3. How do managers and organizations reduce undesirable employee
behavior while reinforcing desirable behavior?
When the above principles and techniques are applied to the
workplace, we generally see one of two approaches: behavior
modification or behavioral
self-management. Both approaches rest firmly on the
principles of learning described above. Because both of these
techniques have wide followings in corporations, we shall review
them here. First, we look at the positive and negative sides of
behavior modification.
Behavior modification is the use of operant conditioning
principles to shape human behavior to conform to desired standards
defined by superiors. In recent years, behavior modification has
been applied in a wide variety of organizations. In most cases,
positive results are claimed. There is interest in the technique as
a management tool to improve performance and reduce costs.
Because of its emphasis on shaping behavior, it is more
appropriate to think of behavior modification as a technique for
motivating employees rather than as a theory of work motivation. It
does not attempt to provide a comprehensive model of the various
personal and job-related variables that contribute to motivation.
Instead, its managerial thrust is how to motivate, and it is
probably this emphasis that has led to its current popularity among
some managers. Even so, we should be cautioned against the
unquestioned acceptance of any technique until we understand the
assumptions underlying the model. If the underlying assumptions of
a model appear to be uncertain or inappropriate in a particular
situation or organization, its use is clearly questionable.
expanding around the globe
In Japan’s Hell Camp
There is a saying in Japan that “the nail that sticks up gets
hammered down.” This means that in corporate Japan employees are
supposed to act together and move in unison. Individuality is not
encouraged. Although Japanese companies use many techniques to
train their employees to work hard and overcome adversity as a
group, one rather notable approach that is used by many companies
is known as Hell Camp.
The purpose of Hell Camp is to develop employees so they can
“concentrate under difficulty.”
Representing something of a blend of Outward Bound and
assertiveness training, Hell Camp is designed to toughen employees
by putting them through numerous humiliating exercises (e.g.,
making them shout their company song outside the local train
station). If they pass each exercise (for example, if they shout
loud enough and with sufficient emotion), they are allowed to
remove one of several “badges of shame.” Criteria for removing a
badge are left vague, so, in essence, the program uses a
variable-ratio reinforcement system. The employee never quite knows
when the trainer will say she has succeeded; therefore, the most
likely level of performance that will result in the removal of
shame badges is that at the higher end of the spectrum of
performance. If the employee succeeds during the week-long program
in removing all of the badges and shows her sincerity and
commitment, she graduates. If not, she must repeat the program.
Far from the trust-building exercises and fun runs of modern
corporate retreats, Japan’s executive Hell Camps were run with the
discipline and intensity of military basic training. The goal was
to whip into shape underperforming middle-management types, as well
as give them the assertiveness the Japanese felt they lacked in
dealing with Western competitors.
It is estimated that over 50,000 Japanese managers have gone
through the program. Companies like it because they see it as a way
to keep managers from getting soft. As one executive notes,
“Companies have been getting very soft, very weak in their way of
demanding excellence.” It is thought that the harassment received
during Hell Camp and the reinforcement following satisfactory task
accomplishment instill character, and Japanese companies show no
sign of losing interest in the program.
Sources: Richarz, Allan, “ The Intense Corporate ‘Hell Camps’ of
1980s Japan,” Atlas Obscura, May 30, 2017, https://www.atlasobscura.com/article...camp-japan-80s;
Phallon, R., “Hell Camp,” Forbes, June 18, 1984; Neill, Michael and
Lustig, David, “ A 13-Day Japanese Boot Camp Shows U.S. Executives
How to Succeed in Business Through Suffering,” People, May 30,
1988, people.com/archive/a-13-day-
japanese-boot-camp-shows-u-s-executives-how-to-succeed-in-business-through-suffering-vol-29-no-21/.
Assumptions of Behavior Modification
The foundation of behavior modification as a technique of
management rests on three ideas.16 First, advocates
of behavior modification believe that individuals are basically
passive and reactive (instead of proactive). They tend to respond
to stimuli in their environment rather than assuming personal
responsibility in initiating behavior. This assertion is in direct
contrast to cognitive theories of motivation (such as
expectancy/valence theory), which hold that individuals make
conscious decisions about their present and future behaviors and
take an active role in shaping their environment.
Second, advocates of behavior modification focus on observable
and measurable behavior instead of on unobservable needs,
attitudes, goals, or motivational levels. In contrast, cognitive
theories focus on both observable and unobservable factors as they
relate to motivation. Social learning theory, in particular, argues
that individuals can change their behavior simply by observing
others and noticing the punishments or rewards that the observed
behaviors produce.
Third, behavior modification stresses that permanent changes can
be brought about only as a result of reinforcement. Behaviors that
are positively reinforced will be repeated (that is, learned),
whereas behaviors not so reinforced will diminish (according to the
law of effect, discussed earlier).
Designing a Behavior Modification Program
If behavior modification techniques are to work, their
application must be well-designed and systematically applied.
Systematic attempts to implement these programs typically go
through five phases (see Exhibit 4.8).
Exhibit 4.8 Steps in Implementing a Behavior
Modification Program
Establishing Clear Behavioral Criteria. First,
management attempts to define and clearly specify the behavioral
aspects of acceptable performance. Management must be able to
designate what constitutes acceptable behavior in terms that
employees can understand, and this specification must be in
objective, measurable terms. Examples of behavioral
criteria include good attendance, promptness in arriving
for work, and completing tasks on schedule. Sometimes it is
difficult to determine suitable objective indicators of successful
performance. For instance, as a training director of a major
airline asked, “How do you quantify what a flight attendant does?”
Even so, there are many situations and work behaviors that do lend
themselves to clear specification.
Conducting a Performance Audit. Once acceptable
behavioral criteria have been specified, a performance
audit can be done. Because management is concerned about
the extent to which employees are successfully meeting the
behavioral criteria, the audit is aimed at pinpointing trouble
spots where desired behaviors are not being carried out. For
instance, a review of attendance records of various department may
reveal a department in which absenteeism or tardiness is unusually
high. Action can then be taken to focus on the problem area. In
short, the performance audit aims to identify discrepancies between
what management sees as desired or acceptable behavior and actual
behavior.
Setting Specific Behavioral Goals. Third,
specific behavioral goals must be set for each employee. Failure to
specify concrete behavioral goals is a primary reason for the
failure of many behavior modification programs. Examples of such
goals are decreasing absenteeism or tardiness, reducing product
defects on an assembly line, and meeting production schedules. The
goals should be both realistic (that is, reasonably achievable by
the employees) and acceptable to the employee. Otherwise, the goals
lack relevance, and resulting effort will diminish.
Evaluating Results. Next, employees and
supervisors keep track of the employee’s performance record as
compared to the preset behavioral criteria and goals. Discrepancies
are noted and discussed. For example, the record could provide
employees with continuous feedback concerning the extent to which
they are on target in meeting their defect reduction goals.
Administering Feedback and Rewards. Finally, on
the basis of the assessment of the employee’s performance record,
the supervisor administers feedback and, where warranted, praise.
For example, praise could strengthen the employees’ efforts to
reduce defects (positive reinforcement). The withholding of praise
for defect levels deemed less than adequate or below established
goals could cause employees to stop behavior that was contributing
to defects or work harder to reduce defects (extinction).
Central to this phase of the process is the notion of
shaping. Shaping is the process of improving
performance incrementally, step by step. Suppose that an employee
is absent 30 percent of the time during one month. To improve
attendance, we would set a goal of being absent only 5 percent of
the time. After implementing the above procedure, we find that
absenteeism falls to 20 percent in the second month. Although this
is not at goal level, it is clearly an improvement and, as such, is
rewarded. The next month, absenteeism falls to 15 percent, and,
again, we reward the incremental improvement. Hence, by this
incremental approach, the employee gets ever closer to the desired
level of behavior. In other words, we have “shaped” her
behavior.
Behavior Modification in Practice
There are many ways to see how the principles of behavior
modification can be applied in organizational settings. Perhaps one
of the best examples can be found in a classic study carried out by
Luthans and Kreitner.17 These researchers carried out a
field experiment in a medium-sized light manufacturing plant.
Two separate groups of supervisors were used in the study. In
one group (the experimental group—see Appendix A),
the supervisors were trained in the techniques of behavior
modification. This program was called “behavioral contingency
management,” or BCM. Included here were ten 90-minute lectures
conducted over 10 weeks on behavioral change strategies. The second
group of supervisors (the control group) received no such training.
Following this, the trained supervisors were asked to implement
what they had learned among their groups; obviously, the control
group supervisors were given no such instructions.
After 10 weeks, group performance was examined for all groups.
Two types of data were collected. First, the researchers were
interested in any possible behavioral changes among the various
workers in the experimental groups (compared to the control groups)
as a result of the behavior modification efforts. Significantly,
the following changes were noted for these groups in areas that
were targeted for change: (1) the frequency of complaints among
group members declined, (2) the scrap rates declined, (3) group
quality indicators increased, and (4) the frequency of individual
performance problems declined. No such changes were recorded for
the control groups not exposed to behavior modification. The second
measure taken focused on the overall performance rates for the
various groups. This was calculated as a measure of direct labor
effectiveness for each group. Again, overall group performance—that
is, labor effectiveness ratings—improved significantly in the
experimental groups but remained unchanged in the control groups.
This can be seen in Exhibit 4.9. The researchers
concluded that the introduction of the behavioral modification
program led to substantive improvements in factory performance.
Exhibit 4.9 Intergroup Comparison of Performance using
BCM
concept check
What is behavior modification?
What is a performance audit, and what are the components?
16. B. F. Skinner, Beyond Freedom and Dignity (New
York: Knopf, 1971).
17. F. Luthans and R. Kreitner, Organizational Behavior
Modification and Beyond (Glenview, III.: Scott, Foresman,
1985), pp. 150–159.
Exhibit 4.8 Steps in Implementing a Behavior Modification
Program (Attribution: Copyright Rice University, OpenStax, under CC
BY-NC-SA 4.0 license)
Exhibit 4.9 Intergroup Comparison of Performance using BCM
(Attribution: Copyright Rice University, OpenStax, under CC
BY-NC-SA 4.0 license)