such as Moore would be indebted to the studies. The studies’ theoretical attempt to
explain the results influenced his development of a theory regarding cliques (Moore,
1946). In conclusion, sociologists and others noted that the merits of the study included
the discovery of the informal group, observation of the interactions in the workplace, in
particular how different ethnic and racial groups interacted. They paid the study the
high complement of extending it using different assumptions.

Conclusion
The arguments made in this paper are not meant to point out the fallibility of Mayo’s
contemporaries, but to suggest that they raise some of the same issues as those of
modern scholars. Rather than viewing the Hawthorne studies as the definitive answer
to questions of work motivation, contemporaries wanted to redefine, limit, and
understand their findings. Yet, they recognized the brilliance and thought provoking
research despite the research flaws and political issues. The recognition, in turn, made
Hawthorne the perceived contribution.
As historians of a social science, we must seek to understand why one research
study arose and others did not. Wren (1987) has performed a notable service in their
 JMH rediscovery of Williams, because we now have a far richer and more nuanced vision of
18,1 the past then we had previously. However, revisionist history is not without pitfalls,
largely because it cannot be done without a serious overstatement (Levine, 1989). One
of the major reasons that the Hawthorne studies have been subject to revisionism is
that the advance of science and standards has called into question some of its initial
findings.
114 Nevertheless it is wrong to claim, as Wren does, that the Hawthorne studies gained
prominence at the expense of Williams or Mathewson because of the Harvard
connections that Mayo possessed or the academic snobbery of the time (Wren, 2005). An
evaluation of the scholarly literature indicates otherwise. When re-evaluating the work of
Mayo and his group is that while the Hawthorne studies may not have been as original
as modern scholars initially perceived them to be contemporary scholars were indeed
aware of Williams, Dennison, and Mathewson. The most notable contemporary belief
was that the experimental procedures of the Hawthorne studies largely validated the
previous findings. But unlike Mathewson, Denison and Williams, the Hawthorne
research appeared to be serious social science in it appeared as a controlled experiment,
Downloaded by UNICAMP At 11:55 13 July 2017 (PT)

not an artificial one (The Yale Law Journal, 1951). Even the earliest critics of the study,
e.g. Bell (1947a, b), Bendix and Fisher (1949), and Sheppard (1950) attacked Mayo’s
advocacy and criticized industrial sociologists as proponents of management against the
interests of workers. Nevertheless, they recognized the contributions, even if they could
not agree with the worldview. As mentioned previously Moore (1946), who blasted the
research as unoriginal, built on their work by developing the concept of the informal
group into a theory of a clique. Therefore, Hawthorne’s critics, for the most part,
perceived the work of Mayo et al. as important and original, if not ideologically pleasing.
The establishment of an intellectual community requires more than a single book,
no matter how brilliant or well researched it may be. Scholars require evidence from
more than a single set of observations in order to develop a potential paradigm or
typology. In this situation, many of the reviewers admired the tremendous level of
intellectual talent that was brought to the analysis of the Hawthorne results. They
produced research that combined several different social science approaches and more
thorough statistical research and analysis. They also had the personnel to defend the
Hawthorne research and the commitment to expand several different fields, which
provided a steady stream of reviews, rebuttals, and arguments. For instance, Homans
would build theories to explain interactions in social groups; Whyte, a student of
Mayo’s, would research work-place phenomena the rest of his life. Innovation comes
through social capital and brokering between ideas.
Burt (2004) argues that innovation comes from bridging structural holes, which
allows for brokerage to occur. Brokerage is the nothing more than a fusion of different
ideas and concepts being melded together through social capital. In Hawthorne studies,
the multidisciplinary approach that emerged was a direct result of Henderson’s and
Mayo’s social capital and brokerage. The Hawthorne studies appeared to create a
distinct, new brand of research that would allow for a more integrated social science, a
fact not lost at the time to many of the reviewers (Hart, 1943). One of the major
contributions of the Hawthorne studies was that it held out hope for a while that an
integrated social science could emerge.
Yet it did not. Homans (1984) spent the rest of his life in an attempt to develop a
unified theory of the social sciences and to live up to the initial promise of the
 Hawthorne experiments. Indeed, his magnum opus, The Human Group, used concepts The Hawthorne
of economics, psychology, and sociology to develop a theory of informal group legacy:
interaction. Yet his quest to create a unified field was like Captain Ahab chasing the
white whale – the task was simply beyond his reach. One day at Harvard, several a reassessment
sociologists passed around a paper, which attempted to create a unified social science
by developing a terminology common to the various social sciences. Homans looked at
it and exclaimed: “What, is English not good enough?” (Schlesinger, 2000). However, he 115
discovered during the Hawthorne research, the different normative values of different
academic fields, as well as their different methodological standards and assumptions,
present a real hindrance to the integration of the social sciences. What did emerge,
however, was a great understanding of, and drive to study workplace motivation and
other organizational behaviors. A great many organizational behavior topics have
their roots in the Hawthorne studies (Locke and Latham, 2004; Organ et al., 2006).
Why should scholars care about the Hawthorne studies after all these years? It is
not enough to say that they have influenced researchers. But by understanding the
studies historical importance and how contemporary scholars perceived contribution
Downloaded by UNICAMP At 11:55 13 July 2017 (PT)

provides the modern scholar with a template for potential contributions and insights. It
allows us to have a greater understanding of our field as it currently stands. While,
future research is needed to carry the Hawthorne legacy from 1958 until the present, it
is clear that Hawthorne could continue to provide motivations and reasons for
cross-disciplinary research, since human interactions are so complex that neither
“economic (wo)men” or “sociological (wo)men” fully explain work behaviors. Yet
Hawthorne proved that this type of research comes with a potential cost, as different
fields have different assumptions and values that limit cross-disciplinary research; the
modern scholar should take note of this.

References
Argyle, M. (1953), “The relay assembly test room in retrospect”, Occupational Psychology, Vol. 27
No. 1, pp. 98-103.
Argyris, C. (1954), Organization of a Bank: A Study of the Nature of Organization and the Fusion
Process, Labor and Management Center, New Haven, CT.
Babchuk, N. and Goode, W.J. (1951), “Work incentives in a self-determined group”, American
Sociological Review, Vol. 16 No. 5, pp. 679-87.
Barkin, S. (1955), “A pattern for the study of human relations in industry”, Industrial and Labor
Relations Review, Vol. 9 No. 1, pp. 95-9.
Bedeian, A.G. (1998), “Exploring the past”, Journal of Management History, Vol. 4, pp. 4-15.
Bedeian, A.G. and Wren, D.A. (2001), “The most influential management books of the twentieth
century”, Organizational Dynamics, Vol. 21 No. 3, pp. 221-5.
Bell, D. (1947a), “Book review of The Political Problem of Industrial Civilization”, The Journal of
Political Economy, Vol. 55 No. 6, pp. 587-8.
Bell, D. (1947b), “Adjusting men to machines”, Commentary, No. 3, New York, NY.
Bendix, R. and Fisher, L.H. (1949), “The perspectives of Elton Mayo”, The Review of Economics
and Statistics, Vol. 31 No. 4, pp. 312-9.
Betram, R.F. (1939), “Book review of The Industrial Worker”, Southern Economic Journal, Vol. 5
No. 3, pp. 380-2.
 JMH Bladen, V.W. (1948), “Economics and human relations: The Presidential Address delivered at the
Annual Meeting of the Canadian Political Science Association”, The Canadian Journal of
18,1 Economics and Political Science/Revue Canadienne d’Economique et de Science Politique,
Vol. 14 No. 3, June 18, pp. 301-11.
Briefs, G.A. (1940), “Book review of The Industrial Worker”, American Sociological Review, Vol. 5
No. 1, pp. 146-8.
116 Bruce, K. (2006), “Henry S. Dennison, Elton Mayo, and the human relations historiography”,
Management and Organizational History, Vol. 1 No. 2, pp. 177-99.
Burt, R.S. (2004), “Structural holes and good ideas”, American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 110 No. 2,
pp. 349-99.
Carey, A. (1967), “The Hawthorne studies as radical criticism”, American Sociological Review,
Vol. 32 No. 3, pp. 403-16.
Chase, S. (1946), “Calling all social scientists”, Nation Magazine, Vol. 162.
Chester, D.N. (1946), “Book review of The Social Problems of an Industrial Civilization”, The
Economic Journal, Vol. 56 No. 222, pp. 288-90.
Downloaded by UNICAMP At 11:55 13 July 2017 (PT)

Collins, O. (1946), “Ethnic behavior in industry: sponsorship and rejection in a New England
factory”, The American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 51 No. 4, pp. 293-8.
Davis, K. (1957), Human Relations in Business, McGraw Hill, New York, NY.
De Grazia, A. (1951), “The process of theory-research interaction”, The Journal of Politics, Vol. 13
No. 1, pp. 88-99.
Dunlop, J.T. and Whyte, W.F. (1950), “Framework for industrial relations: two views”, Industrial
and Labor Relations Review, Vol. 3 No. 3, pp. 383-401.
Elliott, M. (1934), “Book review of Human Problems of an Industrial Civilization”, The American
Economic Review, Vol. 24 No. 2, pp. 322-3.
Florence, P.S. (1938), “Review of Leadership in a Free Society”, The Economic Journal, Vol. 48
No. 189, pp. 122-4.
Freeman, E. (1936), Social Psychology, Henry Holt, New York, NY.
Friedmann, G. (1955), Industrial Society: The Emergence of the Human Problems of Automation,
Free Press, Glencoe, IL.
Friedmann, G., Goode, W.J. and Sheppard, H.L. (1949), “Philosophy underlying the Hawthorne
investigation”, Social Forces, Vol. 28 No. 2.
Gardner, B.B. and Whyte, W.F. (1946), “Methods for the study of human relations in industry”,
American Sociological Review, Vol. 11 No. 5, pp. 506-12.
George, C.S. (1972), The History of Management Thought, 2nd ed., Prentice Hall, Englewood
Cliffs, NJ.
Gillespie, R. (1991), Manufacturing Knowledge: A History of the Hawthorne Experiments,
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Gilson, M.B. (1940), “Book review of Management and Worker”, The American Journal of
Sociology, Vol. 46 No. 1, pp. 98-101.
Greenwood, R.G., Bolton, A.A. and Greenwood, R.A. (1983), “Hawthorne a half century laterL
relay assembly participants remember”, Journal of Management, Vol. 9 No. 2, pp. 217-31.
Grodzins, M. (1951), “Public administration and the science of human relations”, Public
Administration Review, Vol. 11 No. 2, pp. 88-102.
Hacker, A. (1955), “The use and abuse of Pareto in industrial sociology”, American Journal of
Economics and Sociology, Vol. 14 No. 4, pp. 321-33.
 Hart, C.W.M. (1943), “The Hawthorne experiments”, The Canadian Journal of Economics and The Hawthorne
Political Science/Revue canadienne d’Economique et de Science Politique, Vol. 9 No. 2,
pp. 150-63. legacy:
Hart, C.W.M. (1949), “Industrial relations research and social theory”, The Canadian Journal of a reassessment
Economics and Political Science/Revue canadienne d’Economique et de Science Politique,
Vol. 15 No. 1, pp. 53-73.
Homans, G.C. (1949), “The strategy of industrial sociology”, The American Journal of Sociology, 117
Vol. 54 No. 4, pp. 330-7.
Homans, G.C. (1984), Coming to My Senses: The Autobiography of a Social Scientist, New
Transaction Books, Brunswick, NJ.
Horwitz, M. (1953), “The conceptual status of group dynamics”, Review of Educational Research,
Vol. 23 No. 4, pp. 309-28.
Hughes, E.C. (1946), “The knitting of racial groups in industry”, American Sociological Review,
Vol. 11 No. 5, pp. 512-9.
Hughes, E.C. (1947), “Book review of The Social Problems of Industrial Civilization”, The Journal
Downloaded by UNICAMP At 11:55 13 July 2017 (PT)

of the Political Economy, Vol. 55 No. 4.

Hughes, E.C. (1949), “Queries concerning industry and society growing out of the study of ethnic
relations”, American Sociological Review, Vol. 14 No. 2, pp. 211-20.
Hughes, J.E. (1958), “Recent trends in industrial sociology”, The American Catholic Sociological
Review, Vol. 19 No. 3, pp. 194-209.
Jacobson, A. and Rainwater, L. (1953), “A study of management representative-evaluations of
Nisei workers”, Social Forces, Vol. 32 No. 1, pp. 35-41.
Kalven, H.C. (1947), “Book review of The Political Problems of Industrial Civilization”, The
University of Chicago Law Review, Vol. 15 No. 1, p. 243.
Keller, R.T. (1984), “The Harvard ‘Pareto circle’ and the historical development of organization
theory”, Journal of Management, Vol. 10 No. 2, pp. 193-203.
Kimball, D.S. (1946), “Book review of The Social Problems of an Industrial Civilization”, Annals of
the American Academy of Political and Social Science, p. 245.
Knowles, W.H. (1955), Personal Management: A Human Relations Approach, American Book
Company, New York, NY.
Knox, J.B. (1955), “Sociological theory and industrial sociology”, Social Forces, Vol. 33 No. 3,
pp. 240-4.
Koivisto, W.A. (1953), “Value, theory, and fact in industrial sociology”, The American Journal of
Sociology, Vol. 58 No. 6, pp. 564-72.
Kornhauser, A.W. (1934), “Book review of The Human Problems of an Industrial Civilization”,
Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, Vol. 172.
Kuhn, T.S. (1970), Social Structure of Scientific Revolutions, 2nd ed., University of Chicago Press,
Chicago, IL.
Landsberger, H.A. (1968), Hawthorne Revisited: Management and the Worker: its Critics and
Developments in Human Relations in Industry, Cornell University Press, Ithaca, NY.
Levine, L.W. (1989), “The unpredictable past: reflections on recent American historiography”,
The American Historical Review, Vol. 94 No. 3, pp. 671-9.
Locke, E.A. and Latham, G.P. (2004), “What should we do about motivation theory? Six
recommendations for the twenty-first century”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 29,
pp. 388-403.
Lombard, G.F.F. (1955), Behavior in a Selling Group, Harvard, Boston, MA.
 JMH Lynd, R.S. (1937), “Review of Leadership in Free Society”, Political Science Quarterly, Vol. 52 No. 4,
pp. 590-2.
18,1
Lynd, R.S. (1939), Knowledge for What? The Place of Social Science in American Culture,
Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ.
Mathewson, S.B. (1931), The Restriction of Output Among Unorganized Workers, Viking Press,
New York, NY.
118 Medalia, N.Z. and Miller, D.C. (1955), “Human relations leadership and the association of morale
and efficiency in work groups: a controlled with small military units”, Social Forces, Vol. 33
No. 4, pp. 348-52.
Merton, R.K. (1973), “Multiple discoveries as strategic research site”, in Storer, N.W. (Ed.), The
Sociology of Science, The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL, pp. 371-82.
Miller, D.C. and Form, W.H. (1951), Industrial Sociology: An Introduction to the Sociology of Work
Relations, Harper and Brothers, New York, NY.
Moore, W.E. (1946), Industrial Relations and the Social Order, Macmillan, New York, NY.
Moore, W.E. (1947a), “Book review”, American Sociological Review, Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 123-4.
Downloaded by UNICAMP At 11:55 13 July 2017 (PT)

Moore, W.E. (1947b), “Current issues in industrial sociology”, American Sociological Review,
Vol. 12 No. 6, pp. 651-7.
O’Connor, E.S. (1999), “The politics of management thought: a case study of the Harvard
Business School and the Human Relations School”, The Academy of Management Review,
Vol. 24 No. 1, pp. 117-31.
Organ, D.Q., Podsakoff, P.M. and MacKenize, S.B. (2006), Organizational Citizenship Behavior: Its
Nature, Antecedents, and Consequences (Foundations for Organizational Science), Sage,
Thousand Oaks, CA.
Park, R.E. (1934), “Industrial fatigue and group morale”, The American Journal of Sociology,
Vol. 40 No. 3, pp. 349-56.
Parker-Weiss, H. (1958), “Industrial relations, manipulative or democratic”, American Journal of
Economics and Sociology, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 25-33.
Parsons, T. (1940), “The motivation of economic activities”, The Canadian Journal of Economics
and Political Science/Revue canadienne d’Economique et de Science Politique, Vol. 6 No. 2,
pp. 187-202.
Parsons, H.M. (1974), “What happened at Hawthorne?”, Science, Vol. 10, pp. 259-82.
Parsons, T. and Barber, B. (1948), “Sociology, 1941-1946”, The American Journal of Sociology,
Vol. 53 No. 4, pp. 245-57.
Platt, S.C. (1947), “Humanizing public administration”, Public Administration Review, Vol. 7 No. 3,
pp. 193-9.
Powell, D.S.F. (1957), “Recent trends in industrial sociology”, The American Catholic Sociological
Review, Vol. 18 No. 3, pp. 194-204.
Roethlisberger, F.J. (1977), The Elusive Phenomena, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.
Rogers, C.R. (1942), Counseling and Psychotherapy, Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston, MA.
Rogers, M. (1946), “Problems of human relations in industry”, Sociometry, Vol. 9 No. 4, pp. 350-71.
Roy, D.F. (1952), “Quota restrictions and gold-bricking in a machine shop”, American Journal
Sociology, Vol. 57, pp. 427-52.
Schlesinger, A.M.J. (2000), A Life in the Twentieth Century, Houghton Mifflin, Boston, MA.
Schneider, E.V. (1950), “Limitation on observation in industrial sociology”, Social Forces, Vol. 28
No. 3, pp. 279-84.
 Scott, J.F. and Homans, G.C. (1947), “Reflections on the wildcat strikes”, American Sociological The Hawthorne
Review, Vol. 12 No. 3, pp. 278-87.
Sheppard, H.L. (1950), “The social and historical philosophy of Elton Mayo”, Antioch Review,
legacy:
Vol. 10, pp. 407-17. a reassessment
Sonnenfeld, J.A. (1985), “Shedding light on the Hawthorne studies”, Journal of Occupational
Behaviour, Vol. 6, pp. 110-30.
Sorensen, R.C. (1951), “The concepts of conflicts in industrial sociology”, Social Forces, Vol. 29 119
No. 3, pp. 263-7.
Starnes, G.T. (1937), “Book review of Leadership in a Free Society”, Southern Economic Journal,
Vol. 4 No. 1, pp. 107-8.
Stone, R.W. (1931), “Book review of Output among Unorganized Workers”, The American
Economic Review, Vol. 21 No. 2, pp. 338-9.
Stone, R.C. (1952), “Conflicting approaches to the study of workers”, Social Forces, Vol. 31 No. 2,
pp. 117-24.
Taylor, F.W. (1911), The Principles of Scientific Management, Harper, New York, NY.
Downloaded by UNICAMP At 11:55 13 July 2017 (PT)

Tead, O. (1930), “Trends in industrial psychology”, Annals of the American Academy of Political
and Social Science, Vol. 149.
The Yale Law Journal (1951), “The slow-down, an unprotected concerted activity. A pyrrhic
victory for management”, The Yale Law Journal, Vol. 60 No. 3, pp. 529-37.
Thompson, A.S. (1940), “Book review of The Industrial Worker”, Annals of the American
Academy of Political and Social Science, Vol. 210.
Trahair, R.C.S. (1984), The Humanist Temper, Transaction Books, New Brunswick, NJ.
Viteles, M.S. (1941), “The role of industrial psychology in defending the future of America”,
Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, Vol. 216.
Viteles, M.S. (1953), Motivation and Morale in Industry, W.W. Norton, New York, NY.
Warner, W.L. and Low, J.O. (1947), The Social System of the Modern Factory, Yale University
Press, New Haven, CT.
Weiss, H. (1949), “Human relations in industry: from Ernst Abbe to Karl Mannheim”, American
Journal of Economics and Sociology, Vol. 8 No. 3, pp. 287-97.
Whyte, W.F. (1948), Human Relations in the Restaurant Industry, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.
Whyte, W.F. (1956), “Problems of industrial sociology”, Social Problems, Vol. 4 No. 2, pp. 148-60.
Whyte, W.F. (1994), Participant Observer: An Autobiography, ILR Press, Ithaca, NY.
Williams, W. (1920), What’s on the Worker’s Mind?, C. Scribner’s Sons, New York, NY.
Wren, D.A. (1987), The White Collar Hobo, Iowa State University Press, Ames, IO.
Wren, D.A. (2005), The History of Management Thought, 5th ed., John Wiley and Sons, Hoboken,
NJ.
Yorks, L. and Whitsett, D.A. (1985), “Hawthorne, Topeka, and the issue of science versus
advocacy in organizational behavior”, The Academy of Management Review, Vol. 10 No. 1,
pp. 21-30.

Corresponding author
Jeffrey Muldoon can be contacted at: [email protected]

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: [email protected]

Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints
 This article has been cited by:

1. MuldoonJeffrey Jeffrey Muldoon [email protected] School of Business, Emporia State University,

Emporia, Kansas, USA . 2017. The Hawthorne studies: an analysis of critical perspectives, 1936-1958.
Journal of Management History 23:1, 74-94. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
2. Josh Bendickson College of Business, Department of Management, East Carolina University, Greenville,
North Carolina, USA Jeff Muldoon School of Business, Emporia State University, Emporia, Kansas,
USA Eric Liguori Department of Management, The University of Tampa, Tampa, Florida, USA Phillip
E Davis College of Business, Department of Management, East Carolina University, Greenville, North
Carolina, USA . 2016. Agency theory: the times, they are a-changin’. Management Decision 54:1, 174-193.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
3. Colleen Schwarz Management Department, B.I. Moody III College of Business Administration,
University of Louisiana Lafayette, Lafayette, Louisiana, USA . 2015. A review of management history
from 2010-2014 utilizing a thematic analysis approach. Journal of Management History 21:4, 494-504.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
4. Kyle Bruce Macquarie Graduate School of Management, Macquarie University, Sydney, Australia . 2015.
Downloaded by UNICAMP At 11:55 13 July 2017 (PT)

Activist manager. Journal of Management History 21:2, 143-171. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
5. Grace K. Dagher Management Studies Department, Business School, Lebanese American University,
Beirut, Lebanon Olga Chapa School of Business Administration, University of Houston Victoria, Victoria,
Texas, USA Nora Junaid Bentley University, Boston, MA, USA . 2015. The historical evolution
of employee engagement and self-efficacy constructs. Journal of Management History 21:2, 232-256.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
6. Anthony C. KlotzPrice College of Business, Division of Management & Entrepreneurship, University
of Oklahoma, Norman, Oklahoma, USA M. Ronald BuckleyPrice College of Business, Division of
Management & Entrepreneurship, University of Oklahoma, Norman, Oklahoma, USA. 2013. A historical
perspective of counterproductive work behavior targeting the organization. Journal of Management History
19:1, 114-132. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
7. Balázs VaszkunDepartment of Management and Organization, Corvinus University of Budapest, Budapest,
Hungary William M. TsutsuiDepartment of History, Dedman College, Southern Methodist University,
Dallas, Texas, USA. 2012. A modern history of Japanese management thought. Journal of Management
History 18:4, 368-385. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]