OBM Today and Tomorrow

Download OBM Today and Tomorrow

Post on 01-Mar-2017




1 download

Embed Size (px)


<ul><li><p>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</p><p>Journal of OrganizationalBehavior ManagementPublication details, including instructions forauthors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/worg20</p><p>OBM Today and TomorrowThomas C. Mawhinney aa Management Area , University of Detroit Mercy,College of Business and Administration , USAPublished online: 12 Oct 2008.</p><p>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</p><p>To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1300/J075v20n03_04</p><p>PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE</p><p>Taylor &amp; Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all theinformation (the Content) contained in the publications on our platform.However, Taylor &amp; 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 &amp; 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.</p><p>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</p><p>http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/worg20http://www.tandfonline.com/action/showCitFormats?doi=10.1300/J075v20n03_04http://dx.doi.org/10.1300/J075v20n03_04</p></li><li><p>expressly forbidden. Terms &amp; Conditions of access and use can be found athttp://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions</p><p>Dow</p><p>nloa</p><p>ded </p><p>by [</p><p>Tuf</p><p>ts U</p><p>nive</p><p>rsity</p><p>] at</p><p> 11:</p><p>55 2</p><p>9 O</p><p>ctob</p><p>er 2</p><p>014 </p><p>http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions</p></li><li><p>OBM Today and Tomorrow:Then and Now</p><p>Thomas C. Mawhinney</p><p>ABSTRACT. In this article I present the speech I gave when acceptingthe OBM Networks 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: Website: ]</p><p>KEYWORDS. Organizational Behavior Management, OBM, OBM in1992, OBM in the year 2000, accomplishments of OBM, OBM inbeyond the year 2000</p><p>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.</p><p>Thomas C. Mawhinney is affiliated with the Management Area at the Universityof Detroit Mercy, College of Business and Administration.</p><p>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: mawhinneyt@aol.com).</p><p>Journal of Organizational Behavior Management, Vol. 20(3/4) 2000 2000 by The Haworth Press, Inc. All rights reserved. 73</p><p>Dow</p><p>nloa</p><p>ded </p><p>by [</p><p>Tuf</p><p>ts U</p><p>nive</p><p>rsity</p><p>] at</p><p> 11:</p><p>55 2</p><p>9 O</p><p>ctob</p><p>er 2</p><p>014 </p></li><li><p>JOURNAL OF ORGANIZATIONAL BEHAVIOR MANAGEMENT74</p><p>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 &amp; Mawhinney (1992))and writing an article that appeared in one of them (Mawhinney,1992b).</p><p>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.</p><p>PROLOGUE</p><p>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</p><p>Dow</p><p>nloa</p><p>ded </p><p>by [</p><p>Tuf</p><p>ts U</p><p>nive</p><p>rsity</p><p>] at</p><p> 11:</p><p>55 2</p><p>9 O</p><p>ctob</p><p>er 2</p><p>014 </p></li><li><p>75Invited Articles Celebrating the 20th Volume of JOBM in the Year 2000</p><p>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 &amp; 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.</p><p>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 organizations 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</p><p>Dow</p><p>nloa</p><p>ded </p><p>by [</p><p>Tuf</p><p>ts U</p><p>nive</p><p>rsity</p><p>] at</p><p> 11:</p><p>55 2</p><p>9 O</p><p>ctob</p><p>er 2</p><p>014 </p></li><li><p>JOURNAL OF ORGANIZATIONAL BEHAVIOR MANAGEMENT76</p><p>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.</p><p>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</p><p>Dow</p><p>nloa</p><p>ded </p><p>by [</p><p>Tuf</p><p>ts U</p><p>nive</p><p>rsity</p><p>] at</p><p> 11:</p><p>55 2</p><p>9 O</p><p>ctob</p><p>er 2</p><p>014 </p></li><li><p>77Invited Articles Celebrating the 20th Volume of JOBM in the Year 2000</p><p>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.</p><p>In the vernacular, what Ive said above is Where I was comingfrom in 1992.</p><p>My Acceptance Speech as Read at ABA in 1992</p><p>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.</p><p>OBM TODAY AND TOMORROW:SCIENTIFIC/TECHNOLOGICAL ASPIRATIONS AND</p><p>ARTFUL/EFFECTIVE ACCOMPLISHMENTS</p><p>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.</p><p>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</p><p>Dow</p><p>nloa</p><p>ded </p><p>by [</p><p>Tuf</p><p>ts U</p><p>nive</p><p>rsity</p><p>] at</p><p> 11:</p><p>55 2</p><p>9 O</p><p>ctob</p><p>er 2</p><p>014 </p></li><li><p>JOURNAL OF ORGANIZATIONAL BEHAVIOR MANAGEMENT78</p><p>one of many highly interdependent roles which must be effectivelyperformed if the culture is to grow and prosper.</p><p>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 cultures 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...</p></li></ul>