Thanks for the reference to the Hawthorne experiment. As I recall the
context, the workers at the plant respnded to the attention; that is they
recognized that someone was listening. You phrase it as participation in
an experiment.
Perhaps the lesson I would like to draw is that the opportunity to
participate is a tremendous motivator in extending (increasing) a person's
or group's performance.
In an anecdotal fashion, I note my own performance in two separate
occasions of a program review. In the first, I was sitting at the table,
in the second, I was situated in the row of chairs behind the table. In
the first, I felt free to ask questions (and I did); in the second, I was
informed that this was a "listen only" meeting. I was quite attentive
during the first meeting, but felt myself drifiting off during the second.
I perceived myself as being responsible to assimilate and transmit the
information presented at the first meeting; while my role at the second
was that of an observer.
The Effect [I see how I was Affected] of measurement, I believe, is to
somehow inculcate a sense of responsiblity (proportional to the extent
that "management" listens to it) in the team and its members for its
actions.
Stuart Harrow
>Stuart, I'm not sure effect shouldn't be affect. Do you ask whether we are
>aware of the RESULTS or aware of the INFLUENCE. Measurement can influence
>behaviour without any measurable result. We can measure particles but we
>can't measure waves. Not in a Cartesian sense anyway. Are you asking
>whether we can measure the effect of the measurements, in other words
>whether we can prove the affect of measurement on behaviour; or are you
>doubting that measurement affects behaviour in the first place?
--"Harrow, Stuart" <bvc2206@dcrb.dla.mil>
Learning-org -- An Internet Dialog on Learning Organizations For info: <rkarash@karash.com> -or- <http://world.std.com/~lo/>