obm today and tomorrow

This article was downloaded by: [Tufts University]On: 29 October 2014, At: 11:55Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH,UK

Journal of OrganizationalBehavior ManagementPublication details, including instructions forauthors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/worg20

OBM Today and TomorrowThomas C. Mawhinney aa Management Area , University of Detroit Mercy,College of Business and Administration , USAPublished online: 12 Oct 2008.

To cite this article: Thomas C. Mawhinney (2001) OBM Today and Tomorrow, Journalof Organizational Behavior Management, 20:3-4, 73-137, DOI: 10.1300/J075v20n03_04

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1300/J075v20n03_04

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all theinformation (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform.However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make norepresentations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness,or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and viewsexpressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, andare not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of theContent should not be relied upon and should be independently verified withprimary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for anylosses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages,and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly orindirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of theContent.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes.Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan,sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is

http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/worg20

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/showCitFormats?doi=10.1300/J075v20n03_04

http://dx.doi.org/10.1300/J075v20n03_04

expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found athttp://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tuf

ts U

nive

rsity

] at

11:

55 2

9 O

ctob

er 2

014

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

OBM Today and Tomorrow:Then and Now

Thomas C. Mawhinney

ABSTRACT. In this article I present the speech I gave when acceptingthe OBM Network’s award for outstanding achievement. In that speechI characterized the field as I understood it in 1992 and directions Ithought it should take in the future, including the role that JOBM shouldplay in that future. The acceptance speech is followed by my extensivecommentary and opinion concerning developments in the field of OBMup to the year 2000 and the paths along which I think it should developand paths I think it should avoid in the future. [Article copies available fora fee from The Haworth Document Delivery Service: 1-800-342-9678. E-mailaddress: <[email protected]> Website: <http://www.HaworthPress.com>]

KEYWORDS. Organizational Behavior Management, OBM, OBM in1992, OBM in the year 2000, accomplishments of OBM, OBM inbeyond the year 2000

In the presence of a small gathering of colleagues and friends,including my wife Betty and my cousin V. Thomas (‘‘Big Tom’’)Mawhinney, I experienced the joyful and humbling experience offormal recognition by the OBM/Network of the Association for Be-havior Analysis. The recognition was for contributions I had made tothe network extant 1992.

Thomas C. Mawhinney is affiliated with the Management Area at the Universityof Detroit Mercy, College of Business and Administration.

Address correspondence to Thomas C. Mawhinney, University of Detroit Mercy,College of Business and Administration, 4001 West McNichols Road, P. O. Box19900, Detroit, MI 48219-0900 (E-mail: [email protected]).

Journal of Organizational Behavior Management, Vol. 20(3/4) 2000� 2000 by The Haworth Press, Inc. All rights reserved. 73

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tuf

ts U

nive

rsity

] at

11:

55 2

9 O

ctob

er 2

014

JOURNAL OF ORGANIZATIONAL BEHAVIOR MANAGEMENT74

During the year and a half leading up to receipt of the award, I spentthe bulk of my time outside of classroom teaching, editing two specialissues of JOBM (Mawhinney (1992a), Hopkins & Mawhinney (1992))and writing an article that appeared in one of them (Mawhinney,1992b).

I think readers will better appreciate the remarks I made on theoccasion when I received my outstanding contributions award if theylearn what I was doing in the months leading up to that event. And,rather than change the tense and so on of the original paper to bring itup to date, I would like readers to ‘‘hear’’ the themes I presented andthe tenor in which I presented them then. So that the work does notseem archaic it includes a prologue that describes my experiencesleading up to the time I wrote my acceptance speech, the acceptancespeech as I read it at the award ceremony and an epilogue in which Imake numerous remarks about what has happened since 1992 andwhere I think I see us headed or think we should be heading now.

PROLOGUE

One of the 1992 special issues (Mawhinney, 1992a) focused on theconcept of organizational culture, cultural practices within organiza-tions (Glenn, 1988) and the concepts of rule governed behavior (Mal-ott, 1992) and metacontingency (Glenn, 1991). Rule governed behav-ior is an essential element of processes by which cultural practices aretransmitted from one generation of people in an organization to anoth-er and from current members to newcomers. Taken together, the for-mal organizational practices and non-formalized cultural practices inan organization have environmental consequences. For example, aneducational institution turns out students that are better or poorlyprepared to be gainfully employed after graduation and an auto com-pany, like GM or Ford, experiences gains or loses of market share as aresult of how it competes with other auto producers. The contingencybetween formal and non-formal practices within an organizationalculture and its environmental consequences arising from those practic-es are what, taken together, is called a metacontingency (Glenn, 1988).My contribution to the special issue on culture was intended to provideprima fascia evidence that dominant practices within and among orga-nizations in a given industry were probably the product of the causalmode of selection by consequences (Skinner, 1981) operating across

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tuf

ts U

nive

rsity

] at

11:

55 2

9 O

ctob

er 2

014

75Invited Articles Celebrating the 20th Volume of JOBM in the Year 2000

organizations populating an industry through time and specificallyacross the metacontingencies of competing organizations (Mawhin-ney, 1992b). I wanted to make the case that the causal mode thataccounted for evolution in biological systems was at work in systemsthat are not immediately recognized as being subject to this causalmode. In my analysis the grist for the mill of selection by conse-quences was variation in practices among organizations currently pop-ulating a particular industry and variation in practices added to theindustry population by births of new organizations in the industry,through time (Hannan & Freeman, 1989). The quantifiable products ofselection by consequences were rates at which organizations perishedand lengths of time members of the population survived. Organiza-tions perished, according to my analysis, when one or more of theirdominant cultural practices were ‘‘deadly,’’ or simply failed to fit themfor survival at some point in time. This sort of thing was implied bythe work of Brethower (1982), Gilbert (1978) and Luthans and Kreit-ner (1975, 1985). But all these treatments had been focused on engi-neering effective organizations a priori and adaptation processes of asingle focal organization once it was in existence. What I wanted toclearly show was why this sort of engineering made sense rather thanhow to do it. I also wanted to make it clear that unless adaptation perse was made a dominant practice in an organization, the organizationwould run the risk of perishing if its environment were to abruptlyshift. Finally, I wanted to suggest that which practices were connectedto survival and deadly were not always self-evident. That being thecase, even a well-engineered organization at one point in time couldperish before a person in it with enough power or ‘‘clout’’ to change itcould discover how to correct for emergence of a deadly practice.

My work, I thought, made a contribution to our understanding oforganizational behavior processes by showing that failing to identifyand create contingencies in support of survival-related practices inorganizations was what predisposed organizations to decline and toultimately perish. In addition, I wanted to make two points aboutdeadly practices. I wanted to point out that very effective practices atone point in time could become deadly at another point in time simplybecause of a change in the organization’s environment, e.g., the Japa-nese attack on the U.S. auto market. I also wanted to point out thatstrategic decisions, such as the decision to create a monopoly aimed atinsulating the organization from effects of current competitors, could

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tuf

ts U

nive

rsity

] at

11:

55 2

9 O

ctob

er 2

014


serve well in the short run but increase the risk of decline or evendeath in the longer run. Thus, organizational leaders that inheritedinitially functional or at least benign practices from a previous leader-ship regime could be ‘‘blamed’’ for organizational trials and tribula-tions not of their making when those practices became ‘‘deadly’’ dueto a shift in the competitive environment, e.g., decline and death ofsome airlines following deregulation of the aviation industry. Accord-ing to my analysis, even relatively perfectly engineered organizationscould perish under conditions that occurred for which the engineershad no way of a prior engineering practices that would inoculate theculture from an unpredictable and deadly blow from its environment.While this may not be stated in bold print anywhere in my article(Mawhinney, 1992b) it is something I was thinking about then andsomething I still believe to be true. Top level leaders of organizationsthat get into trouble often find this idea (unavoidable declines) plausi-ble, perhaps even comforting, while those leading organizations cur-rently enjoying great success are more likely to look on this proposi-tion with a jaundiced eye.

Normatively speaking, then and now, I favor any effort that wouldmake life better in organizations and that, at least in part, I take tomean life in organizations is better when organizations are longerlived and stable rather than shorter lived and precarious. With thecurrent craze for net and .com companies and increased regard for theeconomic concept of ‘‘creative destruction,’’ however, I know thisnorm of employment stability sounds old fashioned. But, I began tomake my remarks on the subject more than ten years ago. And, the twodecades prior to that were characterized by major disruptions in thelives of working people and lower to mid level managers in severalbasic industries. These people were faced with the need to find em-ployment after their organizations perished or came to the brink ofperishing while those losing jobs were faced with a poor market fortheir skills, i.e., higher rates of unemployment then compared to now.In a time of high employment and nearly minimum unemploymentlevels such those that currently prevail, it is easy to forget that thedestruction of ‘‘jobs’’ at rates higher than the rates at which new jobsare created is a condition in which job stability becomes paramountamong current job holders. If indeed we are at the threshold of along-lived era that will be characterized by an opportunity for employ-ment for every person seeking that condition even as organizations

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tuf

ts U

nive

rsity

] at

11:

55 2

9 O

ctob

er 2

014


regularly perish, both the descriptive and normative position I wasespousing in 1992 might be moot. If history repeats itself, as it is proneto do, then my bias in favor of the norm of building flexible andresilient organizational cultures should be vindicated with the passageof time whether I am here to see that time or not.

In the vernacular, what I’ve said above is ‘‘Where I was comingfrom in 1992.’’

My Acceptance Speech as Read at ABA in 1992

The text of my speech was taken directly and with minimal changesfrom the computer file I used to print the text I read at the ABAmeetings in 1992. For that reason there could be some departures fromcurrent APA style.

OBM TODAY AND TOMORROW:SCIENTIFIC/TECHNOLOGICAL ASPIRATIONS AND

ARTFUL/EFFECTIVE ACCOMPLISHMENTS

Acceptance Speech Delivered in Conjunction with Receipt of theFirst Award for Outstanding Contributions to the OrganizationalBehavior Management Network Presented at the Association forBehavior Analysis Meetings, May 28, 1992, in San Francisco,California.

Upon learning I would receive the first award for significant con-tributions to the OBM/network, I asked Dick Malott for some explana-tion of my selection. His response was rather cryptic: ‘‘It is for hittingthe ball every time it was pitched.’’ This reminded me of the last fullseason of baseball I played. I pulled a hamstring during the first weekor two. Consequently I had to put extra effort into my hitting becauseeach hit was followed by extremely painful limping around the bases.And, of course, the allure of striking out and thereby avoiding the painof base running was ever present. We all know, however, that Dickwas speaking metaphorically. At the same time, his explanation sayssomething about the role of editor in an applied research, publication,teaching, training and consulting culture. While the editor plays animportant role in a cultural movement such as ours, that role is only

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tuf

ts U

nive

rsity

] at

11:

55 2

9 O

ctob

er 2

014


one of many highly interdependent roles which must be effectivelyperformed if the culture is to grow and prosper.

At times the editor may feel like a master and leader of the culture.That is when a special effort must be made to avoid a case of what Icall GTBH, or ‘‘getting the big head.’’ With careful reflection on therecord, the editor sees that he or she is a gate-keeper responsible forpreserving and, hopefully, nurturing evolution of the culture’s devel-opment along a path of improvement relative to some criteria. On rareoccasions the editor can almost single handedly alter the evolutionarycourse of a journal and its related culture. But, the editor is never atotal master of those who support the journal by submitting articles toits review process. I believe the effective journal editor is a ‘‘masterservant.’’ That is, the effective editor must master the role of being avery important servant of the culture.

One way of responding to the challenge of an editorship is to engagein selective and effective maieutics or midwifery. Women are capableof giving unassisted birth to their children, but their task is made easierby a midwife who assists in the process. Similarly, the journal editorcan suggest directions for research and theoretical developments andassist in the birth of new developments within the culture. But, theeditor cannot unilaterally dictate that everyone follow precise direc-tions. In addition, the editor cannot produce and publish all the contentsof each volume. The editor can write articles which outline problemareas in need of attention and then look for a possible response in therate at which certain types of articles enter the review process.

Based on my personal experience I know that an editor can bepleasantly surprised or shocked by the effects of his or her attempts tostimulate or give birth to interest in some area of research. For exam-ple, I began writing my first article for JOBM in 1983. It was entitled‘‘Philosophical and Ethical Aspects of Organizational Behavior Man-agement: Some Evaluative Feedback.’’ In 1984 Lee Frederiksen pub-lished it in JOBM. Among other things, it suggested that members ofthe OBM community pay attention to the following issues and takecertain actions:

1. Recognition of OBM’s roots in behavior analysis and applied be-havior analysis.

2. Barriers separating behavior analysis, applied behavior analysisand OBM should be broken down.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tuf

ts U

nive

rsity

] at

11:

55 2

9 O

ctob

er 2

014


3. Our technologies are amoral which implies the following: ‘‘If wewant to design good productive systems we must learn what con-tingencies produce the following conditions in people: (a) feltjoy while performing and (b) felt freedom in the work place’’([Mawhinney, 1984] p. 17).

4. If we propose to build good work environments, goodness mustbe measured since there is no necessarily positive relationshipbetween individual and group productivity and individual andgroup job satisfaction or quality of working life.

5. Quoting George Strauss (1982), I noted that more egalitarianwork settings can be and have been constructed, but ‘‘there islittle evidence that WPM [worker participation in management]has reduced worker discontent, increased productivity, or createdself-actualized workers’’ (p. 225). My reaction was, ‘‘Perhapsapplied behavior analysts can discover how to make a more egal-itarian work setting more productive than traditional work set-tings’’ ([Mawhinney, 1984] p. 26).

6. Both fair and unfair pay systems can produce high performancelevels among organizational members as can group and individ-ual pay-for-performance systems. Group based incentive sys-tems can be more egalitarian but may precipitate free rider ef-fects [and social loafing]. ‘‘What is required, I believe, is anattack on the problem of group productivity and pay with thesame tools which have proved so effective in the analysis ofproblems such as improving safe work behavior and accidentrates . . . ’’ ([Mawhinney, 1984] p. 27).

7. The problem areas targeted were larger scale issues while thetypical OBM intervention was small in scale. Flexibility inchoice of research methods might be required to deal with theseissues, but, ‘‘we should not stray too far from our BA and ABAroots with respect to concepts (behavioral) and data manage-ment’’ ([Mawhinney, 1984] p. 28).

Soon after my appointment as editor, in 1984, we began receivingcomplicated articles involving factor analyses of questionnaire datacollected within small-scale interventions. This was not what I had inmind when I wrote about job satisfaction and social validation. We hadbetter luck later. In a 1986 article entitled ‘‘OBM, SPC, and Theory D:A Brief Introduction,’’ we [Mawhinney, 1986] introduced Shewhart’s

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tuf

ts U

nive

rsity

] at

11:

55 2

9 O

ctob

er 2

014


quality cycle concept, statistical process control methods, and Dem-ing’s management principles. A year later we had enough articles onthe subject to publish a special issue entitled ‘‘Organizational Behav-ior Management and Statistical Process Control: Theory, Technology,and Research’’ (see table of contents below).

Organizational BehaviorManagement and Statistical Process Control:

Theory, Technology,and Research

Journal of Organizational Behavior ManagementVolume 9, Number 1

CONTENTSSECTION I: FUNDAMENTALS OF STATISTICALPROCESS CONTROL: IMPLICATIONS OF AND

OBSTACLES TO ITS USE IN ORGANIZATIONALBEHAVIOR MANAGEMENT

Introduction 1Thomas C. Mawhinney

The Future 4Fundamentals of Statistical Process Control 5

Larry E. MainstoneAriel S. Levi

Deming’s Approach 7Basics of Statistical Process Contro1 8Control Charts 11

Obstacles to Understanding and Using Statistical ProcessControl as a Productivity Improvement Approach 23

Ariel S. LeviLarry E. Mainstone

Statistical Process Control 23Psychological Obstacles to the Effective Use of SPC 25Summary 30

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tuf

ts U

nive

rsity

] at

11:

55 2

9 O

ctob

er 2

014


Reinforcing Punishment and Extinguishing Reward:On the Folly of OBM Without SPC 33

William W. NotzIrvin BoschmanStephen S. Tax

Superstitious Supervision as a Consequence of Errorsin Reinforcement 36

Implications and Prescriptions 39Conclusion 45

SECTION II: STATISTICAL PROCESS CONTROL,THEORY D, AND BEHAVIOR ANALYSISA Comparative Analysis of Statistical Process Control,

Theory D, and Behavior Analytic Approachesto Quality Control 47

William K. RedmonAlyce M. Dickinson

Introduction 48General Comparison of Theory D and Behavior Analysis 51Research on SPC-D and BA Approaches to Quality Control 53SPC-D versus BA: An Analysis of Examples 55Summary and Conclusion 62

Quality Circles, Feedback and Reinforcement: AnExperimental Comparison and Behavioral Analysis 67

Naomi KrigsmanRichard M. O’Brien

Method 70Results 72Discussion 76

SECTION III: STATISTICAL PROCESS CONTROL,THEORY D, AND PERFORMANCE ENGINEERINGSYSTEMS PERSPECTIVESPerformance Engineering: SPC and the Total

Performance System 83Dale M. BrethowerConnie J. Wittkopp

The Goal 83The Importance of Quality 85A Performance System 86Case Study 1 89

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tuf

ts U

nive

rsity

] at

11:

55 2

9 O

ctob

er 2

014


Case Study 2 93Theory D and O.B. Mod.: Synergistic or Opposite

Approaches to Performance Improvement? 105Fred LuthansKenneth R. Thompson

O.B. Mod., SPC, and Theory D 106Theory D and O.B. Mod.: A Comparison 109Theory D: An Epilogue 119Implications for Research and Practice 121

SECTION IV: THE ROLES OF GOALS IN HUMANPERFORMANCE SYSTEMSA Goal-Directed Model for the Design of Human

Performance Systems 125Richard W. MalottMaria Emma Garcia

The Problem 126What Is System? 127What Is a Behavioral System? 128The Realism of Ultimate Goals 128The Importance of Near-Ultimate Goals 129The Dangers of Enlightened Self-Interest 130The Limits of a System 131Considering All Influences 132What Is Behavioral Systems Analysis? 133Behavioral Systems Design on the Fly 135What Is Goal-Directed Design? 135Numbering System for Outlining 138An Example of a Goal-Directed Systems Analysis 140Personal Satisfaction as an Ultimate Objective 147Multiple Ultimate Objectives 148The Big Picture 148Criteria for Good Objectives 150Conclusions 156

Although I suggested we consider the issue of pay-for-performancein the 1984 article, real progress in that area began only after BillHopkins volunteered to assist development of a special issue on thesubject. I am pleased to announce that anyone with a subscription toJOBM will find a special issue entitled ‘‘Pay for Performance: History,

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tuf

ts U

nive

rsity

] at

11:

55 2

9 O

ctob

er 2

014


controversy, and evidence,’’ in their mail when they return from thesemeetings (see table of contents below).

Pay for Performance:History, Controversy,

and Evidence

Journal of Organizational Behavior ManagementVolume 12, Number 1

CONTENTS

Introduction 1HISTORICAL CONTEXTPay for Performance from Antiquity to the 1950s 5

E. Brian PeachDaniel A. Wren

Introduction 5ERA 1: The Intuitive Era 6ERA 2: Industrialism and the Economists 10ERA 3: Incentive Schemes 14ERA 4: The Age of the Social Scientists 17Summary and Conclusions 22

Hawthorne: An Early OBM Experiment 27H. McIlvaine Parsons

Hawthorne Studies 28OBM Methodological Aspects 29Lessons for Productivity 37Postscript 41Conclusion 41

EXPERIMENTAL RESEARCHThe Use of Concurrent Schedules

to Evaluate the Effects of Extrinsic Rewardson ‘‘Intrinsic Motivation”: A Replication 45

Kelli J. SkaggsAlyce M. DickinsonKimberly A. O’Connor

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tuf

ts U

nive

rsity

] at

11:

55 2

9 O

ctob

er 2

014



A Comparison of the Effects of a Linearand an Exponential Performance Pay Functionon Work Productivity 85

Shezeen OahAlyce M. Dickinson


CRITICAL REVIEWSchedules of Reinforcement: Lessons from the Past

and Issues for the Future 125Gary P. LathamVandra L. Huber

Reinforcement Schedules 126Lessons Learned from Field Applications 132Issues for the Future 140Concluding Comments 145

AN EXEMPLARY CASE DESCRIPTIONThe Company Built upon the Golden Rule:

Lincoln Electric 151Harry C. Handlin

The Early Years 152The Birth of Incentive Management 153Growing with the Twentieth Century 154Incentive Management: How It Really Works 155Implementing Incentive Management 161

I broke one of my unwritten rules when I decided to publish twospecial issues in a row. The special issue on pay will be followed by aspecial issue entitled ‘‘Organizational Culture, Rule-Governed Behav-ior and Organizational Behavior Management: Theoretical Founda-tions and Implications for Research and Practice’’ (see table of con-tents below).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tuf

ts U

nive

rsity

] at

11:

55 2

9 O

ctob

er 2

014


Organizational Culture, Rule-Governed Behaviorand Organizational Behavior Management: Theoretical

Foundations and Implications for Research and Practice

In Press July, 1992

EDITORIALT. C. Mawhinney

ANALYSIS OF CULTURAL PROCESSES AND CONCEPTS:MACRO AND MICRO LEVELSEvolution of Organizational Cultures as Selection by Consequences:The Gaia Hypothesis, Metacontingencies, and Organizational Ecology

T. C. MawhinneyUniversity of Detroit MercyRelating Behavior Analysis to the Organizational Culture Con-cept and PerspectiveJames L. EubanksKenneth E. LloydCentral Washington University

TWO THEORIES OF RULE-GOVERNED BEHAVIORA Theory of Rule-Governed Behavior and Organizational

Behavior ManagementRichard W. MalottWestern Michigan University

Contingency Specifying Stimuli: The Role of ‘‘Rules’’ in Organi-zational Behavior Management

Judy L. AgnewUniversity of VictoriaWilliam K. RedmonWestern Michigan University

COMMENTS ON MALOTT’S THEORY PAPERAND THE THEORETICAL ANALYSISBY MALOTT, SHIMAMUNE, AND MALOTTMuch Ado About Something: Comments on Papers by Malott

and Malott, Shimamune, and MalottDonald M. BaerRoy A. Roberts Distinguished ProfessorThe Department of Human DevelopmentThe University of Kansas

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tuf

ts U

nive

rsity

] at

11:

55 2

9 O

ctob

er 2

014


For Parsimony’s Sake: Comments on Malott’s ‘‘A Theory of RuleGoverned Behavior and Organizational Behavior Management.’’

William M. BaumDepartment of PsychologyUniversity of New Hampshire

An Important First Step, But Not the Last Word on Rule-Gov-erned Behavior and OBM: Comments on Papers by Malott andMalott, Shimamune, and Malott

Howard RachlinDepartment of PsychologyState University of New York at Stony Brook

Comments on Rule-Governed BehaviorRichard W. MalottWestern Michigan UniversityMaria Emma MalottPerformance Management SystemsSatoru ShimamuneSun System Inc. and Western Michigan University

A THEORETICAL ANALYSIS OF RULE-GOVERNED BE-HAVIOR AND AN OBM INTERVENTION WITHIN STRUC-TURAL AND CULTURAL CONSTRAINTSRule-Governed Behavior and Organization Behavior Manage-

ment: An Analysis of InterventionsRichard W. MalottWestern Michigan UniversitySatoru ShimamuneSun System Inc. and Western Michigan UniversityMaria Emma MalottPerformance Management Systems

Organizational Behavior Management Within Structural andCultural Constraints: An Example from the Human ServiceSector

Beth Sulzer-AzaroffUniversity of Massachusetts, AmherstMartin J. PollackSouthbury Training SchoolRichard K. FlemingAuburn University

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tuf

ts U

nive

rsity

] at

11:

55 2

9 O

ctob

er 2

014


BOOK REVIEWBehavior Analysis of Societies and Cultural Practices, Edited by P. A.Lamal

Reviewed by Richard K. Fleming, Auburn University

In this issue we fill a long-standing gap between theory and practice inthe OBM tradition. The role of rule-governed behavior in organiza-tional behavior phenomena is finally addressed in some detail. In acritical review of the way I/O Psychologists were utilizing operantprinciples to do what was then called behavior modification, I paidspecial attention to the effects of rule-governed behavior. My criticalcomments were published in a 1975 JAP article, two years before thefounding of JOBM. My full-length article began as a brief response toa B Mod intervention to reduce rates of absenteeism using a weeklypoker card game and lottery. I noticed two important factors thatpointed to the operation of some form of rule-governed behavior.First, absence rates changed before any subject could have receivedwhat the authors purported to be ‘‘the planned reinforcer.’’ Second, theexpected value of the lottery was about a dollar and a half. Ed Lockelatched on to this observation and used it to support his contentionsthat cognitive processes and not operant principles and concepts ac-count for complex behavior in work settings. In his 1980 JAP articleentitled ‘‘Latham vs. Komaki: A tale of two paradigms,’’ Locke at-tempted to show that cognitive goal setting was a valid account ofLatham’s results and that operant processes did not account for Koma-ki’s results. Jeff Ford and I had already elaborated on the way rulegoverned behavior is established in an operant theory of leader-fol-lower interactions published in a 1977 Academy of Management Re-view article. In a 1982 Psychological Reports article I documented indetail a process of rule construction and rule following by a singlesubject in response to three concurrent FR/VI schedules of reinforce-ment. Fortunately for us all, in my opinion, Dick Malott and JudyAgnew and Bill Redmon have provided two alternative and somewhatrelated theories of rule governed behavior processes. They will appearin JOBM 12-2, which is now in press. Dick and Maria Malott andSatoru Shimamune, in the same issue of JOBM, demonstrate how rulegoverned behavior is purported to account for behavior in an OBMintervention. If I look a little healthier and more well rested than thelast time you saw me, it is because I am generally more relaxed thesedays. I know I will no longer have to deliver long winded explanations

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tuf

ts U

nive

rsity

] at

11:

55 2

9 O

ctob

er 2

014


about how behavior analytic concepts account for the apparent effectsof delayed consequences on current behavior each time I am chal-lenged by an expectancy theorist or social learning theorist. In thefuture I will simply refer them to JOBM 12-2.

Having to some extent explained and justified my presence heretoday, it is time to more specifically address what is implied by thetitle of my talk.

OBM Today and Tomorrow: Scientific/Technological Aspirationsand Artful/Effective Accomplishments

If you have been counting you know I have used the word cultureseven times since I began speaking. I have used the word rules orrule-governed four times. My current verbal behavior reveals a lotabout what I have been reading and thinking about in the not toodistant past, organizational culture and organizational behavior andtheir management. This should alert you to the possibility that my talk,regardless of title, will be slanted in the direction of things cultural. Ishould have chosen a title that more specifically evokes images oforganizational culture and cultural evolution. Because that is what Ishall be talking about. I propose to sketch the evolutionary history anda variation in the evolutionary path for the OBM culture and introducedefinitions of some concepts along the way.

Culture and Cultural Practices of the OBM Community Today

Interestingly, meanings of the term culture are culturally determined.For example, the American Heritage Electronic Dictionary on the harddisk of my computer provides the following definition of a culture:

. . . The arts, beliefs, customs, institutions, and all other products ofhuman work and thought created by a people or group at a particu-lar time.

Eubanks and Lloyd (in press [1992], JOBM, special issue on cul-ture) note that a common definition of organizational culture in theOrganizational Behavior (OB) and Administrative Sciences (AS) liter-atures is the following:

. . . the pattern of values, beliefs, and expectations shared by theorganization members. (Huse & Cummings, 1990)

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tuf

ts U

nive

rsity

] at

11:

55 2

9 O

ctob

er 2

014


The dictionary, OB, and AS definitions of culture differ with SigridGlenn’s (1991) definition and elaboration of culture. Her definitionsare in behavior analytic terms:

. . . a natural-science approach defines culture as all the condi-tions, events, and consequences arranged by other people thatregulate individual behavior (Skinner, 1953). Thus a culture iscomposed of social contingencies of reinforcement. When indi-viduals of a community are exposed to commonly arranged so-cial contingencies, they acquire a style of behavior that is charac-teristic of the group. (p. 28)

As members of the OBM/network or subculture of the ABA culturewe share a common style of behavior. We can converse in a fluidmanner without constantly stopping to define our terms. We are oftenexcited by the same conversational topics that deal with improvingeffectiveness of individuals and groups in organizations. I know I cancount on learning something new about safety if I encounter BethSulzer-Azaroff. I can count on learning something about the creativityof workers and managers who go beyond what Aubrey and his teamshave taught them. If I need to probe my own understanding aboutsome issue concerning OBM I know I can count on Alyce Dickinson,Bill Hopkins, or Bill Redmon to assist me. How did we come to knowone another? What process or task brought us together? All of us hadread something by Skinner and knew a good bit about applied prin-ciples of behavior before we ever met face-to-face. In one way oranother our histories have been connected by activities related to ABAand JOBM.

JOURNAL OF ORGANIZATIONAL BEHAVIORMANAGEMENT

Volume 1, Number 1, Summer (1977)

CONTENTS

Kempen, Robert W. and Hall, R. Vance. Reduction ofindustrial absenteeism: Results of a behavioral approach 1

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tuf

ts U

nive

rsity

] at

11:

55 2

9 O

ctob

er 2

014


Bourdon, Roger D. A token economy application to manage-ment performance improvement........................... 23Miller, Lawrence M. Improving sales and forecast accuracy ina nationwide sales organization........................... 39Komaki, Judi. Alternative evaluation strategies in work settings:Reversal and multiple baseline designs........................... 53Quilitch, H. Robert, de Longchamps, G. Dare, Warden, R. Arthur,and Szczepaniak, Colin J.The effects of announced health inspectionsupon employee cleaningperformance........................... 79Kent, Harry M., Malott, Richard W., and Greening, Marie.Improving attendance at work in a volunteer food co-operative with a token economy........................... 89Chandler, A. Byron.Decreasing negative comments andincreasing performance of a shift supervisor........................... 99Kreitner, Robert, Reif, William E., and Morris, Marvin.Measuring the impact of feedback on the performance ofmental health technicians........................... 105

iii

JOBM is the official archive of our culture’s accomplishments. Assuch our cultural connections in many cases have been linked by thejournal. And where did it come from? And, if it is as important anelement of our culture as I assert that it is, shouldn’t something by wayof appreciation be expressed to the person responsible for its found-ing? Remember, there is no way I would be here doing what I am if itwere not that someone had taken the time and expended the effort toget the journal going in the first place. As members of the OBM/net-work or culture we owe a debt of gratitude to Aubrey Daniels forfounding the Journal of Organizational Behavior Management, firstpublished in 1977 (see table of contents above). For the behavioralpurists, and under appropriate circumstances I will admit to being one,we thank the workings of the natural behavioral processes that deliv-ered him to us. Our journal, JOBM, provides the most continuous andcurrent archival record of the culture’s history. It serves as a leading

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tuf

ts U

nive

rsity

] at

11:

55 2

9 O

ctob

er 2

014


indicator of the culture’s future evolutionary path. It is the repositoryof our official cultural accomplishments to use Gilbert’s (1978) concept.

Aubrey managed the social contingencies of reinforcement which pro-duced the first formal description of our fundamental cultural practices(his editorial in the first issue of JOBM) and its accomplishments (the firsteight research articles published in JOBM). [See the table of contents forJOBM 1(1), 1977) above.] The term cultural practice should have aparticular meaning within the OBM culture. Again I recommend weutilize Sigrid Glenn’s (1991) behavior analytic definition:

. . . cultural practices involve the operant behavior of manypeople who compose the members of a culture. Each person’sbehavior functions as part of the reinforcement contingencies ofothers–providing stimulation and consequences. A cultural prac-tice is therefore defined in terms of interlocking (social) contin-gencies–where the behavior of each member supports the behav-ior of others. The pattern of operants that comprise theinterlocking contingencies is referred to as the form of a culturalpractice–or type of practice. (p. 28)

Few of us in attendance here today will receive any monetary gainsdirectly contingent on our behaviors here. Most of us are here becauseof powerful interlocking contingencies of social reinforcement. Ourattendance at the ABA meetings, preparations of presentations to bemade here, and participation in various sessions within the meetingsare all cultural practices which mark us as members of the ABAcommunity and its subcultures, such as the OBM/network. The com-plex pattern of behaviors among OBM researchers who acquire re-search opportunities, devise interventions, intervene in organizations,collect data to satisfy observational criteria, analyze their data in ac-cordance with certain criteria, write articles in accordance with certainstylistic criteria, submit articles to the JOBM review process, reviewarticles for the journal and revise their work to satisfy the sometimestough criteria of reviewers, all exemplify cultural practices with whichmany of us are familiar.

Scientific/Technological Aspirations: Core Cultural Objectives

That the field of OBM has had scientific and technological aspira-tions from its inception is evident in the cultural practices that Aubrey

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tuf

ts U

nive

rsity

] at

11:

55 2

9 O

ctob

er 2

014


Daniels (1977) proposed to foster and support through publication ofthe Journal of Organizational Behavior Management. The culturalpractices were described in his first editorial:

Applied behavior analysis was defined by Baer, Wolf, and Risley(1968) in the first issue of the Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis.They suggest the following criteria: (1) applied, (2) behavioral, (3) ana-lytic, (4) technological, (5) conceptually systematic, (6) effective, and(7) generalizable. The editors feel that in general these same criteria,specifically applied to organizational settings, are adequate to definethe research which will be of concern to JOBM (p. v).

Briefly, OBM was modeled from ABA. And, ABA was considereda systematic approach to applying scientific knowledge to addresssocially significant behavior problems. Organizational behaviors ofinterest to practicing managers were to be the domain of OBM.Aubrey (1977) summarized as follows:

. . . JOBM will publish articles on procedures and behavior thathave some immediate interest and utility to the practicing manag-er; that are concerned with behavior which can be directly mea-sured and observed; that present data that constitute a believabledemonstration of some cause and effect relationship between thevariables under study in enough detail that it will facilitate repli-cation from only a reading of the study; that strive for relevanceto the principles of operant conditioning [emphasis added]; thatproduce changes in the behavior under study which have practi-cal and not just statistical significance [emphasis added]; andthat demonstrate changes that last over time [emphasis added]and can be applied to other settings or to related behaviors withsimilar results. (p. v-vi)

To deal with known constraints on controlled field research Aubreyrecommended that OBM researchers consult a book by Hersen andBarlow (1976) entitled Single Case Experimental Designs: Strategiesfor Studying Behavior Change and Judi Komaki’s (1977) article en-titled ‘‘Alternative Evaluation Strategies in Work Settings: Reversaland Multiple Baseline Designs.’’ Judi’s article was one of eight ar-ticles published in the first issue of JOBM.

The review and publication criteria Aubrey set forth for JOBMprovided guidelines for researchers who might be ‘‘reinforced’’ bypublication in JOBM. Because a major target audience for JOBM was

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tuf

ts U

nive

rsity

] at

11:

55 2

9 O

ctob

er 2

014


to be practicing managers, however, Aubrey included the followingprovisos: articles published in JOBM must, (1) ‘‘ . . . have practicalvalue to the manager or management specialist’’ and (2) be ‘‘ . . .written in a manner that may be understood by the manager who doesnot have a formal background [sic] in applied behavior analysis’’(Daniels, 1977, p. v).

Artful/Effective Accomplishments

Adherence to the two additional provisos can make for easier read-ing by practicing managers. They may also be responsible for thepractice of describing a wide variety of interventions grossly in termsof goal setting, training, ‘‘operant reinforcement,’’ and ‘‘feedback’’processes. Thus the precision of description and behavior control weassociate with scientific analyses in the behavior analytic tradition andthe technological ABA tradition are not always achieved in OBMstudies. For this reason I believe that many OBM studies represent acombination of artfully crafted applications of one or a combination ofloosely defined and, sometimes, loosely applied operant behavior prin-ciples. This may result in problems. But the problems are not seriousones if we take the long-term view and address the problem of strikinga balance between scientific and academic rigor while also addressingneed for comprehension by the managerial laity. I have been, and Ithink we should continue to be, guided by an objective to balancemethodological rigor with effective communication of findings totrained behavioral people and practicing managers. That is a real chal-lenge. With respect to this issue, however, I continue to be guided by asentence from a letter B. F. Skinner sent to me in response to my 1975JAP article: ‘‘Practical applications of basic research cannot be reducedto cook-book formulae and nothing but a technical knowledge willmake it possible to take advantage of the more important possibilities.’’

Before offense is taken with this characterization of OBM, consider theAmerican Heritage Electronic Dictionary definition of the word artful:

Skillful; clever; ingenious.–art’fully adverb

I continue to be impressed with just how artfully the early OBMresearchers arranged behavior-consequence contingencies in complexwork settings. For example, in 1976 Jeff Ford and I were writing atheoretical analysis of leadership as an operant social interaction phe-

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tuf

ts U

nive

rsity

] at

11:

55 2

9 O

ctob

er 2

014


nomenon. We were critical of existing theories that failed to takeaccount of the effects of followers’ behaviors on their leaders’ behav-iors. Our article was published in 1977. In that same year, RogerBourdon (1977) published an article in JOBM entitled ‘‘Token econo-my application to management performance improvement.’’ Roger’sstudy essentially operationalized the type of contingency between fol-lowers’ behaviors and accomplishments and their leaders’ receipts of‘‘reinforcements’’ that Ford and I contended was absent from mosttraditional theoretical accounts of leadership. The contingencies wereoperationalized with variations of the Ayllon and Azrin (1968) tokeneconomy. Roger’s token system arranged a contingency betweenpoints earned by managers, backed up by tangible reinforcers, and thefollowing dependent variables: rates of attendance, work quality, pro-duction efficiency, and waste costs among the people they managed.[See Bourdon’s (1977) Figures 2 and 3. (Shown in text as Figure 1.)]The system was apparently effective. I say apparently because theintervention was so complex and employed neither control/compari-son groups, reversals, nor multiple baseline designs. At the same time,those of us well versed in the technologies employed found it believ-able. In a laboratory study conducted at about the same time for RamRao’s dissertation which I directed, we examined several social con-tingencies in dyads. Only one contingency arranged for leaders’ andfollowers’ receipt of monetary reinforcers to depend on the behaviorof other members of the dyad. Only when they closely correlated theirbehaviors did their relationship rise and produce high interaction lev-els and high monetary earnings. While I don’t mean to suggest thatexactly the same processes account for results in the Bourdon and Raodata sets, it is interesting to note their similarities. [See Figure 3 fromRao and Mawhinney (1991). (Shown in text as Figure 2.)] Essentially,we examined, in a controlled lab setting, contingencies that Rogerconstructed in the field.

This suggests an important question for future research. Can we beas creative when it comes to the development and evaluation of inter-ventions aimed at fostering participative or self-directed work groupinterventions? Of equal importance, can this thrust be reconciled withand guided by our scientific principles and traditions of research meth-odology?

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tuf

ts U

nive

rsity

] at

11:

55 2

9 O

ctob

er 2

014


FIGURE 1

Source: Bourdon (1997, p. 31).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tuf

ts U

nive

rsity

] at

11:

55 2

9 O

ctob

er 2

014


FIGURE 2

Source: Rao and Mawhinney (1991, p. 113).

Accomplishments

Phil Duncan (1989, p. 194) provided evidence of OBM’s effective-ness by reporting exemplary and typical improvements among OBMinterventions and computed PIPs for several research areas (see Table 1).Thus, while our interventions are typically effective the PIPs indicateplenty of room for improvement in average intervention effectiveness.

OBM Today and Tomorrow

Much of what I have said so far concerns the OBM of yesterday andtoday. What about tomorrow?

I believe the points I made in 1984, eight years ago, remain validand stake out territory for a research agenda which remains unfin-

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tuf

ts U

nive

rsity

] at

11:

55 2

9 O

ctob

er 2

014


TABLE 1. The PIPs of OBM

Dependent Variable Typical Best PIPImprovement Improvement

Absenteeism 69% 90% 1.3

Safety 63% 125% 2.0

Work Performance 363% 1039% 2.86

Source: Duncan (1989, p. 194).

ished. Rapid progress is being made with our response to the qualityissues identified in 1986 and 1987. Patience appears to pay as long aswe keep working in the mean time.

I have computed some statistics concerning the status of OBM atthese meetings and the topics covered by our people. They suggest thatsome of my written and unwritten objectives for the culture are beingachieved. Of the 250 numbered sessions on this years program werepresent 19 or 7.6% of the program. That is just above the median ofthe ten program areas this year. I counted about 40 individual hard-coreOBM presentations on the program excluding combinations with otherprogram areas. About 25% of the topics concerned some aspect ofquality management which we began to examine in 1986 and 1987.About 12.5% concern pay-for-performance and incentives and another12.5% concern some aspect of worker participation or self-direction ofwork and team building. Thus, fully 50% of the current program dealswith research issues I targeted in my 1984 JOBM article. Although Ihave not detailed representation of other topics, I have noted withpleasure that in the joint sessions there are topics concerning OBM andits implicit and explicit relations with BA and ABA.

Among the unwritten items on my agenda was breaking downbarriers among academics, practitioners and consultants and sensitiz-ing some people to the very important role of for-profit organizationsin our culture. Many of the remedial human services programs in thiscountry are aimed at ameliorating the problems produced by unevenemployment and changing skill requirements among people in thework force. To the extent the OBM type interventions have positiveside effects, e.g., stress reduction, stable or rising employment rates,and reduced accident rates, they help reduce the need for some reme-dial requirements for services. Of the 50 members of JOBM’s editorial

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tuf

ts U

nive

rsity

] at

11:

55 2

9 O

ctob

er 2

014


board 20% are in managerial or training consulting firms or services,20% in training, evaluation, or service centers, and 60% hold academ-ic positions. During my tenure as editor I have exactly doubled thesize of the editorial board (excluding editors) from 25 when I began to50. Although two academics will be added as of the next issue, 12-2,at this moment, the 50 board members are distributed exactly in thesame proportion as where the 25 when I began my editorship. Thus,our representation is broader, in terms of institutional affiliations,while proportionally it is the same now as when I became editor. Ofthe 70 presenters, including multiple presentations by some people, 40percent are academics, 37.1 percent are consultants and practicingmanagers, 14.3 percent are from institutes or centers, 4.3 are frombusiness enterprises, and 4.3 percent work in governmental offices.Barriers among groups may be breaking down.

As the official OBM midwife I must confess to a certain pleasure atthe progress made by you all, parents of or participants in this culturalinnovation. You are to be congratulated. Clearly any award you be-stow on me for my editorial work is self-recognition on your part. I amreally no more than your communal conscience. I hasten to add, how-ever, that the idea that this is a communal award in no way reduces thesense of honor, appreciation and accomplishment I feel as a conse-quence of receiving it.

Closing Thoughts

Finally a couple of thoughtful quotes to remember.Art is I; Science is We.

Claude Bernard (1813-1878)French physiologist

Science may have found a cure for most evils; but it has found noremedy for the worst of them all - the apathy of human beings.

Helen Keller (1880-1968)American author, lecturerI believe Keller meant we should care. Your presence here today

suggests to me that you do. Thank you!

EPILOGUE

This epilogue is organized around several themes. One theme is myreaction to a perennial question concerning the boundaries of our

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tuf

ts U

nive

rsity

] at

11:

55 2

9 O

ctob

er 2

014


culture. Shall we be all things to all people? This and other themes aredeveloped as my updated responses to questions I posed and sugges-tions I made either in 1984 (Mawhinney, 1984) or in 1992 (see text ofmy talk above). By your methods ye shall be known.

At some point I believe we will have to consider in more detail thequestion ‘‘what shall we consider the domain of OBM?’’ For example,shall we consider it any intervention that was devised to make anorganization ‘‘better’’ and achieved some success? Or, should werequire the data characterized as coming from OBM interventions tobe specifically derived from the application of one or more basicprinciples of behavior analysis? What are the implications of workingon the improvement of organizations at the level of organizationalsystems analysis and organizational level interventions without con-necting the interventions (e.g., changing work flow designs) to behav-ioral contingencies of reinforcement? These questions are related tothe first and second suggestions I listed in my 1984 critique of OBM(Mawhinney, 1984):

1. Recognition of OBM’s roots in behavior analysis and applied be-havior analysis.

2. Barriers separating behavior analysis, applied behavior analysisand OBM should be broken down.

I am pleased to report that progress has and continues to be made inthese areas. That our roots are in behavior analysis was well reflectedin several articles published in the 1990s. Both the theoretical founda-tions and data handling methods Mason and Redmon (1992) used inthe examination of ‘‘Effects of immediate versus delayed feedback onerror detection accuracy in a quality control simulation’’ were clearlyrooted in behavior analysis. Under complex field conditions, Welsh,Bernstein, and Luthans (1992) evaluated an ‘‘Application of the Pre-mack Principle of reinforcement to the quality performance of serviceemployees.’’ Poling and Foster (1993) critiqued the role of the match-ing law in OBM. Hantula and Crowell (1994) examined ‘‘Intermittentreinforcement and escalation processes in sequential decision making:A replication and theoretical analysis.’’ And, more recently, Goltz(1999) explored the roles of matching and behavioral momentum asthey relate to escalation of commitment. Bill Hopkins’ (1995) veryimportant leadership launched a series of publications that involveddeveloping, maintaining, and improving large-scale data-based pro-

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tuf

ts U

nive

rsity

] at

11:

55 2

9 O

ctob

er 2

014


grams with studies that were also clearly in the traditions of appliedbehavior analysis conducted primarily in the service sector. Researchof the type I’ve just mentioned has moved the field in directions Irecommended whether or not my recommendations had any impact onthe authors’ behavior.

In keeping with behavior analytic traditions of data gathering aboutand explanation of behavioral phenomena (Baum, 1994), researchersworking in the OBM tradition require their data to be observable bymore than one person. Thus, the status of a person’s ‘‘thoughts andfeelings’’ cannot be directly observed, in most cases, by anyone butthe person having those ‘‘thoughts and feelings.’’ However, verbalself-reports of the person’s ‘‘thoughts and feelings’’ and the environ-mental conditions under which the person makes such reports can beobserved by the person and by others. For many behavior analysts‘‘thoughts and feelings’’ are considered covert behaviors the causes ofwhich are like the causes of overt behavior, i.e., environmental contin-gencies in which the behavior occurs. This is because behavior ana-lysts de facto eschew the concept of free will in favor of the concept ofdeterminism. Other psychological approaches to the explanation ofwork related behavior contend that the most proximate causes of workrelated behavior and therefore a large proportion of work performanceis the covert ‘‘cognitions’’ of the focal person or ‘‘subject.’’ But thesepotential causes of behavior and performance are never directly ob-served or measured. Rather, they are inferred from the focal person’sobserved self-reported status with respect to ‘‘covert cognitions’’about such things as goals and ‘‘feelings’’ about future satisfactionarising from events such as goals to be accomplished. It is one thing touse verbal reports as a tool and quite another to use them to advancethe argument that unobserved events within a person such as ‘‘cogni-tions’’ are causes that intervene between environmental contingenciesand overt behavior of a focal person. Even if we admit from the outsetthat people experience what are called ‘‘cognitive events or pro-cesses’’ we cannot be sure how well correlated they are with theirverbal reports of them. What we can be sure of is that verbal behavior,because it is operant behavior, will be relatively well controlled byenvironmental contingencies in which the behavior occurs. In addi-tion, because work behavior is also operant behavior, we can restassured that this behavior will typically be well regulated by environ-mental contingencies. To the extent the environment arranges condi-

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tuf

ts U

nive

rsity

] at

11:

55 2

9 O

ctob

er 2

014


tions such that one’s own verbal self-reports and other events (e.g.,one’s own performance) are well correlated, verbal self-reports can beuseful. But what do we know about conditions in which such self-re-ports, e.g., self-reports of performance, are poorly or well correlatedwith what has actually occurred? Beal and Eubanks (2000), during mypreparation of this epilogue, sent me a manuscript entitled ‘‘Self-Re-port bias and accuracy in a simulated work task: Effects of speedrequirements and feedback’’ which they have submitted for publica-tion review. Their work is in the behavior analytic tradition and isaimed at learning how environmental variables are related to accuracyof self-reported performance change. Suffice it to say that the notionsto which I had referred in this epilogue before receiving their manu-script are supported by results of their experiments. However, someopinions I expressed in 1984 (Mawhinney, 1984) regarding the con-cept of ‘‘self-efficacy’’ have not fared so well.

Cole and Hopkins (1995) helped define the boundaries betweenOBM as an extension of behavior analysis to work settings and ‘‘cog-nitive’’ explanations of work behavior and performance by demon-strating the practical implications of the fact that verbal self-reportsand work behavior are both operant behaviors sometimes controlledby the same environmental contingencies and sometimes by differentenvironmental contingencies. They achieved their demonstration inthe following ways: (a) by manipulating the levels of self-reported‘‘self-efficacy’’ so as to replicate results of the typical ‘‘self-efficacycauses performance’’ study as conducted by proponents of theconstruct, (b) by then strengthening the positive correlation betweenverbal self-reported ‘‘self-efficacy’’ and performance and (c) by thenreversing the sign of the correlation between verbal self-reported‘‘self-efficacy’’ and performance from positive (and statistically reli-able) to negative (and statistically reliable).

In 1984 I suggested that we attempt to learn whether there werepractical uses for constructs such as ‘‘self-efficacy’’ measures viaself-reports since they might tap into dimensions of a person’s historyof reinforcement that might have an impact on current behavior (Ma-whinney, 1984). For reasons clearly evident in the work by Cole andHopkins (1995), I would not make that suggestion today. In additionto their critical evidence concerning the ‘‘self-efficacy’’ construct, andby logical extension other such constructs, there is evidence that theconstruct does not serve the practical objective I had thought it might.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tuf

ts U

nive

rsity

] at

11:

55 2

9 O

ctob

er 2

014


To serve the purposes I had in ‘‘mind,’’ changes in self-reported ‘‘self-efficacy’’ would have to predict future work related behavior as aresult of any intervention aimed at improving levels of ‘‘self-effica-cy.’’ More importantly, such improvement in both measures of theconstruct and in performance would have to differ between groupsexposed to the intervention and those in a control or comparisongroup. And, we now have evidence that in at least one study this resultwas not obtained. Godat and Brigham (1999) used a three-item ques-tionnaire to assess ‘‘self-efficacy’’ among workers exposed to self-management training in an organization and a control group in thesame organization. They found solid evidence that the interventionincreased their measure of ‘‘self-efficacy’’ during the intervention andthat increased levels of ‘‘self-efficacy’’ endured after training amongthose workers who participated in the self-management training inter-vention. However, the workers exposed to training and those in thecontrol group did not differ with respect to the lone objective perfor-mance measure, attendance, on which those exposed to training andincreased ‘‘self-efficacy’’ should have outperformed those in the con-trol group. Although the Godat and Brigham (1999) intervention wasevaluated within a simple A-B design (i.e., it was reported as a casestudy), it still suggests how OBM researchers can examine efficacy(no pun intended) of constructs such as ‘‘self-efficacy’’ within thecontext of an OBM intervention. The work by Cole and Hopkins(1995), on the other hand, suggests that even if that construct provespractically useful, its status as an intervening causal variable is by nomeans ‘‘self-evident’’ (pun intended).

Sharpening the correspondence between what we say we are doingand where we have gotten our ideas about what to do and why weactually do what we do in our interventions is another way in whichwe can tighten links to our basic science, Malott’s (1999) comments tothe contrary notwithstanding. That is why I believe there is some valuein critical commentary such as ‘‘Schedules of Reinforcement in Orga-nizational Behavior Management: Latham and Huber (1992) revis-ited’’ by Dickinson and Poling (1996). At the same time, however, itshould be apparent that I found value in what Latham and Huber(1992) had to say in the first place. While on opposite sides of theissue, i.e., the degree to which our interventions should exhibit fidelityto our roots in behavior analysis and applied behavior analysis, theattitudes of Malott (1999) and Dickinson and Poling (1996) share a

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tuf

ts U

nive

rsity

] at

11:

55 2

9 O

ctob

er 2

014


norm in support of the idea that a culture such as ours can benefit fromself-examination and honest expressions of disagreement amongmembers regarding what we are doing and what we should be doing.This sort of discourse is grist for the mill of selection by consequencesupon which that causal mode can operate and, perhaps, select betterpractices from variations among innovative practices that emergewithin our own culture.

As readers might imagine, I was delighted to have been in theeditor’s chair when ‘‘The Establishing Operation in OrganizationalBehavior Management’’ came to us from Judy Agnew (1998). At therisk of offending some practitioners with our efforts to ‘‘behavioralizethe world’’ (Jack Michael, as I quoted him in Mawhinney (1984)), theinfluences of Agnew and Redmon (1992), Agnew (1998), Balcazar,Hopkins, and Suarez (1986), and Malott (1992) are starkly evident intwo recent articles published in JOBM: (a) ‘‘The effects of a combinedgoal setting, feedback, and incentive intervention on job performancein a manufacturing environment’’ by Jessup and Stahelski (1999) and‘‘Positive Contingencies versus Quotas: Telemarketers Exert Counter-control’’ by Mawhinney and Fellows-Kubert (1999). I would like tosee more work in this tradition. At the same time I am aware of the factthat some members of our culture would prefer we avoid jargon thatcalls for special training among some readers if they are to appreciatewhat we have to say. Nevertheless, my position in the matter remainsunchanged.

I also believe we owe a great debt of gratitude to Denny Reid(1998) for editing the special issue entitled ‘‘Organizational BehaviorManagement and Developmental Disabilities Services: Accomplish-ments and Future Directions.’’ This work spans the theoretical andapplied domains of OBM and ABA and includes vantage points ofOBM and the DDS sector that are, in many cases, new to the OBMculture as it is typically reflected in JOBM.

In ‘‘The Need for Assessment of Maintaining Variables in OBM,’’by Austin, Carr, and Agnew (1999), virtually all the systematic ap-proaches to OBM that have influenced development of our culture arewell represented. In addition, their relations with one another aretreated in a way that results in a type of synergy when viewed from thevantage point of the model developed in that article.

The last work I shall mention in this section is by no means the leastimportant. To the contrary, it could be one of the more important

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tuf

ts U

nive

rsity

] at

11:

55 2

9 O

ctob

er 2

014


critical comments on the field to appear in JOBM. The importance ofthis work probably arises as much from responses it evoked fromimportant members of our culture as from the position it represents perse. The work to which I refer is ‘‘The Discussion of Behavioral Prin-ciples in JOBM’’ by Normand, Bucklin, and Austin (1999). To put thematter bluntly, the authors chided us for our poor record with respectto linking elements of our interventions to the principles of behaviorwe rhetorically call the foundations of our ‘‘applied science.’’ In thebest tradition of OBM, of course, they backed up their critique withdata for the six-year time span (1992-1997) for which they collectedand analyzed data. Then they reported to us that less than 40% ofarticles published in JOBM and reviewed by them included a discus-sion of behavioral principles. I think that the status of our culture inthis regard arises, at least in part, from the early traditions in the fieldof targeting data presentation for consumption by what I call themanagerial laity. I invited submission of commentary on this workfrom several members of our culture that I thought would be stimu-lated to make useful responses regarding the critical remarks made inthe Normand, Bucklin, and Austin (1999) article. And those invitedwho responded did not disappoint.

Judy Agnew (1999) concluded her commentary by making a specif-ic recommendation regarding editorial policies for JOBM; she sug-gested ‘‘. . . that we should divide JOBM into two categories, one fordescriptive reports that explore better procedures to use in work set-tings and the other for behavior analyses of truly experimental re-search’’ (p. 60). This change in editorial treatment of material pub-lished in JOBM would permit members like me to use technical jargonand for others to avoid jargon and target readers interested solely inwhat elements of interventions produce results in organizations. Also,I think it would make sense to place our laboratory work involvingbehavior analytic theories and methods that relate to OBM in one wayor another into the second category suggested by Judy.

Dick Malott (1999), on the other hand, agreed with some of whatNormand, Bucklin, and Austin (1999) had to say, clearly disagreedwith some of what they had to say, and went on from there to offer hisown critical remarks about where our culture has taken us. Malottcontended that conceptual behavior analyses are difficult in the firstplace and not as essential to effectively changing behavior as Nor-mand, Bucklin and Austin suggest. In addition, according to Malott,

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tuf

ts U

nive

rsity

] at

11:

55 2

9 O

ctob

er 2

014


behavior analysts working in or talking about field interventions pre-sent conceptual analyses that are too simplistic to be called ‘‘scientif-ic.’’ In defense of those among us who may have engaged in whatMalott calls ‘‘simplisticisms’’ at one time or another, let me offer up adefense and suggest that we have made some progress. In 1975 Iidentified and critiqued several of the ‘‘simplisticisms’’ to which Mal-ott referred (Mawhinney, 1975). For example, consider ‘‘Simplisti-cism #4: The weekly paycheck is a reinforcer delivered in accordancewith an FI (fixed-interval)’’ (Malott, 1999, p. 78). When this ‘‘sim-plisticism’’ was ‘‘committed’’ by Pedalino and Gamboa (1973), Icalled it what it was, an incorrect use of an operant concept (Mawhin-ney, 1975). More importantly, I also attempted to account for thedesired behavior results that their intervention (Pedalino & Gamboa,1973) did produce (Mawhinney, 1999), notwithstanding their use ofseveral ‘‘simplisticisms.’’ Why was I so concerned that we be able toexplain results of the Pedalino and Gamboa (1973) intervention usingoperant terms and concepts? Because the idea that operant principlessimply couldn’t deal with human behavior arising from ‘‘cognitive’’processes was an ever-present threat to the adoption of our ways ofexplaining such effects. (See my remarks about Locke and Komakiabove in the text of my 1992 award acceptance speech.) In addition, tothe extent that we cannot point to the operative reinforcement historyand local contingencies that do account for desired behavior producedby our interventions, we can rest assured that others will demean our‘‘science of behavior.’’ Today we can explain complex behavior muchbetter compared to how we could explain it then. In my opinion wehave made dramatic progress in this regard. It is worth noting that inthose days neither the concept of the establishing operation (Michael,1982) nor what might be called ‘‘post-Skinner’’ conceptions of ‘‘rulegoverned behavior’’ a la Malott (1992) and Agnew and Redmon(1992) were available for use by those among us who attempted toprovide conceptual analyses. Malott’s last two sections before hiswhimsical conclusion concern the importance of our developing a‘‘true’’ understanding of our subject matter and the positive impactthis can be anticipated to have on our ability to improve our applica-tions. As to his poem ‘‘Conclusion: Scowl’’ modeled from Allen Gins-berg’s ‘‘Howl,’’ my response is to ask the question, ‘‘Do you supposethat applied physicists have the same level of apparent disdain fortheoretical physicists?’’ Whether intended or not, ‘‘Conclusion:

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tuf

ts U

nive

rsity

] at

11:

55 2

9 O

ctob

er 2

014


Scowl’’ I took to be a protest against the position I’ve been trying tosupport, i.e., some degree of integration or at least some cross fertiliza-tion among basic behavior analysis, applied behavior analysis andOBM.

Reading Bill Hopkins’ (1999) comments just after Dick Malott’s(1999) had calming and confidence and optimism evoking effects onthis reader. He provided a succinct primer on the theoretical founda-tions of our science and the role of theory in it. Hopkins notes thatwhile Normand, Bucklin, and Austin (1999) indicated the reasonable-ness of delineating how we derive practices from our empirical theoryand why they should work, he went on to note that they did not spellout the methods one would use for accomplishing either task. Hesketched out ways in which these ‘‘blanks’’ or ‘‘gaps,’’ as they mightbe called, could be filled in. Bill would exclude rule-governed behav-ior from his list of empirical behavior principles that comprise ourempirical behavior theory. I would counter by saying that, in the shortrun at least, I find the conception of rules defined as ‘‘function alteringcontingency specifying stimuli’’ (or CSS) a la Schlinger and Blakely(Schlinger & Blakely, 1987; Blakely & Schlinger, 1987) a comfortableway station. Use of this conception of rules could ward off the propen-sity of nonbehaviorists to fill in with ‘‘cognitive’’ constructs any gapbetween apparently missing and immediately controlling or clearlyevident but long delayed consequences. But, if my interpretation(based on Agnew and Redmon (1992), Schlinger & Blakely (1987)and Blakely & Schlinger (1987)) of the role that verbal CSS play asone of modulating behavior-environment relations (e.g., Mawhinney &Fellows-Kubert, 1999) is correct, then the first thing we should do isjettison the concept of rule-governed behavior. I say this because,functionally, rules simply do not govern behavior. Rather, a rule is afunctional relation among CSS and, usually, the temporally laggedcorrelation of a CSS with contingencies of reinforcement that wouldnot come into existence in the absence of the temporally prior CSS–this is essentially Agnew and Redmon’s argument (based on Schlinger &Blakely (1987) and Blakely & Schlinger (1987))–rules do not governbehavior–if they ‘‘govern’’ anything, it is the relation between eventsand behavior. As I am pretty sure Bill Hopkins would agree, certaintypes of verbal statements by people in the role of speaker with certaintypes of behavioral histories that overlap in certain ways with behav-ioral histories of their listeners (e.g., speak the same language, includ-

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tuf

ts U

nive

rsity

] at

11:

55 2

9 O

ctob

er 2

014


ing jargon of a professional culture) will have predictable functionaltering effects on environmental contingencies of their listeners’ be-havioral contingencies immediately, intermediately and much laterwith respect to time and contexts.

Finally, I come to the insightful commentary by Linda Hayes(Hayes, 1999), ‘‘Dining with the Devil: A Response to Normand,Bucklin, and Austin.’’ Linda, correctly I believe, identifies practicalobstacles to the achievement of objectives suggested for JOBM byNormand, Bucklin, and Austin (1999). In a manner of speaking, Lindasuggested that the Editorial Board of JOBM has the power to cull fromthe stream of papers that might be published as articles in JOBM thosethat fail to meet standards implied by the Normand, Bucklin, andAustin critique. She tempered her remarks with a footnote pointing tocontingencies that might be operating on behavior of the EditorialBoard of JOBM. All of the commentaries on Normand, Bucklin, andAustin, in one way or another, recognized, at least tacitly, that the levelof academic preparation among our readers and researchers varies andso do the contingencies that prompt them to submit their work toJOBM. (Judy Agnew offered a potentially useful suggestion in thisregard.) Linda specifically noted that some contributors lack the histo-ry required to provide them with the skill level needed to meet thestandards suggested by Normand, Bucklin, and Austin while otherswith the required history and skill level needed to meet the standardsmight well engage in attempted countercontrol and seek to ‘‘do it theirown way.’’ While I am not at liberty to point out specific instances thatconfirm Linda’s hypotheses, suffice it to say that I have encounteredempirical evidence that would provide support for them. I beg to differwith Hayes (1999), however, on the point regarding the role that workenvironments play in selecting whether technical descriptions of inter-ventions are simple or complex. That selection process, or decision, isunder the control of those reporting the research and its results. At thesame time, I believe she correctly noted that work environments maywell select for simple interventions. But, the selection may also occuron the researchers’ side of the contingencies. For example, considerthe human effort that must have been expended in collecting data forthe three-tiered intervention and analysis reported by Methot, Wil-liams, Cummings and Bradshaw (1996) that appeared in the large-scale data-based intervention series edited by Bill Hopkins. Simplymustering the resources required for such a study would be a daunting

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tuf

ts U

nive

rsity

] at

11:

55 2

9 O

ctob

er 2

014


task for most of us let alone crunching and plotting and analyzing thedata once it was in hand. In spite of the costly, in terms of human timeand effort, nature of our field research methods, from time-to-time westill receive studies for review that include the direct observation ofbehavior within multiple-baseline designs operationalized in exceed-ingly complex settings.

In her next to last paragraph of commentary Linda Hayes (1999)made some very important remarks about OBM and its relations withbehavior analysis and ‘‘systems analysis.’’ Here I must quote for fearof loosing some of the meaning, insightfulness, and sharpness of thepoint she makes:

I [Hayes, 1998] have argued that our group is made up of perfor-mance managers, operating at the level of individual behavior,and systems analysts operating at the level of systems, and thatthe implications of this difference are not fully appreciated. Theprinciples of behavior of which Normand et al. speak are prin-ciples that have been derived from the study of individual behav-ior. Systems are not profitably described in terms of these prin-ciples. Systems are not maintained by reinforcement. They aren’textinguished by its absence, and they don’t come under stimuluscontrol. Neither are the changes observed in these two subjectmatters measured in the same units for comparisons along theselines. It is even questionable whether the two sciences are operat-ing on the basis of the same philosophical foundations. Thismatter is also an issue for us to address as a collectivity. (p. 65)

While I cannot dispute the position taken by Linda on this issue,elsewhere (Mawhinney, in press; Mawhinney, 1992a), and thanks inpart to Linda, I have noted that entire organizational cultures andbehavioral practices within them are shaped by the same causal modethat shapes the behavior of individuals. That causal mode is selectionby consequences (Skinner, 1981). But, when this causal mode oper-ates at the level of systems, it does not operate directly on individualbehavior. Rather, it operates on and at the level of the organization’smetacontingency. Elements of a metacontingency include, among oth-er things (Mawhinney, 1992a), local or proximate (Baum, 1994) socialcontingencies of reinforcement that comprise and maintain organiza-tional practices (see quote from Glenn, 1991 above). The most suc-cinct and still complete characterization of the metacontingency I have

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tuf

ts U

nive

rsity

] at

11:

55 2

9 O

ctob

er 2

014


encountered as the concept concerns formal organizations, is the fol-lowing:

Adaptation to changing environments across organizations canbe analyzed in terms of metacontingencies (Glenn, 1988; 1991).A metacontingency describes how classes of practices commonto a group are related to molar consequences and refers to collec-tive practices which determine the survival of a group as a whole.Metacontingencies operate concurrently with local contingencieswhich affect the practices of individuals or subgroups and maybe compatible with or in conflict with local contingencies. In thecase of a metacontingency, if the practices of large numbers ofmembers of a culture lead to adaptation to the environment andsurvival, then the practices which succeeded are likely to bepassed on to other members and be perpetuated. (Redmon andMason, in press)

The concepts of cultural/organizational practices and organizationalmetacontingencies interacting with one another in an organizationalecology (Mawhinney, 1992a) comprise links between systems analy-sis and behavior analysis. These are linkages we may choose to exploitor avoid depending on whether we conclude that links with systemsanalysis endangers fundamental practices in our culture. As a co-edi-tor of JOBM who has grown ever more committed to behavior analy-sis and applied behavior analysis as touch stones for the Journal, evenas I recognized that the flow of articles to the journal could be in-creased by a factor of ten or more by opening it to work in thetraditions of I/O psychology and organizational behavior (OB), I rec-ognize that ‘‘opening’’ the Journal invites contact with latent threatsto the integrity of our culture. (It might be worth noting that in thisspecial issue only one article is devoid of any reference to the termreinforcement and that one is the article by Dale Brethower, ‘‘A Sys-temic View of Enterprise: Adding Value to Performance.’’) During mytenure as your editor, however, I have repeatedly resisted the tempta-tion to, metaphorically speaking, ‘‘open our gates in the presence offoreigners or modern barbarians.’’ And, here of course, I am notnecessarily referring to systems theorists. Rather, I am referring to‘‘non’’ or ‘‘anti behaviorists.’’ Thus, I do not take lightly and I doappreciate the significance of Linda’s (Hayes, 1999) concluding re-

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tuf

ts U

nive

rsity

] at

11:

55 2

9 O

ctob

er 2

014


marks which I repeat lest we forget and drift into practices we mayultimately regret:

In short, we need to consider how many places are set at the tableof organizational behavior management and whether it is pos-sible for all of us to share the meal. And, in keeping with theargument of Normand, Bucklin and Austin, I think we would dowell to understand these issues in the language of behavior analy-sis. (p. 65)

I am in complete agreement with this position statement eventhough I know it will make the work of any JOBM editor(s) a moredifficult and ongoing challenge. At the same time, I believe we caninvite the systems theorists and analysts to occasionally dine with us ifthey play by our rules and we make up the rules before inviting themto dinner. I might add that, de facto, the Devil(s) is (are) already in thedining room if not pushing one of us off a hard earned chair at thetable. Perhaps we should provide a stool in the corner. Or, we mightrecognize the fact that members of our culture are capable of effective-ly melding behavior analytic vantage points and concepts with thoseof systems analysis. In that case, rather than suggest they take a stoolin the corner, we might be well advised to offer them a chair at thetable, under certain conditions that we shall specify given our roots inbehavior analysis are deeper than those in systems analysis.

I have, de facto, exhibited my position in this matter. It was I whoinvited Dale Brethower to join the editorial board of JOBM. And, sofar, I don’t regret that decision. Dale’s Total Performance System(TPS) model, as he demonstrates in this issue of JOBM, is scalable. Itcan be applied at the level of an individual within an operant laborato-ry setup all the way up to an entire organization. And, I would arguethat it can be elaborated to take into account complex exchangesamong organizations and perhaps even nations. Whether all work inthe tradition of the TPS will ultimately qualify for reporting in thepages of JOBM is an empirical issue that will play itself out if andwhen we get a flow of data based work arising from field researchguided specifically by the TPS.

I suspect that we can have much greater impact on the worlds ofwork and performance in private and public formal organizations withcombined behavior analytic based and systems analytic based workthan either of them divorced from one another. What could be quite

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tuf

ts U

nive

rsity

] at

11:

55 2

9 O

ctob

er 2

014


harmful to our culture, from the vantage point of those among us whotake our philosophical guidance from behaviorism and derive ourbehavioral applications and data handling methods from foundationsin behavior analysis, is to invite or simply acquiesce to the presence ofnon or anti-behaviorists sitting at our table. Given a choice betweenslower progress without nonbehaviorists systems analysts and fasterprogress with them in our midst, I would opt for the former over thelatter course of action. And this argument I would apply equally to I/Opsychologists. As noted above, not all of my opinions have ultimatelybeen supported by empirical results. But opinions cannot be tested ifthey are never expressed. And here I admit that I am expressing a setof opinions.

Speaking of the systems analytic point of view, unless I have missedsomething, in the pages of JOBM we have a lot more talk aboutefficacy of using systems analytic methods than we have empiricalevidence specifically collected in accordance with systems analyticprinciples that vouch for the efficacy of that orientation. As editor andnow co-editor of JOBM, I have the blessing and curse of seeingvirtually everything that knocks at our gate and eventually passesthrough it. Although not rooted in behavior analysis and surely basedon a different philosophy regarding origins of human behavior, in myopinion, since that is the coin of the realm in some movements, theTQM movement has to be considered one of the most popular systemsoriented fads to be sold to the American management laity since MBO(management by objectives, which at least has clear behavioral roots).Empirical evidence purported to support that movement is often takenfrom the level of the whole ‘‘in tact’’ organization or across a numberof organizations and even from comparisons between and among in-dustrialized countries (Cole, 1995). What is important is that fromtime to time they do attempt evaluations rooted in data. Moses, Sta-helski, and Knapp (in press) have provided our culture with evidencethat some SPC/TQM tools appear to work. But, while attempting toprovide an OBM approach to evaluation of those methods, Moses,Stahelski and Knapp also revealed to us numerous pitfalls and pratfallsinvolved in sorting out which components of their ‘‘system of inter-ventions’’ accounted for what proportion of any system performanceimprovement observed. We already know, however, that the tools ofSPC are quite useless in the absence of reinforcement based establish-ing operations that prompt their use and contingencies of reinforce-

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tuf

ts U

nive

rsity

] at

11:

55 2

9 O

ctob

er 2

014


ment that maintain some rate of effective use among people on theshop floor (Henry & Redmon, 1990). Evidence that this is also true asone examines behavior up and down levels of authority and acrossfunctional areas is also, finally, beginning to accumulate (Callahan,2000).

Once we begin to talk about systems and the impact of that vantagepoint on organizational performance, where do we stop? The logic ofthe total performance system (TPS) approach to systems is said to be‘‘scalable,’’ (see Brethower in this issue). And I think, no, I am surethat is true. But, if concern is for optimization of outcomes that benefitan organization and its various constituencies, we can move up a levelbeyond where the TPS usually terminates its analysis and ask, ‘‘Whatabout the synergies to be gained from merging with other systems orsimply acquiring other business systems?’’ I am sure that what Lindaand I would ask is ‘‘Where is the behavior in this issue and what if anybehavioral principles will ever be involved in the problems associatedwith the issue?’’ Here, I think I have an answer whether embraced byour systems analysts or not. The answer I propose is that at this level,from a behavior analytic vantage point, our concern has to be for thebehavior of powerful decision makers whose behavior includes mak-ing pivotal decisions about strategic moves at the highest levels andissues arising from the melding of organizational cultures (defined inbehavior analytic terms) that may range from similar to quite diver-gent. I have said the same thing, in principle, about TQM (Mawhin-ney, 1992c). It is relatively easy to talk about what to do about theseissues in principle, it is quite another to find a way to gather empiricaldata on these subjects and evaluate the efficacy of TQM or TPSprinciples applied to them.

Getting back to the issue of how many places to set at our table letme make a proposal that may or may not be taken seriously. Let us saythat henceforth we shall require for every four systems analytic thinkpiece articles published in JOBM there be at least one data basedsystems oriented article that makes it through our review process. Thisratio roughly matches the overall number of the empirical versustheoretical discussion papers published in JOBM as per the recentreview by Nolan, Jerema, and Austin (1999). While I confess that Ihave not taken a count, I suspect the systems analytic vantage point isin a deficit condition at the moment. In defense of that vantage point,let me point out the fact that our review criteria very much stack the

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tuf

ts U

nive

rsity

] at

11:

55 2

9 O

ctob

er 2

014


deck against their work ever finding its way into print within JOBM.That is because we favor data that is either behavioral per se or in-volves accomplishments that are not far removed from it at the level ofintervention evaluation. We often forgo the sort of benefit cost or‘‘value added’’ issues that are important touchstones in the evaluationof interventions at the level of system redesign (see Brethower, thisissue). While this notion may stir up some controversy, at times stir-ring up controversy is the first step in promoting more variationamong cultural practices from which a ‘‘positive’’ path of evolution-ary or adaptive practices can be selected.

Looking back on what we have done from 1984 to 1992 to thepresent, I am gratified by the body of work we have produced and howit has fulfilled my wishes for the evolution of our culture in terms ofthe first two items on my 1984 agenda. But it is worth repeating that Iam master of a narrow realm and servant in a broader realm. The onlyitems on my agenda that will come to fruition, therefore, are those thatresonate with the larger culture I serve. So to my cultural comrades Ioffer up an agenda item for the next two decades: ‘‘Specifically, weshould exploit the concept of culture and cultural metacontingenciesand in general adopt the behavior analytic approach to the analysis andleadership of human (organizational) cultures.’’

Lest systems oriented members of our culture think that this agendawould leave them out or without a place at the table, I suggest theyread the excellent integration of the systems analytic and behavioranalytic vantage points on organizational change and development byRedmon and Mason (in press) in a book chapter entitled ‘‘Organiza-tional Culture and Behavioral Systems Analysis.’’

Here we face a dilemma of sorts. The systems people are many innumber and not necessarily behaviorists. And their presence at ourtable could threaten our culture. On the other hand, there can be littledoubt about the existence of synergies that can be achieved from amelding of elements of each culture that should be apparent in thework of Redmon and Mason (in press). Given the relative disadvan-tages associated with a small culture dealing with a much larger one,of course, the risks to our behavior analytic/applied behavior analyticculture of losing its identity in such a venture could be greater than weare willing to take. For that reason members of our culture shouldproceed with utmost caution and engage in considerable deliberationbefore ‘‘jumping into’’ any approach that takes us far from our

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tuf

ts U

nive

rsity

] at

11:

55 2

9 O

ctob

er 2

014


foundations in the science of behavior called behavior analysis. Letthe deliberations begin!

Ethics and Social Validity

In my 1992 award acceptance speech I touched on the two problemswe face as a culture that purports to be concerned with creating betterorganizational cultures using behavioral technologies. These are whatcould be called ethical or values related problems. I restate them hereand go on to consider what progress we have (have not made) madewith respect to these issues.

3. Our technologies are amoral which implies the following: ‘‘If wewant to design good productive systems we must learn what con-tingencies produce the following conditions in people: (a) feltjoy while performing and (b) felt freedom in the work place’’([Mawhinney, 1984] p. 17).

4. If we propose to build good work environments, goodness mustbe measured since there is no necessarily positive relationshipbetween individual and group productivity and individual andgroup job satisfaction or quality of working life.

The contingencies within which most of us would say we experi-ence feelings of joy and freedom are contingencies of positive rein-forcement (Baum, 1994). Work environments are notorious for theplethora of temporal ‘‘pressures’’ in them manifest by deadlines forwork completion and speed of production and/or service delivery. So,it would be hard to argue with Malott’s (1992) contention that in mostwork environments there exist contingencies of negative reinforce-ment that are, for all practical purposes, unavoidable in modern com-plex organizations whether they be in the not-for-profit service sectoror the for-profit production and service sectors. I don’t believe, how-ever, that we should use that fact as an excuse for turning our attentionsolely on the drivers of high performance without respect for otherconsequences of ostensibly high performance and neither does Malott.

He and Garcia (Malott & Garcia, 1987) clearly indicated sensitivityto this issue in ‘‘A goal directed model of human performance sys-tems.’’ Evidence of this appears in the following remarks concerningperformance systems in a society that embraces the ultimate objectiveof advancing the well being of humanity:

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tuf

ts U

nive

rsity

] at

11:

55 2

9 O

ctob

er 2

014


Because we propose [see also Daniels (1977)] to be concernedabout the quality of life–well being of humanity,[–] and becausepeople who are [working] in the system are also part of humanity,we must be concerned about their well-being as well as those theyserve, e.g., students, consumers, patients, and so on. (Malott &Garcia, 1987, p. 147)

Malott and Garcia went on to consider the logical issues that arisefrom adopting such ultimate objectives that can and typically do in-volve conflicts with other objectives. They explicitly recognize theneed to optimize multiple objectives and minimize conflict amongobjectives. (It may be worth noting that the model for analysis ofmaintaining variables (Austin, Carr, and Agnew, 1999) is narrower inscope and does not address the role of such ultimate social validityissues and conflicts. Thus, it represents a more specialized tool ori-ented approach aimed at validating local variables/contingencies re-sponsible for performance at several levels of analysis below those ofa total organization, community or society.)

How and what sorts of data we should be collecting within OBMresearch was critically discussed by Poling, Smith, and Braatz (1993).They examined empirical research articles from JOBM volumes 7through 12(1) counting them with respect to whether data sets in thestudies met minimal levels of three criteria related to practical andtechnical validity. By practically valid is meant whether results ofcost-benefit and social validity analyses were reported and by techni-cal validity is meant whether integrity of the intervention variables/contingencies had been assessed. They found that 43% (or exactly43.48 which could be rounded to 44%) of these studies reported cost-benefit data, 35% reported results concerning social validity, and 13%reported data concerning integrity of the intervention variables/contin-gencies.

While results of the study by Cole and Hopkins (1995) might callinto question the use of verbal self-reports regarding social validity ofinterventions, a closer look at their results offers some support forself-report data under some specific circumstances. They found thatthe correlation between self-reported ‘‘self-efficacy’’ was strength-ened with repeated exposure to the reporting procedure and that themore proximate events aimed at changing those reports effectively didso. Thus, for some practical purposes as opposed to those purposes

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tuf

ts U

nive

rsity

] at

11:

55 2

9 O

ctob

er 2

014


involving evaluation of causal sequences of events, verbal self-reportdata might be not only the only means we have of assessing socialvalidity, they might well produce reliable and valid assessments. (Seealso my remarks later in this article about work by Reid and Parsons(1996) and remarks above regarding Beal and Eubanks (2000).) Thestanding of verbal self-reports as they are related to social validityshould not, therefore, be confused with the role and validity of verbalself-reports in studies aimed at assessing the causes of performance.For example, without respect to causal relations, we know that jobsatisfaction is well correlated with rates of turnover and absenteeismand the strength of this correlation is moderated by the business cycle,i.e., it is stronger when unemployment is lower and weaker whenunemployment is higher. The variation in strength of this correlation isa function of a fact, of which I presume we are all aware. That fact isthat correlation coefficients are derived from computations that sum-marize the strength of linear association in variation of at least twovariables. Therefore, low variation in one or both of the variablesproduces what are called restriction of range effects. Thus, a work-force that is homogeneous with respect to level of satisfaction (low invariance) will produce a low computed correlation with absenteeismand turnover even if variance in the latter is relatively higher. By thesame token restriction of the range of turnover due to a slack labormarket and threat of job loss for absences when jobs are scarce willreduce the computed correlation between satisfaction, turnover andabsenteeism due to restriction of range in turnover and absence data.Thus, to the extent that a self-report based measure of job satisfactionhas been validated psychometrically and exhibits predictive validity(for a vast array of research in this area see the Journal of AppliedPsychology), it may well be a more valuable measure of social validitythan either turnover or absenteeism per se. Elsewhere I have contend-ed that self-report measures of job satisfaction are not and should notbe the focus of OBM research whereas they should be used as tools forassessing social validity of our interventions (Mawhinney, 1989).

Social validity, I believe, deserves special attention particularly insituations where the work per se is apt to be aversive. Aversive settingsare often settings that are also stressful and therefore moderately tostrongly associated with health and safety risks correlated with stressand strain. Some of the more notorious work-related sources of stressand strain are goal, role and work demand conflicts. Fortunately, these

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tuf

ts U

nive

rsity

] at

11:

55 2

9 O

ctob

er 2

014


sorts of conflicts are explicitly recognized in OBM performance mod-els with roots in the work of Tom Gilbert (1978). However, without anassessment of an intervention’s association with variables such as‘‘stress and strain,’’ health and safety at work or something less directsuch as job or work environment satisfaction, we cannot hope tooptimize relations among performance and other socially valued di-mensions of work.

It gives me pleasure to remind readers of the progress that has beenmade in this area whether my earlier work prompted it or not. Wilkand Redmon (1998) described an intervention that used feedback andgoal setting to improve performance of a university admission officefor which they reported not only performance data but also socialvalidity data collected with a work environment satisfaction scale.Their social validity results are the sort that I have argued we shouldseek from our interventions whether we get them or not (Mawhinney,1984,1989). Specifically, in addition to improving performance of theunit, Wilk and Redmon (1998) reported that compared to baseline,self-reported levels of task clarity and supervisory support of workerswere greatly improved while reported work pressure was reduced (byone standard deviation).

There is also value for our culture in identifying popular competi-tors for our approach and determining the efficacy of them. For exam-ple, based on their examination of ‘‘Behavioral and self-report mea-sures of staff burnout in developmental disabilities,’’ Lawson andO’Brien (1994) concluded that ‘‘Given the limited relationship be-tween self-reports of burnout and performance, it would seem prudentto include some direct observation of staff behavior in burnout re-search’’ (p. 38). Their work, in many ways, served the same functionas Cole and Hopkins (1995) but with respect to another paradigm. Thework of Lawson and O’Brien (1994) fairly clearly revealed the frailtyof research paradigms that would be considered foreign among mostmembers of our own culture and dominate the literature on ‘‘burnout’’among working people.

Although it used an AB design and for that reason was published asa case study, ‘‘Using feedback and reinforcement to improve the per-formance of a roofing crew’’ by Austin, Kessler, Riccabono, andBailey (1996) was the first article published in JOBM that character-ized its interventions in terms of behavior analytic conceptions oforganizational practices and then related these practices to their conse-

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tuf

ts U

nive

rsity

] at

11:

55 2

9 O

ctob

er 2

014


quences for the organization as a whole and then discussed theserelationships in terms of the organization’s metacontingency and itsrelationship with the relevant organizational ecology, i.e., a highlycompetitive roofing industry. Perhaps of even greater importance fromthe standpoint of social validity and ethical practice was the potentialincreased risk of injuries among crewmembers that might arise fromthe observed increase in work rate produced by their extrinsic rein-forcement contingency. But these researchers also addressed that po-tential risk. They recognized the need to add a reinforcement contin-gency to increase and maintain improved rates of safe workingpractices to offset potential risk of unsafe behavior that might beoccasioned by the extrinsic reinforcement contingency for higherwork rates. So they ultimately intervened with extrinsic contingenciesof reinforcement for both task performance rates and safe methods oftask performance. Social validity was assessed using a verbal self-re-port measure among front line workers and administrators. Finally, theintegrity of the intervention contingencies and reliability of the ob-servational system were assessed. Evaluated against standards impliedby the work of Poling, Smith, and Braatz (1993), this study wouldreceive very high marks especially if it had included several groupswith intervention components introduced within a multiple baselinedesign.

One way of assessing social validity among front line workingpeople is to have them vote regarding whether, in the future, theywould prefer to continue an intervention or return to the ‘‘old way’’ ofdoing things. In spite of the fact that two of 14 telemarketers in a studyreported by Mawhinney and Fellows-Kubert (1999) exhibited perfor-mance rate patterns indicative of countercontrol, by the end of thestudy telemarketers voted unanimously for working under the inter-vention contingencies if given a chance to do so again in the future(Fellows & Mawhinney, 1997). In this study telemarketers were notactually permitted to choose and then to continue working under theintervention contingencies.

However, in another study in a similar task environment, Thurkow,Bailey, and Stamper (in press) provided telephone interviewers withthe opportunity to continue working under whichever extrinsic mone-tary reinforcement contingency they preferred after having workedunder each of the alternative monetary reinforcement contingenciesresearchers operationalized prior to workers making their choice. This

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tuf

ts U

nive

rsity

] at

11:

55 2

9 O

ctob

er 2

014


has to be as good as it gets with respect to socially validating a pay forperformance practice.

Reid and Parsons (1996) recently provided evidence regarding so-cial validity of immediate versus delayed verbal feedback via choicebased expressions of preference among staff during training and foundthat immediate feedback was preferred. Equally important for pur-poses of guiding future research, they provided an explanation of theresults in the context of Malott’s (1992) theory of rule-governed be-havior. The importance of the sort of discussion they provided regard-ing why the preference was observed is that it suggests ways of reduc-ing the aversiveness of otherwise unavoidable contingencies ofnegative reinforcement during training.

A discussion of social validity would not be complete if it did notmention work by Geller (in press) and a monograph by Ludwig andGeller (in press). Without losing touch with behavior analytic prin-ciples, their work includes analyses, guided by the Multiple Interven-tion Level model, that suggest which types of and when interventioncomponents will tend to effect changes in cultural practices regardingsafe driving. The importance of this sort of intervention is that to theextent cultural practices are changed by an intervention, the culturalpractices remain in place and support behavior once the experimentershave departed the intervention scene.

The idea that there are multiple stakeholders in the outcomes offormal organizations, be they private for-profit or institutions thatdeliver public services, is easily overlooked. And the complexity andproblems that arise when these multiple constituencies are not takeninto account can be consequential. For one of the most comprehensivetreatments of this subject, as it is related to OBM and communityservice cultures, I recommend reading the first article in Bill Hopkins’(1995) special series on large-scale data-based interventions. In thisarticle, Wolf, Kirigin, Fixen, Blasé, and Braukmann (1995) review thehistory of their Teaching-Family Model of community program devel-opment, implementation and social validation. This is a must read foranyone interested in avoiding the pitfalls and pratfalls virtually certainto be encountered by program developers who take the path of learn-ing their lessons all over again via trial and error.

Although I am sure I have missed some contributors to our under-standing the importance of social validity measurement as a compo-nent of OBM studies, I conclude here by mentioning a most interest-

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tuf

ts U

nive

rsity

] at

11:

55 2

9 O

ctob

er 2

014


ing approach to validating consumer satisfaction within an OBMintervention. Brown and Sulzer-Azaroff (1994) targeted for changeteller behavior during teller-customer interactions; specifically theyobserved and recorded tellers’ smiles, greetings, and eye contact withcustomers and their relationship with customer satisfaction with bankteller ‘‘service.’’ In the bank lobby where customers passed on theirway out of the bank, the researchers positioned a table with slots in thetop, each over a compartment. A sign over the slots asked customers todrop a chip, given to them by their teller, into the slot describing theirlevel of satisfaction with service received; slots were five in numberand labels for them ranged from ‘‘extremely satisfied’’ to ‘‘unsatis-fied.’’ Of the three behavior rates observed and recorded, only greet-ing (e.g., ‘‘hello,’’ or ‘‘May I help your’’) was correlated with custom-er satisfaction scores based on tokens dropped into the labeled tabletop slots.

I believe that with respect to evaluating social validity of our inter-ventions we have made good progress. Nevertheless, it has been my‘‘impression’’ through the years that social validity is something towhich we have paid too little attention. And my ‘‘impression’’ wasrecently validated in results of a review of JOBM contents from 1987to 1997 conducted by Nolan, Jarema, and Austin (1999):

In general, the tendency to report social validity data remainedlow over the past two decades, with peaks occurring near the endof each decade (1984-85 and 1994-96). During the most recentdecade, social validity data appeared in approximately 25%(range: 0%-100%) of the studies published (with the exception ofthe peaks in 1994-96). Additionally, it is worth noting that duringthe entire twenty year period it has generally been more commonto report the social validity of the independent variable (approxi-mate mean = 37%, approximate range: 0%-100%) than the de-pendent variable (approximate range = 24%, approximate range:0%-75%). (p. 101)

OBM and Participative (Decentralized) Management

A recurring theme in the management literature concerns the effica-cy of command or centralized structures of authority roles comparedto more participative or flatter structures of authority. The currentlypopular notion of ‘‘empowerment’’ is probably located at the extreme

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tuf

ts U

nive

rsity

] at

11:

55 2

9 O

ctob

er 2

014


participative end of this sort of continuum along with ideas such as‘‘self-directed work teams.’’ While I will not go into great detail withrespect to these ideas, I will repeat the point I made about this area in1984 (Mawhinney, 1984) and update my thoughts on this topic.

5. Quoting George Strauss (1982), I noted that more egalitarianwork settings can be and have been constructed, but ‘‘there islittle evidence that WPM [worker participation in management]has reduced worker discontent, increased productivity, or createdself-actualized workers’’ (p. 225). My reaction was, ‘‘Perhapsapplied behavior analysts can discover how to make a more egal-itarian work setting more productive than traditional work set-tings’’ (Mawhinney, 1984, p. 26).

Perhaps my memory is fading, but, I don’t recall any specific effortsto examine how OBM might be related to developing ‘‘egalitarianwork settings.’’ However, I worked with Mike Clayton to sort outevidence related to the question whether an intervention aimed atshifting responsibility for control of budgets from a higher level of anorganization to a lower level, i.e., ‘‘decentralization,’’ had the desiredeffect of reducing costs of overtime expenses in a service setting(Clayton, Mawhinney, Luke, & Cook, 1997). Fortunately, we wereable to show that for reasonable lengths of time the elements of theintervention appeared to result in cost reductions. Unfortunately, whenwe examined the ‘‘bottom line’’ costs for a sufficiently long period oftime (1988-1994) costs (adjusted for inflation) had eventually returnedto pre-intervention levels. In industrial settings, costs have been re-duced by removing layers of management and replacing them withgreater reliance on ‘‘self-management’’ techniques or practices. I sup-pose that this might qualify as a more egalitarian arrangement if oneconsiders the ratio of ‘‘bosses’’ to front line workers or the old idea ofan increased ‘‘span of control’’ as de facto resulting in a more egalitar-ian work setting.

I do recall one study in which this rationale, reduced control fromabove, was used as a justification for ‘‘self-management’’ training(Godat & Brigham, 1999). The researchers in this instance also drewupon the notion of ‘‘self-efficacy’’ using a three item questionnairethey apparently constructed to measure self-reported ‘‘self-efficacy.’’Interestingly, this measure did discriminate between participants who

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tuf

ts U

nive

rsity

] at

11:

55 2

9 O

ctob

er 2

014


did and did not receive ‘‘self-management’’ training. The facts of thisstudy were mentioned above and will not be repeated here.

Suffice it to say that this area of study remains relatively undevel-oped, which probably suggests it will continue to go undeveloped for avariety of reasons that I shall not take time to discuss given the factthat productivity in the U.S. has managed to progress at a good pacewithout a major push for egalitarian work contexts. That is, unless weequate the concept of an egalitarian work place with the concept of‘‘self-directed work teams’’ and/or various manifestations of em-ployee ‘‘empowerment.’’

One way to think of an organizational culture becoming more ‘‘par-ticipative’’ and ‘‘empowering’’ its members is to conceive of ‘‘partici-pation’’ as being advanced by building into it more and stronger feed-back loops, a la Brethower’s (1982) TPS, and including reinforcementfor lower echelons of management or workers to provide perfor-mance-related information and member concerns to higher echelons.To the extent that this feedback is eventually evident in upper levelmanagement decisions that are responsive to the feedback from lowerlevels, the lower levels could be said to have participated in ‘‘adapt-ing’’ the organization based to some extent on their insights into howit might be improved for their sake and that of the whole culture. Thisappears to be what has been happening in the culture of the ChevronChemical Company which, under the leadership of Darry Callahan(2000), has developed and implemented, in conjunction with LeslieBraksick’s Continuous Learning Group, something they call ‘‘rein-forcement based leadership’’ or ‘‘RBL.’’ I return to this theme laterwhen I discuss large-scale interventions and our progress on that front.

OBM, Fair Pay and Performance

I addressed the following issue in both 1992 and 1984 and updatemy assessment of it here.

6. Both fair and unfair pay systems can produce high performancelevels among organizational members as can group and individ-ual pay-for-performance systems. Group based incentive sys-tems can be more egalitarian but may precipitate free rider ef-fects [and social loafing]. ‘‘What is required, I believe, is anattack on the problem of group productivity and pay with thesame tools which have proved so effective in the analysis of

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tuf

ts U

nive

rsity

] at

11:

55 2

9 O

ctob

er 2

014


problems such as improving safe work behavior and accidentrates . . . ’’ (Mawhinney, 1984, p. 27).

Most of the systematic and well-controlled OBM research concern-ing individual and group incentive pay published in JOBM was re-ported by Alyce Dickinson and her colleagues (Frisch & Dickinson,1990; Matthews & Dickinson, in press; Oah & Dickinson, 1992;Stoneman & Dickinson, 1989) and Smoot and Duncan (1997). I don’tthink any of it could be called research directed specifically at theissue of fair compared to unfair pay as I had envisioned the topic.Nevertheless, ratio schedule-based incentive pay, the primary meansof operationalizing incentive pay in these studies, insures a type offairness among those individuals working on the same schedule that isnot insured by wages based on hours of attendance on the job or meritpay based on performance appraisals by supervisors and managers.Nevertheless, Dickinson and colleagues have made good headwayaddressing issues concerning the role and effects of pay in the contextof group and team versus individual pay for performance (Honeywell-Johnson, 1999; Stoneman & Dickinson, 1989). This is important giv-en the increased use of team-based jobs and performance assessment.

Whether intended or not, on the other hand, a recent study byThurkow, Bailey, and Stamper (in press) did compare effects of what Iwould call an unfair incentive contingency (‘‘Top Caller’’) with groupand individual incentive contingencies that I would call ‘‘more fair.’’Not only was the individual pay incentive system preferred by themajority of participants in the study as revealed by a social validitymeasure, it produced superior results.

Although many of us are aware of Bill Abernathy’s (1996) cogentargument against traditional wages, empirical work supporting hissystem has yet to appear in the page of the Journal. With respect tooperant principles applied to improve performance by fostering morepositive social contingencies of reinforcement in the traditions ofAubrey Daniels (1994) and Leslie Braksick (2000), we have accumu-lated a wealth of evidence within pages of the Journal. The fact thatBill’s work is de facto a systems approach may account for the fact wehave little empirical evidence of its efficacy in the pages of JOBM.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tuf

ts U

nive

rsity

] at

11:

55 2

9 O

ctob

er 2

014


Large-Scale Change in Organizational Practices/Cultures andOBM?

In the last point I mentioned in 1992 (item 7 below), I believe I wasresponding to the idea that organizations face problems that requirelarge-scale changes and our methods at the time I was writing ad-dressed mostly small-scale problems on a small scale of intervention,methodology, and analysis. I tried to get across the idea that for larger-scaled impacts we would have to do our work on a larger-scale. Thatwould mean we would have to deal with the question whether to useour traditional methods of data handling or embrace the methods, mostof them involving inferential statistics, used by researchers in otherdisciplines involved with organizational analysis.

7. The problem areas targeted were larger scale issues while the typ-ical OBM intervention was small in scale. Flexibility in choiceof research methods might be required to deal with these issues,but, ‘‘we should not stray too far from our BA and ABA rootswith respect to concepts (behavioral) and data management’’(Mawhinney, 1984, p. 28).

In the I/O psychology literature great emphasis is placed on statisti-cal significance even for what many in our culture would call practi-cally small sized effects. I don’t propose to promote small effect sizes.At the same time, I have recently tried to explain why very smallintervention effects in an industrial setting can have considerably larg-er consequences when examined through long periods of time, if theintervention’s positive, albeit small, effect is maintained (Mawhinney,1999). My discussion of the methods I used to talk about the impor-tance of small intervention effects that nevertheless cumulate intolarge results in the longer-term were aimed at focusing attention on thefact that we should not assume that to be effective in an organizationalcontext an intervention has to produce huge immediate results. Thenotion that this large immediate impact is a required characteristic ofan OBM intervention can be viewed as excess baggage that we ac-quired from our close relatives in ABA and behavior therapy. In thoseareas a large behavior change at the level of the individual client(s) isusually the sine qua non of an ‘‘effective’’ intervention (e.g., Baer,1977). In large-scaled interventions across many people, on the otherhand, we should expect that benefits of effects cumulate through time,

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tuf

ts U

nive

rsity

] at

11:

55 2

9 O

ctob

er 2

014


if there are any effects and they endure. Therefore, in large-scale orsystems-level interventions we will have to validate effectiveness ofour interventions by insuring intervention effects, particularly thosethat are small in the short-run, are maintained. This will be required toproduce benefit/cost ratios that grow with time as revealed by evalua-tions that occur though some span of time after our initial interventionhas occurred (Mawhinney, 1999).

I have been involved in reporting results of a study for whichrelatively large effects on costs were not maintained through time, inspite of multiple efforts to maintain them (Clayton, Mawhinney, Luke, &Cook, 1997) and another one in which effects on job-performancewere maintained while their cost/benefit ratios were not quantified(Langland, Johnson, & Mawhinney, 1998). In both instances tradition-al OBM methods of data handling were used for interventions thatoccurred at the level of systems rather than specific individuals. Animportant feature of the first study was that it provided a model of howto graphically depict the difference between a system’s cumulativecosts absent an intervention and in the presence of an intervention in away that supported continual updating of intervention ‘‘results.’’ Whatthe latter study clearly indicated was that we can create interventionsthat have enduring effects on performance. This result, i.e., mainte-nance of intervention effects on performance, is the sine qua non ofgrowing the relation of small intervention effects over a relativelyconstant cost of the initial intervention (Mawhinney, 1999). This iswhat is required to support characterization of an intervention withsmall initial effects as an ultimately effective intervention in the lon-ger-term.

Within OBM sessions at the past two meetings of the Associationfor Behavior Analysis, we have heard, in bits and pieces, references toan emerging large-scale organizational culture change program con-cept called ‘‘reinforcement-based leadership’’ (RBL). This concept,RLB, is the basis of an organizational culture change initiative atChevron Chemical Company (CCC) (Callahan, 2000). It is foundedon our empirical theory and principles of behavior (Abernathy, 1996;Braksick, 2000; Daniels, 1994; Hopkins, 1999) in conjunction withprinciples of systems analysis and design/redesign themes (Brethower,1982; this issue; Rummler & Brache, 1995) that integrate these twovantage points with our behavioral conception of organizational cul-ture (Mawhinney, 1992; Redmon & Mason, in press) and adaptations

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tuf

ts U

nive

rsity

] at

11:

55 2

9 O

ctob

er 2

014


of them to conditions within CCC. The behavior management technol-ogies used to promote adaptation of CCC to its competitive environ-ment have been presented at ABA in 1998 by Jack Beers (1998),Leslie Braksick (then Wilk) (1998), and Roger Macauly (1998), in1999 by Allan Quiat (1999), Don Langewisch (1999), Kim Scow(1999), Bill Redmon and Neil Wilson (1999), and in 2000 by thepresident of CCC, Darry Callahan (2000). My hope is that at somepoint in the not too distant future we will see those bits and piecespublished as a large-scale OBM type cultural change related to bottomline results for the culture as a whole.

Our reversal designs are a blessing and a curse in that reversalsprovide strong evidence for reliability of our independent variables.But they do not result in long-term cumulative organizational benefitsthat might accrue if intervention packages became or produced whatRedmon and Mason (in press) called ‘‘organizational practices.’’ Agood example of this blessing and curse was recently reported inJOBM (Jessup & Stahelski, 1999). Some evidence, at least in the areaof safe driving behavior within multiple baseline designs and ‘‘partici-pative’’ elements of intervention packages (Ludwig & Geller, inpress), suggests that including ‘‘participative’’ elements in an inter-vention package can contribute to longer-term maintenance of theintervention effect. At least that result was observed in the settingsexamined by Ludwig and Geller. We still have a lot of room forimprovement with respect to this agenda item. And we will need todistinguish between modes of ‘‘participation,’’ e.g., real time partici-pation as reported by Ludwig and Geller and the de facto ‘‘participa-tion’’ implied by interventions at Chevron Chemical Company.

Data Graphing and Discriminations Between Baselineand Intervention Effects

We have examined, in the tradition of exploratory research, thequestion whether the very popular Statistical Process Control (SPC)technique holds promise, as I had once hoped (Mawhinney, 1986), fordisplacing our traditional methods of equal interval plotting methodol-ogy (Parsonson & Baer, 1978). John Austin and I (Mawhinney &Austin, 1999) published results of what could be called a contestamong experts using traditional or standard methods of plotting, stan-dard celeration charting, and SPC charting. We concluded that thewinner, whether I liked the result or not, was our traditional standard

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tuf

ts U

nive

rsity

] at

11:

55 2

9 O

ctob

er 2

014


method of plotting data. As I said, however, we considered this workexploratory and not ‘‘the final word’’ on the subject. For the timebeing, however, our traditional methods of data graphing in the handsof researchers well trained in their use appears well suited to ourcurrent needs. The caveat here is that the person using the traditionalmethod must have considerable experience with its use. Evidencefrom exploratory research by Austin and Mawhinney (1999) indicatesthat inexperienced individuals presented with data via our traditionalequal-interval charting format do not perform well compared to thosemore experienced and those who qualify as experts. While this sort ofresult appears obvious in hindsight, the more important implicationsof this work can only be gleaned from reading the entire article.

Women and the Supremacy of Data

There are issues I never raised that have still managed to find ahearing in JOBM. For example, Jerema, Snycerski, Bagge, Austin,and Poling (1999) examined twenty years of articles published inJOBM with the objective of learning the degree to which women,relative to men, have participated successfully in the JOBM publica-tion culture. Although they concluded that women were making goodprogress (i.e., the percentage of them published in JOBM has in-creased through the years), I think I can say with confidence that theirgender had nothing to do with this achievement. In the JOBM reviewprocess under my editorship, to the extent that I have been able tomanage it, the quality of data and importance of issues they addressedhave been the main determinants of whether data were or were notpublished in JOBM. I think that any rise in the rate of female participa-tion in the JOBM publication culture has to be largely a function ofpreviously successful women replicating themselves, as it were (con-sider the number of female authors coauthored with Alyce Dickinson,Judith Komaki, and Beth Sulzer-Azaroff) and the number of men whohave with some frequency engaged in the practice of coauthoring withwomen (e.g., John Austin, Jon Bailey, Bill Hopkins, Al Poling, BillRedmon, Dennis Reid, and Richard O’Brien).

Our Industrial Relations in I/O Psychology (Pun Intended)

Another issue I’ve never pushed but that has always been with us defacto is our relationship with Industrial/Organizational Psychology.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tuf

ts U

nive

rsity

] at

11:

55 2

9 O

ctob

er 2

014


Members of that culture recognize us as members of it (Weiss, 1990).I could go on at length regarding my concerns about any relationshipwe might have with the I/O culture. But, I don’t think it is my place atthis time to do so. Younger folks with a greater future stake in bothJOBM and the field will have to come to grips with that challenge.And, in that regard, I am happy to report that they have taken the firststep.

That step appears in an important article entitled ‘‘Industrial-Orga-nizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior Management: AnObjective Comparison’’ by Bucklin, Alvero, Dickinson, Austin, andJackson (in press). My only advice here is to state the obvious,‘‘Watch your step if you are a mouse and choose to dance with a multiton elephant!’’ I would prefer to ‘‘wrestle with alligators.’’

In my opinion, what distinguishes us as a subculture of I/OPsychology from the main body of that culture, if we agree that weare an element of that culture, is that our more fundamental roots arein behavior analysis (Dickinson, in this issue; Johnson, Redmon, &Mawhinney, in press; Michael, 1993). Our roots in behavior analysisare revealed in the principles of behavior that function as our empiri-cal theory concerning the explanation, prediction and control of be-havior (Hopkins, 1999). We do not deny that people have ‘‘cogni-tions,’’ if we were to define them as occasions when one person isboth speaker and listener in a covert conversation. Nevertheless, wedon’t look with favor on the practice of casting such conversations inthe role of causes of other overt behavior. The danger of so doingwas, in my opinion, rather clearly revealed in the study by Cole andHopkins (1995). Yet, the importance of a meaningful proportion ofthe I/O literature is predicated on the validity of the assumption thatsuch ‘‘cognitions’’ play a mediating causal role in determination ofovert behavior/performance. To the extent that we can create syner-gies by developing relations with that culture without abandoningour touchstones in behavior analysis, I can see advantages in devel-oping such relations. But I hope it is as apparent to others as it is tome that in doing so we run the risk of loosing touch with our roots inbehavior analysis. Many of the remarks I made about our relationswith systems theorists and practitioners apply relatively equally tothis issue.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tuf

ts U

nive

rsity

] at

11:

55 2

9 O

ctob

er 2

014


CONCLUSION

I believe that the OBM culture should maintain its relatively dis-tinctive vantage point on human behavior and performance manage-ment that Marvin Harris (1979) would call etic or distinctively scien-tific in terms of its jargon and its methods. I think that we shouldsearch for terms that our audience likes, but never at the expense ofconfusing our terms with the terms lay people use, to the extent thatthis is possible. I would prefer a complicated idea like ‘‘function-alter-ing effects of CSS’’ to something like changing a persons ‘‘beliefs,expectations or cognitions about causal relations.’’ Important steps inthis direction were taken by Agnew and Redmon (1992) and Agnew(1998). I recommend that when we talk about changing individual,group and organizational behavior by changing their organizationalpractices that we do so by talking about and actually changing local,proximate, or direct acting contingencies of reinforcement. When wedo this within the context of temporally extensive, ultimate, or indirectacting contingencies that currently exist, we can effect changes inpractices and their consequences (i.e., change ultimate contingencies,e.g., fewer deaths from on the job ‘‘accidents) (Baum, 1994; Malott,1992). That is not to say the OBM practitioners should speak in theseterms when dealing with every one of their clients. Clearly I amtalking about how we converse with one another as behaviorists work-ing from the traditions of behavior analysis and applied behavioranalysis. Paul Brown (see his remarks in this issue) provides importantlessons concerning how to deal with the need to gently shape howclients ‘‘see’’ and talk about ‘‘behavior’’ in their organizations. Whiledoing this we can learn to effectively communicate with businesspeople. Until the larger culture in which we live is behavioralized, wewill do well to follow Paul’s advice when dealing with people outsideof our own culture.

I have argued that at the level of the organization we can see theoperation of the causal mode of selection by consequences across apopulation of organizations within an industry. This is accomplishedby looking at birth, death, and survival rates of that population througha sufficiently long time span (Mawhinney, 1992, in press). But tounderstand why a given organization lives or perishes we have toadopt the concept of organizational metacontingency (Glenn, 1991;Mawhinney, 1992a, in press; Redmon & Mason, in press) or some

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tuf

ts U

nive

rsity

] at

11:

55 2

9 O

ctob

er 2

014


other term that expresses the same idea, e.g., Brethower’s (1982)receiving system feedback as elaborated by Rummler and Brache(1995). (See also, Mawhinney, in press.) To do this and still keeppractitioners among our audience, however, we may have to bifurcatethe content of JOBM or, perhaps, have two outlets for what we have tosay, i.e., what we have to say to one another and what we have to sayto practitioners. If, however, we take up the challenge of behavioraliz-ing practitioners, we simply have to begin and keep up an educationalcampaign. But, I think that if this is to happen, it will have to be youngpeople who do it. I have made attempts to move this agenda itemforward with not what I would call a high degree of success. And forthat behavior of mine I think extinction is setting in.

As I said in my original remarks in 1992 (see above), a journaleditor can only do so much. In the longer-run it will be the othermembers of the culture that determine what becomes popular andwhether something unpopular at one point in time becomes popular atanother, later, time. So, more and more as time goes by, I will relymore and more on younger people and do less and less by way ofsaying what we ought to be doing. It is my hope that whatever I say isan establishing operation that has function altering effects on behav-ioral contingencies that ‘‘improve’’ the accomplishments of our cul-ture.

REFERENCES*

Abernathy, W. B. (1996). The sin of wages. Memphis, TN: PerfSys Press.Agnew, J. L. (1998). The establishing operation in organizational behavior manage-

ment. Journal of Organizational Behavior Management. 18(1), 7-19.Agnew, J. (1999). Can We Do Better Behavior Analyses in OBM? Comments on

‘‘The Analysis of Behavioral Mechanisms in JOBM’’ by Normand, Bucklin andAustin. Journal of Organizational Behavior Management, 19(3), 57-61.

Agnew, J. L. & Redmon, W. K. (1992). Contingency specifying stimuli: The role of‘‘rules’’ in organizational behavior management. Journal of Organizational Be-havior Management. 12(2), 67-75.

Austin, J., Carr, J. E., & Agnew, J. L. (1999). The need for assessment of maintainingvariables in OBM. Journal of Organizational Behavior Management, 19(2),59-87.

Austin, J., Kessler, M. L., Riccobono, J. E., & Bailey, J. S. (1996). Using feedbackand reinforcement to improve the performance and safety of a roofing crew.Journal of Organizational Behavior Management, 16(2). 49-75.

Austin, J., & Mawhinney, T. C. (1999). Using concurrent verbal reports to examine

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tuf

ts U

nive

rsity

] at

11:

55 2

9 O

ctob

er 2

014


data analyst verbal behavior. Journal of Organizational Behavior Management,18(4), 61-81.

Ayllon, T., & Azrin, N. (1968). The token economy: A motivational system fortherapy and rehabilitation. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.

Baer, D. M. (1977). Perhaps it would it be better not to know everything. Journal ofApplied Behavior Analysis, 10, 167-172.

Balcazar, F. E., Hopkins, B., & Suarez, Y. (1986). A critical, objective review ofperformance feedback. Journal of Organizational Behavior Management, 7,65-89.

Baum, W. M. (1994). Understanding behaviorism: Science, behavior, and culture.New York: HarperCollins.

Beal, S. A., & Eubanks, J. L. (2000). Self-Report Bias and Accuracy in a SimulatedWork Task: Effects of Speed Requirements and Feedback. Manuscript submittedfor publication.

Beers, J. (1998). Shaping as a leadership tool for sustaining behavior change. In B.Hopkins (Chair), Sustaining organizational performance improvement for thelong term. Symposium conducted at the 24th annual convention of the Associa-tion for Behavior Analysis, Orlando, FL.

Blakely, E, & Schlinger, H. (1987). Rules: Function-altering effects of contingency-specifying stimuli. The Behavior Analyst, 10, 183-187.

*Bourdon, R. D. (1977). A token economy application to management performanceimprovement. Journal of Organizational Behavior Management, 1(1), 23-37.

Braksick, L. W. (2000). Unlock behavior, unleash profits. New York: The McGraw-Hill Companies.

Brethower, D. M. (1982). Total performance systems. In R. M. O’Brien, A. M.Dickinson, & M. Rosow (Eds.). Industrial behavior modification (pp. 350-369).New York: Pergamon Press.

Brown, C. S., & Sulzer-Azaroff, B. An assessment of the relationship betweencustomer satisfaction and service friendliness. Journal of Organizational Behav-ior Management, 14(2), 55-75.

Bucklin, B. R., Alvero, A. M., Dickinson, A. M., Austin, J. & Jackson, A. K. (inpress). Industrial-Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior Man-agement: An objective comparison. Journal of Organizational Behavior Manage-ment.

Callahan, D. (2000). Implementing reinforcement based leadership at ChevronChemical Company. Paper presented at the Association for Behavior Analysismeetings, Washington, D. C.

Clayton, M. C., Mawhinney, T. C., Luke, D. E., & Cook, H. G. (1997). Improving themanagement of overtime costs through decentralized controls: Managing an orga-nizational metacontingency. Journal of Organizational Behavior Management.17(2), 77-97.

Cole, B. L., & Hopkins, B. L. (1995). Manipulations of the relationship betweenreported self-efficacy and performance. Journal of Organizational Behavior Man-agement, 15(1/2), 95-135.

Cole, R. E. (1995). The death and life of the American quality movement. New York:Oxford University Press.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tuf

ts U

nive

rsity

] at

11:

55 2

9 O

ctob

er 2

014


*Daniels, A. C. (1977). Editorial. Journal of Organizational Behavior Management,1(1), v-vii.

Daniels, A. C. (1994). Bringing out the best in people. New York: McGraw-Hill.Dickinson, A. M., & Poling, A. (1996). Schedules of monetary reinforcement in

Organizational Behavior Management: Latham and Huber (1992) revisited. Jour-nal of Organizational Behavior Management, 16(1), 71-91.

*Duncan, P. (1989). OBM and success: What’s the PIP? Journal of OrganizationalBehavior Management, 10(1), 193-203.

*Eubanks, J. L., & Lloyd, K. E. (in press) [1992]. Relating behavior analysis to theorganizational culture concept and perspective. Journal of Organizational Behav-ior Management, 12(2) [pp. 27-44].

Fellows, C. & Mawhinney, T. C. Improving telemarketers’ performance in the short-run using operant concepts. Journal of Business and Psychology, 11(4), 411-424.

Frisch, C. J., & Dickinson, A. M. (1990). Work productivity as a function of thepercentage of monetary incentives to base pay. Journal of Organizational Behav-ior Management, 11, 13-33.

Geller, E. S. (in press). Actively Caring for Occupational Safety: Extending thePerformance Management Paradigm. Forthcoming in Johnson, C.M., Redmon,W.K. & Mawhinney, T.C. (Eds.), Performance management: Behavior and man-agement. New York: The Haworth Press, Inc.

*Gilbert, T. F. (1978). Human competence: Engineering worthy performance. NewYork: McGraw-Hill.

Glenn, S. S. (1988). Contingencies and metacontingencies: Toward a synthesis ofbehavior analysis and cultural materialism. The Behavior Analyst, 11, 161-179.

*Glenn. S. S. (1991). Contingencies and metacontingencies: Relations among behav-ioral, cultural, and biological evolution. In P. A. Lamal (Ed.) Behavioral analysisof societies and cultural practices (pp. 39-73). Washington, D.C.: Hemisphere.

Godat, L. M., & Brigham, T. A. (1999). The effect of a self-management trainingprogram on employees of a mid-sized organization. Journal of OrganizationalBehavior Management, 19(1), 65-83.

Goltz, S. M. (1999). Can’t stop on a dime: The roles of matching and momentum inpersistence of commitment. Journal of Organizational Behavior Management,19(1), 37-63.

Grindle, A. C., Dickinson, A. M., & Boettcher, W. (in press). Behavioral safetyresearch in manufacturing settings: A review of the literature. Journal of Organi-zational Behavior Management.

Hannan, M. T., & Freeman, J. (1989). Organizational ecology. Cambridge, MA:Harvard University Press.

Hantula, D. A., & Crowell, C. R. (1994). Intermittent reinforcement and escalationprocesses in sequential decision making: A replication and theoretical analysis.Journal of Organizational Behavior Management, 14, 7-36.

Harris, M. (1979). Cultural materialism. New York: Random House.Hayes, L. J. (1999). Dining with the Devil: A response to Normand, Bucklin and

Austin. Journal of Organizational Behavior Management, 19(3), 63-65.Henry, G. O., & Redmon, W. K. (1990). The effects of performance feedback on the

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tuf

ts U

nive

rsity

] at

11:

55 2

9 O

ctob

er 2

014


implementation of a statistical process control (SPC) program. Journal of Organi-zational Behavior Management, 11(2), 23-46.

*Hersen, M., & Barlow, D. H. (1976). Single case experimental designs: Strategiesfor studying behavior change. New York: Pergamon Press.

Honeywell-Johnson, J. A., & Dickinson, A. M. (1999). Small group incentives: Areview of the literature. Journal of Organizational Behavior Management, 19(2),89-120.

Hopkins, B. L. (1995). An introduction to developing, maintaining, and improvinglarge-scale, data-based programs. Journal of Organizational Behavior Manage-ment, 15(1/2), 7-10.

Hopkins, B. L. (1999). The principles of behavior as an empirical theory and theusefulness of that theory in addressing practical problems. Journal of Organiza-tional Behavior Management, 19(3), 67-74.

*Hopkins, B. L., & Mawhinney, T. C. (Eds.) (1992). Pay for performance: History,controversy, and evidence. New York: The Haworth Press, Inc.

Huberman, W. L., & O’Brien, R. M. (1999). Improving therapist and patient perfor-mance in chronic psychiatric group homes through goal setting, feedback, andpositive reinforcement. Journal of Organizational Behavior Management, 19(1),13-36.

Jarema, K. J., Snycerski, S., Bagge, S., Austin, J., & Poling, A. (1999). Participationof women as authors and participants in articles published in the Journal ofOrganizational Behavior Management. Journal of Organizational Behavior Man-agement, 19(1), 85-94.

Jessup, P. A., & Stahelski, A. J. (1999). The Effects of a Combined Goal Setting,Feedback and Incentive Intervention on Job Performance in a ManufacturingEnvironment. Journal of Organizational Behavior Management, 19(3), 5-26.

Johnson, C. M., Redmon, W. K., & Mawhinney, T. C. (in press). Introduction toOrganizational Performance: Behavior Analysis and Management Forthcoming inJohnson, C. M., Redmon, W. K. & Mawhinney, T. C. (Eds.), Handbook of perfor-mance management: Behavior and management. New York: The Haworth Press.

*Komaki, J. (1977). Alternative evaluation strategies in work settings: Reversal andmultiple baseline designs. Journal of Organizational Behavior Management, 1(1),53-77.

Langeland, K. L., Johnson, C. M., & Mawhinney, T. C. (1998). Improving staffmanagement in a community mental health setting: Job analysis, training, goalsetting, feedback, and years of data. Journal of Organizational Behavior Manage-ment, 18(1), 21-43.

Langewisch, D. (1999). Tracking the success of the Chevron Chemical approach. InT. Thurkow, Shaping Chevron Chemical Company’s success through behavioraland systems changes. Symposium conducted at the 25th annual convention of theAssociation for Behavior Analysis, Chicago, IL.

Langewisch, D., & Redmon, B. (1999). An overview of how Cheveron ChemicalCompany is shaping organizational success through prioritization and integration.In T. Thurkow, Shaping Chevron Chemical Company’s success through behavior-al and systems changes. Symposium conducted at the 25th annual convention ofthe Association for Behavior Analysis, Chicago, IL.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tuf

ts U

nive

rsity

] at

11:

55 2

9 O

ctob

er 2

014


Latham, G. P., & Huber, V. L. (1992). Schedules of reinforcement: Lessons from thepast and issues from the future. Journal of Organizational Behavior Management,12(1), 125-149.

Lawson, D. A., & O’Brien, R. M. (1994). Behavioral and self-report measures ofburnout in developmental disabilities. Journal of Organizational Behavior Man-agement, 14(2), 37-54.

*Locke, E. A (1980). Latham vs. Komaki: A tale of two paradigms. Journal ofApplied Psychology, 65, 16-23.

Ludwig, T. D., & Geller, E. S. (2000). Intervening to improve the safety of deliverydrivers: A systematic behavioral approach. Journal of Organizational BehaviorManagement.

Luthans, F. & Kreitner, R. (1975). Organizational behavior modification. Glenview,IL: Scott-Foresman.

Luthans, F. & Kreitner, R. (1985). Organizational behavior modification and beyond.Glenview, IL: Scott-Foresman.

Malott, R. W. (1992). A theory of rule-governed behavior and organizational behav-ior management. Journal of Organizational Behavior Management, 12(2), 45-65.

Malott, R. M. (1999). Conceptual behavior analysis. Journal of Organizational Be-havior Management, 19(3), 75-81.

Malott, R. W., & Garcia, M. E. (1987). A goal-directed model for the design ofhuman performance systems. Journal of Organizational Behavior Management,9(1), 125-159.

Mason, M. A., & Redmon, W. K. (1992). Effects of immediate versus delayedfeedback on error detection accuracy in a quality control simulation. Journal ofOrganizational Behavior Management, 13(1), 49-83.

Matthews, G. A., & Dickinson, A. M. (in press). Effects of Alternative Activities onTime Allocated to Task Performance under Different Percentages of IncentivePay. Journal of Organizational Behavior Management.

*Mawhinney, T. C. (1975). Operant terms and concepts in the description of individ-ual work behavior: Some problems of interpretation, application, and evaluation.Journal of Applied Psychology, 60, 704-712.

*Mawhinney, T. C. (1982). Maximizing versus matching in people versus pigeons.Psychological Reports, 50, 267-281.

*Mawhinney, T. C. (1984). Philosophical and ethical aspects of organizational be-havior management: Some evaluative feedback. Journal of Organizational Be-havior Management, 6(1), 5-31.

*Mawhinney, T. C. (1986). OBM, SPC, and theory D: A brief introduction. Journalof Organizational Behavior Management, 8(1), 89-105.

*Mawhinney, T. C. (Ed.) (1987). Organizational behavior management and statisti-cal process control: Theory, technology, and research. New York: The HaworthPress, Inc.

Mawhinney, T. C. (1989). Job satisfaction as a management tool and responsibility.Journal of Organizational Behavior Management, 10(1), pp. 187-192.

*Mawhinney, T. C. (Ed.) [1992a]. Organizational culture, rule-governed behaviorand organizational behavior management: Theoretical foundations and implica-tions for research and Practice. New York: The Haworth Press, Inc.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tuf

ts U

nive

rsity

] at

11:

55 2

9 O

ctob

er 2

014


Mawhinney, T. C. (1992b). Evolution of organizational cultures as selection byconsequences: The Gaia hypothesis, metacontingencies, and organizational ecol-ogy. Journal of Organizational Behavior Management, 12(2), 1-26.

Mawhinney, T. C. (1992c). Total quality management and organizational behaviormanagement: An integration for continual improvement. Journal of Applied Be-havior Analysis, 25, 225-243.

Mawhinney, T. C. (1999). Cumulatively large benefits of small intervention effects:Costing metacontingencies of chronic absenteeism. Journal of OrganizationalBehavior Management, 18(4), 83-95.

Mawhinney, T. C. (in press). Organization-environment systems as OBM interven-tion context: Minding your metacontingencies. Forthcoming in Hayes, L., Austin,J., and Hourmanfar, R. (Eds.) Proceedings of the University of Nevada RenoConference on Organizational Change. Reno, NV: Context Press.

Mawhinney, T. C., & Austin, J. (1999). Speed and accuracy of data analysts’ behav-ior using methods of equal interval graphic data charts, standard celeration charts,and statistical process control charts. Journal of Organizational Behavior Man-agement, 18(4), 5-45.

Mawhinney, T. C., & Fellows-Kubert, C. (1999). Positive contingencies versus quo-tas: Telemarketers exert countercontrol. Journal of Organizational BehaviorManagement, 19(2), 35-57.

*Mawhinney, T. C., & Ford, J. D. (1977). The path goal theory of leader effective-ness: An operant interpretation. Academy of Management Review, 2, 398-411.

Methot, L. L., Williams, W. L., Cummings, A., & Bradshaw, B. (1996). Measuring amanager-supervisor training program through generalized performance of manag-ers, supervisors, front-line staff and clients in a human service setting. Journal ofOrganizational Behavior Management. 16(2). 3-34.

Michael, J. (1982). Distinguishing between discriminative and motivational func-tions of stimuli. Journal of Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 37, 149-155.

Michael, J. L. (1993). Concepts and principles of behavior analysis. Kalamazoo, MI:Association for Behavior Analysis.

Nolan, T. V., Jerema, K. A., & Austin, J. (1999). An Objective Review of the Journalof Organizational Behavior Management: 1987-1997. Journal of OrganizationalBehavior Management, 19(3), 83-114.

Normand, M., Bucklin, B., & Austin, J. (1999). The Discussion of Behavioral Prin-ciples in JOBM. Journal of Organizational Behavior Management, 19(3), 45-56.

Oah, S., & Dickinson, A. M. (1992). A comparison of the effects of a linear and anexponential performance pay function on work productivity. Journal of Organiza-tional Behavior Management, 12(1), 85-115.

Parsonson, B. S. & Bear, D. M. (1978). The analysis and presentation of graphic data.In T. R. Kratochwill (Ed.) (1978). Single subject research: Strategies for evaluat-ing change (101-165). New York: Academic Press.

Pedalino, E., & Gamboa, V. U. (1993). Behavior modification and absenteeism:Intervention in one industrial setting. Journal of Applied Psychology, 59, 694-698.

Poling, A., & Foster, M. (1993). The matching law and Organizational BehaviorManagement revisited. Journal of Organizational Behavior Management, 14(1),83-97.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tuf

ts U

nive

rsity

] at

11:

55 2

9 O

ctob

er 2

014


Poling, A., Smith, J. F. & Braatz, D. (1993). Data sets in organizational behaviormanagement: Do we measure enough? Journal of Organizational Behavior Man-agement, 14(1), 99-116.

Quiat, A., & McGregor, M. (1999). Implementing critical priority in supply chainmanagement. In T. Thurkow, Shaping Chevron Chemical Company’s successthrough behavioral and systems changes. Symposium conducted at the 25th annu-al convention of the Association for Behavior Analysis, Chicago, IL.

*Rao, R. K., & Mawhinney, T. C. (1991). Superior-subordinate dyads: Dependenceof leader effectiveness on mutual reinforcement contingencies. Journal of theExperimental Analysis of Behavior, 56, 105-118.

Redmon, W. K. (1998). Using organizational planning and strategy processes tomaintain alignment between behavior and results. In B. Hopkins (Chair), Sustain-ing organizational performance improvement for the long term. Symposium con-ducted at the 24th annual convention of the Association for Behavior Analysis,Orlando, FL.

Redmon, W. K., & Mason, M. (in press). Organizational culture and behavioralsystems analysis. Forthcoming in Johnson, C.M., Redmon, W.K. & Mawhinney,T.C. (Eds.), Handbook of performance management: Behavior and management.New York: The Haworth Press, Inc.

Reid, D. H. (1998). Organizational behavior management and developmental dis-abilities services: Accomplishments and future directions. New York: The Ha-worth Press, Inc.

Reid, D. H., & Parsons, M. B. (1996). A comparison of staff acceptability of immedi-ate versus delayed feedback in staff training. Journal of Organizational BehaviorManagement, 16 (2), 35-47.

Rummler, G. A., & Brache, A. P. (1995). Improving performance: How to managethe white space on the organization chart. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Schlinger, H., & Blakely, E. (1987). Function-altering effects of contingency-speci-fying stimuli. The Behavior Analyst, 10, 41-45.

Scow, K. (1999). Shaping organizational systems: Strategic staffing. In T. Thurkow,Shaping Chevron Chemical Company’s success through behavioral and systemschanges. Symposium conducted at the 25th annual convention of the Associationfor Behavior Analysis, Chicago, IL.

Skinner, B. F. (1981). Selection by consequences. Science, 213, 31 July, 501-504.Smoot, D. A., & Duncan, P. K. (1997). The search for optimum individual monetary

incentive pay system: A comparison of the effects of flat pay and linear andnon-linear incentive pay systems on worker performance. Journal of Organiza-tional Behavior Management, 17(2), 5-75.

Stoneman, K. G., & Dickinson, A. M. (1989). Individual performance as a functionof group contingencies and group size. Journal of Organizational Behavior Man-agement, 10, 131-150.

*Strauss, G. (1982). Workers participation in management: An international perspec-tive. In B. M. Staw & L. L. Cummings (Eds.), Research in organizational behav-ior, 4 (pp. 173-265). Greenwich, Connecticut: JAI Press.

Thurkow, N. M., Bailey, J. S., & Stamper, M. R. (in press). The effects of group and

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tuf

ts U

nive

rsity

] at

11:

55 2

9 O

ctob

er 2

014


individual monetary incentives on productivity of telephone interviewers. Journalof Organizational Behavior Management.

Weiss, H. M. (1990). Learning theory and industrial and organizational psychology.In M. D. Dunnette & L. M. Hough (Eds.), Handbook of industrial and organiza-tional psychology (2nd ed., Vol. 1, pp. 171-222). Palo Alto, CA.: ConsultingPsychologists’ Press.

Wilk [Braksick], L. (1998). Using a behavioral deployment process to implement andsustain performance improvement. In B. Hopkins (Chair), Sustaining organiza-tional performance improvement for the long term. Symposium conducted at the24th annual convention of the Association for Behavior Analysis, Orlando, FL.

Wilk [Braksick], L. A., & Redmon, W. K. (1998). The effects of feedback and goalsetting on the productivity of university admissions staff. Journal of Organiza-tional Behavior Management, 18(1), 45-68.

Wilson, N. (1999). Extending learnings from reinforcement based leadership to theoverseas business. In T. Thurkow, Shaping Chevron Chemical Company’s successthrough behavioral and systems changes. Symposium conducted at the 25th annu-al convention of the Association for Behavior Analysis, Chicago, IL.

Welsh, D. H. B., Bernstein, D., & Luthans, F. (1992). Application of the PremackPrinciple to the quality performance of service employees. Journal of Organiza-tional Behavior Management, 13 (1), 9-32.

Wolf, M. M., Kirigin, K. A., Fixen, D. L., Blasé, K. A., & Braukmann, C. J. (1995).The teaching-family model: Program development and reinforcement (And drag-on wrestling). Journal of Organizational Behavior Management, 15 (1/2), 11-68.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tuf

ts U

nive

rsity

] at

11:

55 2

9 O

ctob

er 2

014

obm today and tomorrow

Documents