Watching the kettle
Does observing employees help or hinder productivity?Ever feel eyes on the back of your head? Notice somebody reading over your shoulder?
Then you’ve probably been affected by the ‘Hawthorne effect’. (It’s also known as the ‘observer effect’.) The story starts in an electrical parts factory in the 1920s, known as the Hawthorne Works.
Curious as to the effects of light levels on productivity, a psychologist named Elton Mayo ran trials to measure brighter lighting on factory worker output.
He was pleased to find his expectations were met when productivity increased in brighter light. Encouraged, he conducted the opposite test: by dimming the lights compared to the average, he expected to see output drop in line with the light reduction.
But things didn’t turn out as expected. In fact, output was up again compared to the norm. Now he had a confusing outcome that demanded an explanation: how could both higher and lower light levels benefit productivity levels?
He concluded that the productivity increases were irrelevant to light levels, so long as they were sufficient to work. Instead, productivity levels increased due to awareness among employees that they were being observed.
The studies themselves have since been criticised on a number of levels. However, it’s now a matter of little controversy that (at least some) people seem to act differently when they know they are being watched.
This has a number of possible implications to working from home initiatives, sickness absenteeism, productivity levels, group dynamics, stress levels, turnover, and both wellbeing and happiness levels.
So a lot, then.
Watching the defectives
It’s hardly an earth-shattering insight that a manager who is attentive to the needs of his or her staff is better than one who isn’t. However, it seems that just being attentive, full stop, brings about important changes in attitude and behaviour.
The effect is interesting in itself. But the real question is: can it be harnessed?
To begin with, let’s consider working from home initiatives. A number of high profile companies have recently rolled back on their flexible working policies, most notably Yahoo!
But equally, plenty of large companies (such as Cisco) continue to deploy it effectively.
So what makes it work in some instances, and not in others?
It looks like the key lies in the kind of work engaged in by employees, and the extent to which they collaborate with those in the office while at home.
Psychologist Mark Hopkins, of Axon Consulting, says that ‘focus is required to deliver effectively. There’s little more that focuses the mind than knowing you have to provide an update on a regular basis, and be able to explain what you’ve done and how effective you’ve been.’
Take an employee with no set deadlines and freedom to choose their own projects. They update their manager on what they are doing weekly, by email.
Such minimal oversight will lead all but the most strong-willed people into working at a lower output level than they are capable.
So it may be that the secret to a successful working from home scheme is to establish a system wherein it is known to an employee that their work output is subject to scrutiny, either by managers or by peers.
But as Hopkins says, it’s not just about surveillance. ‘This isn’t just about ‘checking up’ on people, even though the end result could be argued to be similar.
‘Organisations need to focus on an ethos and culture of engaging employees, instilling enthusiasm in the delivery of objectives, and ensuring that people want to make an impact on the organisation, customers and colleagues through what they deliver.’
Big Brother is stifling you
As a general rule then, the more observed an employee is, the more productive they begin.
But there is an alternative view. ‘Crowding out’ theory argues that work output decreases under duress, and over-monitoring causes this.
A brief summary from one paper on the subject goes like this. “When workers feel that they are not trusted or are being controlled, they lose their motivation to work, and economic incentives such as monetary rewards or sanctions are not as effective as hoped.”
This it seems put employers in an unenviable Catch-22 situation. If you don’t watch workers, they shirk. If you do watch them too much (surely different for every person) they become volatile and their work quality decreases.
Is there a way the Hawthorne effect can be deployed that both increases productivity, while not contributing to a poor, anti-productive working atmosphere?
Watching, but in a nice way
One of the most effective ways to help people get over their fear of public speaking (that’s called glossophobia, by the way) is getting them to focus on positive faces in the crowd.
To know that the mind behind the observer is on your side can greatly allay feelings of anxiety. The idea of a crowd willing you to victory is well-known to sports science — you need only look at home game statistics, where supportive observation and encouragement can bring out the best in sportspeople.
This study found that when testing telemarketers work rate decreased proportionally with lower monitoring — an apparent defeat for the ‘crowding out’ model.
But it also found that ‘those who had positive attitudes towards the firm did not respond to lower monitoring’. Meaning that workers who actually viewed the company favourably worked well under both conditions.
So it seems that how you watch is just as important as how much you watch.
Letting employees know they are being rated and judged at all times is a recipe for a poor outcome. Instead, regular but encouraging attention serves to bring out the best in people.
The impression that those above you are ‘on your side’ has real value, and in turn opens up avenues for monitoring and measurement that can be hugely beneficial for HR.
The worst scenario is where the only time a manager interacts is to chastise. Being observed purely to identify nominally negative behaviour, rather than reinforce positives, results in a poor working environment.
Silent observation of a job well done is almost as bad. To an employee, it is the same as not being observed at all and productivity will likely fall.
As Blanchard and Johnson wrote, ‘Catch people doing something right.’
Nobody gets tired of being patted on the back or appreciated for what they do. If observation is viewed as a channel to demonstrate skills, or to earn back pats, then put the kettle on – it’s time to celebrate a win-win for both employers and employee.
About the author
