Evaluate physical work conditions and productivity
Assess how workspace conditions may affect work and wellbeing, then evaluate the claimed Hawthorne effect and Oldham and Brass’s open-plan office study.
Section Paper 3 · Specialist Options: Approaches, Issues and Debates
Original StudyForA teaching mapped to Cambridge 9990 Organisational Psychology for 2028–2030. Example studies are independent learning support, not Cambridge material or official mark schemes. Findings are limited to their samples, measures and settings.
Before you begin
- Use the study design and sample to decide how far a workplace finding can be generalised. A change in productivity, satisfaction, reported incidents or accidents is a different outcome and needs its own evidence.
Work on paper. Try each question before revealing help, and explain why your method works.
Quick readiness check
Which statement best describes the Hawthorne effect in a careful evaluation?
What you will learn
- Physical conditions, productivity and the Hawthorne effect; Kompier (2006)
- Open-plan office design and work outcomes; Oldham and Brass (1979)
Work conditions can help or obstruct a task
Physical working conditions include noise, lighting, temperature, ventilation, space, furniture and the layout of equipment. Their effects depend on the task and the person. A bright, open room may make conversation easier but make quiet concentration or confidential work harder. The same condition can therefore help one task and hinder another.
Productivity is not one simple measure. Output, errors, speed, safety, absence and job satisfaction can move in different directions. A claim about productivity should say what was measured, over what period, and whether quality or harm changed alongside the amount of work completed.
An organisation should identify a specific barrier, consult workers, and test a suitable change while monitoring more than one outcome. A comfortable environment is valuable in its own right; it should not be justified only by a short-term output measure.
Treat the Hawthorne effect as a claim to evaluate
The term Hawthorne effect is often used for a proposed change in behaviour because people know they are being observed. It is a hypothesis about reactivity, not a guaranteed response and not a complete explanation for any improvement during a workplace study.
Kompier (2006) reviewed the historical Hawthorne research and argued that its methods and conclusions do not establish a general effect of observation. Changes in attention, supervision, working arrangements, group norms and measurement may be entangled. An observed before-and-after difference cannot identify which of these caused it.
In a new study, use a comparison where feasible, keep observation procedures consistent, collect baseline and follow-up data, and explain the purpose honestly. Consider consent, privacy and the possibility that being monitored may create stress. A single change while observation is present does not prove that observation caused the change.
Oldham and Brass studied one office move
Oldham and Brass (1979) examined employees in a newspaper organisation as it moved from conventional offices to an open-plan office. This naturally occurring quasi-experiment found significant decreases in employee satisfaction and internal work motivation after the move.
The workplace move gave the researchers a real change to study, but employees were not randomly allocated to office designs. The organisation, work tasks and period were specific, and other changes around the move could affect responses. The result is evidence about this setting, not proof that every open-plan office reduces all forms of performance.
An evaluation should connect layout with a plausible mechanism, such as interruption, privacy, communication or crowding, then name the measured outcome. Better follow-up research would compare similar teams, gather pre-move and repeated post-move measures, and include task quality, noise and worker experience.
Sources for this lesson
- Cambridge International AS & A Level Psychology 9990 syllabus, 2028–2030
- Cambridge International AS & A Level Psychology 9990 Reference List, 2028–2030
- Kompier (2006), The ‘Hawthorne effect’ is a myth, but what keeps the story going?
- Oldham and Brass (1979), Employee reactions to an open-plan office: a naturally occurring quasi-experiment
Pause and explain
What did Oldham and Brass report after the newspaper organisation moved to open plan?
Worked example
A company moves a team into an open-plan room. Output rises in the first month, while staff report more interruption. Evaluate a manager’s claim that observation made everyone more productive.
Show the worked solution
- Name the distinct outcomes: output rose, but reported interruption also increased.
- Observation is only one possible explanation; layout, supervision, workload or novelty may also have changed.
- Compare baseline, follow-up and a suitable comparison team, and include quality and wellbeing measures.
Answer The first-month pattern does not isolate an observation effect. Output and interruption are separate measures, and the move introduced a physical change at the same time. Repeated measures with a comparable team and checks on errors, workload and wellbeing would give a stronger test. Oldham and Brass found lower satisfaction and internal motivation after one newspaper organisation moved to open plan, but that quasi-experiment does not establish a universal effect.
Try a topic test
Choose Easy, Normal or Difficult. Save your answers and open worked review after finishing.
Test this topic →From guided practice to a new situation
Write your answer and reasoning first. Use a hint only if you are stuck. The model solution is for self-checking; your written work is not automatically marked.
A factory reports 12% more units after supervisors begin observing a team. Give two rival explanations and one measure needed before calling this a productivity gain.
Give me a hint
Separate the timing of observation from a causal test, and check the quality of the extra output.
Compare my reasoning
- Observation may have changed effort, but the Hawthorne explanation is only one hypothesis.
- A new machine, staffing, workload, practice or changed supervision could also explain the increase.
- Check errors, rework or safety alongside unit count and compare with a suitable baseline or team.
The rise could reflect observation, equipment, staffing, workload or practice. Unit count alone is insufficient: check quality and safety and compare repeated measurements with a suitable baseline or team.
Look for these in your work
- Two plausible explanations
- Causal uncertainty stated
- Output quality or safety included
Apply Oldham and Brass to advise an organisation planning an open-plan move while keeping a concentration-heavy team.
Give me a hint
Use the study as a warning to measure specific outcomes, not as a universal prediction.
Compare my reasoning
- Explain that Oldham and Brass found lower satisfaction and internal motivation after one newspaper organisation moved to open plan.
- Note the quasi-experimental design and setting; the study does not prove the same result for every team.
- Consult the team, protect quiet and private work, and measure interruption, satisfaction and task quality before and after the change.
The study raises a relevant risk, especially for concentration tasks, but the organisation should test the fit of its own design. Consult employees, provide quiet or private spaces where needed, and monitor satisfaction, interruptions and quality over time.
Look for these in your work
- Evidence accurately bounded
- Task and privacy considered
- Multiple outcomes proposed
Plan a follow-up study of whether a quieter workspace changes concentration without reducing team communication.
Give me a hint
Define separate outcomes and include a comparison over time.
Compare my reasoning
- Compare teams or work periods with similar tasks; record a baseline before changing the workspace.
- Measure concentration with an appropriate task-quality or error indicator and communication with a separate measure.
- Repeat measures after the change, document other changes and protect worker privacy and choice.
A matched-team or repeated-measures study could compare baseline and follow-up concentration errors and communication separately. Standardise measurement, document staffing or workload changes and protect privacy. A before-and-after difference would still need cautious causal interpretation.
Look for these in your work
- Design and baseline specified
- Two outcomes separated
- Confounds and privacy addressed
Common mistakes
- Treating the Hawthorne effect as a proven universal law
- Using output alone as a complete measure of productivity
- Claiming the office move randomly assigned employees
- Generalising one newspaper office to every workplace
- Ignoring privacy, interruption and worker wellbeing
What can you explain now?
Why does Oldham and Brass’s office study not prove that all open-plan offices reduce performance?
Compare with the explanation
It examined a naturally occurring move in one organisation, without random allocation, and measured specific employee reactions rather than every kind of performance.
Match a conclusion to the study’s setting, design and outcome.
After trying it yourself, choose your next review. This is your self-assessment.
Your review choice appears on Today. Sign in to sync it across devices.
Make it stick
Physical conditions can affect different tasks and outcomes differently. Explain why a workplace change alone cannot establish a Hawthorne effect or a universal productivity result.
If you needed the solution, close it and solve the problem again from a blank page. A correct answer is stronger when you can explain the reason for each step.