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 ofworkplace performance and motivation. The authors provide a brief history of Organizational
Behavior Management, which is behaviorism applied to the workplace, and its relationshipto 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 theirimpact on current and future performance are described. Finally, practical tips for improving
motivation in the workplace are provided.

ORGANIZATIONAL BEHAVIOR MANAGEMENT(OBM) is the application of the science of behavior or
behavior analysis to the performance of people at work.
Hall (1980) defined the field of OBM as consisting of “thedevelopment and evaluation of performance improvement procedures which are based on the principles of
behavior discovered through the science of behavior
analysis” with the goal being to “establish a technologyof broad-scale performance improvement and organizational change so that employees will be more productive
and happy, and so that our organizations and institutions
will be more effective and efficient in achieving theirgoals” (p. 145). Though this definition and goal statement are 35 years old, they still represent the field of
OBM.
Human performance technology (HPT) is defined by
the International Society for Performance Improvement(ISPI) as follows:
A systematic approach to improving productivity
and competence, [HPT] uses a set of methods andprocedures—and a strategy for solving problems—for realizing opportunities related to the performanceof people. More specific, it is a process of selection,
analysis, design, development, implementation,and evaluation of programs to most cost-effectively

influence human behavior and accomplishment. It
is a systematic combination of three fundamental
processes: performance analysis, cause analysis,
and intervention selection, and can be applied toindividuals, small groups, and large organizations.
(ISPI, 2014)

These definitions of OBM and HPT are remarkably
similar. Both identify (a) utilizing a technology of performance improvement to (b) influence behavior and accomplishments in the workplace. The similarities between thedefinitions is not all that surprising when one considers
the fact that OBM and HPT share a common history
and network of founders. Dickinson’s 2001 paper, The
Historical Roots of Organizational Behavior Managementin the Private Sector, and Rummler’s 2007 paper, The Past
is Prologue: An Eyewitness Account of HPT, both identify
the influence of B. F. Skinner’s work in the 1950s on theearly applications of OBM/HPT in the 1960s.
As similar as the two fields are, there are also differences, most notably in the theoretical underpinnings. HPT
tends to be broad in its theoretical perspective, drawing
from behavioral psychology, cognitive psychology, andother sources for explanatory models. HPT has much incommon 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 mixof orientations. This is contrasted with organizational
behavior management, in which the driving theoreticalmodel is exclusively behavior analytic. Although behavior analysis does not shun cognitive phenomena, it does
reject inferred, hypothetical constructs and processes as
explanations for cognitive events (Skinner, 1950).
Unfortunately, most traditional industrial and organizational textbooks do not portray behaviorism comprehensively or accurately, especially in regards to topics suchas motivation. Many textbooks refer to behavior analysis simply as reinforcement theory, which is misleading
since reinforcers are not the only consequences of interest. Additionally, events other than consequences also
play an important role in a behavioral approach to motivation. Other examples of misrepresentations include
statements such as “Nevertheless, as a complete theoryof work motivation, behaviorism falls short, as do otherperson-as-machine approaches that fail to acknowledge
higher mental activities such as reasoning and judgment”(Landy & Conte, 2013, p. 329). This misrepresents behaviorism, since Skinner’s acceptance of private events suchas thinking and reasoning into his science of behavior iswhat distinguished modern behaviorism from the behaviorism of the early 1900s (Skinner, 1945). Another misrepresentation can be found in Jex and Britt (2008), whostate, “One limitation of OBM, and thus of the behavioral
approach, is that it appears to work best when applied torelatively simple forms of behavior.” (p. 254). Althoughsimple behaviors are indeed easier to understand anddesign interventions for than complex behaviors, thecurrent authors are aware of no influential OBM professionals who advocate a restriction to simple phenomena.
Finally, Spector (2012) states that “Reinforcement theory
says nothing about whether or not a person will want a
reward.” (p. 199). Once again, this is an inaccurate summarization, as operations that influence the desirability of
rewards are a major area of behavior analytic theory, to beelaborated on shortly. As these examples illustrate, misunderstandings about the behavioral approach to motivation
are common. We hope that this article can better represent
a modern behavioral approach to motivation and correct
any misunderstandings that members of the HPT community may have taken from common misrepresentations
seen in popular textbooks.

BEHAVIORAL APPROACH TO MOTIVATION
Modern behaviorism offers a comprehensive approach
to motivation, beginning with employee selection andplacement. The behavioral approach to selection andplacement begins with conducting job analyses to identify

16 www.ispi.org • DOI: 10.1002/pfi • APRIL 2015

the mission and critical accomplishments, then identifying the behaviors required to successfully achieve thoseaccomplishments, and finally identifying the knowledge,
skills, and abilities required for producing the appropriate
behaviors. OBM professionals see prior learning histories
as important for getting the right people in the rightpositions in order to select for repertoires that require
the least shaping. In other words, a goal of selection is tobring on individuals with the knowledge, skills, and abilities that most closely approximate the knowledge, skills,
and abilities identified by a job analysis. This approachdiffers from a more trait-based approach to selection that
relies on assessing certain personality and work traits
believed to be related to success. The key difference isthe emphasis on knowledge, skills, and abilities and priorbehaviors—the behaviorist view—versus the emphasis on
traits believed to be associated with behavior.
After hiring, the emphasis shifts to job-specific training to close any gaps between the employee’s current
knowledge, skills, and abilities and the knowledge, skills,
and abilities demanded by the job. OBM professionals follow a performance-based instruction approach,emphasizing guided observation that includes show me,
guided practice that includes help me while I do it, anddemonstration of mastery that includes let me do it independently (Brethower & Smalley, 1998; Mager, 1997).
Matching training performance with job performanceand engineering the workplace to support training outcomes are two critical features of a behavioral approach to
employee training. Recent research comparing a behavioral approach (which included pre- and post-training
performance support involving the manipulation of antecedents and consequences in the environment to support
transfer) to the same training without the additional antecedent and consequence manipulations showed that the
behavioral approach resulted in better transfer of training
to the workplace (Kazbour, McGee, Mooney, Masica, &Brinkerhoff, 2013).
Perhaps the biggest difference between a behavioral
approach to workplace motivation and a nonbehavioral approach is how ongoing performance support isarranged in the work environment. It is not enough tohire individuals with the appropriate knowledge, skills,
and abilities. Even when a good selection system is combined with a well-designed training system, motivational
problems can still occur. From a behavioral perspective, the solution involves antecedent and consequence
manipulations.

Antecedent Manipulations
Antecedent manipulations can be as straightforward asproviding job aids, clarifying expectations, or redesigningprocesses. However, to fully appreciate a behavior analytic
approach to motivation, it is important to understandmore complex behavioral concepts. In particular, motivating operations, including various forms of conditioned motivating operations, are a critical component
for an operant account of why rewards may vary invalue. A motivating operation is a change or event that(a) alters the effectiveness of a reinforcing stimulus and(b) changes the likelihood of all behaviors that haveproduced that stimulus in the past (Michael, 2004). In
everyday terms, it is a factor that will suddenly make anoutcome valuable and get people to work for that outcome. Although unlearned motivating operations tend
to be more obvious—for example, starvation will makefood more valuable—it is the learned and conditioned
types of motivating operations, especially those involved
in social interactions, that are likely to be more relevantin workplace settings. Two types of conditioned motivating operations will be illustrated below to highlight thepotential relevance of this antecedent manipulation; notethat additional types do exist.
A reflexive conditioned motivating operation is antecedent stimulus that is correlated with some form ofworsening and whose removal functions as reinforcement. In many ways, the reflexive conditioned motivating operation could be considered a warning that theperson wishes to eliminate. For example, a manager may
approach an employee to state, “Your performance has
been sub-standard lately and we may need to rethink
your future here.” In this scenario, the managerial threat
would function as a reflexive conditioned motivating
operation and the employee may try to remove the threat,
perhaps by engaging in a higher quantity or quality ofwork.
A transitive conditioned motivating operation is a
stimulus that alters the value of some other stimulus andproduces behaviors that will result in that other stimulus.
Or put differently, the second stimulus has value in thepresence of the first stimulus and has no value in theabsence of the first stimulus. For example, an employee
may have access to data sheets on her daily performancethat are both positive and negative, but she may rarely
look at these reports despite their continual availability.
Let us suppose that one day her manager tells her, “I saw
your recent performance sheets and you did terrific lastTuesday.” This notification from the manager (first stimulus) may alter the value of data sheets indicating highperformance (second stimulous). The transitive conditioned motivating operation of managerial monitoring
may produce behaviors that result in the positive daily
performance data sheets, such as working harder andchecking one’s own feedback. Although it was unvalued

previously, seeing improvements in one’s own performance has now been established as rewarding.
Most leaders in organizations would prefer to see discretionary effort, that is, going beyond minimal requirements, and often lament that employees produce only
the minimal effort to avoid being fired (Daniels & Bailey,2014). A behavioral approach would suggest that different
kinds of conditioned motivating operations may motivate
different patterns of performance. Note that reflexive
conditioned motivating operations self-terminate in thatthe individual is motivated to eliminate the reflexive conditioned motivating operation, after which point further
motivation completely disappears. Organizations that
rely on reflexive conditioned motivating operations, suchas those depending exclusively on managerial threatsfor motivation, may find themselves staffed with many
employees who work just hard enough to remove thecurrent threat and no more, given that increased threats
may carry the risk of unacceptable turnover. However,other conditioned motivating operations, such as thetransitive conditioned motivating operations, have nosuch self-terminating feature and, therefore, may produce
discretionary effort, such as employees who work hard to
see their own performance, because their managers haveexpressed appreciation for improvements.

Consequence Manipulations
The use of reinforcement and reward systems may beviewed as the hallmark of OBM. When properly used,
these systems increase targeted behaviors and results.
Unfortunately, these systems can also be poorly designed,
relying on punishment, avoidance, and counterproductive competition rather than reinforcement and cooperation. In addition to the performance problems created bypoorly designed reinforcement and reward systems, theirmisuse also lends to misconceptions about behavioral science and its value in the workplace.
The use of consequences to support performance canbe as simple as providing specific praise and feedback
about performance and as sophisticated as comprehensive monetary and nonmonetary incentive systems.
Proper use of incentive systems relies on certain requirements. First, the critical results and behaviors must be
pinpointed including being explicitly defined, objective,
and measurable. Additionally, preference assessments
should be administered to determine valued reinforcers and rewards. Preference assessments can take many
forms, including interviews which are useful for small
groups, surveys which are useful for large groups, andexperimentation with various items to determine whether
they, in fact, increase performance. What is important isthat the chosen consequences are valuable enough to get

Performance Improvement • Volume 54 • Number 4 • DOI: 10.1002/pfi

17

employees to work for them. No manipulation or delivery
system will make a difference if the consequence is neverreinforcing due to the person’s learning history. Finallythese reinforcers must be delivered contingently, meaning that the specified behaviors and results must occur
under predefined circumstances and to predefined criteria (Daniels & Bailey, 2014).
Critics of reinforcement or incentive systems, especially monetary systems, have argued that extrinsic
reinforcers decrease intrinsic motivation (Kohn, 1993;
Pink, 2009), and this has sometimes been termed theoverjustification effect. What may be arguably the mostfrequently cited article documenting the overjustification effect was a study conducted by Lepper, Greene,
and Nisbett (1973). In this classic study, it was argued
that rewards decreased children’s natural play with color
markers. This study, and subsequent similar literature,
was often used by incentive critics to warn that external
rewards need to be avoided or minimized. However,there are several flaws with this interpretation, including the fact that the rewards were never tested for reinforcing properties and that the long-term detrimental
effects were not documented (Cameron & Pierce, 2002).
Lepper et al. (1973) used a reward which they describedas “colored 3×5 inch cards with the words ‘Good PlayerAward’ and spaces engraved on the front next to a large
gold star and a red ribbon” (p. 133). At no point did theresearchers deliver the extrinsic reward contingently
upon any of the children’s behaviors to see if the reward
had the potential to increase the frequency of behavior.
The authors did not even complete the minimal step ofat least surveying the children to see if they would consider a “Good Player Award” valuable. Without proper
assessment, the authors could not have known if theintended reward would have a reinforcing, punishing, or
neutral effect upon the behavior of the children involvedin their study. In fact, the only stated basis for selecting
this reward was the fact that Good Player Awards had
supposedly “proved effective rewards in previous studies (e.g., Harter & Zigler, 1972)” (p. 133). However, theresearchers whom they cited also failed to test whether
the “Good Player Award” would reinforce behavior in
their own studies (Harter, 1967; Harter & Zigler, 1974).

TABLE 1DAY

It should be noted that they worked with a very different
set of individuals, and what is reinforcing for the behavior of one group of individuals may not be reinforcing
for the behavior of another group of individuals—see
the previous point about preference assessments—andnote that they were not behavioral researchers themselves. This is an important observation indicating that
Lepper et al., and subsequent writers, took rewards andreward delivery procedures developed by nonbehavioral researchers as a basis for criticizing behavioral
techniques. The reinforcer assessment and reinforcer
delivery procedures recommended by behaviorists do
not necessarily match the presumptions employed bynonbehavioral researchers.
In regards to the potential detrimental effects, it isimportant to assess whether (a) these effects are long lasting or temporary; and (b) if losses in intrinsic motivation
are offset by the gains in overall motivation. Such considerations are often omitted in the analyses and writingsof many proponents of the overjustification effect. The
importance of considering these issues may be illustrated
with some hypothetical data. Suppose that two groups of
employees are monitored over an 18-day period, with nointerventions being implemented during the first 6 days;
that is, behavior is motivated by intrinsic conditions.
Then for days 7–12, the first group of employees is given
an extrinsic reward, such as individual monetary incentives, while the second group continues under normal
working conditions. Finally, the first group is returned
to normal working conditions for days 13–18, and thesecond group remains in the same normal working conditions. During this time period the production of somearbitrary work unit is measured. As a result, we may discover raw data as seen in Table 1.
Note that in Table 1, the performance of Group 1 during the first phase, that is days 1–6 that serve as the preintervention “intrinsic” performance, averaged 1673 units
produced. If an actual reinforcer was used, as opposed toa reward presumed to be reinforcing, one would expect
performance to increase during days 7–12 for the second phase. This is seen in the data and is represented
graphically with Figure 1. Proponents of overjustification
theory often imply, if not directly state, that extrinsic

HYPOTHETICAL DATA ON GROUP PRODUCTION UNDER EXTRINSIC AND INTRINSICCONDITIONS
1

2

3

4

12

13

14

15

16

Group 11587 1836 1696 1689 1733 1497 1918 2789 3178 3705 3828 4658

9

28

98

1437 1894 1688

Group 21699 1549 1629 1554 1748 1976 1478 1784 1633 1687 1773 1566 1908 1693 1707 1495 1646 1589

18 www.ispi.org • DOI: 10.1002/pfi • APRIL 2015

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

17

18

rewards will produce a permanent loss of intrinsic motivation. Although the average performance during thethird phases—return to intrinsic conditions for days 13
through 18—is 859 units, it would be misleading to statethat this is a permanent loss in performance.
Figure 1 demonstrates a temporary reduction in performance that quickly recovers and has returned to normal levels by the final three days. Unfortunately, manystudies simply report only the immediate declines oraveraged performance. For example, Lepper et al. (1973)
only reported average performance following the removalof the “Good Player Award.” Specifically, the rewarded
children spent only 8.59% of their time playing withmarkers after the reward was removed. This is analogous
to our hypothetical 859 units produced by Group 1 fordays 13–18. The unrewarded children spent only 16.73%
of their time playing with markers during the same time
period. This is analogous to our hypothetical 1,673 units
produced by Group 2 for days 13–18. However, theiraggregated data make it impossible to determine if the
behavior was permanently reduced or if it was in theprocess of recovering to normal levels. Also neglected
are the potential improvements from extrinsic rewards.
Note that in our hypothetical data, the gains during thesecond phase far exceed any losses during the third phaseand that the overall performance of Group 1 is superior
to Group 2, despite any losses to intrinsic motivation.
The current authors would suggest that ignoring thepotential improvements seen in phase 2 out of fear due
to the possible temporary reductions seen in phase 3
would be a poor business decision, especially if there
is no reason to eliminate a successful extrinsic reward

system. Furthermore, what if intrinsic motivation is notenough to meet the minimum demands of the business;for example, what if producing only 1,673 units will resultin bankruptcy? This possibility is rarely addressed in
the nonbehavioral literature on intrinsic versus extrinsic
motivation, and this concern extends well beyond just the
study by Lepper et al.
Much of the popular literature (Kohn, 1993; Pink,
2009) has essentially recommended throwing out potentially successful extrinsic rewards in favor of intrinsic
motivation that often lies outside a supervisor’s influence.
As such, managers are denied the opportunity of designing more motivating work environments and are instead
left at the mercy of elusive intrinsic motivations that are
hopefully sufficient to meet the needs of the company.
An even more important point can be seen directlywith the data from the original study by Lepper et al.
(1973). Again, the expected award condition did produce
lower percentages of the targeted behavior as comparedwith the more natural no award condition: 8.59% versus
16.73%, respectively. A neglected piece of data comesfrom the unexpected award condition, which did not
lower the targeted behavior (18.09%). Since the no award
and unexpected award conditions showed no statistically significant differences, this means that awards were
not the problem, despite the fact that such rewards, andby extension reinforcers, are frequently scapegoated in
the literature. Put differently, the problem was not withthe rewards, but with how the rewards were delivered.
Behavior analysts would suggest that rewards could have
either beneficial or harmful effects, depending on how
they are delivered.

FIGURE 1. HYPOTHETICAL DATA OF GROUP 1

Performance Improvement • Volume 54 • Number 4 • DOI: 10.1002/pfi

19

The analysis of contingencies surrounding delivery
is a major focus of OBM and another important piece
for understanding the behavioral perspective to motivation. Rewards that are delivered noncontingently—that
is, the reward is delivered whether or not the desired
performance occurred or occurred at a specified level—
may decrease motivation. However, this does not occur
when extrinsic rewards such as praise and tangibles aredelivered contingently; the reward is only delivered if theperformance occurred at the specified level (Dickinson,
1995; Mawhinney, 1995). This is important because manyarguments against a behavioral approach rely on the faulty
assertion that extrinsic rewards are inherently bad andthat behavior analysts blindly depend on such rewards.
This is another example of a misrepresentation, since
OBM professionals argue that consequences need to bedelivered thoughtfully in order to improve performance.

Daniels, A.C., & Bailey, J.S. (2014). Performance management:
Changing behavior that drives organizational effectiveness.
Atlanta, GA: Performance Management Publications.

SUMMARY

Harter, S., & Zigler, E. (1974). The assessment of effectancemotivation in normal and retarded children. Developmental
Psychology, 10, 169–180.

Despite suggestions to the contrary, the behavioral
approach to performance motivation is alive, relevant,and much more comprehensive than typically reported.
This article only briefly summarizes some of the OBM
research and theory pertinent to this topic. The behavioral perspective provides a framework for understanding motivation rooted in variables that a manager canmeaningfully act upon. It suggests that an organization
first identifies employees whose learning histories suggest
they are the easiest to motivate and who are well suited to
the work demands as part of selection and placement. It
also suggests that management finds ways to establish awork setting likely to prompt desired behaviors, as well as
find or create rewards that are valuable to the individual
worker as part of motivating operations and preference
assessments. Finally, it suggests that how those consequences are delivered matters as much as what those
consequences are; this is contingency management. Evenif a person chooses to disagree with the theoretical model
underlying OBM, the field still offers practical guidelinesthat HPT practitioners should take into consideration incrafting workplace implementations.

References
Brethower, D., & Smalley, K. (1998). Performance-based
instruction: Linking training to business results. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass/Pfeiffer.
Cameron, J., & Pierce, W.D. (2002). Rewards and intrinsic motivation: Resolving the controversy. Westport, CT: Bergin & Garvey.

20 www.ispi.org • DOI: 10.1002/pfi • APRIL 2015

Dickinson, A.M. (1995). Rewards and punishment: A fine distinction: A behavior analyst’s reply to Alfie Kohn’s (1993) punished by rewards. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 8(2),131–136. doi:10.1111/j.1937–8327.1995.tb00677.x
Dickinson, A.M. (2001). The historical roots of organizational
behavior management in the private sector: The 1950s–1980s.
Journal of Organizational Behavior Management, 20(3–4),
9–58. doi:10.1300/J075v20n03_02
Hall, B.L. (1980). Editorial. Journal of Organizational Behavior
Management, 2(3), 145–150.
Harter, S. (1967). Mental age, IQ, and motivational factors in
the discrimination learning set performance of normal andretarded children. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 5,
123–141. doi:10.1016/0022–0965(67)90001-X

International Society for Performance Improvement (2014).
What is HPT? Retrieved from http://www.ispi.org/content.
aspx?id=54
Jex, S.M., & Britt, T.W. (2008). Organizational psychology: A
scientist-practitioner approach (2nd ed.). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Kazbour, R.R., McGee, H.M., Mooney, T., Masica, L.,& Brinkerhoff, R.O. (2013). Evaluating the impact of aperformance-based methodology on transfer of training.
Performance Improvement Quarterly, 26(1) 5–33. doi:10.1002/
piq.21135
Kohn, A. (1993). Punished by rewards: The trouble with gold
stars, incentive plans, A’s, praise, and other bribes. Boston, MA:
Houghton Mifflin Co.
Landy, F.J., & Conte, J.M. (2013). Work in the 21st century: An
introduction to industrial and organizational psychology (4thed.). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Lepper, M.R., Greene, D., & Nisbett, R.E. (1973). Undermining
children’s intrinsic interest with extrinsic reward: A test of the“overjustification” hypothesis. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 28, 129–137. doi:10.1037/h0035519
Mager, R.F. (1997). Making instruction work: A step-by-stepguide to designing and developing instruction that works.
Atlanta, GA: CEP Press.
Mawhinney, T.C. (1995). The bulk of experimental scientificevidence fails to support Alfie Kohn’s (1993) Punished by
Rewards. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 8(2), 127–131.
doi:10.1111/j.1937–8327.1995.tb00676.x

Michael, J. (2004). Concepts and principles of behavior analysis(2nd ed.). Kalamazoo, MI: Association for Behavior Analysis
International.

Skinner, B.F. (1945). The operational analysis of psychological terms. Psychological Review, 52, 270–277. doi:10.1037/
h0062535

Pink, D.H. (2009). Drive: The surprising truth about what motivates us. New York, NY: Riverhead Books.

Skinner, B. F. (1950). Are theories of learning
necessary? Psychological Review, 57, 193–216. doi:10.1037/
h0054367

Rummler, G.A. (2007). The past is prologue: An eyewitness
account of HPT. Performance Improvement, 46(10), 5–9.
doi:10.1002/pfi.166

Spector, P.E. (2012). Industrial/organizational psychology:
Research and practice (6th ed.). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley & Sons.

HEATHER M. MCGEE, PhD, is with the Department of Psychology, Western Michigan University. She
may be reached at heather.mcgee@wmich.edu
DOUGLAS A. JOHNSON, PhD, is director of undergraduate training for psychology and co-chairof the Industrial/Organizational Behavior Management graduate program at Western Michigan
University. His research and teaching interests include behavior-based instructional design, training
design and development, computer-based instruction, performance management, behavioral systems analysis, incentives, feedback, employee motivation, and behavioral approaches to creativity,
generative repertoires, concept formation, and other forms of complex behavior. For more information on his research activities, see the Instructional Design and Management Research Lab atwww.johnsonresearchlab.com. He may be reached at behavioranalyst@gmail.com

Performance Improvement • Volume 54 • Number 4 • DOI: 10.1002/pfi

21