JOURNAL OF ORGANIZATIONAL BEHAVIOR MANAGEMENT
2022, VOL. 42, NO. 1, 75–95
https://doi.org/10.1080/01608061.2021.1967834

Common Antecedent Strategies within Organizational
Behavior Management: The Use of Goal Setting, Task
Clarification, and Job Aids
Eunju Choi and Douglas A. Johnson
Western Michigan University, Department of Psychology, Kalamazoo, Michigan, USA
ABSTRACTKEYWORDS

Despite organizational behavior management placing a great
deal of emphasis on interventions that alter consequences for
performance, antecedent interventions play an important rolein the practice of our field. Antecedent interventions utilizing
variables such as goal setting, task clarification, and job aids arecommon. Each of these variables are examined in terms ofresearch findings and potential behavioral functions. Being wellversed in such outcomes should inform both researchers andpractitioners in their efforts to identify efficient and costeffective solutions for workplace performance.

Antecedent; goal setting;task clarification; job aids;
checklists

Our world is flooded with events competing to induce our behavior. A brief
tour of a typical office setting quickly identifies a rich tapestry of stimuli
fighting for our attention: the notification from the computer as a new
e-mail arrives, signs and post-it notes reminders, a display stating the com­pany’s mission, the sight of your coworker about to ask a favor, and the sight ofthe supervisor approaching with a forthcoming demand. Such objects andevents are considered various forms of antecedents, stimuli which occur before
and exert control over behavior (Martin & Pear, 2019). Antecedents are often
stated as triggering or stimulating behavior (Daniels & Bailey, 2014). This
contrasts with consequences, which are stimuli that temporally follow the
behavior of interest. It is often implied, if not outright stated, that antecedents
only exercise a small impact on behavior. Some authors suggest antecedents
exert only 20% influence on behavior, whereas consequences exert 80%(Biteler, 2008; Braksick, 2007). Such non-empirical derivations of the Pareto
principle attempt to quantify the relative impact of the components that
constitute targeted behavioral relations, but these statements are potentiallymisleading. Misleads may be understandable considering organizational con­sultants routinely deal with clients whose standard solutions are to implement
trainings, distribute memos and edicts, and to threaten, cajole, and/or harass
subordinates (Daniels, 2016). Such techniques can be subsumed under the
CONTACT Eunju Choi
eunjuchoi9681@gmail.com
3700 Wood Hall, Kalamazoo, MI 49008-5439© 2021 Taylor & Francis

Department of Psychology, Western Michigan University,

76

E. CHOI AND D. A. JOHNSON

general category of antecedent control and consultants likely want to redirect
the focus of their clients to oft-neglected variables of consequent control.
However, such simple categorization may create artificial boundaries thatare permeable in practice.
When behavior occurs in the natural environment, there is rarely a clear-cut
method for attributing a percentage of that performance to antecedent orconsequent control (with occasional exceptions such as respondent behaviors
which are completely controlled by antecedent stimuli), especially considering
operant behavior is multiply determined. Adding to the complexity of identi­
fying controlling variables is that the delivery of a consequence may generatelasting antecedent effects. For example, suppose an employee is paida monetary incentive for increased productivity immediately following
a work shift. Although the incentive is clearly a consequence for performance
during the prior shift, it may induce the employee to describe the contingencyof reinforcement as “If I produce more, then I may get paid more.” Suchcontingency-specifying verbal stimuli may be repeatedly self-stated by theperformer covertly, including immediately before their next shift and during
several later shifts right before they are to engage in performance. This
response-produced verbal antecedent may evoke rule-governed behavior
resulting in higher performance (Agnew & Redmon, 1992; Malott, 1993).
Although the monetary consequence was the variable that was explicitly
delivered, antecedent control likely played a role that was equally importantto the production of behavior, especially for verbally sophisticated organisms
such as employees. A sustained improvement in performance over the dura­tion of an entire subsequent work shift (perhaps even several workdays) could
not persist under the control of a single consequence delivery many hours ordays prior, at least not without continued verbally mediated aid from events
such as antecedent rules.
It is also important to note that interventions that only target antecedents
can be very successful even when explicit attention is not paid to conse­
quences, such as a training procedure (the antecedent of interest) that brings
performers into contact with existing natural sources of reinforcement.
According to VanStelle et al. (2012), antecedent manipulations were
the second most popular intervention utilized in the organizational behavior
management (OBM) literature. Many other interventions classified by
VanStelle et al. could potentially also function as antecedents, such as feedback
or incentives that are delivered right before a session (Bechtel et al., 2015;
Wine et al., 2019).
One advantage of antecedent interventions is that these can be both costeffective and time efficient for companies when implemented properly.
Suppose an organization wants to increase employee hand washing. To imple­
ment a consequence intervention, such as feedback, supervisors would have toobserve the current status of employee hand washing to provide timely

JOURNAL OF ORGANIZATIONAL BEHAVIOR MANAGEMENT

77

feedback. This may be both awkward and unfeasible in certain situations (e.g.,male supervisor in female restroom) so providing reminder signs or sendingout a memo to employees may be more practical. To better understand somestrategies, this paper will review the literature on goals, task clarification, job
aids, and checklists, since these are common examples of successful antecedent
interventions in the literature.
Goal setting

Goal setting remains a simple yet effective antecedent intervention successfully
implemented across many organizations. At its most basic level, goal setting
involves specifying a criterion (i.e., goal) for performance (Daniels & Bailey,2014). Beyond this initial requirement, implementation takes many forms.
Goals can be self-set or determined by supervisors, easy or difficult to achieve,
set for an individual or collectively set for a group of employees, broken into
several sub-goals or just a single specified level, etc. The logic behind goal
setting is similar to the logic for a changing criterion experimental design inthat each phase entails specific goals to achieve (Erath et al., 2020), except inthis context goal setting is the intervention itself rather than a methodology toevaluate another intervention. Wilk and Redmon (1998) provide an example
of goal setting in which they investigated the effectiveness of goal setting andfeedback on the productivity and satisfaction of clerical employees ina university admissions department. In consultation with the researchers,
the supervisor provided a specific goal that included a precise number oftasks that employees needed to attain (e.g., enter application information on
55 students and update the records for 15 files) and was adjusted daily based
upon previous performance and current workplace needs. A multiple baseline
design across job roles was applied. During the intervention, individualized
daily goal setting and verbal feedback were applied (praise if goal met andprompting if goal unmet). During phase two graphic feedback was added to
the first intervention. The results showed both interventions significantly
increased productivity and satisfaction among clerical employees.
Furthermore, the effects successfully maintained at follow up.
Another representative goal setting study was conducted at a multinational
manufacturing plant. Jessup and Stahelski (1999) investigated effects of anintervention package comprised of goal setting, feedback, and performancecontingent rewards at a large aluminum smelter. During intervention ina reversal design, progressively more difficult goals were implemented for
reductions of defective products with various rewards available for meeting
established criteria. This intervention showed consistent reductions in defects,
meeting both production and organizational goals that realized a significant
cost savings (which was critical since competition and excessive supply had
forced the business to reduce half of its operations). During the return to78

E. CHOI AND D. A. JOHNSON

baseline, there was a clear increase in defective products, demonstrating theintervention package was responsible for prior improvements. The authors
mentioned that feedback alone did not appear sufficient to improve perfor­
mance because quality did not improve until a difficult-to-attain goal was set.
Furthermore, goal setting in the absence of rewards and feedback (the reversal
phase) also appeared ineffective, demonstrating the need for the packaged
components.
Amigo et al. (2008) studied the effects of task clarification, goal setting, andfeedback on employee busing time at a high-volume pizza restaurant. Busing
behavior was defined and measured as the amount of time it took waitstaff tocorrectly clear dirty dishes and reset the table. Baseline data were collected for
2 weeks and the average busing time was over 300 seconds. During the firstphase of intervention, employees were given a memo with task clarification
and a goal set by managers to reduce table busing time to 180 seconds or less.
During this initial phase busing time decreased to 284 seconds. In the second
intervention phase, a mixture of individual verbal and graphic feedback as wellas group feedback were delivered by managers weekly. Weekly group feedback
was posted on a large graph in the back of the restaurant. Upon completion ofthis phase the average busing time was reduced to 152 seconds. Note that
initial goals were only successfully met when feedback supplemented theinitial intervention package. When feedback was removed during follow-up,
busing times reversed to near baseline.
As illustrated with the above examples, goal setting is simply information
about the standard by which performance is considered successful. Such goal
setting has been shown to positively impact employee behavior across a variety
of settings, job types, and research designs. Properly set goals can drive
improved performance whereas improperly set performance goals run therisk of being ignored or even demotivating performers. Therefore, under­
standing potential variables for successful implementation of goal setting isimportant. The aforementioned studies already hinted at how goal setting canbe enhanced or attenuated by the presence of other experimental variables.
The variables that impact goal setting have been extensively investigated byboth behavior analysts and traditional organizational psychologists. One
widely investigated variable is degree of goal difficulty. For example, Rooseand Williams (2018) examined different levels of goals (i.e., set at 150% and175% of baseline performance) and two types of feedback on performance.
A group design was used with participants receiving one of two goal levels andtwo different types of feedback. The authors found the types of feedback did
not impact performance. However, as goal difficulty increased, the perfor­
mance improved until goals became so difficult that performance could not
improve. Similarly, Tammemagi et al. (2013), exposed 26 participants to
a computer-based data entry task. Performance was measured during thefirst phase with no goal, then either a low attainable goal (i.e., 20 correct

JOURNAL OF ORGANIZATIONAL BEHAVIOR MANAGEMENT

79

data entry in 12 minutes) followed by a high unattainable goal (i.e., 40 correct
data entry in 12 minutes) counterbalanced with a group which got a highunattainable goal followed by a low attainable goal. Introducing the higher
goal demand first showed a greater benefit for performance than leading withthe lower goal demand, although performance deteriorated over time underunattainable conditions for both sequences. Ultimately, even though highgoals stimulate performance, these short-term gains come with a risk ofeventual loss in performance if employees do not contact reinforcement due
to goals persistently beyond current skill levels. This summary was corrobo­
rated by Locke and Latham (1990), who reviewed 400 empirical research
articles and found goal difficulty and performance have a linear relationship.
The more difficult the goal the better the performance. Therefore, it is best to
set goals high, however, with the caveat that such goals should not be out ofreach.
One consideration that helps mediate especially difficult goals are subgoals.
Subgoals are small and obtainable steps that lead to the ultimate goal. If
assigned a single ultimate goal, employees only have a single opportunity forsuccess. However, subgoals enable employees to receive frequent reinforce­
ment for goal attainment (Daniels & Bailey, 2014). For example, SulzerAzaroff et al. (1990) set successively higher goals to improve safety behaviors
in a large industrial plant. Approximately 200–250 employees in three differ­
ent departments where injuries showed the highest rates were involved. Safety
behaviors were determined by reviewing accident and injury records, inter­viewing job incumbents, and conducting direct observations. Based on infor­
mation gathered by this selection of safety behavior procedures, the dependent
variable was determined as a percent of safety achievements, the aggregatedpercentages of correctly performed behaviors. Intervention consisted of feed­
back, reinforcement, and goal setting with subgoals for 4–5 weeks. Subgoal
levels were determined by the highest percent scored from previous weeks.
Employees received weekly graphic feedback with social recognition and lowcost rewards for the first goal achievement. Additionally, monthly special
rewards (e.g., refreshments) were distributed. Employees’ safety performance
improved and eventually exceeded the targeted goal. Although successful inthis case, deciding on the specific criteria for goals and subgoals can bechallenging as one works across different settings and industries. As
a general rule, Daniels and Bailey (2014) suggested that the initial goal be
determined by the level of failure the organization can accept. Then, as time
passes and success is met, more challenging yet attainable goals can be
determined.
Another variable that will affect goal setting is specificity. According to
Locke and Latham (1990), a specific and difficult goal is better in improving
performance than a vague goal such as “do your best.” One reason is that “doyour best” goals do not provide clear criteria from the organization and80

E. CHOI AND D. A. JOHNSON

therefore individual employees may infer different expected performancestandards from their supervisors (Locke & Latham, 2002). In this situation,
employees give themselves the benefit of the doubt concerning adequacy of
their performance and maximum effort will not be exerted (Kernan & Lord,
1988). When such self-directed goals fall short of management’s expectations,the corresponding consequences (e.g., recognition, rewards, incentives, etc.)
are withheld following employee performance, despite the fact the employee
may have labeled their performance as fulfilling “do your best.” This mismatch
between employee’s verbal self-appraisals and managerial evaluations may
unintentionally create an extinction procedure which culminates in deteriora­tion of performance and may also add conflict between subordinates andsupervisors. A specific goal eliminates ambiguity as to what constitutes suc­cessful performance and precludes any arguments about the criteria.
Furthermore, specific goals elucidate behavioral constitutions that lead tosuccessful performance and these facilitate feedback on goal attainment
since that feedback will be interpreted in relation to the goals (Latham, 2005).
Several studies have demonstrated the abovementioned argument. For
example, Locke and Bryan (1967) conducted a series of experiments to identify
a relationship between goal level and degree of interest in the task. Participants
completed simple addition, perceptual speed, and psychomotor coordination
tasks. In the first experiment participants were assigned either a specific anddifficult goal or “do your best” goal. The specific and difficult goal group
scored 9% higher than the “do your best” group. Latham and Baldes (1975)
applied specific and difficult goals with truck drivers to increase net weight oflog transporting trucks. A 94% truck net weight was determined as a difficult
but attainable goal. Before implementing the specific and difficult goal,a nonspecific goal to simply “do their best” was presented. In this phase, the36 logging trucks were reported between 55% and 65% of net weight. After the
onset of a specific and difficult goal, substantial increase to approximately 90%
net weight was shown and this maintained across time.
One long running debate during the 1970s and 1980s concerned whether
goals should be assigned or set participatively (Latham & Arshoff, 2013).
Fellner and Sulzer-Azaroff (1984) reviewed a series of articles on this topic
and concluded that goals selected by employees were as effective in influencing
performance as goals assigned by others. Similarly, Locke and Latham (1990)
confirmed that if goal difficulty is held constant, an assigned goal is as effective
as one set participatively. Even though assigned goals are as effective, many
authors favored participative goals for reasons beyond direct performance(Fellner & Sulzer-Azaroff, 1984; Ludwig & Geller, 1997). Most research on
goal setting only examines one or two goal-directed behaviors. However, in thereal world, employee behaviors are intertwined such that success of one task
will impact success of other tasks. Therefore, it is practical to assume employ­ees’ behaviors may share functional similarities to each other. In other words,

JOURNAL OF ORGANIZATIONAL BEHAVIOR MANAGEMENT

81

non-target behaviors that share behavioral functions increase when the beha­vior targeted by goal-setting intervention increases (Ludwig, 2002). Therefore,
employees articulate their implicit goals when participating in goal setting toprovide opinions about the performance that shares behavioral functions(Locke & Latham, 1990). Success of implicit goals within an intervention canbe considered by the association of functionally related behaviors. That is, byutilizing targeted behaviors which maintain a previous functional relationshipwith nontargeted behaviors, the likeliness of generalization is further augmen­
ted. Though, a central consideration is whether the implicit goal behavior ismaintained externally. If so, it is unlikely that response generalization will
occur for related but nontargeted behavior (Ludwig & Geller, 1997).
For instance, Ludwig and Geller (1997) investigated the relative effects ofparticipative and assigned goals on target and non-target behaviors. Pizzadeliverers from three different restaurants were observed departing for andarriving from deliveries. Intersection stopping was selected for a target beha­vior. Signal use and safety belt use were also observed, but not targeted forintervention. After baseline, employees at restaurant 1 participated in goal
setting that targeted complete stops. Employees at restaurant 2 were assigned
a goal while the third served as control. Over 4 weeks, the intervention groups’
percentages of complete intersection stopping were posted as feedback. Results
showed both intervention groups significantly increased complete intersection
stops during intervention. The participative goal setting group also showedsignificant increases in turn signal and safety belt use (non-targeted behaviors)concurrent with their increases in intersection stopping (targeted behaviors).
Assigned goal drivers decreased their turn signal and safety belt use concur­
rent with targeting complete stops. The authors explained that participative
goal setting facilitated implicit rules, which, in turn, influenced behavior
beyond the external consequence of the intervention.
Organizations have shifted their structures from hierarchical individualized
performance to group-based structures over the last few decades (Kramer
et al., 2013). Due to this reason there is increasing demand for research ongroup-based goal setting. However, little research has compared the relative
effects of individual-based and group-based goals. In a representative study by
Gowen (1985), the relative effects of an individual-based goal, team-based
goal, and a combination of individual and team-based goals were investigated.
Gowen (1985) defined an individual-based goal as “an overt statement about
the desired level of future personal performance” and a group-based goal as“an overt statement about the desired level of future group performance.” Theexperimental task was a sentence construction exercise to stimulate group
behavior for an interdependent task. Three participants in a group performed
the experimental task independently from other groups. The participants weredivided into two groups: experimental and control. Participants in the experi­mental group were exposed to three intervention phases which were no goal,

82

E. CHOI AND D. A. JOHNSON

individual-based goal, and group-based goal consecutively. The participants inthe control group had no goal conditions during these phases. Results foundthat individual-based goal increased 19% in group performance compared to
no goals; group-based goal increased 12% compared to no goals; the combina­
tion of individual and group-based goals increased 31% compared to no goals.
In an individual goal setting situation, the responsibility for correctly com­pleted tasks rested solely with the individual. Therefore, differential efforts
reliably resulted in differential task completion, which in turn led to differ­ential consequences. Contrasted with group-based goals, a high performer’s
behavior may be unrewarded when other performers show a deficit on tasks.
Since aggregated performance determines results, consequences may or may
not match the group members’ behaviors. If individual goals were not added
to group goals, performers’ effort would decline and collectively decreaseorganizational performance.
Jeffrey et al. (2012) revealed an important implication regarding individualand group goals. The authors pointed out previous studies exclusively imple­
mented “one goal for all” in which group members had the same goal.
Alternatively, they suggested ability-based goals where individuals of similar
ability level receive the same goal. One hundred thirty-eight undergraduate
students decoded numbers to the alphabet test for the experiment, half in onegoal-for-all condition. The other half in ability-based goal were divided into
three levels (i.e., lower, medium, and higher ability). Repeated measures
analysis revealed lower-ability individuals in the ability-based group increased
their performance the most. Moreover, lower and moderate ability partici­
pants in the one goal for all condition showed larger decreases in performance.
Since goal setting depends upon other variables with which it is packaged, it
may be useful to understand and isolate potential functions goal setting may
serve. Goal setting can supply information regarding the desired behavior andbe correlated with the availability of a consequence subsequent to behavior. In
this case, goal setting functions as a discriminative stimulus for reinforcement(e.g., Daniels & Bailey, 2014). A discriminative stimulus is a condition that has
frequency-altering effects because of a historical relation between behavior andthe availability of an effective consequence (Michael, 2004). Supposea supervisor is present at the workstation of an employee and states a goalthat they would like that employee to meet. The authority figure making sucha statement is, in essence, stating that “I will now pay attention to what you aredoing.” For many, verbal stimuli with properties that suggest management iscurrently attending to performance of subordinates have historically been
paired with sudden availability of approval, bonuses, monetary incentives, orother reinforcing stimuli for superior or improved performance (SD), whereas
such consequences were unavailable when management does not provide suchmonitoring notifications (SΔ). Not only are reinforcement-based discrimina­tive relations possible, but punishment-based discriminative relations would

JOURNAL OF ORGANIZATIONAL BEHAVIOR MANAGEMENT

83

also likely be relevant. Such a monitoring notification could also function asa threat or warning. Criticism, reprimands, or other punishing stimuli will
suddenly be available for substandard performance or off-task behaviors (SDp),
whereas such aversive consequences were historically absent of goal setting
initiatives from management (SΔp). Due to prior learning while under directsupervision, the presence of a stated goal may immediately evoke improved
performance and abate other behavior.
Not only may goals be correlated with the availability of consequences, but
goals could potentially make normally available consequences more effective
as reinforcement (Agnew, 1998). This functional relation is best captured by
the concept of a conditioned motivating operation (CMO), which is anenvironmental variable that evokes behavior because that variable also alters
the value of some stimulus, object, or event due to prior learning history(Michael, 2004). This can be accomplished through a variety of means. For
example, suppose a goal is set as part of a disciplinary measure following
a manager and employee discussing a performance improvement plan.
Following this meeting, the transitory but pervasive status of the employee’s
performance being below the goal serves to threaten their job security undersuch circumstances. This possibility of job termination while the goal remains
unmet (the CMO) is a condition that will evoke behaviors to fulfill that goal
and the removal of the threat will function as a source of reinforcement. To put
it differently, job security did not become more available, but more valuable
after the performance improvement plan. Another example could involvea goal being set for collecting and turning in completed customer satisfaction
cards at a restaurant. Previously, satisfaction cards were typically ignored atcustomer tables and often thrown in the trash by waitstaff. However, due to the
newly established goal (the CMO), behaviors such as seeking, collecting, andturning in satisfaction cards will be evoked. Although the availability of thesesatisfaction cards remained constant, their reinforcing effectiveness is now
increased due to this goal setting intervention. Naturally, stimuli such as goals
could serve multiple functions at once, such as a stated goal that functions as
a CMO to evoke behaviors relevant to job security (e.g., collecting satisfaction
cards) and an SDp that abates behavior that is not relevant to job security (e.g.,talking to the line cooks despite being warned to attend to customer tables)
due to the correlation between the set goal and the availability of punishment
for nonproductive performance.
Besides the immediate evocative and abative properties seen with possible
discriminative and motivational aspects of goal setting, goals may also func­tion as or produce stimuli that can successfully control delayed behavior. Most
employees possess adequate verbal skills of how relevant verbal contingencies
operate, even for the simplest of interventions. Employees, like all verbally
sophisticated individuals, routinely describe themselves, their world, and thepossible relationships among events they observe. Such descriptive repertoires

84

E. CHOI AND D. A. JOHNSON

impact goal setting, including descriptions of relations between behavior andenvironmental outcomes explicitly echoed from the goal statements orinferred by the employee due to informal goals or unspoken elements ofvague goals. Either way, the contingency is specified and the resulting verbal
stimulus functions as a rule which can govern future behavior as performers
restate the rule to themselves. Therefore, organizations can use goal statements
to prompt employees to efficiently engage in desirable performance without
shaping direct contingencies (Agnew & Redmon, 1992; Baum, 1995; Fellner &Sulzer-Azaroff, 1984).
A typical rule statement includes the relationship among a goal, goaldirected behavior, and corresponding consequences (Catania et al., 1989;
Malott, 1993). For example, suppose that a brewery had a high rate of accident
and injuries among employees. The safety manager gathers employees
together at the end of one of their shifts and announces, “If we see safety
improve by at least 20% over the next six months, then everyone can expect
a nice bonus at the end of the year.” Performers may state the contingency tothemselves as “If I wear my helmet, gloves, goggles, and safety vest for the next
six months, then I will probably get $500 or something like that.” Note that
this vague goal (i.e., improve safety) resulted in performers inferring unspoken
elements (i.e., wear helmet, gloves, goggles, and safety vest; outcome of $500)
in their description of the contingency. In practice, it would be better for thesafety manager to explicitly state-specific behaviors, results desired, as well as
consequences to be delivered, to prevent undesirable misinterpretations or
disconnects (e.g., “We should hide accidents and injuries” or employees
discovering the bonus was less than assumed). However, contingencyspecifying stimuli can still be produced by performers in the absence of bestpractices. The end-of-shift goal announcement does not immediately evoke
behaviors related to safety gear, but the newly created verbal stimulus (i.e.,rule) can evoke rule-governed behavior for the next six months even before the
incentive is delivered. This behavior is maintained by self-delivered covert
verbal stimuli to mediate temporal gaps (e.g., “I’m another day closer togetting that payout”). Again, the more explicit the rule is, the better results
likely achieved. Furthermore, rule-governed behavior cannot persist in perpe­
tuity and eventual consequences should match verbal descriptions by perfor­
mers to maintain productive behaviors, or else alternative verbal descriptions
may produce undesirable behavior (e.g., “I can’t trust the promises of manage­
ment, so I might as well just do my own thing and ignore their lies about
goals”).
As seen in these examples, consequences that follow goal achievement are
key to successful implementation of goal setting. Feedback, monetary incen­
tives, and social reinforcement (e.g., praise, acknowledgment) are the mostrepresentative consequences. Goal setting is effective when consequences
follow. In goal setting alone, performance may not be adequately reinforced

JOURNAL OF ORGANIZATIONAL BEHAVIOR MANAGEMENT

85

in the presence of the goal (Fellner & Sulzer-Azaroff, 1984). However, whena goal is combined with consequences, goal attainment may not only increase
reinforcement opportunity, but also eventually function as a conditioned
reinforcer for specific employees due to their unique reinforcement history(Kang et al., 2005). Thus, organizations use packaged interventions with goal
setting and consequences. For example, Gil and Carter (2016) investigated theeffectiveness of a single intervention (i.e., graphic feedback) and a packaged
intervention (i.e., goal setting and graphic feedback) in a human service
organization. Using a multiple baseline design, these two independent vari­ables were compared which showed that goal setting with graphic feedbackyielded better performance than graphic feedback alone, but interventions
were not counterbalanced to control for order effects. Numerous articles
demonstrate this result (e.g., Bateman & Ludwig, 2004; Calpin et al., 1988;
Downing & Geller, 2012; Eikenhout & Austin, 2005; Goomas et al., 2011;
Huberman & O’Brien, 1999; Loewy & Bailey, 2007; Nicol & Hantula, 2002;
Stephens & Ludwig, 2005; Wilk & Redmon, 1990).
Task clarification

Task clarification is another effective antecedent intervention. Crowell et al.
(1988) defined task clarification as the precise behavioral descriptions ofa performance. Such descriptions clarify and prompt behavioral componentsthat lead to successful performance (Amigo et al., 2008). Unlike goal setting,which involves the evaluative standards for exemplary or improved perfor­
mance, task clarification involves evaluative standards for minimal perfor­
mance. Evaluative standards of task clarification will detail the expectations,
responsibilities, and criteria used to consider performance acceptable. Task
clarification not only reminds employees of existing contingencies but also
introduces a new set of contingencies (Palmer & Johnson, 2013). For example,
Anderson et al. (1988) evaluated the effects of task clarification and feedback
on eleven low-probability cleaning behaviors (e.g., putting up bar stools,
emptying trash cans) at a university bar. The dependent variable wasmean percent of completed checklist for each cleaning behavior. Task clar­
ification was achieved by providing checklists along with explicit descriptionof each cleaning activity to bar staff. Task descriptions involved necessary
behaviors for each cleaning activity and corresponding outcomes. Public
individual feedback was provided after completion of the task clarification
phase. Results showed introduction of task clarification increased overall
completion of the checklist by 13%. Subsequent feedback posting increased
23% of completed checkmarks.
A similar result was obtained by Crowell et al. (1988) who investigated task
clarification, performance feedback, and praise in improving customer service
for bank tellers. Eleven target verbal behaviors of teller-customer interactions

86

E. CHOI AND D. A. JOHNSON

had assigned points based on tellers’ performance. For example, the first wastime to service. When customers approached the teller window within a yard,
tellers needed to make vocal acknowledgments within 5 seconds. If the latencyof acknowledgment was 0 to 5 seconds, 12 points were given. If from 6 to
11 seconds, 7 points were given. When the latency was over 11 seconds, nopoints were provided. The dependent variable was mean of quality points
assigned for target behaviors. After baseline, task clarification was introduced
to tellers by providing a memo of clear definitions of target behaviors. Thenpublic graphic feedback was delivered on individual tellers’ performance,coded to maintain anonymity. Managers also provided verbal feedback forindividual tellers in weekly meetings. Next, in a praise phase, if individual
teller’s quality points were over 85 or their current score was higher than theprevious day, managers complimented them individually. Task clarification
abruptly increased teller performance an average 12% over baseline. Feedback
and praise gradually increased teller performance more by 6% and 7%, respec­tively. As in the previous research, task clarification alone effectively increased
performance.
Most task clarification investigations are part of intervention packages.
Austin et al. (2005) evaluated task clarification and feedback to improveclosing task completion at a restaurant. The dependent variable was
the percent of completed checklist per shift. Task clarification (i.e., posted
checklist), verbal feedback, and graphic feedback were provided to servers anddishwashers. Results demonstrated task completion increased by 15% amongservers and 38% among dishwashers. Another task clarification study (Amigo
et al., 2008) reduced busing time among servers at a restaurant. Task clarifica­tion with goal setting and manager feedback were applied. Task clarification ina memo included detailed steps and goal time of busing tables. Mean busing
time slightly reduced from 315 seconds in baseline to 284 seconds after the
memo. When the manager’s verbal feedback was provided, busing timedecreased to 152 seconds.
Durgin et al. (2014) employed task clarification and supervisor training to
improve the performance of animal (i.e., pouched rats) trainers at
a nongovernmental organization located in East Africa. As a part of supervisor
training, job aids were created for total of 11 tasks. The job aids included
a brief explanation of ways to monitor animal trainers’ performance as well as
provide appropriate prompts and feedback. Job aids served as data collection,task clarification, and appropriate feedback delivery to animal trainers. For
example, when determining “the trainers never pull the rope/rat,” trainers
were only allowed to tug when the rat stopped to groom for more than
15 seconds. Having this task clarification list on hand, supervisors marked
yes or no based on trainer observations. If supervisors marked no, they
provided corrective feedback to trainers. The dependent variable wasa percent of correct score calculated by number of correctly completed items

JOURNAL OF ORGANIZATIONAL BEHAVIOR MANAGEMENT

87

divided by total items. Scores were collected from both supervisors and animal
trainers. During the baseline, a mean percent score for supervisor A, B, andC were 68.6%, 53.7%, and 49.7%, respectively. A mean percent score fortrainers A, B, and C were 66.8%, 45.5%, and 49%, respectively. Supervisor
training and a job aid increased mean scores by 86.4%, 100%, and 91.7% foreach supervisor and 79.6%. 81%, and 86.3% for animal trainers. Finally, during
the independent supervision session, while a mean score for supervisor A, B,
and C showed 98.4%, 98.5% and 95.9% respectively, a mean score for trainers
A, B, and C indicated 96%, 87.3%, and 90.7%, respectively.
Task clarification can be conceptualized as low-level training. Typical beha­vioral training components are as follows: 1) instruction of job responsibil­
ities, 2) task demonstration, 3) employee practice with feedback delivery until
meeting the predetermined criteria, and 4) evaluation. Task clarification canbe categorized as the first part of training in that it specifies job duties. In otherwords, operational definitions for job duties essentially become task clarifica­tion itself. This most likely functions as a contingency-specifying stimulus, it
precisely specifies behaviors to be performed with an implied or explicit
statement related to outcomes. Since task clarification details minimal perfor­
mances, there remains a possibility it also functions as a CMO if it implies
a social warning that current performance is not meeting minimal levels
required to maintain employment. For example, an employee designated tounload food products from a delivery truck to refrigerator may simply groupnew and old items with minimal organization (e.g., lettuce goes with lettuce,
sauce with sauce). This practice may irritate coworkers and the supervisor, but
the employee may remain oblivious to such negative appraisals. The behavior
may be under control of a faulty rule, such as “unload the truck as fast as
possible and just match product types when placing them in the fridge.” Task
clarification specifies the importance of ensuring older stock is placed in frontof newer and imply or outright state that criticisms and possible disciplinary
measures follow failure to adhere to this policy. This specification of perfor­
mance standards will likely result in the employee revising their verbal
description of the contingency related to product deliveries. Further, theimplied threat may evoke performance such as going and immediately rear­ranging stock from the previous delivery.
Job aids and checklists

Checklists and other forms of job aids have also been frequently utilized by both
OBM researchers and practitioners (Gawande, 2009; Gravina & Cunningham,
2010; McSween, 2010; Smith, 2010). Unlike goal setting and task clarification,
which may be verbally described once or as part of periodic sessions, job aids
provide ongoing support that can be consulted by performers during theirperformance, typically as signage, documents, schedules, and other forms of88

E. CHOI AND D. A. JOHNSON

readily available descriptions for expected actions. As such, job aids may
prompt job-relevant behaviors and outcomes. A prompt is a stimulus that
arranges the environment to evoke a particular behavior (Mcconville et al.,1998). An inexpensive but moderately effective intervention, prompts havea successful history in organizations. For example, Clayton and Blaskewicz(2012) evaluated visual aids to decrease urinal splatter on men’s restrooms at
a college campus. Three men’s restrooms in the same building were selected,
one was a control to evaluate follow-up. In both settings the visual prompt was
located between two urinals with the text of “For Pete’s sake, Gentleman. Please
Stand Closer. Thank you.” Additionally for setting 2, bull’s-eye with the heatactivated message was located inside of urinals. When users hit the bull’s-eye
for several seconds, the message “Help the Cleaners. Please Aim Straight”
appeared. The dependent variable was the number of floor tiles(1.3 cm × 1.3 cm) with urinal splatter. Introduction of text signs decreased
urinal splatter by 37.5% in setting 1 and 40.2% in setting 2. In setting 2, whena heat-activated target was introduced, the splatter further decreased by 24%.
Follow-up data indicated a continued reduction for both restrooms.
Warman et al. (2019) evaluated static and variable prompt effectiveness on
employee performance at a private day school for students diagnosed with
developmental disabilities. In experiment 1, the static prompt included themessage “Please sign your student out using the form.” Variable prompts
consisted of the same message with random changes in font size, font type,
color, and position of the sign. Humorous versions of these job aids were also
employed, such as the cartoon character Popeye stating a variation of his
catchphrase: “I am what I am, but at least I signed out before exiting to theplayground.” Signing in and out rates did not increase with static signs, butboth variable and humorous signs changed behaviors. In experiment 2 staticand humorous signs located in a café where staff members were likely to see
the prompt were compared. The static sign was: “Please ensure the students
are clocked-in and clocked-out.” The humorous prompt was similar to experi­
ment 1. During baseline, no clock-ins and outs were observed. As the static
prompt was introduced, adherence increased by 3 times but returned to zeroafter 6 days. Humorous signs increased responses immediately and its effectmaintained over time. Static signs showed transitory effect while humorous
signs showed continuous and high level adherence. As such, simple ongoingprompts proved to be effective, although innovative variation was necessary tomaintain the effects over time.
A checklist is distinguished from other types of job aids by the fact thata checklist involves a list of specified activities, rather than just a single activity,
to be prompted. For example, Bacon et al. (1983) developed a checklist system for
employees in a large midwestern university. The checklist included 17 items ofspecified tasks with reference to outcome measures. Employees were given hand­outs including performance criteria for each item. Employees completed

JOURNAL OF ORGANIZATIONAL BEHAVIOR MANAGEMENT

89

checklists daily and the experimenter examined checklists weekly, while taskcompletion was covertly observed on major permanent measures. Results showedtask completion among employees increased by 28.8% under the checklist
intervention.
In another example, Doll et al. (2007) implemented a public checklist to
increase cleaning behavior at a ski shop. Using Austin’s Performance
Diagnostic Checklist (2000) and Daniels and Daniels’ PIC/NIC Analysis(2004), seven target behaviors were identified. A packaged intervention
including task clarification, a checklist, and feedback was applied. During
a task clarification meeting, a store manager specified how to correctly com­plete behaviors of interest and a checklist of cleaning behaviors was posted
next to the cash register. Weekly graphic feedback was given to employees ina public place. In a second phase, task-specific daily feedback was provided.
Cleaning behavior improved by 52% in the packaged intervention and taskspecific daily feedback increased cleaning by 12%.
Job aids and checklists are particularly advantageous for safety situations inwhich trial-and-error learning via direct consequences would be hazardousand potentially life-threatening, such as operating an aircraft (Gawande, 2009;
Rantz et al., 2009). Job aids and checklists seem better alternatives to reliably
prompt appropriate behaviors. For example, Clayton et al. (2006) evaluatedprompts to reduce cell phone and improve seat belt use while exiting a parking
lot. Individuals presented a sign (i.e., “Please Hang Up, I Care” or “Please
Buckle Up, I Care”) to drivers and flipped the prompt to provide
a consequence (i.e., “Thank You”) when drivers adhered. Results indicatedseat belt use averaged 44% in the baseline and increased to 56% in interven­tion. The proportion of drivers hanging up their cell phones was similar to seatbelt use, although this unsafe behavior was lower initially.
Job aids and checklists function as an indirect contingency shaping undercontrol of overt or covert rules that provide the information of consequences(Mueller et al., 2001). When the existing contingencies are not in effect, job aids
and checklists can be added to employees’ environment as an alternative(Weatherly & Malott, 2008). When used in public, job aids and checklists canfunction as a CMO because they create social warning when the current
behavior is not meeting what is described in job aids or checklists. Supposethat a manager posted visual signage that described putting on safety helmets
before entering workstations. If employees entered workstations without safety
helmets, coworkers might stare at them. This situation would create an aversive
situation and alter the probability of employees putting on safety helmets.

90

E. CHOI AND D. A. JOHNSON

Conclusion

Antecedents, when appropriately used, can be powerful, which should becompelling considering their relative ease and lack of expense. Naturally,
consequences will probably dominate OBM, given its origin from operant
conditioning. Indeed, the notion that antecedent control alone will not main­
tain performance has long been accepted throughout the history of the field(Brethower et al., 2021). However, the potential of simply using antecedentcontrol, or carefully aligning antecedent with consequent control, should not
be neglected. Goal setting, task clarification, job aids, and checklists all show
substantial effectiveness in improving performance. Our purpose was to illus­
trate the general utility of popular antecedent interventions within OBM. To
achieve this objective, representative research examples, variables for success­ful implementation, and behavioral functions for each antecedent were articu­
lated. However, not all variables that might impact performance were
examined. There remain many variants of antecedent control, both in isola­tion and in combination with consequences, that merit exploration andrepresent fruitful potential research lines. For example, the effects of multiple
or tiered goals on performance lacks research (Locke & Latham, 2013),
including how such goals might interact with monetary incentives.
Despite positive signs from the literature, the effectiveness of task clarifica­tion, job aids, and checklists still warrants caution with interpretation. Most
research has been implemented as parts of a packaged intervention.
Concerning the purpose of OBM research, this situation might be expected.
Most OBM studies apply consequence-based interventions such as feedback,monetary incentives, or social reinforcers due to their powerful results. The
increasing effectiveness of interventions is important since most research
investigated performance in businesses and industries. Due to this reason,
investigating the effects of antecedent interventions might have been
neglected. However, component analyses or dismantling studies for task
clarification, job aids, and checklists are necessary to identify the independent
effects of these interventions. Perhaps antecedent interventions might be over­used or underused in packaged interventions due to a lack of understanding of
their independent efficacy. Identification of their own success will eventuallydemonstrate time- and cost-efficiency.
Finally, researchers and practitioners must be cautious not to rely exces­
sively on goal setting, task clarification, job aids, and checklists. Since theseantecedents seem undemanding to implement, corporate initiatives tend to
overuse them to increase desired performance (Braksick, 2007). Without
scrutinizing environmental components, introduction of antecedents will
not change behavior in the long term. If corresponding consequences do notfollow behavior evoked by the antecedent, the behavior will be eventuallyextinguished. We hope this paper serves as an antecedent, prompting further

JOURNAL OF ORGANIZATIONAL BEHAVIOR MANAGEMENT

91

study and evaluation, so that the consequences of applied best practices
maintain investigative efforts over the long term.

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

ORCID
Douglas A. Johnson

http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7802-3566

References
Agnew, J. L. (1998). The establishing operation in organizational behavior management.
Journal of Organizational Behavior Management, 18(1), 7–19. https://doi.org/10.1300/
J075v18n01_02
Agnew, J. L., & Redmon, W. K. (1992). Contingency specifying stimuli: The role of “rules” inorganizational behavior management. Journal of Organizational Behavior Management, 12(2), 67–76. https://doi.org/10.1300/J075v12n02_04
Amigo, S., Smith, A., & Ludwig, T. (2008). Using task clarification, goal setting, and feedback todecrease table busing times in a franchise pizza restaurant. Journal of Organizational
Behavior Management, 28(3), 176–187. https://doi.org/10.1080/01608060802251106
Anderson, D. C., Crowell, C. R., Hantula, D. A., & Siroky, L. M. (1988). Task clarification andindividual performance posting for improving cleaning in a student-managed university bar.
Journal of Organizational Behavior Management, 9(2), 73–90. https://doi.org/10.1300/
J075v09n02_06
Austin, J. (2000). Performance analysis and performance diagnostics. In J. Austin & J. Carr
(Eds.), Handbook of applied behavior analysis (pp. 304–327). Context Press.
Austin, J., Weatherly, N. L., & Gravina, N. E. (2005). Using task clarification, graphic feedback,and verbal feedback to increase closing-task completion in a privately owned restaurant.
Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 38(1), 117–120. https://doi.org/10.1901/jaba.2005.15903
Bacon, D. L., Fulton, B. J., & Malott, R. W. (1983). Improving staff performance through the useof task checklists. Journal of Organizational Behavior Management, 4(3–4), 17–25. https://doi.org/10.1300/J075v04n03_03
Bateman, M. J., & Ludwig, T. D. (2004). Managing distribution quality through an adapted
incentive program with tiered goals and feedback. Journal of Organizational Behavior
Management, 23(1), 33–55. https://doi.org/10.1300/J075v23n01_03
Baum, W. M. (1995). Rules, culture, and fitness. The Behavior Analyst, 18(1), 1–21. https://doi.
org/10.1007/BF03392688
Bechtel, N. T., McGee, H. M., Huitema, B. E., & Dickinson, A. M. (2015). The effects of thetemporal placement of feedback on performance. The Psychological Record, 65(3), 425–434.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s40732-015-0117-4
Biteler, M. C. (2008). When the client won’t move: Understanding the causes of resistance byleveraging the laws of human behavior. Journal of Practical Consulting, 2(2), 28–34. https://www.regent.edu/acad/global/publications/jpc/vol2iss2/home.htm

92

E. CHOI AND D. A. JOHNSON

Braksick, L. W. (2007). Unlock behavior, unleash profits: Developing leadership behavior thatdrives profitability in your organization (2nd ed.). McGraw-Hill.
Brethower, D. M., Dickinson, A. M., Johnson, D. A., & Johnson, C. M. (2021). A history oforganizational behavior management. Journal of Organizational Behavior Management.
Advance publication. https://doi.org/10.1080/01608061.2021.1924340
Calpin, J. P., Edelstein, B., & Redmon, W. K. (1988). Performance feedback and goal setting to
improve mental health center staff productivity. Journal of Organizational Behavior
Management, 9(2), 35–58. https://doi.org/10.1300/J075v09n02_04
Catania, A. C., Shimoff, E., & Matthews, B. A. (1989). An experimental analysis of rulegoverned behavior. In S. C. Hayes (Ed.), Rule-governed behavior. Springer.pp 119-150.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4757-0447-1_4
Clayton, M., Helms, B., & Simpson, C. (2006). Active prompting to decrease cell phone use andincrease seat belt use while driving. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 39(3), 341–349.
https://doi.org/10.1901/jaba.2006.153-04
Clayton, M. C., & Blaskewicz, J. (2012). The use of visual prompts to increase the cleanliness ofrestrooms on a college campus. Journal of Organizational Behavior Management, 32(4),329–337. https://doi.org/10.1080/01608061.2012.729393
Crowell, C. R., Anderson, D. C., Abel, D. M., & Sergio, J. P. (1988). Task clarification,
performance feedback, and social praise: Procedures for improving the customer serviceof bank tellers. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 21(1), 65–71. https://doi.org/10.1901/
jaba.1988.21-65
Daniels, A. C. (2016). Bringing out the best in people: How to apply the astonishing power of
positive reinforcement (3rd ed.). McGraw-Hill Inc.
Daniels, A. C., & Bailey, J. S. (2014). Performance management: Changing behavior that drives
organizational effectiveness (5th ed.). Performance Management Publications.
Daniels, A. C., & Daniels, J. E. (2004). Performance management: Changing behavior that drives
organizational effectiveness (4th ed.). Performance Management Publications.
Doll, J., Livesey, J., McHaffie, E., & Ludwig, T. D. (2007). Keeping an uphill edge: Managing
cleaning behaviors at a ski shop. Journal of Organizational Behavior Management, 27(3),41–60. https://doi.org/10.1300/J075v27n03_04
Downing, C. O., Jr., & Geller, E. S. (2012). A goal-setting and feedback intervention to increase
ID-checking behavior: An assessment of social validity and behavioral impact. Journal of
Organizational Behavior Management, 32(4), 297–306. https://doi.org/10.1080/01608061.
2012.729383
Durgin, A., Mahoney, A., Cox, C., Weetjens, B. J., & Poling, A. (2014). Using task clarificationand feedback training to improve staff performance in an East African nongovernmentalorganization. Journal of Organizational Behavior Management, 34(2), 122–143. https://doi.
org/10.1080/01608061.2014.914007
Eikenhout, N., & Austin, J. (2005). Using goals, feedback, reinforcement, and a performancematrix to improve customer service in a large department store. Journal of Organizational
Behavior Management, 24(3), 27–62. https://doi.org/10.1300/J075v24n03_02
Erath, T. G., DiGennaro Reed, F. D., Sundermeyer, H. W., Brand, D., Novak, M. D.,
Harbison, M. J., & Shears, R. (2020). Enhancing the training integrity of human service
staff using pyramidal behavioral skills training. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 53(1),449–464. https://doi.org/10.1002/jaba.608
Fellner, D. J., & Sulzer-Azaroff, B. (1984). A behavioral analysis of goal setting. Journal of
Organizational Behavior Management, 6(1), 33–51. https://doi.org/10.1300/J075v06n01_
03
Gawande, A. (2009). The checklist manifesto: How to get things right. Metropolitan Books.

JOURNAL OF ORGANIZATIONAL BEHAVIOR MANAGEMENT

93

Gil, P. J., & Carter, S. L. (2016). Graphic feedback, performance feedback, and goal setting
increased staff compliance with a data collection task at a large residential facility. Journal of
Organizational Behavior Management, 36(1), 56–70. https://doi.org/10.1080/01608061.2016.
1152207
Goomas, D. T., Smith, S. M., & Ludwig, T. D. (2011). Business activity monitoring: Real-timegroup goals and feedback using an overhead scoreboard in a distribution center. Journal of
Organizational Behavior Management, 31(3), 196–209. https://doi.org/10.1080/01608061.
2011.589715
Gowen, C. R. (1985). Managing work group performance by individual goals and group goals
for an interdependent group task. Journal of Organizational Behavior Management, 7(3–4),
5–27. https://doi.org/10.1300/J075v07n03_02
Gravina, N. E., & Cunningham, T. R. (2010). “Check” this out: A review of Gawande’s The
checklist manifesto. Journal of Organizational Behavior Management, 30(3), 271–277. https://doi.org/10.1080/01608061.2010.499035
Huberman, W. L., & O’Brien, R. M. (1999). Improving therapist and patient performance inchronic psychiatric group homes through goal-setting, feedback, and positive
reinforcement. Journal of Organizational Behavior Management, 19(1), 13–36. https://doi.
org/10.1300/J075v19n01_04
Jeffrey, S. A., Schulz, A., & Webb, A. (2012). The performance effects of an ability-based
approach to goal assignment. Journal of Organizational Behavior Management, 32(3),
221–241. https://doi.org/10.1080/01608061.2012.698116
Jessup, P. A., & Stahelski, A. J. (1999). The effects of a combined goal setting, feedback andincentive intervention on job performance in a manufacturing environment. Journal of
Organizational Behavior Management, 19(3), 5–26. https://doi.org/10.1300/J075v19n03_02
Kang, K., Oah, S., & Dickinson, A. M. (2005). The relative effects of different frequencies of
feedback on work performance: A simulation. Journal of Organizational Behavior
Management, 23(4), 21–53. https://doi.org/10.1300/J075v23n04_02
Kernan, M. C., & Lord, R. G. (1988). Effects of participative vs assigned goals and feedback ina multitrial task. Motivation and Emotion, 12(1), 75–86. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00992473
Kramer, W. S., Thayer, A. L., & Salas, E. (2013). Goal setting in teams. In E. A. Locke &G. P. Latham (Eds.), New developments in goal setting and task performance (pp. 287–310).
Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group.
Latham, G. P. (2005). Performance appraisal/performance management. In S.Catwright (Ed.),
Human Resource Management, V, The Blackwell Encyclopedia of Management, 2nd ed.
Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing
Latham, G. P., & Arshoff, A. S. (2013). The relevance of goal setting theory for human resource
management. In E. A. Locke & G. P. Latham (Eds.), New developments in goal setting andtask performance (pp. 331–342). Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group.
Latham, G. P., & Baldes, J. J. (1975). The “practical significance” of Locke’s theory of goal
setting. Journal of Applied Psychology, 60(1), 122–124. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0076354
Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (2013). Goal setting theory: The current state. In E. A. Locke &G. P. Latham (Eds.), New developments in goal setting and task performance (pp. 623–630).
Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group.
Locke, E. A., & Bryan, J. F. (1967). Performance goals as determinants of level of performanceand boredom. Journal of Applied Psychology, 51(2), 120–130. https://doi.org/10.1037/
h0024471
Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (1990). A theory of goal setting & task performance. Prentice-Hall,
Inc.

94

E. CHOI AND D. A. JOHNSON

Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (2002). Building a practically useful theory of goal setting and task
motivation: A 35-year odyssey. American Psychologist, 57(9), 705–717. https://doi.org/10.
1037/0003-066X.57.9.705
Loewy, S., & Bailey, J. (2007). The effects of graphic feedback, goal setting, and manager praiseon customer service behaviors. Journal of Organizational Behavior Management, 27(3),15–26. https://doi.org/10.1300/J075v27n03_02
Ludwig, T. D. (2002). On the necessity of structure in an arbitrary world: Using concurrent
schedules of reinforcement to describe response generalization. Journal of Organizational
Behavior Management, 21(4), 13–38. https://doi.org/10.1300/J075v21n04_03
Ludwig, T. D., & Geller, E. S. (1997). Assigned versus participative goal setting and response
generalization: Managing injury control among professional pizza deliverers. Journal ofApplied Psychology, 82(2), 253–261. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.82.2.253
Malott, R. W. (1993). A theory of rule-governed behavior and organizational behavior
management. Journal of Organizational Behavior Management, 12(2), 45–65. https://doi.
org/10.1300/J075v12n02_03
Martin, G., & Pear, J. J. (2019). Behavior modification: What it is and how to do it. Routledge.
Mcconville, M. L., Hantula, D. A., & Axelrod, S. (1998). Matching training procedures tooutcomes: A behavioral and quantitative analysis. Behavior Modification, 22(3), 391–414.
https://doi.org/10.1177/01454455980223011
McSween, T. (2010). The checklist manifesto: A practitioner’s perspective. Journal of
Organizational Behavior Management, 30(3), 278–279. https://doi.org/10.1080/01608061.
2010.499036
Michael, J. L. (2004). Concepts and principles of behavior analysis. Association for Behavior
Analysis International.
Mueller, M. M., Moore, J. W., Tingstrom, D. H., & Doggett, R. A. (2001). Increasing seating
opportunities using a behavioral prompt. Journal of Organizational Behavior Management,
21(2), 99–109. https://doi.org/10.1300/J075v21n02_10
Nicol, N., & Hantula, D. A. (2002). Decreasing delivery drivers’ departure times. Journal of
Organizational Behavior Management, 21(4), 105–116. https://doi.org/10.1300/J075v21n04_07
Palmer, M. G., & Johnson, C. M. (2013). The effects of task clarification and group graphic
feedback on early punch-in times. Journal of Organizational Behavior Management, 33(4),265–275. https://doi.org/10.1080/01608061.2013.843492
Rantz, W. G., Dickinson, A. M., Sinclair, G. A., & Van Houten, R. (2009). The effect of feedbackon the accuracy of checklist completion during instrument flight training. Journal of Applied
Behavior Analysis, 42(3), 497–509. https://doi.org/10.1901/jaba.2009.42-497
Roose, K. M., & Williams, W. L. (2018). An evaluation of the effects of very difficult goals.
Journal of Organizational Behavior Management, 38(1), 18–48. https://doi.org/10.1080/
01608061.2017.1325820
Smith, A. J. (2010). The checklist manifesto: Examples from the hotel industry. Journal of
Organizational Behavior Management, 30(3), 280–282. https://doi.org/10.1080/01608061.
2010.499252
Stephens, S. D., & Ludwig, T. D. (2005). Improving anesthesia nurse compliance with universal
precautions using group goals and public feedback. Journal of Organizational Behavior
Management, 25(2), 37–71. https://doi.org/10.1300/J075v25n02_02
Sulzer-Azaroff, B., Loafman, B., Merante, R. J., & Hlavacek, A. C. (1990). Improving occupa­
tional safety in a large industrial plant: A systematic replication. Journal of Organizational
Behavior Management, 11(1), 99–120. https://doi.org/10.1300/J075v11n01_07
Tammemagi, T., O’Hora, D., & Maglieri, K. A. (2013). The effects of a goal setting intervention
on productivity and persistence in an analogue work task. Journal of Organizational
Behavior Management, 33(1), 31–54. https://doi.org/10.1080/01608061.2013.758001

JOURNAL OF ORGANIZATIONAL BEHAVIOR MANAGEMENT

95

VanStelle, S. E., Vicars, S. M., Harr, V., Miguel, C. F., Koerber, J. L., Kazbour, R., & Austin, J.
(2012). The publication history of the Journal of Organizational Behavior Management: An
objective review and analysis: 1998–2009. Journal of Organizational Behavior Management,
32(2), 93–123. https://doi.org/10.1080/01608061.2012.675864
Warman, A. S., Wine, B., Newcomb, E. T., Chen, T., & Morgan, C. A. (2019). An evaluation of
static versus variable antecedents on employee performance. Journal of Organizational
Behavior Management, 39(3–4), 257–265. https://doi.org/10.1080/01608061.2019.1666775
Weatherly, N. L., & Malott, R. W. (2008). An analysis of organizational behavior management
research in terms of the three-contingency model of performance management. Journal of
Organizational Behavior Management, 28(4), 260–285. https://doi.org/10.1080/
01608060802454643
Wilk, L. A., & Redmon, W. K. (1990). A daily-adjusted goal-setting and feedback procedure for
improving productivity in a university admissions department. Journal of Organizational
Behavior Management, 11(1), 55–75. https://doi.org/10.1300/J075v11n01_05
Wilk, L. A., & Redmon, W. K. (1998). The effects of feedback and goal setting on the
productivity and satisfaction of university admissions staff. Journal of Organizational
Behavior Management, 18(1), 45–68. https://doi.org/10.1300/J075v18n01_04
Wine, B., Lewis, K., Newcomb, E. T., Camblin, J. G., Chen, T., Liesfeld, J. E., Matthews, K. M.,
Morgan, C. A., & Newcomb, B. B. (2019). The effects of temporal placement of feedback on
performance with and without goals. Journal of Organizational Behavior Management, 39(3–4), 308–316. https://doi.org/10.1080/01608061.2019.1632244