(And Might Not Even Be Real)
TL;DR: People sometimes hope for the Hawthorne Effect, treating it like a positive driver of improvement. That was always misguided–because it would only imply short-term gains from attention, not better systems. And to make it even more ironic, later research (starting around 2009) suggests the original Hawthorne Effect may not have been a real, distinct effect at all. Either way, leaders shouldn't celebrate it. Sustainable improvement comes from improving processes, not from being watched.
Forgive me for being a bit of an Industrial Engineering geek here. After all, my bachelor's degree is in Industrial Engineering–even though, after years of working in healthcare, I sometimes get labeled as “a healthcare guy.” (Apparently, degrees expire if you don't use them in manufacturing often enough.)
One of the concepts we learned about in an organizational psychology class was something called the “Hawthorne Effect.“
Over the years, I've heard people refer to the Hawthorne Effect in a surprisingly positive way. As in:
“We'll have to see if the data improves–maybe we'll get the Hawthorne Effect.”
On a few occasions, people were almost bragging that an improvement happened because of the Hawthorne Effect.
I cringed.
Even back when the Hawthorne Effect was widely accepted as a real phenomenon, that was never something to hope for.
And now–thanks to later research–the situation is even more awkward.
Not only is the Hawthorne Effect nothing to brag about… it might not even be a real effect in the first place.
A Famous Story That Didn't Age Well
The classic story goes like this: at the Hawthorne Works factory near Chicago in the early 20th century, productivity increased when researchers brightened the lighting. Then, supposedly, productivity also increased when the lighting was dimmed. The conclusion? Workers performed better simply because they knew they were being observed.
For decades, this story was taught with great confidence. PowerPoint slides were made. Exams were passed. Consultants nodded knowingly.
Then, starting around 2009, researchers went back to the original data and did something radical: they actually analyzed it carefully.
What they found was… underwhelming.
The results were inconsistent. The controls were weak. And the tidy conclusion we'd all learned–that “being observed” caused meaningful productivity improvements–wasn't really supported by the data.
In other words, the Hawthorne Effect may have been:
- exaggerated,
- misunderstood, or
- a very durable myth that survived because it made for a good story.
A mistake.
Which makes it even more amusing when leaders say they're hoping for it.
Why This Still Matters (Even If Hawthorne Didn't)
Even if the Hawthorne Effect turns out to be more folklore than fact, the management mistake it points to is absolutely real.
Here's how it usually plays out:
- You try a countermeasure.
- You add signs.
- You talk about it a lot.
- Leaders suddenly show up in the area.
- Data improves.
Cue celebration.
But then the attention fades… and so does the performance.
In healthcare, this happens all the time. We might put up hand hygiene signs, increase observation, and make a big deal about compliance. Adherence goes up. Infection rates might even drop–for a while.
It's tempting to credit the signs–or the fact that leaders were paying attention to the problem and their people (not that the people were the problem).
But if the improvement disappears once leadership attention moves on to the next priority, we didn't fix the process. We just proved that people notice when they're being watched. That's not a breakthrough–that's basic human behavior.
The Real (and Slightly Uncomfortable) Lesson
Whether the Hawthorne Effect is real, overstated, or entirely mythical, the takeaway is the same:
Short-term improvements driven by attention, observation, or novelty are not something to brag about.
In the Plan-Do-Study-Adjust cycle, we have to ask harder questions. Are we seeing sustained improvement because the system is better? Or are we congratulating ourselves because everyone knew this month's metric was “under review”?
So yes, the irony remains:
People were hoping for the Hawthorne Effect–
even though it was never a good thing to rely on,
and even though it might not have existed as a distinct effect at all.
Either way, it's not a strategy.
Designing better systems is.
People Keep Getting Confused…
In 2026, a friend and colleague emailed me:
“One knows it's time to go when the SVP (boss's boss) talks to you about the Hawthorne Effect as a legitimate improvement methodology and a proven part of implementation science.”
As we discussed on LinkedIn:
If you’re working to build a culture where people feel safe to speak up, solve problems, and improve every day, I’d be glad to help. Let’s talk about how to strengthen Psychological Safety and Continuous Improvement in your organization.
I was talking last week with another consultant about what eventually became this blog post. This consultant, of course, understands the Hawthorne Effect, as a fellow Industrial Engineer.
He said, “A lot of consultants have built a lucrative career on the Hawthorne Effect.”
The Hawthorne Effect is more about basic psychological principals. You can’t be sure how long a particular suggestion or modification in physical environment will work. Like mentioned in this article, keeping lights on will not work for long because it’s not the lights, it’s the suggestion that someone is caring for them. So, you need to be innovative in ways you can pass on subtle suggestions to employees.
Interesting. I’ve not heard anyone hope for the “Hawthorne Effect”. In fact, I’ve generally heard it as a pejorative, as in, “Yeah, we got some temporary change but it was just a Hawthorne Effect.” Of course, now it’s thought that there never was a “Hawthorne Effect”.
That’s why I was surprised. Normally, if anyone even knows the term, they know it’s a negative thing.
What’s the story about there being no Hawthorne Effect after all?
Sorry for the slow reply, Mark. Do a web search on “myth of the Hawthorne Effect” and a lot of stuff comes up. Here’s one:
http://home.uchicago.edu/~jlist/papers/Was%20There%20Really%20a%20Hawthorne%20Effect%20at%20the%20Hawthorne%20Plant_An%20Analysis%20of%20the%20Original%20Illumination%20Experiments.pdf
Skip right to the conclusion.
Thanks for the thoughts & reminder history lesson … I had the benefit of working with a senior consultant a few years ago that had done the early TQM work for Kodak, studied and developed 3P at Toyota and had actually spent time at the Western Electric plant in Hawthorne. Early versions of fishbone (from the MIT white paper on the subject). Great stories.
I think the Hawthorne Effect is rather similar to the Placebo Effect where a drug can appear to have a positive effect but it is actually due to other reasons (such as the extra attention given to the subject in a clinical trial). In clinical trials, this has to be controlled for by using a placebo or comparator. Definitely not something to hope for – it is a rather annoying effect that makes it more difficult to determine if the change you make has been effective.
I think the Hawthorne Effect could be a sustainable change, and not something to be wary of. If you continue to have someone watch over the workers or whatever your watching you would find that the change continues. The original experiment had to do with lighting but the Mayo and Roethlisberger did not think that the lighting was the cause of the productivity increase. They are the ones that found out that being observed by someone and a person attitude contributed to productivity. Not to sound picky but, yes when the study was over the effect went away because nobody was observing the workers which is the whole basis of the study.