Th e En durin g Legacy of Elton Mayo
J. H. Sm ith
1,2
W he n Hum an Relation s first appe are d, E lton Mayo had just re tired from
Harvard and was at the pe ak of his fame. All contributors to the journal in its
first decade would have acknowle dged his already legendary status as a pioneer
of applied social science, e spe cially in the workplace. His fall from grace in the
late 1950s coincided with growing ideological-cum-methodological critiques of
the Hawthorne Expe rime nts. In the e ve nt, this sustaine d intere st in Mayo
him se lf, although m uch of the co m m e nt on his co ntribution re m aine d
speculative and ill-informe d. Fifty years on, the e nigmatic aspe cts of Mayo
’s
career have largely been unraveled, thanks to the availability of family letters
and other archival material. A more balance d assessment is now possible of
Mayo
’s intellectual interests and long-term contribution to the field of human
relations.
KEY WORDS: Elton Mayo; life; human relations move ment; legacy.
INTRODUCTION
The first issue of Human Relation s was publishe d at around the same
time as Elton Mayo le ft Harvard and America for retirement in England.
Then in his 67th ye ar, he was one of the most celebrated social scie ntists
of the age , lionize d on the eve of his departure by an article in the busine ss
magazine Fortune hailing him as the equal of John Dewey or Thorstein
Veble n and by a gala send-off at the Harvard Busine ss School, his acade mic
base for over 20 ye ars. In May 1947, a farewell confe rence,
“The Mayo
We ekend,
” was attended by over 60 participants, including representatives
of the Rocke felle r Foundation, We stern Ele ctric, AT&T, Ford, Gene ral Mo-
tors, and Standard Oil. Colle ague s from the Busine ss School, including his
former assistant and now de facto successor Fritz Roe thlisbe rge r, took stock
of Mayo
’s pioneering contributions to industrial relations and the human
Hum an Relations, Vol. 51, No. 3, 1998
221
0018-7267/98/0300-0221 $15.00/1
Ó
1998 The Tavistock Institute
1
Aston Business School, Aston Unive rsity, Birmingham B4 7ET, United Kingdom.
2
Re quests for reprints should be addressed to J. H. Smith, Aston Business School, Aston
Unive rsity, Birmingham B4 7ET, United Kingdom.
side of administration. Other spe akers include d the journalist Stuart Chase ,
whose article on the Hawthorne Studie s in the Readers Digest in 1941
marked the be ginnings of popular interest in what was to become the Hu-
man Relations in Industry movement.
The unusual esteem in which Mayo was held on both side s of the At-
lantic reflected the widespre ad hope s at the end of the Second World War
for ne w approache s to the proble ms of conflict and coope ration regarde d
as ende mic in industrial societies. Wartime de mands had swiftly energized
nove l strategies and alliance s, not le ast be tween diffe rent discipline s. Ques-
tions of morale both on the battle field and on the factory floor had be en
identifie d as legitimate matte rs for scie ntific inve stigation and it was ge n-
erally agreed that the le ssons and technique s le arned during the war should
be directly applie d in peacetime . In Britain, the creation of the Tavistock
Institute of Human Relations by an ex-service group who had been active
in such work was an important move in this direction. So too was the setting
up of a gove rnme nt advisory pane l on human factors in productivity, unde r
the auspice s of the Department of Scie ntific and Industrial Research: be-
fore long, this was to be succe eded by a DSIR/Me dical Research Council
Joint Committee on Human Relations in Industry. The climate had never
been more favorable for those committe d to the belief proclaime d in the
editorial state ment in the first issue of Hum an Relation s
—“that social sci-
entists in all fields should work toward integrating the ir discipline s in order
to unde rstand the comple xitie s of human proble ms.
”
Few writers could bring more impressive credentials to be ar on this
task than Elton Mayo. As Fortun e assure d its reade rs in Novembe r 1946:
Scie ntist and practical clinician, Mayo spe aks with a rare authority that has
commanded atte ntion in factorie s as well as Universities. His erudition e xtends
through psych ology, sociology, physiology, me dicine and e conomi cs, and his
experience come s from a lifelong first-hand study of industry.
Mayo was no strange r to Britain. He had be en a regular visitor in the
thirtie s and retirement in England was a long-che rishe d dream. He had
hope s at the same time of
“some useful work,” possibly with the National
Institute of Industrial Psychology or the newly-establishe d British Institute
of Manage ment. The re were encouraging sugge stions too of a mode st ex-
pansion in British unive rsities of teaching and research in the social sci-
ence s. The arrival on the scene of Human Relations signale d a new ve nture
closely in line with Mayo
’s own views about the direction in which the social
scie nces should be moving. This is confirme d by the contents of the early
issues of the journal; inde ed many of the article s it publishe d in its first
10 ye ars dire ctly refle ct the the mes and rese arch inte rests with which
Mayo
’s name was closely associated—the links between workers’ produc-
tivity and morale , coope ration within work groups, leade rship (including
222
Sm ith
supe rvisory) style s, individual needs and community structure , stress and
counse ling, processes of social assimilation. It was hope d that research in
such are as which was inte rdisciplinary and directed toward practical appli-
cations would help to remove prejudice against social science in general
and the North American varie ty in particular.
All of this might seem to sugge st that Mayo could well have rounde d
off his remarkable career by helping to influe nce the direction of British
social science research in industry at a de cisive stage . His book The social
problem s of an industrial civilization had just be en publishe d and was to
remain in print for over 30 ye ars (Mayo, 1945) . He was recognize d as the
principal and most influe ntial repre sentative of the research team at the
Hawthorne plant whose famous expe riments were widely believe d to pro-
vide ne w scie ntific foundations for manage ment. He was internationally ac-
claime d; translations of his work appe ared in Ge rman, Spanish, Italian,
Japane se, and Arabic. Yet his hope s for an active re tirement in Britain
came to nothing. A series of stroke s meant that he made no more than a
few toke n appe arance s and his sponsors
—who included the industrialist
and social inve stigator Se ebohm Rowntree
—had already told him that they
were encounte ring difficultie s in attracting the financial support they had
encourage d him to expe ct.
By the summer of 1949, Mayo
’s health was causing anxie ty to his fam-
ily. No longe r fit to trave l, he was dise nchante d with the English weather
and
“this Socialist-ridde n country.” Eventually it became necessary to move
him to a nursing home in Guildford, where at the beginning of Se pte mber,
he died. The obituarie s
—including that in the Times to which he had writ-
ten (Mayo, 1948) emphasizing the rele vance of his work to Britain
’s postwar
proble ms
—were unanimous in recording his importance and his unique
contribution to the unde rstanding of the human proble ms of industry. The
veteran manage ment consultant Lyndall Urwick (a champion of his work
for many ye ars) had seen Mayo
’s Social problem s as the “nunc dimittis of
a great man . . . it is be yond our powe r to pay fitting tribute to one of the
gre at figure s of the time
” (Urwick, 1946). But different opinions were be-
ginning to be expressed. Ten ye ars later, Mayo
’s reputation had been un-
ravelled to the point where little was left of it. His personal contribution
to the Hawthorne Expe rime nts was now judge d to have been at best no
more than a public relations exercise for We stern Ele ctric, while his cre-
dentials as a scientific inve stigator were calle d into question by those who
detected uncomfortable ideological le anings in his inte rpretation of the ills
of industrial society and the remedies he prescribed.
The posthumous demolition of a once-prodigious reputation is nothing
out of the ordinary but in Mayo
’s case the decline was immediate and un-
sparing. Fifty years on, much of what was writte n in the de cade following
En du rin g Legacy of Elton Mayo
223
his de ath seems ove rblown and, in certain ke y respects, misdire cted. To
some extent, this hostility can be accounte d for by his remote ness from
mainstre am American acade mic life. Mayo
’s academic career was uncon-
ventional and throughout his years in the United States he remaine d an
elusive and relative ly isolate d figure . Howe ve r, recent studie s based on fam-
ily letters and on the Hawthorne archive s (now lodge d at the Harvard Busi-
ness School) offer evide nce which does much to offset the more extre me
criticism s. This extensive corresponde nce provide s an invaluable unde r-
standing of how Mayo saw himself and his work; it also he lps to set the
record straight about his part in the Hawthorne Studie s, which can now
be confirme d as a crucial one by any standard. Furthermore, certain aspects
of Mayo
’s writings which so upset the posthumous critics—his wariness of
the powe r of the State , his mistrust of politicians, his ske pticism about the
powe r of formal proce dure s to overcome proble ms of industrial conflict
and human coope ration
—express doubts which today are widely shared.
Finally, some topics of the late 1940s which figure d large in the early vol-
umes of Human Relations have again become promine nt in the research
agenda as new technologie s and global marke t shifts have radically affected
the nature of work and its organization. In the 1994 volume , Mayo would
have found much that was familiar to him: article s on inte rpe rsonal style
and difficultie s at work, social support, job control, and psychological well-
being, participation at work level, occupational stress, and self-organization
in small groups. Such the mes reflect what Mayo, in his time, saw as the
interrelate d proble ms of individual disturbance , economic inse curity, and
coope ration and satisfaction in work. New conte xts may have forme d with
change s in technological or economic circumstance s, but the human uncer-
taintie s to which Mayo responde d remain.
All of this sugge sts further queries about the purpose of the intense
posthumo us attacks on Mayo
’s credentials as a social scientist (Moore,
1948; Be ndix & Fishe r 194 9; She ppard , 195 0; Ke rr & Fishe r, 1957;
Landsbe rge r, 1958; Baritz, 1960). For the se critics, Mayo
—or what became
the received wisdom about the nature of the man and his work
—appears
to have pe rformed some ne cessary function in articulating the ir preference
for a diffe re nt orie ntation toward social scie nce research in industry.
Vie wed today, his contribution to the themes and methods of research into
industrial be havior is demonstrably more durable than the y claime d. The
50th annive rsary of Hum an Relation s, coinciding as it doe s so close ly with
the 50th annive rsary of Mayo
’s death, provides a fitting opportunity to re-
assess his contribution and to explore the view of his life and work which
is now emerging afte r five decades of controve rsy and archival research.
What, exactly, the n was Mayo
’s legacy to the study of human rela-
tions? O ne answe r must cle arly be the views of his work in the continuing
224
Sm ith
debate about the characte r and purpose s of the field itse lf and the schol-
arship this has since stimulate d. But the re is more to the question than
this. The unusual patte rn of Mayo
’s life and his distinctive , even idiosyn-
cratic, approach to research in the social scie nces also
—in a favorite phrase
of his
—“demands attention.” While many of his critics were uncomfortable
with the style and thrust of his intellectual assumptions and strictures, he
exerted a strong influe nce on the outlook of a distinguishe d group who
came in contact with him during their formative ye ars at Harvard. Including
as the y did such figure s as Fritz Roe thlisbe rger, George Homans, Lloyd
Warner, David Riesman, William Foote Whyte , and Conrad Arensbe rg, it
is clear that Mayo left a pe rsonal legacy of lasting importance . As Roeth-
lisbe rge r put it:
“Mayo . . . was a man of imagination, a stimulator of
thought, a promote r of clinical research . . .. His chie f products were the
people that he influe nced and he lped to develop
” (Roethlisberger, 1960).
In his last book, Notes on the psychology of Pierre Janet, Mayo empha-
sized the need for the interviewer neve r to lose sight of the total social situ-
ation of the othe r pe rson.
“Everything a person says or doe s must be
regarde d as an ite m in a context
—the context being the personal history and
present social situation of the individual
” (Mayo, 1948). There seems no bet-
ter way of exploring the characte r and value of the Mayo legacy than by ap-
plying Mayo
’s method to the changing circumstances of his own life.
Two photographs of Mayo taken in his last ye ar at Harvard pre sent a
sharp and telling contrast. The first of the se is a formal portrait taken for
the Fortun e article . It is care fully pose d. Mayo is in an acade mic setting,
seate d at a de sk with a few books and pape rs on the shelve s behind. His
le ft hand is shuffling a few pape rs: one of the se is a set of table s. His right
hand is wie lding an elongate d cigare tte-holde r
—a well-known trademark
reportedly used to press points home on the lecture platform. He is staring
directly but with little expre ssion into the camera. He looks uninvolve d and
unwe ll. Mayo hated the picture but it conve ys a sense of uneasine ss in the
role of distinguishe d world-class scholar. A second photograph taken only
a few months later presents an altoge the r different image . It shows Mayo
at his farewell conference at the Harvard Busine ss School, on his feet and
addre ssing the audie nce . He is wearing the same suit and bow tie but the
cigare tte holde r is re place d by a glass. He is smiling broadly and looks
ye ars younge r: he is unque stionably in his element.
Mayo
’s impatience with the demands of heavyweight academic schol-
arship and his pre dile ction for platform improvisation were to have un-
favorable conse que nce s for his acade mic reputation, espe cially in the
ye ars immediate ly following his de ath. His skill and charm as a le cture r
and at se minars were among his gre ate st asse ts and it was the se that
account for the pe rsonal influe nce he exe rcise d throughout his care er.
En du rin g Legacy of Elton Mayo
225
But the ye ars of fame came afte r a le ngthy and unconve ntional pre lude
in which Mayo gradually
—and sometimes accidentally—acquire d a set of
crede ntials which equippe d him for a le ading role in the de ve lopme nt of
human relations research. In orde r to unde rstand this proce ss, it is use ful
to ide ntify the five main pe riods into which his life and work may be
divide d. Each of the se pre sents a separate conte xt in which
—in Mayo’s
own terms
—his personal history and changing social situation may be un-
de rstood. Within each of the m he accumulated a body of expe rie nce and
skills which subse que ntly combine d to create what re mains a lasting and
unique reputation.
At the time of Mayo
’s death, the biographical details available to the
obituarists were ske tchy, inconsiste nt, and occasionally misleading. The in-
formation concerning who Mayo was, what qualifications he had, or exactly
what he did was le ss than precise. More than one false trail would eve n-
tually be trace d back to Mayo himself and it is only in the past 20 years
that work on the family letters and the Hawthorne archive s have made it
possible to construct a reliable account of his life. Although initially as-
sumed to be American, he was born in Australia in 1880 and never arrive d
in the United State s until 1922. Much emphasis was place d by supporte rs
and critics alike on his background in medicine and his clinical orientation,
but he was not medically qualifie d and had in fact faile d to make the grade
in three medical schools. Again, he is often depicte d as a conve ntional in-
dustrial psychologist who, faced with the Hawthorne results, experienced a
Road-to-Damascus conve rsion and inve nted industrial sociology; but Mayo
had no research experie nce in industry before arriving in America and at
no time de scribed his work as industrial sociology. Furthe rmore , his greate st
claim to fame
—still ritually reported in management textbooks today—was
that he de signe d and/or directed the Hawthorne Experime nts: ye t the main
serie s was well unde r way by the time he arrive d on the scene in 1928.
Exploring how and why these misconce ptions arose (including Mayo
’s
part in the proce ss) is an essential step in evaluating the Mayo legacy. It
has to be said that the newly-establishe d facts about Mayo
’s life are alto-
ge ther more interesting than the lege nd. In his early years (1880¯1907), he
was a disappointme nt to his family and struggle d to ove rcome a de ep sense
of failure . His acade mic career in Australia (1907¯1922) gave him a secure
professional ide ntity but also a sense of frustration. In the third period
(1922¯1932), he establishe d himself in American academic life but re-
maine d uncertain about his role and prospe cts. This was followe d by a pe-
riod (1933¯1939) of fame and fortune and a sense of achievement. The
final ye ars (1939¯1949) were dominated by the war, by family and financial
worries, and a growing sense of disappointme nt.
226
Sm ith
EARLY LIFE 1880¯1907
Mayo
’s childhood and adole scence were spent in a secure middle-class
and highly-supportive family environme nt. Richard Trahair
’s biography The
hu manist temper (1984) give s a de taile d account of Mayo
’s family back-
ground, drawing on family letters, pe rsonal reminisce nce s, and Australian
archival source s. His grandfathe r was a surge on from England who had
settled in Adelaide and became promine nt in the local community: Mayo
’s
fathe r was a prospe rous estate agent in that city and the family employe d
a gove rness. His pare nts were ambitious for their childre n and encourage d
the m socially as well as acade mically. Mayo
’s later prowess as a lecturer
and his skill in conve rsation (when he chose to exercise it) was nurture d
in this close-knit family setting, in which the childre n were shown the im-
portance of pe rsonal and social skills.
Thre e of Mayo
’s siblings went on to establish themselves without dif-
ficulty in professional careers; two of the m, Hele n (b. 1878) and John (b.
1891) be came doctors while Herbert (b. 1885) studie d law, became an emi-
nent judge , and was knighte d. By contrast, George Elton Mayo appe ared
to his parents to be doome d to failure .
Mayo
’s sense of having let his family down never really left him. In
1938, with both his pare nts de ad, he wrote to his daughte r Patricia about
his fantasy
“that I should like to meet my father and grandfathe r in the
happy hunting grounds (on terms of comple te equality) and to compare
and discuss expe rience s with them.
” What lay behind this sentiment was
Mayo
’s feeling of having achieved success, against all the expectations of
his relative s in Australia and England who had despaire d of him in his
twentie s.
“So many people were afraid I was no good” (Smith, 1987b).
There was certainly a lot of ground to be made up. He was no more than
an ave rage pupil at school: he scraped through the entrance exam for the
Unive rsity of Ade laide and embarke d on a course in medicine only unde r
extre me family pressure . When he be gan his studie s the re in 1899, he joine d
no more than a handful of stude nts on the course and the facilitie s were
meage r.
Having done reasonably well in his first ye ar, Mayo the n faile d his
examinations at the end of 1900 and left the Unive rsity. In the following
4 years, he was to find himse lf in Britain and, briefly, in West Africa. His
pare nts decide d that he might be a more succe ssful medical stude nt in the
traditional and pre sumably more restrictive atmosphe re of Edinburgh but
he did no be tter there, nor at St. George
’s Hospital in London where he
enrolle d in April 1903. A few months late r he wrote to tell his deeply wor-
rie d pare nts that he could no longe r study medicine . Apart from a few
references to the family
’s disappointme nt in his letters, Mayo never openly
acknowle dge d his repe ated failure s as a medical student: inde ed he was
En du rin g Legacy of Elton Mayo
227
subse quently to display a some what equivocal approach to the nature of
his own profe ssional qualifications and also to be ing addre ssed
—as he gen-
erally was
—as “Doctor Mayo.” Throughout this period, Mayo was in great
difficulty with his feelings about a medical career. The Mayo childre n were
encourage d to think of medicine as a family tradition; but while empha-
sizing this, his fathe r had not followe d it, but chosen engine ering. He also
had a fairly relaxe d approach to the require ments of profe ssional study,
but Mayo
’s mother Henrietta insisted on persistence and concentrated ap-
plication. Mayo meanwhile did not attend school until he was 12 and study
at home with a gove rne ss had allowe d him conside rable freedom to pursue
his own inte rests. At school he dislike d team games and showe d a strong
resistance to learning by rote. His recolle ctions were not happy . . .
“I used
to have rotten time s and I le arne d that if you wait, things pass.
” In his
first ye ar at school, his sister Olive died of appe ndicitis at age 13. Faulty
diagnosis, inade quate treatme nt, and the sense of an unne cessary death
reduced still further Mayo
’s minimal enthusiasm for medical training. It
also left him with a life long fear of appe ndicitis.
The odds were the refore he avily against Mayo
’s chances of successfully
comple ting the drawn-out and laborious appre nticeship that led to a medi-
cal qualification in the early 1900s. On top of this, family reminisce nces of
the time refer to his lack of effort, gambling, and othe r de bts and
“amusing
companions.
” But this unsettled period was not to be without some return.
His reluctance to disappoint his pare nts meant that for over 4 ye ars, he
receive d, de spite his unhappi ne ss and de ep-roote d resistance , a basic
grounding in anatomy, physiology, organic che mistry, materia medica, as
well as le arning some ele mentary therapeutics. Some 20 ye ars late r, he
would sugge st that acce ss to a company
’s employees might be easier when
he wore a white coat, carried a stethoscope , and took blood pressure read-
ings. His subse quent collaboration at Harvard with L. J. Henderson was
formed on the basis of a share d belief in applying the methodology of the
medical science s in orde r to sharpe n the approach and profe ssional skills
of the social scientist (Smith, 1975). Mayo may have rebelled against the
restrictions and rote -le arning of traditional medical education, but a sig-
nificant part of its proce dures and philosophy seems, none the less, to have
rubbe d off on him in those early years of disappointme nt.
Before Mayo returne d to Australia he was briefly involve d in an ig-
nominious episode in West Africa whe re he had gone (once again with
financial support from his father) to work for the Ashanti Mining Company.
After a few weeks, he contracte d dengue fever and was shippe d back to
his English relative s in Grove Park. He was a moody and unwe lcome house
guest, deeply resentful of criticism. But be fore he le ft England at the be-
ginning of 1905, Mayo had found encourage ment from two achie vements
228
Sm ith
which he lpe d to reshape his self-aware ne ss and sense of purpose . He had
thoughts of be coming a journalist and manage d to get a short pie ce on
Australian politics publishe d in the Pall Mall G azette (Mayo, 1904). In this
he expre ssed his concern about an Australia
—then shortly to become a
Commonwe alth
—whose politics would be dominate d by demagogue s and
class-ridde n policie s. Meanwhile his siste r Hele n had arrive d in London to
continue he r medical studie s at the School of Tropical Medicine . At the
same time Mayo volunte ered his services as a teache r at the nearby London
Working Me n
’s College, then in Great Ormond Street. His sense of success
the re was a turning point; it was the one aspe ct of his life in England in
those ye ars which he readily recalle d in le tters and le cture s. In three memo-
rable months, he was able to discove r his gifts as a communicator and to
play a full part in the social life of the Colle ge .
The end of 1904 must be seen as a watershed in Mayo
’s life. His sister’s
patie nt approach softened his resentment of his family
’s attitudes and over-
came his reluctance to return home. Late r, his own precepts for successful
interviewing and counse ling dire ctly reflected Helen
’s sympathetic but de-
tached concern. His sense of isolation and frie ndle ssness was diminishe d
by his reception at the Working Men
’s College: more than 25 years later
he was still emphasizing what it meant to him.
“As a youngster I walked
into the Working Me n
’s College and was immediately taken into the con-
fidence of the workers themselve s
” (Smith, 1987b). Although he still lacked
a clear sense of dire ction, he had be gun to find his feet and was to be
furthe r reassure d by the welcome give n by his parents and the rest of the
family whe n he arrive d home.
ACADEMIC CAREER IN AUSTRALIA 1907¯1922
Within a few weeks of his return, Mayo started work as a partne r in
a printing firm, once again with financial help from his fathe r. He found
it difficult to settle down, be lieving that he was vie wed as an outside r by
middle -class Adelaide socie ty. But his boredom ende d sudde nly when he
encounte red Professor
—later Sir—William Mitchell and returned to study
at the Unive rsity. Mitche ll was a Scot who had taught moral philosophy in
Edinburgh and London. He had a formidable acade mic range , eve n by the
standards of a time when specialist boundarie s were le ss fine ly drawn than
now. His chair at Ade laide include d English language and literature as well
as mental and moral philosophy. He was equally at ease with the natural
and social sciences and in 1907, whe n Mayo encounte red him as a stude nt,
he had just publishe d a book on the structure and growth of the mind.
Mayo late r declare d that he de cided to take a philosophy degree unde r
Mitche ll
“because the professor could answer my questions” (Kyle, 1949).
En du rin g Legacy of Elton Mayo
229
Certainly, Mitche ll exercise d a profound influe nce in widening Mayo
’s in-
telle ctual perspectives, not least in unde rlining the importance of interdis-
ciplinary applic ations. The se make an e arly appe arance in Mayo
’s
unde rgraduate Honors the sis on the crite ria of social progre ss. In this he
offers a critique of political philosophy incorporating an appe al to scientific
method as a basis for reform. Arguing that social progre ss is depe nde nt
on a de votion to moral ide als but necessarily moderate d by scientific skills
to achie ve realistic outcome s, he conclude s that Utopian or revolutionary
approache s to progre ss are fallacious (Trahair, 1984) .
Mayo
’s high regard for his professor was matched by the latter’s con-
viction that he re was a student of an exce ptional talent. In recommending
him for a le ctureship at the newly establishe d Unive rsity of Queensland,
Mitche ll describe d him as quite the be st student he had known in the 15
ye ars he had been at Ade laide .
In April 1911, Mayo moved to Brisbane to take up his appointme nt
as lecturer in logic, psychology, and ethics. He had sole responsibility for
the courses in the se subje cts and be fore long took ove r the teaching of
economics when a colle ague left and was not replace d. During the 11 years
which Mayo spent in Que ensland, he be came fully establishe d in a unive r-
sity career, was marrie d and became the father of two daughte rs, and had
begun pione ering work in psychothe rapy. Yet by the early 1920s, he was
deeply dissatisfie d and restle ss and determine d to move on.
His marriage in 1913 to Dorothe a McConne l, who came from a wealthy
Que ensland family, took place within a few months of their first meeting.
Both were well into the ir thirtie s and he was 3 ye ars younge r. Mayo and
Dorothe a were not the first couple to pe rsuade the mselves that their union
would be unlike any othe r, but their life toge ther was certainly unusual. His
bride was culture d and well-trave led but uncomfortable and unhappy in he r
relations within her own family, espe cially with her mother. As the elde st of
seve n childre n she was give n little freedom and a sense that life was not to
be enjoye d: as a result, she had be come highly-strung and withdrawn. Despite
these difficultie s they unfailingly supporte d each other, not least because for
Mayo Dorothe a could never be other than his ideal and
“dearest of women,”
while she on he r part staunchly and sympathe tically backe d him in his work
and aspirations. Their de termination to remain close to one anothe r was
teste d from a ve ry e arly stage by Mayo
’s frequent absences. However,
Dorothe a had given him a writing board as a wedding gift and it was unde r-
stood that he would write to her daily whe never the y were apart. For ove r
30 years he did so assiduously and she kept eve ry letter. The result is a re-
markable testimony to their mutual de dication; but the colle ction is also par-
ticularly valuable for the information the le tters give about Mayo
’s work, both
in the amount of de tail unre corded else where and in Mayo
’s frank appraisal
230
Sm ith
of himself and his career. The Great War widened Mayo
’s horizons in several
dire ctions. He was active on bodie s concerne d with various aspects of the
mobilization of human and mate rial resources for the war effort, but his in-
telle ctual de tachme nt gave offe nse to what he openly de scribe d as the irra-
tional vested interests of both capital and labor. His book Democracy and
freedom (Mayo, 1919) publishe d at the end of the war, is the most comple te
stateme nt of the vie ws Mayo had de velope d about the failure s and limitations
of democratic gove rnment. It had a mixed reception; some of the hostility it
inevitably arouse d was to be revive d and revisite d upon Mayo in an article
that was publishe d in the month of his de ath some 30 years later (Bendix &
Fisher, 1949).
Mayo
’s political judgments were now broader and deeper than those of
the would-be journalist in London in 1904. They were firmly grounde d in the
idealist the ory of The State expressed in the work of T. H. Green and others,
which is encapsulated in Green
’s well-known maxim “Will, not force, is the
basis of the State
” (Green, 1924). For Mayo, the central problem of a chang-
ing socie ty was how to de velop and maintain coope rative syste ms; preindus-
trial societies de pe nde d on the spontane ous coope ration of skille d groups
and modern socie ty must recreate these conditions. Politicians by contrast
exploite d class feelings and sectarian prejudice s and only intensifie d the prob-
le ms they claime d to solve. Social and psychological ills could be trace d back
dire ctly to failure to establish stable systems of coope ration. Individuals must
feel that their work is socially necessary and must be able to see beyond their
group to the socie ty.
“Failure in this respect will make disintegration inevita-
ble
” (Mayo, 1919). By this stage it is clear that Mayo was employing a socio-
logical frame of reference and at the same time applying psychologica l
conce pts to the analysis of politica l be havior and of industrial conflict
(Bourke , 1982). Incorporate d into his approach were the vie ws of the French-
man Pierre Janet, who be lieve d that social conflict could be trace d back to
individual maladjustme nt (Janet, 1909).
The se ne w perspectives also drew directly on change s in Mayo
’s per-
sonal life . In July 1914, he met the anthropologist Bronislaw Malinowski
and they be came firm frie nds. Malinowski
’s radical approach to fieldwork
among primitive s, couple d with the equal weight he gave to social and psy-
chologic al factors in the colle ction and analysis of evide nce , appe ale d
gre atly to Mayo. He was a welcome guest of the Mayos whenever he was
in Brisbane , and in 1918 he and Mayo spent a week in Melbourne working
on proble ms in psychology and sociology. Mayo declared himself exhauste d
by the expe rience but Malinowski subseque ntly wrote that in English-spe ak-
ing countrie s he had only once met a real scie ntific mind
—“at a backwater
unive rsity in sub-tropical Australia
” (Trahair, 1984; Smith, 1987b).
En du rin g Legacy of Elton Mayo
231
Mayo was now active ly involve d in the practical application of psycho-
logical conce pts; first in his own life and the n in pione ering work in psy-
chothe rapy. He was in his mid-thirtie s whe n he first became a fathe r. A
daughte r, Patricia, was born in 1915 and his unce rtainty about his ne w role
le d him to seek guidance from contemporary psychology. His reading of
Jung le d to a resolution to avoid the detrime ntal influe nce of the dominant
fathe r upon the child: he would follow his own fathe r
’s example with his
childre n and try to encourage initiative and adve nturousne ss, especially in
thought. Whe n he was away and alone he was subje ct to depre ssion but
the regular letters to Dorothe a now provide d an opportunity to reflect upon
his mental state and to confess how much he depe nde d on her
“gentle
criticism.
” In 1919, Mayo’s self-esteem received an unexpected boost when
he was promote d to a profe ssorship of philosophy. At the same time, he
had begun to enlarge his clinical experience through a close working rela-
tionship with a local physician, T. R. H. Mathe wson. For 2 ye ars they
treated a varie ty of patie nts referred to Mathe wson, who was the n special-
izing in functional and nervous dise ases at the Sick Childre n
’s Hospital in
Brisbane . Mayo took the lead in the use of Jung
’s association test (report-
edly for the first time in Australia) and subse quently shifte d Mathe wson
’s
focus from the sexual etiology of ne urosis toward fear as a complication
in dise ase. The local medical establishme nt, though pre dictably skeptical,
sent on their most difficult case s. Mathe wson became a resident medical
office r at Russell Lea, a hospital for shell-shock victims of the Great War,
and was to acquire a reputation as a pione er in the treatment of psycho-
neurosis. Mayo enjoye d the opportunity to use the ir case s as illustrations
in his le ctures and continue d to do so to the end of his career. But he
could not he lp comparing his position unfavorably with that of his collabo-
rator. Mathe wson could ope rate secure ly within the boundarie s of the
medical profession and quite possibly extend them, but Mayo
’s undoubte d
contribution to that succe ss only he ighte ned his sense of be ing an outside r.
Things were not much be tter at the Unive rsity. He was over-stretche d and
needed more staff and other resource s; the attitude s of his acade mic col-
le ague s and the incompe tence of the Unive rsity administration confirme d
Malinowski
’s view of it as an “academic backwate r” from which he must
now escape. He was grante d sabbatical leave from mid-1922 to go to Eng-
land. His funds were limite d and he had to leave his family be hind (a sec-
ond daughte r Gael was born in 1921) . The plan was to travel via the United
State s whe re he expe cted to le cture at Berkele y. He took with him several
le tters of introduction and the proofs of five article s on industrial pe ace
which he had just writte n for the Industrial Australian Min ing Standard .
(Mayo, 1922) He ne ver returne d to Australia.
232
Sm ith
THE WONDERFUL OPPORTUNITY 1922-1932
Mayo
’s first few months in the United States were so disastrous that
he was more than once on the point of returning home . None of his fi-
nancial expectations mate rialize d and he was only able to survive for a few
weeks longe r with mone y cable d by his family. It prove d to be a crucial
breathing space , as during this time he manage d to travel to Washington
to meet social scientists and industrialists and
“a representative of one of
the major foundations.
” This was the first step in what Mayo described as
“the wonderful opportunity that America has given me.” Only 4 years later
he was establishe d for the rest of his career as a professor of Industrial
Research at the Harvard Busine ss School, with a handsome grant from
“the
major foundation
” to finance his post and provide other support. This
Rockefeller income was to continue virtually until his retire ment.
Mayo
’s extraordinary success can be attribute d to a combination of
factors, not the le ast of which was his quick-witte d recognition of whe re
the main chance s were to be found. In retrospe ct it seems a classic example
of the right man sensing that he was in the right place at the right time .
From his initial contacts with American personne l researchers and busi-
nessmen, Mayo saw that his ideas on the application of psychological meth-
ods to industrial conflict were arousing interest (Gille spie , 1991) . An even
more productive encounte r was with Beardsle y Ruml, a young psychologist
who was about to reorganize the Rockefeller Foundation into a major
source of support for basic research in the social scie nces (Bulme r & Bul-
mer, 1981) . To those whom he met
—Ruml especially—Mayo seemed to be
ideally qualifie d as a pione er industrial inve stigator. Above all the y were
impressed by his platform fluency, his emphasis on industrial psychiatry,
and his unfamiliar but assure d inte rdisciplinary approach.
From the first, Mayo was able to de ploy the full range of skills he had
built up in Australia to gain the confide nce of his potential sponsors. His
medical background was frequently allude d to, including his work on she ll-
shock cases. By the end of 1922, he had addre ssed seve ral conference s and
enjoye d conside rable success with audie nce s which include d John Dewey,
William McDougall, and J. B. Watson. Ruml was looking for a suitable
acade mic base and after some difficulty place d him for a trial pe riod at
the Unive rsity of Pe nnsylvania. A ne w Departme nt of Industrial Research
had been establishe d there at the Wharton School of Busine ss and its Di-
rector, Jose ph Willits, was keen to broade n the range of its research on
personne l matte rs. Mayo took up his post just 6 months after his arrival
in the Unite d States. He still had no first-hand experience of workplace
research and had yet to publish a scientific pape r in that fie ld. His ide as
on the links between worke r reveries and industrial proble ms such as fa-
tigue , abse nteeism, labor turnove r, and strikes sugge sted rich rewards to
En du rin g Legacy of Elton Mayo
233
employe rs and pe rsonne l specialists: Mayo knew that they must now be
tested empirically. In the ne xt 3 ye ars he carried out studie s in seve ral fac-
torie s, the best-known at Contine ntal Mills, a textile plant. By the time he
le ft the Wharton School he had de velope d a model of labor turnove r which
deftly brought togethe r existing studie s of psychological and physiological
factors in fatigue and linke d the m to his expe rie nce in medicine and psy-
chiatry. He adde d a further dime nsion by making use of the British research
begun in the Great War which was then be coming available through the
publications of the Industrial Fatigue Research Board.
Mayo
’s model remains of interest, although it is set in the framework
of machine production syste ms which are no longe r repre sentative of the
industrial scene . Reve ry is passive thinking, as oppose d to concentration,
or active thinking. It plays an important part in all mental de ve lopme nt
and normally reve ry illuminate s and informs concentration, which in turn
reple nishe s the mate rial of revery. Worke rs engage d on routine production
are liable to
“pessimistic reveries,” especially when fatigue d. “Reveries,
born of imperfect adjustme nt to industrial conditions, make the individual
restless, dissatisfie d, unhappy
” (Mayo, 1923). High turnover, industrial un-
rest, or individual bre akdown may be the result. The scie ntific credibility
of this work is perhaps less important than what it tells us about Mayo
’s
skill in balancing his own intellectual concerns with the interests of man-
agement: He was late r to be roundly conde mned as the arche typal mana-
ge rial sociologist, but that judgm e nt se e ms absurd se t against the
orientation of so much social science research today. In any case , Mayo
emphasize d manage rial shortcomings and poor working conditions as fac-
tors affecting worke r performance and distance d himself from conve ntional
psychological testing or scie ntific manage ment technique s. In addition, his
atte mpts to insist on an even-hande d approach to manage ment and worke rs
never ceased to cause difficultie s during his time at the Wharton School.
Whate ve r may be said about the validity of his approach, there seems little
doubt that at this stage he was genuine ly conce rne d to create the experi-
mental conditions essential to obje ctive research. But free access to worke rs
and manage rs prove d difficult. Despite the white coat and the blood pres-
sure readings, aide d by the pre sence of a nurse Emily Osborne who was
to work with him for 13 years, progre ss was unsatisfactory. Both Mayo and
Ruml now thought that a fresh start was needed in an industrial setting
more sympathe tically dispose d to the essential require ments of scientific
inve stigation; or, as Mayo himself was to put it,
“a convenient niche in the
industrial structure from which we can push inve stigation and expe riment.
”
That niche had been identifie d and occupie d whe n Mayo moved to
Harvard in 1926 and paid his first visit to the Hawthorne Plant 2 years
late r. From this point, any atte mpt to offer a reasonably de taile d summary
234
Sm ith
of his life and influe nce encounte rs difficultie s of compression. Fifty years
ago, this would not have been the case . As has be en said, the obituarie s
and memoirs were sketchy and inaccurate and the accounts of the Haw-
thorne Studie s then available , though substantial, were limite d to what
might be termed the official ve rsions publishe d by Roethlisbe rge r and Dick-
son (1939) and White head (1938) , toge ther with Mayo
’s own assessments
(1933, 1945) . Since Mayo
’s death there has grown up a substantial literature
of criticism and debate, reaching a point whe re its long-running nature has
le d it to be describe d as
“the Mayo Mousetrap” (Rose, 1988) or “Haw-
thorne Hoopla
” (Sonnenfeld, 1980, 1985). Of greater significance where
Mayo
’s exact contributions are concerned, a substantial body of work draw-
ing on the Mayo le tters and the Hawthorne and other archive s has begun
to appe ar (Trahair, 1984; Smith 1980, 1987a,b; Gille spie 1991) . Toge ther
the se provide a wealth of detail about Mayo
’s part in the Hawthorne Stud-
ie s, his role at the Harvard Busine ss School, and his influe nce inside and
outside the Unite d States, and they are the principal sources use d in what
follows.
The official accounts of Hawthorne and much of the early human re-
lations literature sought to conve y a sense of breathle ss revelation and the
beginning of a new era of scientific study. The first Experiments, dating
from 1924 and carried out by company employe es, faile d to demonstrate
the expected conne ction be tween improve d lighting and highe r productivity.
It gradually emerged that other forces were affecting the performance of
workers.
“What on earth,” asked the Readers Digest in 1941, “was going
on?
” (Chase, 1941) . The simple and now commonplace answer was the
discove ry that psychological and sociological factors could de cisive ly affect
worker performance ; but the archive s reve al that a gre at de al of signifi-
cance also went on outside the test rooms and inde ed be yond the Haw-
thorne Plant itse lf. As Gille spie ( 199 1) shows in compe lling de tail,
manage rs, workers, researchers, and the busine ss, acade mic, and philan-
thropic establishme nts which sponsore d them formed an intricate ne twork
of ove rlapping interests with which the Experime nts were conce ived, con-
ducted, and inte rpre ted.
Mayo
’s move to the Harvard Business School was the first step in a
rapid seque nce of eve nts culminating in the decision by Western Ele ctric
executive s in the winte r of 1928 that he was just the man to present the
Hawthorne findings to a wide r audie nce. By then Mayo had establishe d a
close working relationship with the formidable physiologist and bioche mist
L. J. Henderson, with whom he share d a base in the newly-establishe d Fa-
tigue Laboratory locate d in the Busine ss School and funde d by the Rocke-
feller Foundation. Mayo and Hende rson were kindre d spirits and not just
intelle ctually; it was the closest frie ndship Mayo would ever form in Amer-
En du rin g Legacy of Elton Mayo
235
ica and quite possibly in his life . Hende rson is now chiefly remembered
for his inte llectual arrogance and uncompromising championship of the
Italian social scientist Pareto; this made him wide ly dislike d and some of
this feeling was to be transferred to Mayo afte r Hende rson
’s death in 1942.
While Mayo had conside rable reservations about this particular enthusiasm
he remaine d loyal to his friend and the re is no hint of this exce pt in his
most private corre sponde nce (Smith, 1987a).
Doubts about Mayo
’s precise role at Hawthorne persisted for many
ye ars. The criticisms range d from asse rtions that Mayo had distorte d the
dire ction of the work by setting it in a highly que stionable sociological
framework to dismissals of him as an inte lle ctual lightwe ight who appointe d
himself as publicity office r for the Studie s (Kerr & Fishe r 1957; Landsbe r-
ge r, 1959; Baritz, 1960; Rose, 1975). But it can now be said with confide nce
that Mayo was the pivot on which the whole ente rprise turne d. He fostered
the links between the different and pote ntially conflicting interests, de ve l-
ope d the interviewing and supe rvisory training programs and introduce d
fresh ide as and new faces from Harvard. His public performance s on both
sides of the Atlantic achie ved everything that We stern Electric and the
Rockefeller interests had expe cted of him.
Among the new face s was a junior instructor in the Busine ss School,
Fritz Roe thlisbe rger. In The elusive phenom ena (1977) , Roethlisbe rge r de-
scribe s how Mayo brought him into the Studie s, emphasize s his ke y con-
tribution, and conclude s that without him the results would still be in the
company archive s gathe ring dust. What is significant is that despite his ac-
knowle dge d de bt, Roe thlisbe rge r did not seem to grasp that Mayo
’s appar-
ently casual attitude to company exe cutive s, unive rsity administrators, or
foundation directors created an exceptionally favorable climate both for
the continuation of the work and the shift in focus toward the attitude s
and needs of individual workers and the informal organization of small
groups. This is the sense in which Mayo comes closest to
“directing” the
Studie s, but it typifie s the difficulty of capturing his precise contribution.
In every important aspe ct he seems to be , in Gille spie
’s words, “both more
and le ss than this
” (Gillespie, 1991). At the end of 1932, Mayo delivered
the Lowe ll le cture s at Harvard and the se were publishe d in the following
ye ar as The human problem s of an indu strial civilization. The book was not
without its critics but it was welcome d as a serious contribution and has
achie ved a kind of classic status. It combine s a detaile d critique of con-
ventional psycho-physiological studie s of monotony and fatigue with an in-
terpre tation of the Hawthorne mate rial to support a conclusion that a
cohe sive work environme nt would, as in the Relay Test Assembly Room,
improve psychological adjustme nt and performance . This section ends with
a brief reference to the Bank Wiring Room Study which had just produce d
236
Sm ith
contrary evide nce, i.e ., that informal group cohe sion could affect output
ne gative ly. Although this study has always be en regarde d as the classic
paradigm of worke r resistance to manage rial control, Mayo advance d an
altoge ther different view from his Hawthorne associate s by treating it as
an example of social disorganization.
The Bank Wiring Room expe riment had be en set up with the aid of
the social anthropologist Lloyd Warner, whose famous Newburyport studie s
were now unde rway (Warne r & Lunt, 1941). Mayo mentione d this work
favorably in the lecture s; inde ed, the ide a of a factory study in a community
setting had originally been propose d by him and, at the time, Warne r and
his fie ldwork expenses were be ing supporte d by Mayo
’s grant. However, at
Hawthorne , the re had be en diffe rence s be twee n the m
—albeit amica-
ble
—over Warner’s anthropological emphasis on a social structural ap-
proach in the workplace as against Mayo
’s concern with the individual.
These are implie d in the lecture although Mayo later shifted his ground
on this point. But it was the final section of the Human problem s that were
to give the firmest grounds for criticism. In this, Mayo develops a general
the ory of social disorganization in mode rn socie ty built on Durkhe im
’s con-
cept of anom ie and incorporating the findings of the Chicago School. From
this he conclude s that social collaboration can only be restore d through
the creation of administrative elites traine d in technique s of social organi-
zation and control couple d with a readine ss to move away from a belief
in simplistic political solutions. The opportunity to give the Lowell Lectures
in 1932 would prove as significant for the rest of Mayo
’s life as was his
acceptance at the Working Me n
’s College in London nearly 30 years earlier.
Their publication brought him inte rnational recognition and conferred a
life long pione er status. But inevitably they made him more vulne rable to
the criticism of his peers, all the more so as Mayo could neve r break free
of his platform style. Committe d to print, his ringing phrase s and arre sting
declarations rarely faile d to provide his critics with plenty of ammunition.
Mayo
’s skill in sensing what audie nces wished to hear was so highly
deve lope d that a call for the need for unive rsity-traine d administrators at
the end of a serie s of Harvard lectures focuse d on the work of its Busine ss
School would have come as no surprise . Left at that the re might have be en
little furthe r comme nt on his enthusiasm for elite s. But he linke d this to
an apocalyptic vie w of the future in which scientific and technical advance
threate ned to comple te the destruction of the social order to which Mayo
felt he belonge d. Since he could expre ss little or no confide nce in the ca-
pacity of existing institutions to ensure social collaboration and survival,
the only hope lay in
“the discovery and training of administrators of first
class capacity.
” A brief reference here to Pareto—almost certainly a nod
to his friend Henderson in the audie nce
—was sufficient to persuade his
En du rin g Legacy of Elton Mayo
237
late r critics that Mayo was at be st an authoritarian elitist, at worst a crypto-
Fascist (Vincent & Maye rs, 1959) .
This passe d without comme nt at the time and the Lowell le ctures
firmly establishe d Mayo
’s academic reputation. While the reviews were gen-
erally enthusiastic, the sheer range of topics and discipline s covered inevi-
tably raised questions about Mayo
’s methods and their ability to support
his bold generalizations and pre dictions. But it seems that he had reached
a point in his life when he had ne ithe r the incentive nor inclination to
answer them.
FAME AND FORTUNE 1933-1939
Mayo was now locke d into a peculiar pattern of family life and work
habits which was only broke n by the start of the Se cond World War. His
daughte rs had been sent to school in England and in 1934 his wife decided
that she herself would stay to be near the m the ye ar round. Mayo then
saile d ove r eve ry summer, combining the reunion with lectures and con-
ference s in England and on the Contine nt. He dislike d the separations but
enjoye d the trans-Atlantic lifestyle. For 5 years, he some how manage d to
maintain an equilibrium that was de licate emotionally, financially, and aca-
demically. He had sporadic thoughts of moving to a suitable post in Eng-
land, but this seems to have been no more than as he himse lf put it
“to
satisfy some vague longing at the back of my mind
” (Smith, 1987b).
At Harvard, Roe thlisbe rge r and Dickson were writing Managem ent and
the worker. The original inte ntion had been that Mayo should write a full
report of the Experiments, but he crie d off following an eye operation in
1932 (Smith, 1987a; Gille spie , 1991) . Mayo
’s distaste for extended writing
was the most like ly motive ; but Roe thlisbe rger adds that Mayo wanted to
give him the opportunity in orde r to advance his care er and that for him
it was both
“a labor of duty and a way of paying back my debt to Mayo”
(Roethlisbe rger, 1977) . It is cle ar that without Mayo
’s encouragement and
financial support the book would neve r have be en comple ted; howe ve r,
the re is little of Mayo in Managem ent and the worker, apart from his preface
and various complime nts paid to him in the text whe n it eventually ap-
peared in 1939. Nonethe le ss, he had continue d to publicize the Experi-
ments from platforms on both side s of the Atlantic, topping the bill with
a performance which was as renowne d as it was now ine scapable . Not sur-
prisingly he be came bored but the alternative s to Harvard were always un-
promising.
Roe thlisbe rge r had taken ove r as the principal link with Hawthorne .
Whe n in 1937, We stern Ele ctric began its counse ling program for employ-
ees he worke d half-time as a consultant, training staff in counse ling tech-
238
Sm ith
nique s. As the scheme took shape , Mayo put in two appe arance s but it
was more in the nature of a state visit; he was looking for some thing else
to satisfy his sponsors in the Rockefeller Foundation and his Dean at Har-
vard. In the event what may have appe are d at the time to colle ague s in
the Busine ss School (and more than once to Mayo himself) as a set of
random and unproductive initiative s came to form an important part of
the Mayo le gacy. The two most notable outcome s were the creation of a
cadre of researchers who were stimulate d by his style and method of ap-
proach and the acce ptance of human relations as a key subje ct in busine ss
education.
Continue d funding by the Rockefeller Foundation gave Mayo an im-
munity from the day-to-day require ments of a unive rsity appointme nt. He
engage d in administration only when questions of re ne wing his support
were on the age nda and never lost his touch. The Foundation paid his
salary for almost 20 ye ars and ove rall its various arms contribute d over
$1,500,000 to activitie s in which he was involve d (Gille spie, 1991) . In 1937,
the Medical Science s Division extended Mayo and Henderson
’s terms of
reference so that they could de velop a scientific basis for the teaching of
human be havior in relation to busine ss. Mayo made a start by gathe ring
toge ther a select band of junior colle ague s and research students to en-
courage them to share his interests and skills. Among these was a rene wed
interest in psychothe rapy.
Mayo
’s return to clinical psychology followed from discussions with Dr.
Joseph Pratt of the Boston City Hospital. Before long, he was giving semi-
nars to young doctors on Jane t
’s approach to obsessional neurosis and
eve ntually bringing his own stude nts into the outpatie nt clinic; first to ob-
serve and the n to practice their interviewing skills. The basis of Mayo
’s
teaching was recorded in a serie s of le cture s at the New School of Social
Research and the se were later publishe d (Mayo, 1948) . He also gave lec-
ture s in the Harvard Me dical School; one of these,
“Frightened People,”
ranks as one of the earlie st essays on the sociology of illne ss behavior.
Among those who testifie d to Mayo
’s influence on them in this period
were George Homans, Conrad Arensbe rg, William Foote Whyte , Talcott
Parsons, and David Riesman. Sociology at Harvard unde r Pitrim Sorokin
was at a low ebb and for some the Busine ss School on the othe r side of
the River Charle s was a more stimulating setting. The main attraction was
Mayo
’s Industrial Research Department and in particular, Mayo’s unfamil-
iar and stimulating tutorial style. This was especially welcome for those,
like George Homans, who were also involve d in Henderson
’s famous So-
ciology 23 le ctures. (Barber, 1970) . The stimulus the se offered was offset
by the le cturer
’s obsessive enthusiasm for Pareto and his unwillingne ss to
have it challe nged.
“His method in discussion,” Homans recalled, “is feebly
En du rin g Legacy of Elton Mayo
239
imitate d by the pile drive r
” (Homans, 1961). In contrast, Mayo’s breadth of
approach meant that his methodological concerns were a unifying force for
a talente d group with an unusually wide range of research interests. At the
same time, eve nts in Europe involve d Mayo in various public lectures and
debate s, in which he returne d to the application of psychopathology to poli-
tics and especially to the threat pre sente d by the Fascist dictatorships. In
the summer of 1939 he was on his annual visit to England, where he had
recently unde rtaken an advisory review of the National Institute of Indus-
trial Psychology for its Exe cutive Committee. There was talk of him as a
possible Director, but Mayo found its approach and its staff too unimagi-
native for him. Soon afte r the outbre ak of war he and his wife arrive d back
in Harvard, le aving the ir daughte rs
—both recently married—behind in
Europe .
WAR AND RETIREMENT 1939-1949
The final period at Harvard was a time of gre at personal anxie ty and
continuing unce rtainty. Whe n France fell, Mayo
’s younger daughte r Gael
was trappe d in Paris with he r Russian husband and ne wborn son (Mayo,
1984) . Mone y was ne eded for the ir escape via Portugal and South America
and Mayo somehow manage d to ge t this to the m. They eve ntually arrive d
in New York in the summer of 1941 pennile ss and de pe nde nt on his sup-
port. His savings were already depleted and with retirement not far off,
financial worrie s be came more acute. At the same time, his position in the
Busine ss School was changing. In 1942, his friend Hende rson died sudde nly
at the age of 64. It was a gre at shock: Mayo wrote to tell Patricia (then a
personne l manage r in a war factory in England) saying that he now felt
“like the last of the Great Auks.” To add to this, the end of the Rockefeller
grant was now immine nt and a new Dean was in charge of the Busine ss
School. For 16 ye ars, Mayo
’s freedom to pursue his own interests at Har-
vard had be en guarante ed by his inde pendent funding and the support of
Wallace B. Donham. His succe ssor took a different vie w and wante d Mayo
to play an active role in the routine work of the School, especially in the
light of wartime de mands. Yet anothe r complication was a loss of confi-
dence on the part of Mayo
’s one remaining close associate. Mayo had in-
tende d to conce ntrate on the applications of his work in political scie nce
and to give Roethlisbe rge r the responsibility for industrial research. In the
winte r of 1941¯1942, Roethlisberger had spent 6 months in Washington
helping to develop the Training Within Industry Scheme (TWI). The Job
Relations Training compone nt in the program drew heavily on the Haw-
thorne expe rience and Roethlisbe rge r
’s celebrated work on the role of the
foreman. In the light of this, Mayo
’s proposal seems sensible enough, but
240
Sm ith
Roethlisbe rge r was unse ttled by certain aspects of the Washington experi-
ence . For him, it renewed
“old anxieties about my identity and subject mat-
ter.
” Just as Mayo was adapting to the death of Henderson and the
re tire me nt of Donham , Roe thlisbe rge r suffe red a ne rvous bre akdown.
Roethlisbe rge r subse quently acknowle dged that at the time he misunde r-
stood Mayo
’s concern for his future and that the damage to their relation-
s h i p wa s d u e t o h i s o w n r e l u c t a n c e t o t a k e o n r e s p o n s i b i l i t y
(Roethlisbe rger, 1977; Zaleznick, 1984) .
Late in 1942, Roethlisbe rger returne d to Harvard and the task of in-
corporating a human relations approach into the Busine ss School
’s tradi-
tional case method teaching. Mayo, though supportive as ever, moved in
a different direction and made the next 2¯3 years a time of exceptional
activity. He supe rvised two studie s of proble ms of abse nteeism and labor
turnove r in war production industrie s, chaire d a committee set up by the
National Research Council to examine the rehabilitation of those returning
home from military service and other war work, and wrote The social prob-
lem s of an indu strial civilization (Mayo, 1945) . His le tters to Patricia conve y
the sense of effort and commitment he felt during this pe riod. They also
provide insights into the way in which his ide as on research themes and
methods continue d to evolve .
Many of the younge r me n who had worked with him were alre ady
away on war service
—notably George Homans. For the studie s in ship-
building and aircraft plants he was assisted by John Fox, Jerome Scott, and
George Lombard (Fox & Scott, 1943; Mayo & Lombard, 1944) . The con-
clusions from this research, unde rline d in the account give n by Mayo in
his Social problem s, show a significant shift of emphasis toward social struc-
tural factors as an influe nce on individual be havior in the workplace . Ab-
sente eism, for example , neede d to be viewed as a consequence of the exte nt
to which manage ment faile d to match its technical expe rtise with an un-
derstanding of the social processes in an organization. In the mushrooming
aircraft industry of Southe rn California, familiarity with the factors pro-
moting identification and teamwork among the members of work groups
was crucial in ove rcoming technical difficultie s and in reducing abse nteeism
and high labor turnove r.
The se reports, togethe r with Mayo
’s thoughts on research methods and
topics publishe d in the last few years of his life (Mayo, 1945, 1948) may
be seen as a kind of curtain raiser for the human relations move ment as
it deve lope d from the 1950s onward. The re are anticipations of now famil-
iar approache s. Some are readily identifie d, e.g., effective group le adership,
sociote chnical systems, the QWL movement, quality circle s, but Mayo also
touche s on aspe cts of symbolic interactionism and a phenomenological ap-
proach to organizational be havior (Smith, 1974, 1975) .
En du rin g Legacy of Elton Mayo
241
From the be ginning, Mayo
’s critics found his unusual spread of inter-
ests proof of a shallow or, at be st, tantalizing approach (Kerr & Fishe r,
1956; Landsbe rge r, 1959; Baritz, 1960; Rose , 1988) . But it is also evide nce
of what Roethlisbe rger calle d his
“restless, curious, creative mind” and a
pointe r to the influe nce he had on others (Roethlisbe rge r, 1960) . This range
is clearly demonstrate d in his last two books The social problem s of an in-
dustrial civilization and Notes on the psychology of Pierre Jan et (Mayo, 1948) .
Neither is satisfactory as a finishe d pie ce of work and it is cle ar that Mayo
felt unde r pressure to put on record what he had achie ve d during his 20
ye ars at Harvard. They are best judge d, not as heavywe ight treatise s, but
as an assembly of ideas, spe culations, and insights to stimulate the work
of othe rs. From this point of view, The social problem s
—in essence a dis-
tillation of much of his work between 1918 and 1945
—is in many ways
more interesting and rewarding than is gene rally recognize d. In it, Mayo
pre sents his analysis of the impact of industrialization on individuals in
terms of the conseque nce s for group and community relations. He com-
bine s this with a spirite d if some times artle ss critique of the failure of the
social scie nce s
—economics and sociology in particular—to develop the
knowle dge and skills appropriate to the ne eds of rapidly changing societie s.
Finally, deploying research results from Hawthorne and his wartime studie s,
he makes a case for the effective deve lopme nt and use of
“social skills” to
match the technical skills which unde rpin the success of industrialization.
Mayo
’s strictures inevitably annoye d established social scientists who
were quick to se ize on the nonscie ntific nature of his bolde r de clara-
tions
—the most extreme of these was “if our social skills had advanced
step-by-ste p with our technical skills, there would not have be en anothe r
Europe an war.
” But in the late 1940s and 1950s there was a more deep-
roote d if unspoke n obje ction which may well account for much of the hos-
tility the n shown toward him. Mayo
’s skepticism about the capacity of
e xisting institutions and formal procedure s to cope with proble ms of
change , conflict, and coope ration and to improve the quality of life was
against the tide of the generally triumphalist postwar mood. Fifty years
late r, his doubts about the proble m-solving capacitie s of political systems
and his reservations about the motive s of politicians would be far more
acceptable , as would his preferences for de centralize d decision-making and
for valuing people over institutions.
Mayo
’s departure from Harvard had been postponed by difficultie s in
ge tting a trans-Atlantic passage . He gave a numbe r of talks, including one
during a last visit to Hawthorne at the be ginning of 1947. By now his prin-
cipal topic was the need to de velop political systems which ensured social
coope ration in a time of rapid technical change and rising mate rial stand-
ards. He intended to produce a volume on the political proble ms of an
242
Sm ith
industrial civilization to comple te his trilogy. Some notes on this exist as
an appe ndix to the English editions of The social problem s (Mayo, 1949,
1975) and the se were the basis of his contribution to the farewell Harvard
conference in May 1947 (Mayo, 1947) . While this fragment give s little idea
of what he might have produce d, it include s some example s of the
“restless,
curious and creative mind
” well ahead of its time, as in Mayo’s speculations
about how long Sovie t methods of popular control could survive in Russia,
or what might happe n in China as its vast population de mande d highe r
standards of living. To the end of his life, Mayo
’s attention remained fo-
cused on the e volution of industrial societie s from the viewpoint of the
individual faced with the need to adapt to continuing change . It was the
importance of this approach, couple d with his belief in the potential con-
tribution of the social science s to social coope ration and individual adjust-
me nt that he so e ffe ctive ly communicate d to othe rs. This pe rsonal
commitment and his unique influe nce were to be critical factors as the
human relations movement got unde rway.
THE MAYO MYSTIQUE
In 1982, a confe rence was he ld at Harvard to celebrate the 75th an-
nive rsary of the Busine ss School. More than 20 speake rs reviewed the re-
search contributio n made by the School to applie d organization study;
among the m were R. F. Bale s, David McClelland, Arthur Turner, Paul
Lawrence, and Jay Lorsch. In the ope ning sessions, which focuse d on the
ye ars up to the end of the Se cond World War, a primary theme was the
remarkable powe r of the
“Mayo Mystique.” Those who recalled and at-
tempte d to analyze it include d George Homans, Conrad Arensbe rg, David
Rie sman, and George Lombard.
That the re was
—and still is—a Mayo mystique is beyond question. In-
evitably, it is closely entwine d with the Hawthorne le gend, which more than
half a century of acade mic controve rsy has serve d to nurture rather than
to dispe l. Today, the authe nticity of the findings or Mayo
’s precise contri-
bution have come to matter less than the conflicting be lie fs and traditions
which have grown up around the Hawthorne Studie s as an important but
distant historical eve nt.
But that is only part of the story. Mayo
’s legacy for the study of human
relations amounts to much more than his role in eve nts at Hawthorne , criti-
cal though this was. O the r e le ments have remaine d obscure
—hence the
mystique
—but it is possible with the substantial archival information now
available to arrive at furthe r conclusions about the lasting impact of this
gifted but elusive man. One is that the unusual patte n of his pe rsonal and
professional life equippe d him both by expe rience and temperame nt to take
En du rin g Legacy of Elton Mayo
243
on the role of a pione er scientific inve stigator. He enjoye d performing and
had a deve lope d instinct for engaging the sympathy and inte rest of his lis-
teners. His succe ss as a the rapist testifies to this, as does the chord struck
with audie nces immediate ly on his arrival in the Unite d State s. He achie ved
this early succe ss not only on the platform, but in a serie s of article s for
the ge ne ral reade r which appe are d in Harper
’s Magazine (Mayo, 1925,
1927) . Anothe r advantage was that he faile d to fit any known patte rn, either
culturally or profe ssionally. Despite the recognition he received in America
he neve r really felt at home there and ke pt his British nationality. His trans-
Atlantic life style, though it annoye d some of his Harvard colle ague s, served
to confirm his inte rnational status and reinforce d his image as someone
with an important message . Yet although this may account for Mayo
’s fame
as an innovator and textbook embodime nt of a ne w field of study, it sug-
ge sts little of his personal contribution to the ide as and methods which
helped to generate the human relations move ment. His more extreme crit-
ics dismisse d him as a lightwe ight popularize r, but this ignore s what Mayo
himself conve ye d both in print and in his corre sponde nce about methods
of study and the future of social science. Although this nowhe re exists in
a fully finishe d form, it is possible to ide ntify some core feature s and to
find confirmation of their importance in the reminisce nces of Roe thlisbe r-
ge r, Homans, and othe rs about his influe nce on the m as a teacher and
advise r (Roe thlisbe rger, 1977; Homans, 1984; Riesman, 1975) .
For Mayo, the essential purpose of a discipline was the de ve lopme nt
and transmission of usable skills. Science is a reflective activity grounde d
in recognize d skills; its methods are careful obse rvation and painstaking
expe rime nt. In 1945, he felt the social science s had achie ve d very little in
the way of
“knowledge-for-use.” “They do not seem to equip students with
a single social skill that is usable in ordinary human situations . . .. Of the
psychology of normal adaptation, little is said, and, of sociology in the living
instance , sociology of the intimate , nothing at all
” (Mayo, 1945).
Mayo
’s insistence on structures of knowledge rooted in observation
and
“the intuitions that result from intimate and sustained familiarity” de-
rived from his medical training and his work in clinical psychology. The
advance ment and application of this knowle dge would rest on skills in in-
terviewing and on the de ve lopme nt of training in
“social skills.” It is clear
that Mayo
’s was the guiding hand in reorganizing the interview program
at Hawthorne and in influe ncing late r work, espe cially Roe thlisbe rge r
’s
(Roethlisbe rger, 1977; Gille spie, 1991) . Criticisms of Mayo
’s methods fo-
cused on the the rapeutic obje ctives of his interviewing approach and its
incorporation in the counse ling program which began at Hawthorne in 1936
(Dickson & Roe thlisbe rge r, 1966; Wile nsky & Wile nsky, 1952) . Mayo
shifted the dire ction of the original interview program away from the con-
244
Sm ith
ventional aims of capturing workers
’ attitudes to questions of work organi-
zation or personne l practice . His primary emphasis was on the subje ct
’s
individual adjustme nt and self-aware ness and the rules he laid down for
the intervie wer
’s attentive and sympathetic detachment were widely quoted
(Mayo, 1948; Roethlisbe rge r, 1977; Gille spie, 1991) . As an expert practi-
tione r in the technique s of inte rviewing and counse ling, Mayo was a pote nt
influe nce on those around him. The lectures and de monstrations he gave
the re be came part of the Hawthorne folklore . George Homans de scribed
him as quite simply the best interviewer he had ever known; while in the
opinion of Abraham Zale znick, Mayo predated Carl Roge rs in the thera-
peutic use of nondire ctive intervie wing (Zaleznick, 1984) .
Mayo couple d this e mphasis on inte rvie wing technique with an advocacy
of the need to train for
“social skills.” This drew skeptical comments from
many social scientists in the immediate postwar period, though here again
time has brought a different perspective (Smith, 1975; Ackroyd, 1976; Rose,
1988). Mayo
’s concept of a social skill, although frankly spe culative, has more
depth and content than the pate nt remedies on offe r for
“effective commu-
nication.
” For him the study and acquisition of social skills were vital in the
“adaptive society.” A simple example was “the capacity of an individual to
communicate his feelings or ideas to anothe r, the capacity of groups to com-
municate effectively and intimate ly with one anothe r.
” Elsewhere he talked
of
“a capacity to receive communications from others in such fashion as to
promote conge nial participation in a common task.
” He contrasted this with
the idea of a technical skill, which was essentially a capacity for manipulation
of physical obje cts and forces. The need to seek a balance between technical
and social require ments is now a commonplace both in human relations re-
search and in manage ment the ory; the case for social skills training is widely
recognize d in many fields. Mayo
’s critics were concerned that his emphasis
on participation would weaken the inde pendence of workers and especially
their unions and buttress manage rial control. It is true that Mayo says little
about how these skills are to be exercised but his focus on the need for logical
thinking about
“the concrete difficulties of human collaboration” in no way
sugge sts a one-sided view of the differe nt intere sts involve d. A far more le-
gitimate target, as Rose (1988) has pointe d out, would be the work on lead-
ership and productivity carried out at MIT and Michigan in the late 1940s
and 1950s (Warner, 1985).
A retrospective vie w of Mayo
’s writings, set alongside the biographical
and archival mate rial now available , reveals a more comple x and fle xible
approach than his critics or inde ed many of his supporte rs have assumed.
Toward the end of his life , he might seem to have be come the victim of
his famous dictum that a de sire to be continuously associate d in work with
En du rin g Legacy of Elton Mayo
245
one
’s fellows is perhaps the strongest human characteristic. Yet just before
le aving Harvard he would write:
All problems of human relationships, whether in industry or e lsewhere , are comple x,
an d the earlie st study mu st therefore be clinical. De terminants in a particular
situation range all the way . . . from the strictly economic to questions of social
prestige . . . or on the balance obtaining among se veral. The re is no sovere ign
remedy for industrial or social troubles . . .. No such claim is made by this re search
group. (Mayo, 1946)
All of which unde rline s how difficult it is to classify Mayo in conve n-
tional disciplinary or ideological terms. It is a long way from the stock criti-
cisms that he vie wed industrial be havior almost entirely in terms of the
satisfaction or otherwise of socio-e motional ne eds and that his primary aim
was to develop a sociology ge are d to manage rial interests. His starting point
was the unique ne ss of individuals, the interaction be tween the m and the
meaning the y gave to situations. Probably his approach come s close st to
the traditional notion of the
“man of science,” characterized by a broad
range of interests but whose methods are firmly grounde d in sustaine d ob-
servation and experiment. Mayo himself pre ferred to use the term clinical
to describe his work, referring to it at times as
“clinical sociology.” From
the point of vie w of the developing human relations movement, there could
have be en no be tter exe mplar. His inte rests range d from expe rime ntal
medicine through psychothe rapy to social scie nce. The Hawthorne story,
his platform style, and his Harvard crede ntials gave a sense of excitement
and inspiration. At the same time , he has performed the function of the
pione er in any ne w field of study whose mistake s, omissions, and pre judice s
can be formally re pudiate d by his succe ssors. Whate ver the vie w take n,
Mayo remains an important figure in the history of applie d social science .
Above all, there is his conce rn for the human condition and the unique ness
of individuals; couple d with this is his aware ness of the stresses of continu-
ing economic and social change and of the need to de velop new social
forms. Roe thlisbe rger de scribed Mayo
’s chief products as the people he
influe nced and helpe d to de ve lop. That was a vital part of his le gacy, but
what we now know of his personal history sugge sts that his inte rests, in-
tuitions, and insights remain as relevant to the study of human relations
today as the y were in its beginnings.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
A study of this nature would not have be en possible without the long-
term interest and support of Patricia Elton Mayo and he r late siste r, Gael.
I have also had valuable conve rsations and encourage ment from George
Lombard, George Homans, David Riesman, and Conrad Arensbe rg. Help-
ful comments have come at different times from Richard Trahair, Jeff Son-
246
Sm ith
nenfe ld, Michae l Rose, Martin Bulmer, Raymond Firth, Philip Ziegler, and
Ronald Sandison. The ESRC and the Leverhulme Trust supporte d visits to
the Baker Library, where my work on the archive s was gre atly he lped by
the courte sy and efficie ncy of its staff.
REFERENCES
ACKROYD, S. Sociological theory and the Human Re lations school. Sociology of Work and
Occupations , 1976, 3, 279-410.
ARENSBER G, C., & TOO TE LL, G. Plant Sociology: Real discoveries and new problems.
In M. Komarovsky (Ed.), Com m on frontiers of the social sciences, Glencoe, IL: Free Press,
1957.
BARBER , B. (Ed.). L. J. Henderson on the social system. Chicago and London: University of
Chicago Press, 1970.
BARITZ, L. The servants of power: A history of the use of social science in American industry.
We stport, CT: Wesleyan University Pre ss, 1960.
BENDIX, R. Work and authority in industry. Ne w York: John Wiley, 1956.
BENDIX, R., & FISHER, L. H. The perspectives of E lton Mayo. Review of Econom ics and
Statistics, 1949, 31, 312-320.
BO URKE, H. Industrial unrest as social pathology: The Australian writings of Elton Mayo.
Historical Studies, 1982, 20, 217-233.
BULMER, M., & BULME R, J. Philanthropy and social science in the 1920
’s: Beardsley Ruml
and the Laura Spelman Memorial 1922-29, Minerva, 1981, 19, 347-407.
CHASE, S. What makes the worker like to work? Readers Digest, Fe bruary 1941, 38, 15-20.
CHILD, J. British m anagem ent thought. London: Allen and Unwin, 1969.
DICKSON, W. J., & RO ETHLISBE RGER, F. J. Counselling in an Organization: A sequel to
the Hawthorn e studies. Harvard Graduate School of Business Administration, Boston,
1966.
Fortun e, The fruitful errors of E lton Mayo, Fortune, 1946, 34, 181-186.
FOX, J. B., & SCOTT, J. F. Absenteeism : Managem ent
’s Problem. Business Research Studies
No. 29, Harvard Graduate School of Business Administration, Boston, 1943.
GILLE SPIE, R. Manufacturing knowledge: A history of the Hawthorne Experim ents. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 1991.
GREEN, T. H. Lectures on the principles of political obligation . London: Longmans, Gree n,
1924.
HO MANS, G. C. Sentim ents and activities. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1961.
HO MANS, G. C. Coming to m y senses. Ne w Brunswick: Transaction Books, 1984.
JANET, P. Les neuroses. Paris: Flammarion, 1909.
KERR, C., & FISHER, L. H. Plant sociology: The elite and the aborigines. In M. Komarovsky,
(Ed.), Com mon frontiers of the social sciences. pp. 281-308.
KYLE, W. M. Obituary note. University of Queensland G azette No. 15, December 1949.
LANDSBERGE R, H. A. Hawthorne revisited. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1958.
MAYO , G. E. The mad m osaic. London: Quartet Books, 1984.
MAYO , G. E. The Australian crisis. Pall Mall G azette 1904, 78, May 12, 1-2.
MAYO , G. E. Dem ocracy and freedom : An essay in social logic. Me lbourne: Macmillan, 1919.
MAYO , G. E. Civilisation and morale e tc., In dustrial Australian Mining Standard, January¯Feb-
ruary 1922, 16, 63, 111, 159-160, 263.
MAYO , G. E. Irrationality and re very. Journal of Personnel Research, 1923, 1, 477-483.
MAYO , G. E. Sin with a capital
“S.” Harper’s, 1927, 154, 537-545.
MAYO , G. E. The hu man problem s of an industrial civilisation. Ne w York: Macmillan, 1933.
MAYO , G. E., & LO MBARD, G. F. Te amwork and Labor Turnover in the Aircraft Industry
of Southern California. Busine ss Research Studies No. 32, Harvard Graduate School of
Business Administration, Boston, 1944.
En du rin g Legacy of Elton Mayo
247
MAYO , G. E. The Social Problems of an Industrial Civilization. Division of Re search, Harvard
Graduate School of Business Administration, Boston, 1945.
MAYO , G. E. Introduction to second edition, The hum an problem s of an industrial civilisation.
Boston: Harvard University Press, 1946.
MAYO , G. E. The Political Problems of an Industrial Civilisation. Division of Re search, Har-
vard Graduate School of Business Administration, Boston, 1947.
MAYO , G. E. Som e notes on the psychology of Pierre Janet. Boston: Harvard University Press,
1948.
MAYO , G. E. Le tters to the Times. August 11, De ce mber 2, 1948.
MO ORE, W. E . Industrial Sociology-Status and Prospects. American Sociological Review, 1948,
13, 382-400.
RIE SMAN, D. E ducational reform at Harvard: Me ritocracy and its adversarie s. In S. M. Lip-
set and D. Riesman (Eds.), Edu cation and politics at Harvard. New York: McGraw-Hill,
1975.
RO ETHLISBER GER, F. J., & DICKSO N, W. J. Managem ent and the worker. Boston: Harvard
University Press, 1939.
RO ETHLISBER GER, F. J. Introduction to Mayo. Hum an problem s of an industrial civilization.
New York: Viking Press, 1960.
RO ETHLISBER GER, F. J. The elu sive phenom ena. Boston: Harvard Unive rsity Pre ss, 1977.
RO SE, M. Industrial behavior. London: Pe nguin Books, 1975, 1988.
SHE PPARD, H. L. The social and historical philosophy of Elton Mayo. Antioch Review, 1950,
10, 396-406.
SMITH, J. H. Elton Mayo revisited. British Journal of Industrial Relations, 1974, 12, 282-291.
SMITH, J. H. The significance of Elton Mayo, Foreword to Mayo, The social problem s of an
industrial civilisation. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1975, pp. 9-42.
SMITH, J. H. Elton Mayo and the Hidde n Hawthorne . Work, Em ployment and Society, 1987,
1, 107-120.
SMITH, J. H. E lton Mayo and the English dream. Sociological Review, 1987, 35, 602-622.
SONNE NFELD, J. A. Hawthorne Hoopla in Perspective-Contextual Illumination and Critical
Illusions. Working Pape r Serie s HBS 81-60, Harvard Graduate School of Business Ad-
ministration, Boston, 1980.
SONNE NFELD, J. A. Shedding light on the Hawthorne studies. Journal of Occupationa l Be-
havior, 1985, 6, 111-130.
TRAHAIR, R. The hum anist temper: The life and work of Elton Mayo. New Brunswick: Trans-
action Books, 1984.
URWICK, L. F. Re view of Mayo
’s “The Social Problems.” Industry Illustrated, July 1946, 11-16.
V INCE NT, M. J., & MAYERS, J. New foundations for industrial sociology. Prince ton, Van
Nostrund, 1959.
WARNER, W. L., and LUNT, P. S. The social life of a modem com munity. New Haven: Yale
University Press, 1941.
WARNER, M. Organizations and experim ents. Chichester, Wiley, 1985.
WHITEHEA D, T. N. The Industrial Worker. London: Oxford University Press, 1938.
WILENSKY, J., & WILENSKY, H. L. Personnel counselling: The Hawthorne Case. Am erican
Journal of Sociology, 1952, 58, 265-280.
Z ALEZ NICK, A. The promise of Elton Mayo, Foreword. In R. Trahair, The hum an ist temper.
New Brunswick: Transaction Books, 1984, pp. 1-13.
ARCHIVAL SOURCES
The principal source for mate rials relating to Elton Mayo
’s life is the
Manuscript Division of the Baker Library at the Harvard Busine ss School.
These include microfilm copie s of Mayo
’s family letters (made available by
Patricia Elton Mayo) and the quotations in the text are drawn from the
author
’s work on that collection. Other sources at the Baker Library include
248
Sm ith
the Hawthorne Studie s Colle ction and the Fritz Jules Roe thlisbe rger Pa-
pers. Lists of rele vant colle ctions are to be found in Trahair (1984) and
Gille spie (1991) . Trahair
’s list is the most comprehensive in respect of
Mayo
’s life, especially for his years in Australia; Gillespie deals more fully
with Western Electric and Rockefeller Foundation matte rs. Both sources
have been important in the preparation of this pape r.
BIOGRAPHICAL NOTE
JO HN H. SMITH studied sociology at the London School of Economics and re turned there
to teach industrial sociology after rese arch experience with the Acton Society. He was sub-
sequently Professor of Sociology at the University of Southampton and is curre ntly Visiting
Professor of Sociology at the Aston Business School. His work on E lton Mayo forms part of
a long-term interest in the history of applied social science.
En du rin g Legacy of Elton Mayo
249
Wyszukiwarka
Podobne podstrony:
The Raven Legacy of a Master Thief poradnik do gry
Cordwainer Smith The complete Instrumentality of Mankind
E E (Doc) Smith Lensman 07 Masters of the Vortex
Lionheart Legacy of the Crusader poradnik do gry
John Ringo The Legacy of the Aldenata 7 Watch On The Rhine
Robert P Smith, Peter Zheutlin Riches Among the Ruins, Adventures in the Dark Corners of the Global
Guy N Smith Night Of The Crabs 1 Night of the Crabs
The Journeyman Project 3 Legacy of Time
eBook The Legacy Of The Drow II Starless Night
The Legacy Of Thorens 1215
E E (Doc) Smith Lensman 06 Children of the Lens
Forgotten Realms Legacy of The Drow 04 Passage To Dawn (1997) (Salvatore, R A )
Niven, Larry Heorot 1 The Legacy of Heorot
R A Salvatore Legacy of the Drow 5 The Silent Blade
Legacy of the Jedi Jude Watson & David Mattingly
R A Salvatore Legacy of the Drow 1 The Legacy
john ringo the legacy of the aldenata 5 the hero
StarCraft II Legacy of the Void poradnik do gry
Steve Smith Drumset Technique & History of the US beat
więcej podobnych podstron