PERFORMANCE MOTIVATION AS THE BEHAVIORIST VIEWS IT Heather M. McGee, PhD Douglas A. Johnson, PhD This article addresses ways in which behavioral science contributes to an understanding of workplace performance and motivation. The authors provide a brief history of Organizational Behavior Management, which is behaviorism applied to the workplace, and its relationship to human performance technology, followed with examples of Organizational Behavior Management concepts and technology related to workplace motivation. Various factors that influence motivation at any given moment are explored, including individual learning histories, motivating operations, and delivery considerations. The use of reinforcement systems and their impact on current and future performance are described. Finally, practical tips for improving motivation in the workplace are provided. ORGANIZATIONAL BEHAVIOR MANAGEMENT infl uence human behavior and accomplishment. It (OBM) is the application of the science of behavior or is a systematic combination of three fundamental behavior analysis to the performance of people at work. processes: performance analysis, cause analysis, Hall ( 1980 ) defined the field of OBM as consisting of “the and intervention selection, and can be applied to development and evaluation of performance improve- individuals, small groups, and large organizations. ment procedures which are based on the principles of (ISPI, 2014 ) behavior discovered through the science of behavior analysis” with the goal being to “establish a technology These definitions of OBM and HPT are remarkably of broad-scale performance improvement and organiza- similar. Both identify (a) utilizing a technology of perfor- tional change so that employees will be more productive mance improvement to (b) influence behavior and accom- and happy, and so that our organizations and institutions plishments in the workplace. The similarities between the will be more effective and efficient in achieving their definitions is not all that surprising when one considers goals” (p. 145). Though this definition and goal state- the fact that OBM and HPT share a common history ment are 35 years old, they still represent the field of and network of founders. Dickinson’s 2001 paper, The OBM. Historical Roots of Organizational Behavior Management Human performance technology (HPT) is defined by in the Private Sector , and Rummler’s 2007 paper, The Past the International Society for Performance Improvement is Prologue: An Eyewitness Account of HPT , both identify (ISPI) as follows: the influence of B. F. Skinner’s work in the 1950s on the early applications of OBM/HPT in the 1960s. A systematic approach to improving productivity As similar as the two fields are, there are also differ- and competence, [HPT] uses a set of methods and procedures—and a strategy for solving problems— ences, most notably in the theoretical underpinnings. HPT for realizing opportunities related to the performance tends to be broad in its theoretical perspective, drawing of people. More specifi c, it is a process of selection, from behavioral psychology, cognitive psychology, and analysis, design, development, implementation, other sources for explanatory models. HPT has much in and evaluation of programs to most cost-effectively common with traditional industrial and organizational Performance Improvement, vol. 54, no. 4, April 2015 ©2015 International Society for Performance Improvement Published online in Wiley Online Library (wileyonlinelibrary.com) • DOI: 10.1002/pfi.21472 15 psychology, which also draws upon an eclectic mix the mission and critical accomplishments, then identify- of orientations. This is contrasted with organizational ing the behaviors required to successfully achieve those behavior management, in which the driving theoretical accomplishments, and finally identifying the knowledge, model is exclusively behavior analytic. Although behav- skills, and abilities required for producing the appropriate ior analysis does not shun cognitive phenomena, it does behaviors. OBM professionals see prior learning histories reject inferred, hypothetical constructs and processes as as important for getting the right people in the right explanations for cognitive events (Skinner, 1950 ). positions in order to select for repertoires that require Unfortunately, most traditional industrial and organi- the least shaping. In other words, a goal of selection is to zational textbooks do not portray behaviorism compre- bring on individuals with the knowledge, skills, and abili- hensively or accurately, especially in regards to topics such ties that most closely approximate the knowledge, skills, as motivation. Many textbooks refer to behavior analy- and abilities identified by a job analysis. This approach sis simply as reinforcement theory , which is misleading differs from a more trait-based approach to selection that since reinforcers are not the only consequences of inter- relies on assessing certain personality and work traits est. Additionally, events other than consequences also believed to be related to success. The key difference is play an important role in a behavioral approach to moti- the emphasis on knowledge, skills, and abilities and prior vation. Other examples of misrepresentations include behaviors—the behaviorist view—versus the emphasis on statements such as “Nevertheless, as a complete theory traits believed to be associated with behavior. of work motivation, behaviorism falls short, as do other After hiring, the emphasis shifts to job-specific train- person-as-machine approaches that fail to acknowledge ing to close any gaps between the employee’s current higher mental activities such as reasoning and judgment” knowledge, skills, and abilities and the knowledge, skills, (Landy & Conte, 2013 , p. 329). This misrepresents behav- and abilities demanded by the job. OBM profession- iorism, since Skinner’s acceptance of private events such als follow a performance-based instruction approach, as thinking and reasoning into his science of behavior is emphasizing guided observation that includes show me , what distinguished modern behaviorism from the behav- guided practice that includes help me while I do it , and iorism of the early 1900s (Skinner, 1945 ). Another mis- demonstration of mastery that includes let me do it inde- representation can be found in Jex and Britt ( 2008 ), who pendently (Brethower & Smalley, 1998 ; Mager, 1997 ). state, “One limitation of OBM, and thus of the behavioral Matching training performance with job performance approach, is that it appears to work best when applied to and engineering the workplace to support training out- relatively simple forms of behavior.” (p. 254). Although comes are two critical features of a behavioral approach to simple behaviors are indeed easier to understand and employee training. Recent research comparing a behav- design interventions for than complex behaviors, the ioral approach (which included pre- and post-training current authors are aware of no influential OBM profes- performance support involving the manipulation of ante- sionals who advocate a restriction to simple phenomena. cedents and consequences in the environment to support Finally, Spector ( 2012 ) states that “Reinforcement theory transfer) to the same training without the additional ante- says nothing about whether or not a person will want a cedent and consequence manipulations showed that the reward.” (p. 199). Once again, this is an inaccurate sum- behavioral approach resulted in better transfer of training marization, as operations that influence the desirability of to the workplace (Kazbour, McGee, Mooney, Masica, & rewards are a major area of behavior analytic theory, to be Brinkerhoff, 2013 ). elaborated on shortly. As these examples illustrate, misun- Perhaps the biggest difference between a behavioral derstandings about the behavioral approach to motivation approach to workplace motivation and a nonbehav- are common. We hope that this article can better represent ioral approach is how ongoing performance support is a modern behavioral approach to motivation and correct arranged in the work environment. It is not enough to any misunderstandings that members of the HPT com- hire individuals with the appropriate knowledge, skills, munity may have taken from common misrepresentations and abilities. Even when a good selection system is com- seen in popular textbooks. bined with a well-designed training system, motivational problems can still occur. From a behavioral perspec- tive, the solution involves antecedent and consequence BEHAVIORAL APPROACH TO MOTIVATION manipulations. Modern behaviorism offers a comprehensive approach to motivation, beginning with employee selection and Antecedent Manipulations placement. The behavioral approach to selection and Antecedent manipulations can be as straightforward as placement begins with conducting job analyses to identify providing job aids, clarifying expectations, or redesigning 16 www.ispi.org • DOI: 10.1002/pfi • APRIL 2015 processes. However, to fully appreciate a behavior analytic previously, seeing improvements in one’s own perfor- approach to motivation, it is important to understand mance has now been established as rewarding. more complex behavioral concepts. In particular, moti- Most leaders in organizations would prefer to see dis- vating operations, including various forms of condi- cretionary effort, that is, going beyond minimal require- tioned motivating operations, are a critical component ments, and