The Hawthrone Experiments

[OldGreyEagle]

If I get off track here, let me know, as I am sure you will but I always feel better if I ask.

 

Way, way, way back in my college days, (after Brownsea Island but before the end of the delicious red berets)I had a Management Major in College. One of the classes I took was in Industrial Engineering, known as the "Hawthrone Experiments". These were done somewhere around Chicago as a Western Bell plant. The initial idea as to determine the ideal lighting in the plant to maximize effeciency. The engineers noticed as they increased light, production rose, so the thought was the brighter the factory, the more productivity, then, to prove the theory, they started dimming the lights, they went dimmer than the lights had been before the experiment started, and productivity still rose. They went until objects were barely visible before productivity slowed. What did the results mean?

 

What I remember is that the employees knew they were being studied and were thrilled to be involved in improving their work places and they put out effort. Even to the point where conditions were deteriorating, efficiency still rose because humans do better when they are involved.

 

Fast forward to the recent pass. The Edward Deming style of Quality Management says that organizations do its best work when EVERYONE is in on the policy decisions. No, its not required, but how many readers are employed by company's that do "grass root" surveys every year or on some regular basis. Its not bad to hear what the underlings think. Old Sam Walton came up with a lot of ideas by traveling cross country with his truck drivers and he did all right.

 

This may come off as a rant, but I feel better

[eagle90]

Those experiments were done at Western Electric's Hawthorne plant in Cicero, Illinois. My two grandfathers, two grandmothers, mom, dad, and various uncles and aunts all worked for WE. I even put in two summers ther while going to college. Most of the production was for switching systems for the old Bell rotary tetlphones. The plant was a city in itself, employing over 35,000 people. The plant was closed in the 1990's. AH...memories!

[Fuzzy Bear]

I would like to share with you a method to insure that people do the barest minimum and skip out for any incidental reason.

 

I work for an agency that has a boss that is a political appointee. His agenda is driven by a certain ideology. He has rammed several of his ideas through, fired people, hired political pals and gave them big salaries, kept the wages low for the rest and used fear as a means to keep the group in check. On occasion, he glad hands people and asks them what they think. He then quickly exits and that is the last anyone hears from him or their ideas. It is also a method that a certain political party has been using now for the last few years to achieve their ends. Needless to say everyone loathes the sight of this individual. It has become the kind of job where one gets down on their knees and hopes and prays everyday for another election.

 

The brightness of the lights doesnt seem to affect our production either. I think the Hawthorne experiment must be working.

 

FB

 

[jkhny]

"Fast forward to the recent pass. The Edward Deming style of Quality Management says that organizations do its best work when EVERYONE is in on the policy decisions. No, its not required, but how many readers are employed by company's that do "grass root" surveys every year or on some regular basis. Its not bad to hear what the underlings think. Old Sam Walton came up with a lot of ideas by traveling cross country with his truck drivers and he did all right."

 

I have an IE degree from one of the best schools in the US. I know a litte bit about making things work better - my career has been spent doing so. My biggest obstacle in doing so has NEVER been "workers" -even in highly unionized environments - but management that did not want "change" no matter how desperately it was needed. Autocratic and short-sighted management that shows little respect for its workers is its own worst enemy - and has killed many companies.

 

Management in too many companies is resistant to change in any way shape or form. To some, "Improvements" implied a failure to do the best they could have done in the past (and NOBODY wanted to admit that). Others simply did not want change - period. "We've always done it this way." Some viewed change as a threat to their turf - a essening of their "power." Many objected to anything that might give "workers" greater freedom in judgement and latitude in doing their jobs - because workers "had to be told what to do"(and preferably in as much detail as possible).

 

The old "efficiency expert" distilled work into something readily quantifiable and definable. Now that may work when you are doing something simple and repetitive like shoveling coal, but it does not work for anything that really involves some degree of thinking. The truth is that ANY organization gets more out of its workers when it shows them respect and listens to them.

 

Does BSA respect its volunteers and listen to them - or does it simply expect obedience?

 

Volunteers can walk away far easily than paid workers. They seem to be doing so in BSA - which has noted the dropping number of adult volunteers. Has BSA made ANY effort to find out why volunteers are leaving? Any company I've ever worked for has exit interviews. They may ignore what they hear - but in some cases these polls result in real and direct action. When a staff turns over regularly - with tenures rarely exceeding a year and ALL leaving define "the problem" identically - as one pmanager, it proved to be wise to remove that ONE manager.

 

Why doesn't BSA have regular "polling" of unit leaders and District/Council leaders to evaluate "How are we doing?" Some companies regularly ask employees to rate subordinated AND superiors and DO attention to the results. When VOLUNTEERS make up the bulk of your workforce you'd expect an organization to care about what they have to say. Does anyone feel that BSA cares about what they say?

 

Why doesn't National have the same type of polling or ANY established and easy means for feedback and communication?

Ever try to e-mail National? It's a bear to even get a hold of our District officials or staff.

 

While "volunteer relations" are supposed to be a part of EVERY professional's job performance evaluation, has any volunteer ever felt that they had any input into this process?

 

Have any volunteers ever even been asked to evaluate the skill and abilities of paid staff? of their Council's program?

 

BSA regularly professes that it "listens" to its members.

 

Do any members really feel that they ARE listened to?

 

Our Council fireside chats are something of a joke. While held to elicit "feedback" from volunteers, our SE sits impatiently looking at his watch, and refuses to answer questions not to his liking. NOBODY in our Council feels they have a VOICE in anything related to Council operations. When over 100 leaders appeared at an Executive Board meeting to protest the removal of a paid staffer, the board members literally ran away.

 

This is clearly NOT a case where BSA (at least in in this Council) is "listening" to anything.

 

Others have complained about "autocratic" paid staff in BSA. Giving volunteers a direct say in evaluating paid staff would go a long way to ending these cases. And as far as "being qualified" - there are volunteer leaders here who are FAR more accomplished and qualified (and who handle far greater responsibilities in their own careeers) that our paid staff or even our Board members.

 

Frankly, a SE with only Cub Scout experience (though some in his last Council were "mistakenly" left with the impression that he was an Eagle Scout) seems particularly UNqualified. Many volunteers feel that a paid staffer in Scouting should have experience as a Scout - or at least a volunteer leader FIRST.

 

Many have decried the change in BSA in the 70's to a "business" model focused on numbers and statistics and away from Scouting. But has that change worked to stem declining numbers? no. Most organizations stuck in a declinging phase stop to re-evaluate what is wrong. Has BSA done so? Is BSA even willing to admit that it has problems? Membership in Scouting has declined drastically and continues to decline. Has BSA it even asked its volunteers what they feel is wrong?

 

And THAT is something you will learn as an IE - the person doing a job has a better understanding of it than anyone who studies him for a short period. You can accomplish amazing improvements by simply LISTENING to those that do a job and helping them get what THEY feel they need. Yes, you may improve things by detailed motion study and such but I guarantee that a guy doing a job tries his best to make it as EASY for himself as possible to do the best job he can. Yes, you should review and evaluate what you are hearing and there is a "bigger" picture, BUT there's a reason most on a factory floor think the guys in the suits are clueless. Often, they are.

 

Others have commented about a corporate culture in BSA that seems frozen in time and is "unresponsive." My communications with professionals reinforces that. There is a "do what you're told, don't rock the boat" attitude within BSA. There is little desire to listen to volunteers or anyone else. One DE noted that the "black list" of volunteers he was handed on taking his job proved to be filled with some of the most dedicated and committed Scouters he ever met. They felt ignored and dictated to. Simply by listening to their concerns and addressing them, these people became "my most valuable resources." Such an attitude is too rare in the professional ranks.

 

Most colleges have "rate your professor" surveys. They are informally run - sometimes by student government. Poor professors HATE these surveys because they are shown for what they are. Good professors have nothing to fear. The few extreme comments are clear for what they are and even "Hard, alot of work but you LEARN the subject" will not put off someone who wants to learn. But "plays favorites, easy workload, but doesn't know the subject" or "barely speaks English - you'll have to learn this on your own" are NOT good reviews.

 

One of those decrying the problems in the professional ranks proposed an independent "rating" system of sorts to expose the problem Councils - and problem professionals in BSA (since BSA is apparently unwilling to even admit that these people exist).

 

Open, transparent, soliciting feedback from ALL - these are GOOD things in an organization.

 

 

BSA conducts enough surveys with meaningless results - like 49% of boys feel like they get positive feedback from Scout Leaders (that's all?) or 89% of boys like to play together or 76% of Boy Scouts are less likely to cheat in school.

 

How about asking the volunteers in BSA how THEY feel about BSA, its professionals, its program, and its future?

 

The class of 1976 at West Point set a record in resignations - one that holds to this day. No scandals. Cadets simply quit. Forty percent of that class in 2 years. It was a big deal. A GSA investigation. What was wrong?

 

There was not a simple answer. The First Classmen (Seniors) for that class entered in 1969. Not a good time to go to USMA. Some appointments were left unfilled. Some filling appointments were second or third alternates. The "quality" of that class was not up to expected standards in the opinion of many (and by quantifiable standards). But then after Tet in 68, Vietnam seemed unending and was pretty much a guaranteed posting on graduation. Many in that class had low lottery nuumbers and were cadets only to put off the inevietable for 4 more years (and it had to be better as an officer, right?).

 

The class of '76 - entering in 1972 - had been recruited through an intensive "marketing" campaign (Truth did not match reality - one issue). Vietnam was still hot but US involvement seemed likely to be over in 4 years. By most quantifiable standards this was a highly qualified class. High SAT's, top HS ranks, most were athletes as well. Yet they quit - in large numbers and voluntarily. Some had little "respect" for those they reported to - and with some cause. You do not mind the expected abuse involved in being a cadet if you feel it is "fair" and dealt out by others you have respect for. But often that was not the case. Others saw that Duty, Honor, Country were really of little concern to too many already there. Many who were naively idealistic, lost that feeling quickly when they saw upperclassmen caring more about well, let's say, "less idealistic things...."

 

There were some very bright people in that class who left. They could see very real problems and knew that they would not be in any position to effect change for a long time - if ever. The Army lost some very good potential officers - officers that were NEEDED in a military going through a difficult time. USMA was producing the officers the Army WANTED (who were all too often getting killed by their own subordinates in Vietnam) instead of the officers they needed.

 

Changes were major and deep after all this. There was aperiod of drastic change - including the admission of women. Most feel that USMA is now drawing exceptionally qualified applicants and producing talented and skilled leaders.

 

Why do I bring this up? BSA prefers obedient and unquestioning volunteers that do as BSA wants. But that is not helping BSA. Many great potential leaders will have nothing to do with BSA now - and DO have other organizations to choose from. Even long serving volunteer leaders are leaving Scouting.

 

Perhaps it is time for BSA to take a long hard, and unbiased look at itself. Recent headlines point out very real and embarrassing failures. Excusing them or pretending they did not happen does not change anything.

 

Mayor Ed Koch in NY used to ask "How am I doing?" on a regular basis. BSA seems to go to great lengths NOT to do so - instead preferring to TELL everyone that "things are fine." Is BSA afraid of asking its members "How are we doing?"

[Fuzzy Bear]

Jkhny,

 

Our people were told to leave if we didn't like the management. In a volunteer situation it is easier accomplished than in a paid job. One is not relying on an income to pay for one's life. So, the same advice applies, if you don't like the Boy Scouts, join the Girl Scouts. I guarantee that nobody will notice or think twice about your absence.

[jkhny]

So again, the response is If you don't like it, leave.

 

Unfortunately THAT is precisely what IS happening in BSA. Adults (and boys) ARE leaving.

 

Older volunteers are dying off and NOT being replaced. Anyone else a bit embarrassed at the average age of Disrtict and Council level volunteers? Maybe they aren't quitting, they're simply DYING.

 

BSA is FAILING as an organization - by whatever standards you use to measure "success." Yet when people TRY to address the NUMEROUS issues and problems in BSA they are "silenced", "punished" and even thrown out of BSA. This is hardly in compliance with the guiding principles BSA itself quotes.

 

But, it IS far easier to throw out critics than respond to them.

 

Why stay? First of all my SONS have little interest in Girl Scouts. Second, MY family has been involved in and supported Scouting HERE, in THIS Council for DECADES - over 70 years. I'll be damned if I'll walk away and let some 5 year contract professional kill Scouting here. Besides, "A scout is brave - they speak up for what they believe in." And isn't is better to try and FIX problems than let them fester and destroy an organization.

 

 

[OldGreyEagle]

"I'll be damned if I'll walk away and let some 5 year contract professional kill Scouting here"

 

So how much more time is on the pro's contract? After 70 years, what's five