Thanks for your thoughts on the Hawthorne Effect, Bill. Like it came straight
from one of my workshops.
I fully agree; and, as you point out, so does most of the research. My point
might not have been clear; I was not introducing the Hawthorne effect to
advocate for it, but to point out that constant faculty oversight is like an
application of the Hawthorne effect.
To avoid further confusion, I think it is important to differentiate between the
Hawthorne study conclusions and the Hawthorne effect. Management gurus
and practitioners still hold tight to the “happy employees are productive
employees” conclusion of the Hawthorne studies. However, this conclusion is
essentially “cow psychology”; as in, “a happy cow produces more milk.” Last
time I checked, most humans are a bit more complex than cows. Contrary to
the conclusions of the Hawthorne studies and the assertions of some
organizational psychologists, most research shows that performance precedes
satisfaction, not the other way around. in other words, employees who
perform tend to be more satisfied on the job.
Rather than finding a connection between satisfaction and performance as
many assert, the Hawthorne studies showed that paying attention to
employees can result in temporary increases of productivity. MBWA serves as
an example of how a manager can use the Hawthorne effect to elicit
temporary increases in performance; “the boss is coming, look busy.” Faculty
oversight in TBL also serves as an example of how teachers use constant
oversight in attempt maintain performance levels in the classroom.
A problem with relying on attention events to motivate performance is that
employees performance becomes dependent on extrinsic motivational forces.
This is why the Hawthorne Effect is the enemy of trainers; performance will
usually increase through an attention event, but it is difficult to determine the
degree to which performance increases can be attributed to the training or to
the attention. If training is not reinforced or if it does not provide subjects
with substantial new tools for sustained performance improvements,
performance will likely drop in direct correlation to the performance that was
motivated by the attention event. Homeostasis at work; it all balances out.
However, this does not mean that there is anything wrong with the extrinsic
motivators; we just need to be aware of the psychological forces at work, and
make sure we are productively using the attention events to foster
development rather than dependence.
Regarding faculty oversight as an application of the Hawthorne effect, we
have to apply a certain degree of micromanagement when we are working with
students who have no experience in applying teamwork to learning, and with
students who lack the maturity for self-direction.
However, is there ever a point at which students can develop sufficient
capacity and intrinsic motivation to collaborate without faculty oversight?
In professional and adult development environments, managers and teachers
attempt to facilitate individuals toward independence and teams toward
interdependence by helping them gain skills and motivation for perpetual
development beyond the classroom. Fully delegating responsibility and
authority without any oversight is usually a mistake; but, we might find that
continuous attention events can ultimately hinder development of intrinsic
skills and motivation.
So, the question becomes, does TBL allow teachers to scaffold students and
teams toward self-direction in learning or must the faculty keep constant
vigilance regardless of the context?
Regards,
Brent
|
