JOURNAL OF ORGANIZATIONAL BEHAVIOR MANAGEMENT
2023, VOL. 43, NO. 2, 162–188
https://doi.org/10.1080/01608061.2022.2099504

On Terms within Organizational Behavior Management
Douglas A. Johnsonaand Rachael FergusonbaWestern Michigan University, Psychology, Kalamazoo, Michigan, USA; bFlorida Institute of Technology,
School of Behavior Analysis, Melbourne, Florida, USA

ABSTRACTKEYWORDS

Understanding the distinction between organizational behavior
management and similar performance improvement initiatives
requires an understanding of the field’s conceptual system. The
components of the field’s conceptual system are the individual
concepts and principles that compose our terminology. To
introduce novices to an understanding of the field, this paper
seeks to review various basic terms and highlight how they may
help us explain behavior within organizational contexts.
Furthermore, the paper also features several considerations
and nuances important to bear in mind when applying termi­
nology to actual cases.

Organizational behavior
management; terminology;
radical behaviorism

What distinguishes organizational behavior management (OBM) from otherapplied science fields? This question has been the subject of many student
inquiries, conference panels, academic mailing lists, and social media group
discussions. Members of the OBM community claim expertise on applying
science to solve concerns of people, but so can a variety of disciplines such associology, economics, and political science. OBM professionals can narrow thescope further, arguing that OBM applies a science of behavior to solve con­cerns specific to workplace settings, but that will not distinguish OBM fromoverlapping disciplines such as industrial-organizational psychology. As such,the subject matter does not make for a clear distinction. One could use
credentials as a distinguishing mark (Luke et al., 2018; Weatherly, 2021).
However, an expert without credentialing remains an expert and sometimes
those credentialed are of questionable quality. Disciplines exist independent ofcredentialing agencies; credentials should not be confused for the field itself.
One could search for differences related to specific topics, types of inter­
ventions, and methodologies typically seen within the disciplines (Bucklin etal., 2000). However, whether a discipline addresses areas such as selection andplacement or performance management is likely the product of normative
trends from historical origins of that discipline (Brethower et al., 2022;
Dickinson, 2000), rather than inherent distinctions. For example, performanceappraisals, employee attitudes, equity issues, and decision making could all be
CONTACT Douglas A. Johnson
behavioranalyst@gmail.com
Kalamazoo, Michigan 49008-5331, USA© 2022 Taylor & Francis

Psychology, Western Michigan University,

JOURNAL OF ORGANIZATIONAL BEHAVIOR MANAGEMENT

163

addressed by an OBM practitioner or researcher, even though these topics
have more typically been concerns of traditional industrial-organizational
psychology. Similarly, methodological differences (e.g., between group vs.
within-subject designs; correlational vs. experimental designs) are also likely
the product of history – nothing precludes an OBM researcher from utilizing
designs typically seen in other disciplines (Erath et al., 2021). Regarding
independent variables, it is questionable whether a behavioral intervention(that is, specific to OBM or behavior analysis in general) exists because
procedures are atheoretical in nature. One cannot tell from a feedback inter­
vention whether a behavior analyst, cognitive scientist, or humanistic psychol­ogist was the one who implemented it (although one might guess based on
normative trends). Empirical data and applied techniques are routinely devel­
oped by all scientific approaches to human behavior.
The difference between fields largely lies within the explanations employedby those working in those paradigms. OBM is defined by conceptual systems
explaining why techniques function as they do (i.e., behavior analysis).
Without a unifying theoretical framework, a field can quickly devolve into acollection of tips and tricks indistinguishable from competing approaches(Baer et al., 1968). This is probably why it can be quite contentious when
professionals propose new conceptual frameworks – to tamper with a con­
ceptual framework is to mess with the very identity of a discipline. As such, it iscritical to connect procedures to the principles of behavior to ensure an
integrated expansion of OBM. To fail to do so risks losing the identity of the
field itself. To that end, this paper will survey concepts and principles thatprovide the foundation of OBM, use examples within the framework of theseconcepts and principles to highlight their relevance within the workplace forreaders acquainted with behavior analysis (but not yet specialists in OBM),
highlight terminological considerations that might be neglected by even themost experienced OBM professionals, and to encourage a continuation andexpansion of conceptual analyses within the field. This paper will presume an
existing familiarity with definitions of basic behavioral terminology (e.g.,
behavior, stimuli, respondent conditioning, operant conditioning, reinforce­ment), define more advanced concepts and principles, and illustrate how bothbasic and advanced terminology relates to the research and practice of OBM.
For any readers not familiar with basic terminology, we would refer them toseveral excellent introductory textbooks (Chance, 2014; Cooper et al., 2020;
Madden et al., 2021; Martin & Pear, 2019; Michael, 2004; Miller, 2006).
The basic units of behavioral relations being applied to OBM

The core unit of analysis within OBM (and behavior analysis in general) is thecontingency (behavior itself is not our subject matter, despite the semi-mis­leading names of our disciplines). Of course, to fully understand a

164

D. A. JOHNSON AND R. FERGUSON

contingency, it is imperative that we understand the elements of a contin­
gency, namely responses and stimuli, apply to workplace scenarios. Althoughbehavior analysts often speak of targeting behavior, in practice it is more
typical to target a response class. This involves a variety of responses that
produce the same outcome, even if the particulars of the response may vary.
For example, a consultant or researcher may target suggestive selling ofappetizers to customers in a restaurant (Reetz et al., 2016). Although servers
may emit a range of distinct behaviors, such as phrasing suggestions in various
forms (e.g., “would you like to add fries or onion rings?,” or “can I interest you
in one of our appetizers?”), suggesting an appetizer early or late in customer
interactions, stating suggestions quietly or loudly, speaking rapidly or slowly,
or stating requests once or multiple times, these specific response variants fall
into the same general response class (i.e., suggestive selling) that produces thesame outcome (i.e., customers provide or withhold their assent to requests).
Not only can the behaviors vary while serving the same function, the size of the
behaviors that are being analyzed can vary as well. Such units of behavior vary
dramatically, ranging from discrete isolated actions such as touching, grasp­
ing, or twisting (Twarek et al., 2010) to broader collections of actions such as
stealing, rapport building, or marketing (Curry et al., 2019; Porto & Foxall,
2019; Rafacz et al., 2011). Over the years there has been a growing movement
to analyze units of behavior that occur across individuals (by looking at series
of interacting contingencies), particularly when analyzing cultural level phe­nomenon (Glenn et al., 2016).
Although debates have long occurred regarding whether it is best to con­duct analyses using smaller moment-by-moment units (molecular) or usinglarger aggregated units (molar) of behavior (Baum, 2002; Shimp, 2014), it
should be noted this is not necessarily a dichotomous choice. If we consider
behavior along a continuum, nearly all instances can be broken down into
finer grade collections or accumulated into an amalgamation of actions. The
useful unit of analysis is the one that permits us to observe and manipulate
predictable relations among events (Palmer & Donahoe, 1992; Skinner, 1935),
regardless of a narrow or broad vantage point.
It is not uncommon for OBM professionals to focus exclusively on out­
comes (thus inferring behavior from its product), such as checking to see iflights were left on or off (Clayton & Nesnidol, 2017). In fact, Gilbert (1996)
argued that OBM professionals should not just target behavior, but rather thefocus should be on worthy performance instead (in which value produced byoutcomes exceeds the time and effort of the behavior). Indeed, it is rare for us
to focus on behavior irrespective of surrounding contexts or needs of theorganization. However, focusing exclusively on outcomes alone carries risks.
For example, it may be tempting to focus on sales numbers alone (inferring the
behaviors that produced the sales), but the risk is performers may haveproduced outcomes through undesirable means (e.g., false promises toJOURNAL OF ORGANIZATIONAL BEHAVIOR MANAGEMENT

165

customers, distorting records, neglecting long-term investments in favor ofshort-term payoffs). Conversely, focusing exclusively on responding may
produce behavior irrelevant to organizational goals. Thus, we generally recom­
mend measuring both behavior and outcomes. Finally, it is important todistinguish between a state and behaviors that produce a state. For example,“being asleep on the job” is a state, not a behavior (Blampied & Bootzin, 2013),
therefore “being asleep on the job” is not an appropriate target for behavior
change. However, the state of interest may have many related behaviors that
could be targeted for change (e.g., leaning back in chair, closing office blinds,
shutting eyes). The distinction between states and behaviors that produce
states is relevant for a variety of workplace examples (e.g., the state of beingalert, the state of being safe).
Besides behavior (whether observed or inferred), the other important com­ponent of a contingency is a stimulus. There are several important nuances
worth discussing when trying to understand stimuli in organizational settings.
Although we may refer to an antecedent or a consequence as a stimulus, inpractice we are often talking about stimulus classes. For example, we may tellemployees that when they see customers enter the restaurant, they should
smile and talk with these customers (Komaki et al., 1980). In this case,“customer” is not a particular antecedent (i.e., not just a single individual),
but a stimulus class containing vast numbers of widely differing people, all
who belong in the category of customer. A “quality product” might also be a
stimulus class, although how wide or narrow this class is depends on acompany’s range of acceptable tolerances for quality. Positive feedback
might be a stimulus class that could be used as consequences for performance.
Some suggest it is important to ensure that feedback varies by design, for a lackof variation may render the consequences ineffective (D. A. Johnson et al.,2015). For example, saying “great job!” every time as a consequent stimulus islikely to appear rote and insincere, therefore the class membership of positive
feedback should contain various supportive statements.
Another important nuance of stimuli relates to sources of change – changes
in the environment can be internal or external to the person. Put differently,
the stimulation that occurs within our bodies also count as stimuli, even if
these cannot be perceived by anyone outside of the person experiencing thesensation. These include covert events such as pain, a racing heart, contractionof stomach muscles, and other physiological events. Covert verbal events (e.g.,sound of one’s private dialogue, physiological sensations) also serve as stimuli
and are critical to understanding many complex forms of behavior. This
understanding of the private world is particularly important when interactingwith verbally sophisticated individuals, which is routine within organizationalsettings. A willingness to include covert events is a defining feature of modern
behavior analysis (Skinner, 1945), a fact often missed by critics who erro­
neously suggest the field excludes thoughts and feelings. However, internal

166

D. A. JOHNSON AND R. FERGUSON

events are still conceptualized as physical events; the field eschews mentalistic
constructs and states (such as drives to succeed, expectancies, laziness, mental
storage devices, schemas, etc.). Behavior analysis, and by extension OBM, issuccessful by exploring both simple and complex relationships between sti­muli and responses without adding unnecessary and misleading elements.
Relations among basic units: respondent conditioning

One of the most basic types of relations between stimuli and responses are
respondent relations. Respondent conditioning is sometimes overlooked in
OBM and often neglected in textbooks, yet it can still play an important role inmany organizational situations. Activation of the sympathetic division of theautonomic nervous system is an example; an environmental event causes
multiple physiological changes including increased heart rate, directed bloodflow to skeletal muscles, and other activities to increase arousal and energy
generation (Poling & Braatz, 2001). This physiological syndrome can occur as
an unconditioned response to life-threatening or intense stimuli or as aconditioned response due to other stimuli being regularly paired with such
events. Such respondent conditioning underlies emotional reactions, anxiety,and affective behaviors of employees, which some cite as the greatest problems
for managers (Scott & Podsakoff, 1985). In the realm of safety, anotherexample of respondent conditioning is seen with habituation (in whichchronic exposure to an unconditioned stimulus weakens typically elicited
responses). Persistent alarms result in weakening startle responses and ulti­
mately a failure to attend to dangerous threats (Lebbon & Sigurdsson, 2017).
The literature has long demonstrated attitudes can develop through respon­
dent processes (Kuykendall & Keating, 1990; Staats & Staats, 1958). For
example, punishment and negative evaluations often elicit negative emotional
responses. If performance measurement or feedback sessions are only pairedwith punishment and negative evaluations, it is not surprising when employ­ees develop negative attitudes toward any proposed measurement or feedback
systems (Choi et al., 2018; Daniels & Bailey, 2014). Such attitude developments
are not limited to interventions, but also impact how employees feel aboutcertain people, tasks, items, practices, and policies (Scott & Podsakoff, 1985).
Poling and Braatz (2001) give the example of an executive who chooses to only
deliver good news to subordinates and delegates delivery of bad news to anunderling. A probable outcome of this scenario is the executive is well-liked,
whereas the underling will be discomforting to the employees. If implementa­tion of a new technology or new set of social conduct standards threaten
employees’ status within an organization – if not their job entirely – thenemployees may show hostile attitudes and even try to sabotage new initiatives(Davidson & Walley, 1985). Even mention of an associated word or phrase (e.
g., LMS system, diversity training) may elicit emotional reactions for those notJOURNAL OF ORGANIZATIONAL BEHAVIOR MANAGEMENT

167

well-versed in the new organizational practices. Persistent negative emotional
reactions have been linked to stress, turnover, and burnout, whereas positive
emotional reactions have been linked to satisfaction, job security, and pro­ductivity (Filipkowski & Johnson, 2008; Lawson & O’Brien, 1994).
The important issue is to learn how to carefully use pairing and unpairing tocreate more favorable respondent relations. Undesirable respondent relations
can be undone via exposure techniques (Paradise, 1984), whereas desirable
respondent relations can be formed through programmed pairing. For exam­
ple, many attempt to influence others via a luncheon technique, in which
individuals attempt to pair themselves with free food (Cialdini, 2009).
Examples may include salespeople trying get buy-in with potential clientsover food or executives holding meetings during lunch, so that the favorable
feelings that food elicits will transfer to the people who shrewdly bought suchmeals. Of course, this may not be successful if preexisting negative relation­
ships already exist. For example, N. Brown and Redmon (1990) arranged for
employees to have the option of a paid lunch with their supervisors (among avariety of options for winners of a lottery incentive system), but only 3 out of
60 employees ever selected the free lunch and managerial feedback session.
There are some important considerations when analyzing respondent rela­tions within organizational settings. One is that most relevant examples of
respondent employee behaviors may be covert in nature. As such, we must relyon self-reports of internal states, typically via survey methodology. For avariety of reasons employee descriptions of themselves may not be accurate(Filipkowski & Johnson, 2008), therefore it is important to consider various
overt correlates. Finally, respondent conditioning cannot create new beha­viors, but only extend preexisting behavior to new sources of control (Michael,
2004; Poling & Braatz, 2001). Most behaviors of interest in OBM are quitedissimilar to our inherited relations. As such, we now turn to operant rela­tions, in which behavior is controlled, at least in part, by consequences.
Relations among basic units: operant conditioning

The ability of a performer to operate on their environment to produce an effectmakes the person an active participant in their ever-changing world, with theperson changing their environment and, in turn, that environmental change
altering that person. This succession of experiences leads to an accumulationof behavioral relations in new environments, including the workplace. This
notion may best be captured by the concept of a repertoire – the collected andenduring tendency to behave under specific circumstances (Palmer, 2009). It isa construct we use to describe the potential behavior of an individual, whicharises from a history of being exposed to contingencies. Without an organism’s
behavior, there is no repertoire. Without the environment, there is also norepertoire. The concept lies in the interaction between the two. We do not

168

D. A. JOHNSON AND R. FERGUSON

study responses, but rather response relations. The repertoire does not sit idly
by in some other dimension within a warehouse of skills or a bag of tricks,
waiting to be called forth into our world. Unfortunately, our native languages
tend to lead to misinterpretation, especially with operant relations. It is
important to avoid reification with the term repertoire – it is an abstraction
to describe the effect of historical events, not a thing, place, or storage
container. It is a strange convention to ask where a response is residing
when it is not being emitted. With respondent relations, we do not ask
where the blink resides when there is no irritant in the eye or where theknee jerk resides when the patellar tendon is not being tapped (Skinner, 1957).
It is equally misleading to ask where the response resides when our analysis
involves operant relations. Even though the repertoire is a construct, we need
to not forget what type of construct it is. It is a term to summarize vast andcomplex environment-behavior relations that accumulate over the lifetime of
the individual. It is not an internal construct that initiates action from a place
separate from the physical world, a type of explanation behavior analysis haslong opposed (Skinner, 1950). Instead, our discipline seeks to develop expla­
nations that place both seen and unseen events at the same level of the naturaland physical world. It is easy to forget as everyday verbal practices (e.g.,grammar structures that place the initiation of action only within the indivi­dual, such as “I begin” or “we decided”) seep into our more precise analyses
and scientific explanations.
One outcome of viewing a repertoire in a non-mentalistic manner is westop viewing behavior as an independent entity initiated by forces within.
For example, after training it is tempting to view established knowledge,
skill, or ability as a collection of things carried around with employees.
However, trained behavior exists in relation to training environments andtherefore is dependent on trained surroundings (or surroundings with suffi­
cient common properties). New environments, such as daily workplacesettings, will not evoke or maintain trained behavior if conditions or con­tingencies are too dissimilar, a finding well-known to those who havestruggled with transfer of training or maintenance (Brethower & Smalley,
1998; Conard et al., 2016).
One implication of the perspective that behavior is a function of theenvironment is that much of our behavior is not the result of capricious
free-will (Johnston, 2014). This assertion is controversial, especially withthose who prefer to explain their successes and decisions in terms of selfdetermination, genetic makeup, or other innate factors. Thus, an OBM profes­
sional should be sensitive to how they communicate with others. Any profes­
sional who places a high degree of value on their “self-made” accomplishments
may feel threatened or angered by assertions that the environmental history
was the primary contributor to their success, rather than their traits or
spontaneous choices (Crawley et al., 1982).

JOURNAL OF ORGANIZATIONAL BEHAVIOR MANAGEMENT

169

Types of consequences
Reinforcement

The supportive consequences mentioned above are considered a form of
reinforcement. This principle is foundational to the field of OBM given
the focus is primarily on increasing desired behavior (Austin et al., 1999).
Experts have identified reinforcement as one of the most popular OBM
interventions (Daniels & Bailey, 2014). This is perhaps one reason why
reinforcement was determined the most common behavioral principle ina review of studies published in the Journal of Organizational Behavior
Management (DiGennaro Reed et al., 2016). Common reinforcers include
performance feedback, praise, monetary incentives, and symbolic tangi­
bles such as plaques or trophies (Alvero et al., 2001; Daniels & Bailey,2014). Consider the issue of compensation: workers can be paid on
individual piecework and on group performance through gainsharing(Dixon et al., 2004). From a broader perspective, both systems might bereinforcing if they are performance-contingent and lead to increases in
performance following their delivery. See, Bucklin et al. (2022) for details
on implementing various incentive systems. With all potential reinfor­
cers, it is critical to conduct preference assessments to increase the like­lihood that consequences will function as intended (Wine et al., 2014).

Extinction

We would be remiss to discuss reinforcement without also exploring extinc­tion within an OBM context. Extinction occurs across a variety of professions
when reinforcement is infrequent. Consider workers trained to follow com­plex safety protocols. During training, they are presented with many different
hazards. These practice sessions are further supplemented with multiple
coaching opportunities, which involve a dense schedule of reinforcement.
When on the job, however, hazards are rare. While the same level of complex­
ity may be expected, the reinforcement schedule is often sparse or nonexistent.
Without regular reinforcement, the safety behaviors would likely extinguishover time which could ultimately lead to an increase in injuries (Hyten &Ludwig, 2017).
Reinforcement is infrequent in other professions as well. During visualbaggage screenings, transportation security administration (TSA) agents
must emit frequent search behaviors over extended periods. Locating a “sig­nal” or target item can be reinforcing. However, it is also rare. Research showsthat search behavior decreases if signals are absent (Hogan et al., 2009), thetendency to search extinguishes due to lack of reinforcement.

170

D. A. JOHNSON AND R. FERGUSON

While the previous examples demonstrate the negative effects, there are
instances when extinction is beneficial for work-related behaviors. This is thecase for undesired behavior. To revisit the prior example, imagine TSA agents
being trained to detect target items. If detected items matched actual threats,
managers would praise this response. However, if TSA agents flag items
inappropriately and too frequently, such as when they encounter innocuous
items, these incorrect responses would not be praised and would decrease or
extinguish over time. Provided managers continued to reinforce correct
responding, eventually stimulus control would be established such that agentswould differentiate between innocuous items and potential threats. This would
be particularly critical given that frequent false positives lead to unnecessary
delays and decrease traveler satisfaction. Thus, extinguishing overresponding
would be beneficial.
Punishment

While reinforcement is the most common technique applied in OBM, it isalso critical to understand how the related term of punishment is relevant.
Unlike reinforcement, punishment is uncommon in OBM (Daniels, 2016),
however, it remains a popular technique among managers (Grote, 2006).
Even in subfields of OBM such as behavior-based safety (which seeks to
reduce accidents and injuries), the focus is on promoting safe behaviors
rather than punishing unsafe behaviors or injuries (Sulzer-Azaroff et al.,1990). Some of this focus is related to the fact that OBM as a field generally
attempts to improve, not worsen, the experience of people at the workplace(Abernathy, 2014; Bucklin et al., 2022). Furthermore, employees operating
under aversive stimulation may very well exert various forms of undesirable
countercontrol (Ludwig & Geller, 1999; Mawhinney & Fellows-Kubert,1999). Finally, excessive use of aversive control can produce many negativeside effects such as turnover, disengagement, absenteeism, and more
(Camden & Ludwig, 2013; Cymbal et al., 2022; Moran et al., 2022). Still,there are instances when punishment occurs in organizational settings,
especially when dealing with severe violations of workplace policies(Daniels & Bailey, 2014).
For instance, while punishers are typically not introduced by OBM spe­cialists, there are natural punishers that can decrease desired behavior. Onceagain consider the TSA agents. A TSA agent who was overly cautious andhad several false positives (innocuous items or people targeted as threats)
would likely be verbally punished by impatient travelers. They may react
negatively to being searched or complain about prospects of missing flights.
The sight of a line increasing, coupled with travelers becoming anxious, may
further punish searching behavior including the detection of potential
targets.

JOURNAL OF ORGANIZATIONAL BEHAVIOR MANAGEMENT

171

Previously we mentioned that behavior is a function of the environment
and trained behavior will fail to transfer or maintain within work environ­ments if consequences fail to support it. Suppose a salesperson was trained touse high-pressure techniques to convince customers to purchase products.
During training, supportive consequences such as praise were delivered by thetrainer contingent on the trainee emitting high-pressure techniques whencustomers gave reasons for not purchasing. While the salesperson may excel
during training, the tendency to emit high-pressure behaviors is a function of
the environment. If the trainee progresses to the job and supportive conse­
quences are no longer provided, or if aversive consequences begin to follow,
the behavior will decrease (Daniels & Bailey, 2014; Hyten & Ludwig, 2017).
Applying high-pressure techniques will likely evoke negative responses from
actual customers. These act as natural punishers causing high-pressure tech­niques to decrease.
In addition to natural punishers, reprimands or progressive discipline aretactics that frustrated managers may use at the behest of their organization’s
legal department, in accordance with human resources policies, or simply indesperation when they lack expertise in other ways of changing humanbehavior (Grote, 2006). These tactics are not advised. Reprimands, penalties,
and other punishers are forms of aversive control that can evoke a fear
response. Furthermore, unless the reprimands, loss of privileges, fines, andmore are consistently maintained, it is likely that a recovery from punishment
will likely be seen (Daniels & Bailey, 2014).
Recovery from punishment

Behavior suppressed through punishment in the past will likely return toprevious levels upon removal or termination of suppressive stimuli, which
has implications for organizational settings. Consider a software engineer who
must develop, input, and compile code – often a tedious task. Furthermore, thesame computer on which coding is completed can become a temptation; an“entertainment vessel” that houses an abundance of competing reinforcers in
the form of news, games, and social connection which may cause attention towork to stray.
Engaging in these competing activities at the office would likely lead to
reprimands by supervisors, thus decreasing time off-task. However, while being
punished may temporarily suppress off-task behavior, the undesired behavior
would not be eliminated from the repertoire. Therefore, it would not be perma­
nently suppressed from punishment alone and would likely return to preexistinglevels once the punisher is no longer present (Daniels & Bailey, 2014).
Recovery from punishment is particularly relevant given the rising devel­
opment of remote work positions and when in-person positions are tempora­rily shifted to remote (Howe et al., 2021; Jimenez-Gomez et al., 2021). These

172

D. A. JOHNSON AND R. FERGUSON

changes in organizational structures can impact the dynamics related tosupervisor presence. For example, workers such as software engineers may
have previously been confined to cubicles near their supervisors, but now findthemselves working from home. This both (a) increases available off-task
alternatives, and (b) eliminates presence of agents (i.e., supervisor) who
historically delivered punishment. In time, off-task behavior previously pun­
ished may increase. This phenomenon can be observed across a variety ofoccupations, particularly those in which supervisors are unable to be present.
As more individuals work remotely, the relevance of recovery from punish­
ment increases for organizational behavior. However, recovery from punish­
ment can be avoided. Rather than focus on decreasing undesired behavior
through reprimands or using aversive techniques, managers should increase
desired behavior through reinforcement. Ferguson and Rivera (2021) provide
a comprehensive discussion of OBM techniques to improve behavior ofindependent professions and autonomous workers.
Types of antecedents

Although the last several concepts illustrate the power of consequences to
impact employee behavior, antecedents are an important part of workplace
contingencies (Choi & Johnson, 2022). Some powerful antecedents derive
their evocative functions from their historical correlations with consequences,
exemplified by discriminative stimuli. Some discriminative stimuli are basedon reinforcement contingencies, such as SD or S∆. The process of establishingstimulus control through discrimination training has many potential organi­zational applications. For example, one aspect of ensuring quality control is tomake sure employees respond differentially to high- and low-quality products
or services. During training, employees may be presented with a sample toevaluate. In the presence of high-quality samples (SD), employees labelingthese samples as good may be praised (Sr). In the presence of low-quality
samples (S∆), employees labeling such samples as good would not be praised(EXT). Of course, stimulus control should also be established for the behaviorof labeling these samples as poor, as shown in Figure 1.
Other applications for establishing stimulus control, besides training,
include the TSA job targeting items that rarely appear (bomb attempts arevery infrequent), leading to extinction of vigilance behaviors. One method of
fixing this is to contrive a more regular SD condition than what normallyoccurs, such as having managers periodically send prohibited items throughsecurity as a test (Hogan et al., 2009). If screeners successfully flagged these
items, reinforcing consequences such as praise or being told that they stopped
a dangerous item could be provided, making it more likely that vigilance
would persist over time. Not only could the public be safer through planned
provision of discriminative stimuli, but employee safety could improve.

JOURNAL OF ORGANIZATIONAL BEHAVIOR MANAGEMENT

173

Figure 1. Discrimination training for quality control.

Just as discriminative stimuli evoke and abate behavior due to their correla­tion with the availability of reinforcement, discriminative stimuli also evoke andabate due to a correlation with the availability of punishment (Hantula et al.,1991). Just as an SD refers to the availability of reinforcement for responding, an
SDp refers to the availability of punishment for responding and therefore an SDp
has an abative effect on behavior (Doughty et al., 2007; O’Donnell, 2001).
For example, many organizations, concerned about potential destructive
effects of rumor or gossip on organizational culture (Houmanfar & Johnson,2004), have policies forbidding these activities and managers are likely toprovide reprimands when observing such behaviors. Similarly, people who
are the subject of gossip are likely to provide disapproval upon observing thesebehaviors due to the typical negative content. Therefore, a stimulus of some­
one whispering “Susan is coming” or “the boss is close” would function as anSDp, in that continued gossiping will soon be met with social punishers from
Susan or the boss, respectively. Likewise, hearing a manager’s voice would
likely function as an SDp for opening or scrolling through social media
accounts given typical organizational policies regarding off-task activities
during paid hours.
Logically, this implies the need for a parallel term for stimuli correlated with
non-availability of punishment. An S∆p would have an evocative effect as
behavior recovers in the absence of punishment contingencies. Returning to
the previous examples, someone saying “alright, Susan is gone” or “the boss left”

174

D. A. JOHNSON AND R. FERGUSON

would function as an S∆p and have a recovering effect on gossiping behavior.
Likewise, the sound of the manager’s voice growing distant would function as
an S∆p for behaviors related to social media and an evocative effect is likely.
Motivating operations

While motivating operations (MOs) are incorporated into treatments withinmany specializations of applied behavior analysis, they are less common in
OBM (Lotfizadeh et al., 2014). One reason could be OBM professionals
experience success with consequences alone. However, including an analysisof the MO into the performance analysis could provide a comprehensive
understanding of consequences and factors that influence their efficacy. This
expansion of analysis could prove fruitful during planning through increasing
the range of interventions considered. OBM experts rarely directly manipulate
variables related to unconditioned motivating operations such as deprivation(although employees may be sleep, food, or water deprived for reasons unre­
lated to our manipulations; Olson et al., 2001), thus the focus of our discussion
will be on conditioned motivating operations (CMOs).
There are different types of CMOs. Consider a reflexive CMO (CMO-R), in
which a stimulus is correlated with some form of worsening and whose
removal will function of as a form of reinforcement (Michael, 2004). Thishas commonly been demonstrated in the laboratory through avoidance. For
example, a neutral stimulus such as a beep is first presented to an experimentalorganism. Over trials, this beep is reliably followed by shock. When consis­
tently preceding the worsening situation, the beep acts as a type of “warning
stimulus” that aversive event will soon follow. Therefore, that beep will beestablished as an CMO-R, in that it establishes its own removal as reinforcing.
Subsequently, once sounded it immediately evokes behaviors that have, in thepast, led to its removal.
CMO-Rs, such as this example, extend beyond the laboratory and become
relevant in other settings including the workplace. For instance, observe theeffects of CMOs on the behavior of doctors and nurses in hospitals. The soundof a patient’s heart rate monitor is a reassuring repetitive beep signaling strong
and steady heart rates. If the repetition suddenly becomes irregular andincreases dramatically, then this may serve as a warning that patient is introuble. The new signal of an abnormal pattern would be a CMO-R thatprecedes potential worsening states (e.g., stroke, arrhythmia). The newsound immediately evokes behaviors aimed at restoring a steady pulse andescaping the threatening abnormal sound (e.g., administering medication,
electrical cardioversion).
While the previous example shows a beep functioning as a CMO-R, otherforms of auditory stimuli exist (or more broadly, stimuli involving the othersense receptors). Feedback may function as a CMO-R. For instance, suppose

JOURNAL OF ORGANIZATIONAL BEHAVIOR MANAGEMENT

175

one of the nurses from the previous example failed to make rounds and checkpatients regularly. The director of nursing provided evaluative feedback anddiscussed dangers of failing to check patients consistently. The current per­formance does not meet hospital standards and must improve to ensure
patient safety. Like the tones in previous examples, evaluative feedback func­
tions as a warning stimulus that a worsening state such as termination or
lawsuits may be forthcoming. Following the meeting the nurse increases her
rate of checking patients to remove the threat and avoid possible termination
associated with it.
In addition to CMO-Rs, there are other types of CMOs such as transitive
CMOs (CMO-T). Michael (2004) defined a CMO-T as a stimulus (S1) thathelps to establish the reinforcing effectiveness of a secondary stimulus (S2). In
other words, the reinforcing effectiveness of S2 depends on the presence of thefirst stimulus (S1). S1 then evokes behaviors that produce S2 (Michael, 2004).
To consider how this concept applies to workplace behavior, imagine Jasmine,a bank teller whose primary responsibility is to deposit and withdraw custo­
mer funds. Jasmine continuously encounters customers during her busy shift
as there is a constant line. Recently, the bank started a new credit card, but few
customers signed up. When encountering customers prior to beginningtransactions, Jasmine must ask them to open a credit card account. Getting
them to express interest allows her to open an electronic form on her com­puter to sign them up through a series of steps. At first Jasmine is simply told
to encourage customers to enroll, but there is no contingency for doing so.
Lines are long and Jasmine sees this task as unreasonable additional effort.
Encountering electronic forms to sign customers up (which is the S2) havelittle value to her. In the presence of the customers making a deposit orwithdrawal, Jasmine does not open forms and ask to sign them up.
Now suppose the branch manager sends an e-mail informing the tellers thatthey can earn a $20 bonus for each credit card account opened and thiscontingency lasts until the end of the month. Jasmine reads this S1 (announce­
ment about the incentive). As usual, she looks up and sees a line of customers.
Now, both the electronic form (S2) and completed electronic form (anotherS2) are more valuable, so that the presence of interested customers (SD)immediately evokes behaviors related to electronic forms. The CMO-T inthis example is the S1 or e-mail announcement about the incentive. Note
this is instructional control (announcement about incentives), not conse­
quence control (the incentive itself), because incentives have not been deliv­
ered yet and therefore cannot exert control over behavior (see, Figure 2 forrelevant diagrams).
A goal coupled with an incentive might also function as a CMO-T (Olson& Winchester, 2008). Imagine an adjustment in the previous example, inthat Jasmine was emailed a bar graph each day showing the percentage ofcustomers who opened new accounts. Opening the e-mail, she would see her

176

D. A. JOHNSON AND R. FERGUSON

Figure 2. Diagram of Teller’s behavior.

current percentage for the week. A performance increase on the graph (S2 inthis case) may have little value in the absence of a goal or incentive. Now
suppose the manager begins a bonus contingent on meeting a goal to securecredit card accounts for 40% of customers serviced that week. As before,
each day he e-mails tellers their average percentage on a bar graph.
However, this time he includes the goal drawn on the graph (S1). On
Friday (i.e., end of the week), Jasmine reads her e-mail and learns she iscurrently at 37%–just shy of the 40% goal just above. The sight of thisdiscrepancy between her current performance and the goal line (S1) will
likely function as an MO (Olson & Winchester, 2008). It will immediately
evoke behaviors that led to high performance in the past on the graph (S2)such as prompting customers to start credit cards and follow the process for
opening accounts.

JOURNAL OF ORGANIZATIONAL BEHAVIOR MANAGEMENT

177

Complex verbal relations

Most of the terminology above was derived from experimental work in which
events of interest are close in time to the behavior under study (e.g., a light isturned on and immediately evokes a response; food is presented less than asecond later). How long delays can be before or after behavior to maintainefficacy of antecedents or consequences has never been precisely settled,
although the general rule is these events lose control as temporal gaps increase(Green et al., 2004; Michael, 2004). Although time is a continuous variable, thedelays in most organizational settings are so great that time might be con­sidered dichotomous: “delayed” or “immediate” (Malott, Malott et al., 1993).
That is, it is rarely a comparison of 5- versus 60-s delays, but rather delays
involving days, weeks, or months between events and relevant performance.
Unlike the verbal humans within the business organizations, non-verbal
organisms require direct contingencies and could not be influenced by rein­
forcers or punishers delivered several days after performance (Michael, 2004).
At first glance, the context in workplace settings does not seem to exert control
through direct contingencies, but rather relies on verbal events to manage
temporal gaps. Nearly all interventions in OBM involve verbally mediatedcontingencies with significant delays (Malott, Shimamune et al., 1993), there­
fore it is important to understand how verbal stimuli such as rules influenceand govern behavior in workplace environments. This assertion raises aquestion: If much of workplace behavior is maintained through indirect acting
effects, why devote so much of this paper summarizing direct acting behavioral
terminology? One reason is that many instances of workplace behavior canstill be explained via direct reinforcers and punishers supplied by others.
Another reason is that seemingly indirect external contingencies are main­tained via direct verbal contingencies, which are best understood in theconceptual framework built upon basic principles. The connection between
verbal events and indirect contingencies has long been explored by OBM andbehavior analysis in general.
B. F. Skinner, in one of his analyses of problem-solving, spoke about how we
can construct stimuli to control our own behavior, such as marking the correct
path to take on a map (Skinner, 1969). For example, imagine a truck driverwanted to learn locations for clean and safe travel plazas and truck stops (toavoid sketchy places while in search of food, fuel, and showers along theirroutes). He could memorize names, architecture, or locations of various
buildings and cities across the country, experiencing reinforcement andextinction directly until he slowly learned which places paid off and which
did not, eventually certain locales becoming SDs and others S∆s for enteringbuildings. Alternatively, he could construct stimuli to control his behavior
more efficiently, such as marking places on a map with a circled X to indicate
clean and safe locations and an open circle to indicate sketchy locations. In this178

D. A. JOHNSON AND R. FERGUSON

scenario, the trucker constructed discriminative stimuli to manage his future
behavior, with the circled X functioning as a personal SD and open circle as apersonal S∆. Of course, such constructed stimuli need not be limited topersonal use – if these discriminative stimuli are explained to others, they
can then help any knowledgeable member of that community. An easier andless contrived method to construct useful discriminative stimuli for the com­munity as a whole is to take advantage of existing verbal forms (such as wordof mouth or review websites/apps), with “go there for free showers with clean
towels if you buy $50 in diesel” serving as an SD and “don’t bother going there”
serving as an S∆. These verbal rules specify the behavior (go to that location)and the consequences (presence/absence of an attractive deal) without new
individuals needing to directly experience the contingency through trial anderror.
This specification of the contingency (i.e., rule) takes the form of an IFTHEN connective verbal frame (Agnew & Redmon, 1992), in which the IF
element specifies the behavior and the THEN element specifies the conse­
quence for that behavior. That is, the contingency follows the pattern of IF___, THEN ___, such as “IF you go over to that food truck now, THEN you
can get tasty food” or “Because the boss has arrived, IF I start working
frantically, THEN I will receive positive comments from her.” These discri­
minative rules can be stated by others or developed by oneself. One point ofclarification: stated rules do not need to formally contain the words “IF” or“THEN” to exert discriminative control through an IF-THEN frame. For
example, an employee may state to themselves, “the boss said he is going tostick around and observe my performance today, so I better be on my A
game.” Although the sentence does not formally contain the words “IF” or“THEN,” functionally it has an equivalent effect as statements such as “IF I
perform well during this observation, THEN I might get some positive feed­back” or “IF I take another break right now, THEN I’ll get yelled at,” thus
immediately evoking desired and abating undesired performance. When
behavior falls under the control of such rules, we call it “rule-governed
behavior.” One advantage of rule-governed behavior is that a seemingly end­
less set of potential events can be integrated into a relational frame. Thischanges the effects of events, if rule following is reinforced (and rule breaking
punished) sufficiently in our culture, then rule following becomes a general­ized skill for most members of the culture (Baum, 1993; Malott, Malott et al.,
1993; Skinner, 1969). Of course, the personal learning histories of employees
will remain a powerful determinant on whether rules are likely to be followed
or ignored at an individual level (Skinner, 1978). Some theoretical accounts,
such as relational frame theory, arose to focus exclusively on how relations
among stimuli, behavior, and verbal events, including those relations that are
explicitly described by others and those that are derived by the individual
without explication by others (O’Hora & Maglieri, 2006). There are many

JOURNAL OF ORGANIZATIONAL BEHAVIOR MANAGEMENT

179

areas of overlap between theoretical accounts such as relational frame theory
and Skinner’s attempt to delineate verbal behavior processes (such as general
operant frames), but the distinctions remain controversial (Leigland, 1997;
Palmer, 2008) and a full treatment of both accounts is well beyond the scope of
this paper.
Rules, as verbal stimuli, are not limited to discriminative relations. Indeed,
many rules involve consequences which are not immediately available after
performance and many rules may not be related to availability of conse­
quences. To illustrate, many scholars have pointed out that rules can function
as motivating operations (Lipschultz et al., 2021; Squires & Wilder, 2010).
Suppose an employee was told about a new measurement and incentive
system, for which the rule “if you keep your desk clean and organized in atimely fashion every day, then at the end of the week you can enter a lottery fora chance to ignore the company’s dress code for a day” could be derived(similar to Griffin et al., 2019). Even if this rule immediately evoked deskcleaning and organizing, the consequence of being entered into the lottery
would not follow any instance of these behaviors. Rather, the rule establishednoncompliance with the rule as aversive (Malott, 1993). After the statement of
the rule, some stimuli (previously neutral) became reinforcing, such as thesight of clean and organized desks, and other stimuli (also likely neutral prior
to the rule) became punishing, such as the sight of untidy desks. Thus, the ruleevokes behaviors that produce clean and organized desks and abates behaviors
that produce untidy desks.
An additional nuance is that sometimes rules do not function as either
discriminative stimuli or motivating operations. Both immediately evoke orabate behavior, but some rules do not have an immediate effect. In such cases,
it may be better to conceptualize rules as contingency-specifying stimuli(Blakely & Schlinger, 1987; Schlinger & Blakely, 1987). Contingency-specify­
ing stimuli operate by changing the function of other antecedents and con­sequences, including verbal events, because of descriptions of the relations
among those events and behavior. To illustrate, assume a new employee was
hired at a coal mine subject to ventilation inspections by the Mine Safety and
Health Administration (Rhoton, 1980). During orientation a coworker takes
him aside and says, “If you see a person wearing a beige hardhat, that’s
probably the MSHA inspector. It’s critical that the line brattice is placedcorrectly and there’s no loose coal dust in the area. If you see that guy, run
and quickly make sure the brattice is where it is supposed to be or else we’re allin trouble.” Such a rule is unlikely to immediately evoke behavior (unlike theeffects of SDs and MOs). In fact, these behaviors may not occur for several
weeks or months. But the rule, as a contingency-specifying stimulus, changes
the function of a beige hardhat. When it does finally appear, it will immedi­
ately evoke brattice checking. Behaviors not related to proper ventilation will
likely be punished in the presence of a beige hardhat (SDp). In addition,

180

D. A. JOHNSON AND R. FERGUSON

behaviors that reduce or eliminate the forthcoming threat will also be evoked(CMO-R), so that actions that remove coal dust will be reinforced by the sightof a dust-free area (Sr). Behaviors to check and possibly move the brattice will
also be evoked and reinforced by the sight of a correctly placed brattice (Sr).
The rule also establishes the sight of loose coal dust as aversive (Sp) when abeige hardhat is present. In sum, the contingency-specifying stimulus estab­lished several discriminative stimuli, motivating operations, reinforcers, andpunishers exhibited at a later date. All these antecedents and consequences (e.
g., beige hardhat, sight of loose dust) would remain as behaviorally neutral
events, if not for the rule altering their function.
It is important to look at how verbal events might prompt future behavior aswell as how they may serve as effective consequences. Skinner (1957, 1969) andothers noted we have a long history in which the verbal community teaches us
to engage in self-descriptive behavior (e.g., “What are you doing?” “Why are
you doing that?” “How are you?” “Do you see what I see?” “What are yourplans for later?”). Our awareness of self probably is due to a near-constantstream of verbal self-evaluation responses, including self-evaluations of ourwork performance (e.g., “My desk is now clean” “That’s my sixth successful
sale today”). These verbal responses also produce verbal stimuli as a response
product (i.e., we hear the sound of our own voice as a stimulus, whether overt
or covert). When combined with rules, these evaluative self-statement stimuli
may function as direct reinforcers or punishers for our own behavior.
For example, suppose an intervention included a promise for a $25 gift
certificate to the employee with the best customer service evaluations at theend of two weeks (similar to M. G. Brown et al., 1980). As such, employees
may form a rule such as “if I perform customer service just like they trainedme, then I might get a spare 25 bucks.” Although this rule may prompt good
customer service, employees do not need to wait two weeks for an evaluation –they can provide their own immediately after performance. An employee may
say to themselves, “Okay, I did all four service things just the way they wanted
me to – now they’ll be happy with me and I might even get that gift certificate
in a couple of weeks.” The resulting verbal stimulus from such evaluative selfstatements are likely to have reinforcing properties and occur immediately at
the conclusion of performance. One implication of this is even rule-governed
behavior is likely maintained through direct-acting contingencies, but thedirect consequences are often verbal and self-supplied (Malott, 1993; Malott,
Shimamune et al., 1993).
Of course, not all evaluative self-statement stimuli will be equal in reinfor­
cing effectiveness (or be reinforcing at all). For example, by the end of M. G.
Brown et al. (1980), none of the salespeople received a $25 gift certificate
because no customers completed any of the 500 evaluation forms distributed.
If this study had continued past the two weeks, it should not be surprising thatthe discovered inaccuracy of original rules would result in revised self-JOURNAL OF ORGANIZATIONAL BEHAVIOR MANAGEMENT

181

statements such as “who cares if they liked my performance, those cheap liars
won’t stick to their word.” Any stimulus resulting from such a covert descrip­tion is unlikely to serve as a reinforcer for desired customer service. Selfevaluations that fit within a NOW-WILL verbal frame are likely to be power­
ful, such as “NOW that I’ve cleaned my desk, I WILL be entered into the raffle”
or “NOW that I screwed up in front of the boss, I WILL get a poor perfor­
mance review later this year.” In comparison, a NOW-MAYBE verbal frame
will probably exert weaker effects as consequences for behavior, such as“NOW that I made that sale, MAYBE I’ll get a promotion eventually” or“NOW that I’m 5 minutes late, MAYBE I’ll get written up.” The various
frames can alter the effectiveness of rules in controlling performance (R. A.
R. A. Johnson et al., 2010). Approaches for classifying the effects of various
derived verbal frames have been proposed and reviewed elsewhere (Maraccini
et al., 2016). To briefly give some examples, it has been suggested (Ghezzi et al.,2020; O’Hora & Maglieri, 2006) that some rule-governed behavior should beclassified as pliance if it is under the control of social approval (irrespective of
actual contingencies), classified as tracking if it is under the control of acorrespondence between instruction and actual contingencies, or classified
as augmenting if the rule changes the function of other events (similar to thecharacteristics of contingency-specifying stimuli or motivating operations).
Much of OBM involves developing rules to prompt desired behavior andensure verbal events continue to support that desired behavior.
With any terminology, including those involved in complex verbal events, it
is important to avoid nominal fallacies and not treat terms such as “rulegoverned behavior” as magical phrases to preclude analysis. Invoking thisphrase means potential functional relations must still be specified as part ofthe explanation to exceed nontechnical lay understanding of rules (Blakely &Schlinger, 1987; Schlinger & Blakely, 1987). Simply naming terms is not ananalysis; we risk only being left with labeling a behavior and no more. A criticalattribute of behavior analysis requires more investigation. Although it can be
tempting to neglect terminological precision, Michael (2004) pointed out thatclearly understanding the underlying mechanisms that drive our interventions
is likely to have both theoretical and practical implications.
Conclusion

We hope this overview of terminology serves as an entry point for neophytes
looking to connect behavioral concepts and principles to workplace practices
as well as remind seasoned professionals about points sometimes forgotten. In
conclusion, we return to the question that opened this paper: In short, whatmakes OBM different? At the core of this question is an attempt to define anddifferentiate the field from its competitors and complementary professions. By
describing the terminology of the field, several themes are noted and worth

182

D. A. JOHNSON AND R. FERGUSON

making explicit. OBM professionals investigate and intervene upon workplacephenomena using a paradigm founded upon a natural science and selectionist
account. This account emphasizes empirical data based upon actual perfor­
mance and eschews hypothetical constructs or explanatory variables that takeplace at levels or dimensions different than our observations (e.g., training
outcomes explained by schemas, success of incentives explained by expectan­
cies or drives, leadership decisions explained by neurotransmitters or brain
structures). We reject mentalistic approaches rooted in non-behavioral phe­nomena, but that should not be taken as a rejection of biological, cognitive, orinternal events (as illustrated by our consideration of physiological stimula­tion, feelings, perceptions, and private verbal behaviors). This framework liesat the heart of a radical behaviorism position (Skinner, 1945, 1950), fromwhich behavioral technologies developed.
Our terms and assumptions define us more than our procedures. Practices
have evolved over the decades (Brethower et al., 2022) and will continue toadvance. The field of OBM originated with individual performers, but earlyon recognized a need to grow toward organization-wide improvements(Hall, 1980). The challenges encountered along the way have varied, but
our explanatory framework consistently guided us. This is what distinguishes
OBM from other approaches and may be best exemplified by our terminol­ogy. By marking the boundaries of the field, we believe a definition is finallywarranted: Organizational behavior management is a scientific disciplinethat uses explanations derived from radical behaviorism to develop, coordi­
nate, and implement performance improvement applications that range
from individual performers in organizations to large-scale programs ofchange. This conceptualization can be witnessed across many contributions
and analyses shown in this handbook series (D. A. Johnson & Johnson, 2022)
and proven to be productive and pragmatic in understanding human beha­vior in the workplace.

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
Abernathy, W. B. (2014). The liberated workplace: Transitioning to Walden three. Performance
Management Publications.

JOURNAL OF ORGANIZATIONAL BEHAVIOR MANAGEMENT

183

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
Alvero, A. M., Bucklin, B. R., & Austin, J. (2001). An objective review of the effectiveness andessential characteristics of performance feedback in organizational settings (1985-1998).
Journal of Organizational Behavior Management, 21(1), 3–29. https://doi.org/10.1300/
J075v21n01_02
Austin, J., Carr, J. E., & Agnew, J. L. (1999). The need for assessment of maintaining variables in
OBM. Journal of Organizational Behavior Management, 19(2), 59–87. https://doi.org/10.
1300/J075v19n02_05
Baer, D. M., Wolf, M. M., & Risley, T. R. (1968). Some current dimensions of applied behavior
analysis. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 1(1), 91–97. https://doi.org/10.1901/jaba.1968.1-91
Baum, W. M. (1993). For parsimony’s sake. Journal of Organizational Behavior Management,
12(2), 81–84. https://doi.org/10.1300/J075v12n02_06
Baum, W. M. (2002). From molecular to molar: A paradigm shift in behavior analysis. Journalof Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 78(1), 95–116. https://doi.org/10.1901/jeab.2002.78-95
Blakely, E., & Schlinger, H. (1987). Rules: Function-altering contingency-specifying stimuli.
The Behavior Analyst, 10(2), 183–187. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03392428
Blampied, N. M., & Bootzin, R. R. (2013). Sleep: A behavioral account. In G. J. Madden (Ed.),
APA handbook of behavior analysis: Vol. 2 translating principles into practice (pp. 425–453).
American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/13938-017
Brethower, D., & Smalley, K. (1998). Performance-based instruction: Linking training to busi­
ness results. Jossey-Bass/Pfeiffer.
Brethower, D. M., Dickinson, A. M., Johnson, D. A., & Johnson, C. M. (2022). A history oforganizational behavior management. Journal of Organizational Behavior Management, 42(1), 3–35. https://doi.org/10.1080/01608061.2021.1924340
Brown, M. G., Malott, R. W., Dillon, M. J., & Keeps, E. J. (1980). Improving customer service ina large department store through the use of training and feedback. Journal of Organizational
Behavior Management, 2(4), 251–265. https://doi.org/10.1300/J075v02n04_02
Brown, N., & Redmon, W. K. (1990). The effects of a group reinforcement contingency on staff
use of unscheduled sick leave. Journal of Organizational Behavior Management, 10(2), 3–17.
https://doi.org/10.1300/J075v10n02_02
Bucklin, B. R., Alvero, A. M., Dickinson, A. M., Austin, J., & Jackson, A. K. (2000). Industrialorganizational psychology and organizational behavior management: An objective compar­
ison. Journal of Organizational Behavior Management, 20(2), 27–75. https://doi.org/10.1300/
J075v20n02_03
Bucklin, B. R., Li, A., Rodriguez, M., Johnson, D. A., & Eagle, L. M. (2022). Pay-for-perfor­
mance: Behavior-based recommendations from research and practice. Journal of
Organizational Behavior Management, Advance online publication. . https://doi.org/10.
1080/01608061.2022.2047868
Camden, M. C., & Ludwig, T. D. (2013). Absenteeism in health care: Using interlocking
behavioral contingency feedback to increase attendance with certified nursing assistants.
Journal of Organizational Behavior Management, 33(3), 165–184. https://doi.org/10.1080/
01608061.2013.814521
Chance, P. (2014). Learning and behavior (7th ed.). Cengage Learning.
Choi, E., Johnson, D. A., Moon, K., & Oah, S. (2018). Effects of positive and negative feedback
sequence on work performance and emotional responses. Journal of Organizational
Behavior Management, 38(2–3), 97–115. https://doi.org/10.1080/01608061.2017.1423151

184

D. A. JOHNSON AND R. FERGUSON

Choi, E., & Johnson, D. A. (2022). Common antecedent strategies within organizational behavior
management: The use of goal setting, task clarification, and job aids. Journal of Organizational
Behavior Management, 42(1), 75–95. https://doi.org/10.1080/01608061.2021.1967834
Cialdini, R. B. (2009). Influence: Science and practice (5th ed.). Pearson.
Clayton, M., & Nesnidol, S. (2017). Reducing electricity use on campus: The use of prompts,
feedback, and goal setting to decrease excessive classroom lighting. Journal of Organizational
Behavior Management, 37(2), 196–206. https://doi.org/10.1080/01608061.2017.1325823
Conard, A. L., Johnson, D. A., Morrison, J. D., & Ditzian, K. (2016). Tactics to ensure durabilityof behavior change following the removal of an intervention specialist: A review of temporal
generality within organizational behavior management. Journal of Organizational Behavior
Management, 36(2–3), 210–253. https://doi.org/10.1080/01608061.2016.1201036
Cooper, J. O., Heron, T. E., & Heward, W. L. (2020). Applied behavior analysis (3rd ed.).
Pearson.
Crawley, W. J., Adler, B. S., O’Brien, R. M., & Duffy, E. M. (1982). Making salesmen:
Behavioral assessment and intervention. In R. M. O’Brien, A. M. Dickinson, & M. P.
Rosow (Eds.), Industrial behavior modification: A management handbook (pp. 184–199).
Pergamon Press.
Curry, S. M., Gravina, N. E., Sleiman, A. A., & Richard, E. (2019). The effects of engaging inrapport-building behaviors on productivity and discretionary effort. Journal of
Organizational Behavior Management, 39(3–4), 213–226. https://doi.org/10.1080/
01608061.2019.1667940
Cymbal, D. J., Litvak, S., Wilder, D. A., & Burns, G. N. (2022). An examination of variables thatpredict turnover, staff, and caregiver satisfaction in behavior-analytic organizations. Journalof Organizational Behavior Management, 42(1), 36–55. https://doi.org/10.1080/01608061.
2021.1910099
Daniels, A. C., & Bailey, J. S. (2014). Performance management: Changing behavior that drives
organizational effectiveness. Aubrey Daniels International, Inc.
Daniels, A. C. (2016). Bringing out the best in people: How to apply the astonishing power of
positive reinforcement. McGraw-Hill Education.
Davidson, R. S., & Walley, P. B. (1985). Computer fear and addiction: Analysis, prevention, andpossible modification. Journal of Organizational Behavior Management, 6(3), 37–52. https://doi.org/10.1300/J075v06n03_03
Dickinson, A. M. (2000). The historical roots of organizational behavior management in theprivate sector. Journal of Organizational Behavior Management, 20(3), 9–58. https://doi.org/
10.1300/J075v20n03_02
DiGennaro Reed, F. D., Henley, A. J., Rueb, S., Crabbs, B., & Giacalone, L. (2016). Discussion of
behavioral principles in journal of organizational behavior management: An update. Journalof Organizational Behavior Management, 36(2–3), 202–209. https://doi.org/10.1080/
01608061.2016.1200938
Dixon, M. R., Hayes, L. J., & Stack, J. (2004). Changing conceptions of employee compensation.
Journal of Organizational Behavior Management, 23(2–3), 95–116. https://doi.org/10.1300/
J075v23n02_06
Doughty, A. H., Doughty, S. S., O’Donnell, J., Saunders, K. J., & Williams, D. C. (2007).
Stimulus control of punishment effects: Determining the controlling variables. Revista
Mexicana de Análisis de la Conducta [Mexican Journal of Behavior Analysis], 33(1), 57–66.
Erath, T. G., Pellegrino, A. J., DiGennaro Reed, F. D., Ruby, S. A., Blackman, A. L., & Novak, M.
D. (2021). Experimental research methodologies in organizational behavior management.
Journal of Organizational Behavior Management, 41(2), 150–181. https://doi.org/10.1080/
01608061.2020.1869137

JOURNAL OF ORGANIZATIONAL BEHAVIOR MANAGEMENT

185

Ferguson, R., & Rivera, L. (2021). Self-management in organizational behavior management.
Journal of Organizational Behavior Management. 1–20. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1080/01608061.2021.1996502
Filipkowski, M., & Johnson, C. M. (2008). Comparisons of performance and job insecurity inunion and nonunion sites of a manufacturing company. Journal of Organizational Behavior
Management, 28(4), 218–237. https://doi.org/10.1080/01608060802454437
Ghezzi, E. L., Houmanfar, R. A., & Crosswell, L. (2020). The motivative augmental effects ofverbal stimuli on cooperative and conformity responding under a financially competing
contingency in an analog work task. The Psychological Record, 70(3), 411–431. https://doi.
org/10.1007/s40732-020-00400-7
Gilbert, T. F. (1996). Human competence: Engineering worthy performance. International
Society for Performance Improvement.
Glenn, S. S., Malott, M. E., Andery, M. A. P. A., Benvenuti, M., Houmanfar, R. A., Sandaker, I.,
Todorov, J. C., Tourinho, E. Z., & Vasconcelos, L. A. (2016). Toward consistent terminology
in a behaviorist approach to cultural analysis. Behavior and Social Issues, 25(1), 11–27.
https://doi.org/10.5210/bsi.v25i0.6634
Green, L., Myerson, J., Holt, D. D., Slevin, J. R., & Estle, S. J. (2004). Discounting of delayed
food rewards in pigeons and rats: Is there a magnitude effect? Journal of the Experimental
Analysis of Behavior, 81(1), 39–50. https://doi.org/10.1901/jeab.2004.81-39
Griffin, M., Gravina, N. E., Matey, N., Pritchard, J., & Wine, B. (2019). Using scorecards and alottery to improve the performance of behavior technicians in two autism treatment clinics.
Journal of Organizational Behavior Management, 39(3–4), 280–292. https://doi.org/10.1080/
01608061.2019.1632241
Grote, D. (2006). Discipline without punishment: The proven strategy that turns problem
employees into superior performers. American Management Association.
Hall, B. L. (1980). Editorial. Journal of Organizational Behavior Management, 2(3), 145–150.
https://doi.org/10.1300/J075v02n03_01
Hantula, D. A., Stillman, F. A., & Waranch, H. R. (1991). A comparison of strategies forfacilitating smoking survey return in low-SES employees. Journal of Organizational Behavior
Management, 11(2), 47–59. https://doi.org/10.1300/J075v11n02_04
Hogan, L. C., Bell, M., & Olson, R. (2009). A preliminary investigation of the reinforcement
function of signal detections in simulated baggage screening: Further support for thevigilance reinforcement hypothesis. Journal of Organizational Behavior Management, 29(1), 6–18. https://doi.org/10.1080/01608060802660116
Houmanfar, R., & Johnson, R. (2004). Organizational implications of gossip and rumor.
Journal of Organizational Behavior Management, 23(2), 117–138. https://doi.org/10.1300/
J075v23n02_07
Howe, D. C., Chauhan, R. S., Soderberg, A. T., & Buckley, R. M. (2021). Paradigm shifts causedby the COVID-19 pandemic. Organizational Dynamics, 50(4), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.orgdyn.2020.10080
Hyten, C., & Ludwig, T. D. (2017). Complacency in process safety: A behavior analysis toward
prevention strategies. Journal of Organizational Behavior Management, 37(3–4), 240–260.
https://doi.org/10.1080/01608061.2017.1341860
Jimenez-Gomez, C., Sawhney, G., & Albert, K. M. (2021). Impact of COVID-19 on the applied
behavior analysis workforce: Comparison across remote and nonremote workers. Behavior
Analysis in Practice, 14(4), 873–882.https://doi.org/10.1007/s40617-021-00625-0
Johnson, R. A., Houmanfar, R., & Smith, G. S. (2010). The effect of implicit and explicit rules
on customer greeting and productivity in a retail organization. Journal of Organizational
Behavior Management, 30(1), 38–48. https://doi.org/10.1080/01608060903529731

186

D. A. JOHNSON AND R. FERGUSON

Johnson, D. A., Rocheleau, J. M., & Tilka, R. E. (2015). Considerations in feedback delivery:
The role of accuracy and type of evaluation. Journal of Organizational Behavior
Management, 35(3–4), 240–258. https://doi.org/10.1080/01608061.2015.1093055
Johnson, D. A., & Johnson, C. M. (2022). Foundations and advances: Revisiting the past andselecting for the future. Journal of Organizational Behavior Management, Advance online
publication. 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1080/01608061.2022.2029797
Johnston, J. M. (2014). Radical behaviorism for ABA practitioners. Sloan Publishing, LLC.
Komaki, J., Blood, M. R., & Holder, D. (1980). Fostering friendliness in a fast food franchise.
Journal of Organizational Behavior Management, 2(3), 151–164. https://doi.org/10.1300/
J075v02n03_02
Kuykendall, D., & Keating, J. P. (1990). Altering thoughts and judgements through repeatedassociation. British Journal of Social Psychology, 29(1), 79–86. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.20448309.1990.tb00888.x
Lawson, D. A., & O’Brien, R. (1994). Behavioral and self-report measures of staff burnout indevelopmental disabilities. Journal of Organizational Behavior Management, 14(2), 37–54.
https://doi.org/10.1300/J075v14n02_04
Lebbon, A. R., & Sigurdsson, S. O. (2017). Behavioral perspectives on variability in humanbehavior as part of process safety. Journal of Organizational Behavior Management, 37(3–4),
261–282. https://doi.org/10.1080/01608061.2017.1340922
Leigland, S. (1997). Is a new definition of verbal behavior necessary in light of derived relational
responding? The Behavior Analyst, 20(1), 3–9. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03392757
Lipschultz, J. L., Wilder, D. A., Sleiman, A., Cruz, N., Curry, S., & Gravina, N. E. (2021). The
effects of feedback accuracy and trainer rules on performance during an analogue task.
Journal of Organizational Behavior Management, 41(3), 215–235. https://doi.org/10.1080/
01608061.2021.1903646
Lotfizadeh, A. D., Edwards, T. L., & Poling, A. (2014). Motivating operations in the journal oforganizational behavior management: Review and discussion of relevant articles. Journal of
Organizational Behavior Management, 34(2), 69–103. https://doi.org/10.1080/01608061.
2014.914010
Ludwig, T. D., & Geller, E. S. (1999). Undesirable side-effects reflect countercontrol. Journal of
Organizational Behavior Management, 19(2), 25–34. https://doi.org/10.1300/J075v19n02_03
Luke, M. M., Carr, J. E., & Wilder, D. A. (2018). On the compatibility of organizational
behavior management and BACB certification. Journal of Organizational Behavior
Management, 38(4), 288–305. https://doi.org/10.1080/01608061.2018.1514347
Madden, G. J., Reed, D. W., & DiGennaro Reed, F. D. (2021). An Introduction to Behavior
Analysis. Wiley.
Malott, R. W., Malott, M. E., & Shimamune, S. (1993). Comments on rule-governed behavior.
Journal of Organizational Behavior Management, 12(2), 91–101. https://doi.org/10.1300/
J075v12n02_08
Malott, R. W., Shimamune, S., & Malott, M. E. (1993). Rule-governed behavior and organiza­
tional behavior management. Journal of Organizational Behavior Management, 12(2), 103–116. https://doi.org/10.1300/J075v12n02_09
Malott, R. W. (1993). A theory of rule-governed behavior and organizational behavior manage­
ment. Journal of Organizational Behavior Management, 12(2), 45–65. https://doi.org/10.
1300/J075v12n02_03
Maraccini, A. M., Houmanfar, R. A., & Szarko, A. J. (2016). Motivation and complex verbal
phenomena: Implications for organizational research and practice. Journal of Organizational
Behavior Management, 36(4), 282–300. https://doi.org/10.1080/01608061.2016.1211062
Martin, G. L., & Pear, J. J. (2019). Behavior modification: What is it and how to do it (11th ed.).
Routledge.

JOURNAL OF ORGANIZATIONAL BEHAVIOR MANAGEMENT

187

Mawhinney, T. C., & Fellows-Kubert, C. (1999). Positive contingencies versus quotas:
Telemarketers exert countercontrol. Journal of Organizational Behavior Management, 19(2), 35–57. https://doi.org/10.1300/J075v19n02_04
Michael, J. L. (2004). Concepts and principles of behavior analysis. Association for Behavior
Analysis International.
Miller, L. K. (2006). Principles of everyday behavior analysis (4th ed.).
Moran, D. J., Batten, S., Gamble, M. A., & Atkins, P. (2022). Acceptance and commitment
training: Improving performance in organizations with applied contextual behavioral
science. In R. Houmanfar, M. Fryling, & M. Alavosius (Eds.), Applied behavior science inorganizations: Consilience of historical and emerging trends in organizational behavior
management (pp. 177–196). Taylor & Francis.
O’Donnell, J. (2001). The discriminative stimulus for punishment or SDp. The Behavior
Analyst, 24(2), 261–262. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03392036
O’Hora, D., & Maglieri, K. A. (2006). Goal statements and goal-directed behavior. Journal of
Organizational Behavior Management, 26(1), 131–170. https://doi.org/10.1300/J075v26n01_06
Olson, R., Laraway, S., & Austin, J. (2001). Unconditioned and conditioned establishing
operations in organizational behavior management. Journal of Organizational Behavior
Management, 21(2), 7–35. https://doi.org/10.1300/J075v21n02_03
Olson, R., & Winchester, J. (2008). Behavioral self-monitoring of safety and productivity in theworkplace: A methodological primer and quantitative literature review. Journal of
Organizational Behavior Management, 28(1), 9–75. https://doi.org/10.1080/
01608060802006823
Palmer, D. C., & Donahoe, J. W. (1992). Essentialism and selectionism in cognitive science andbehavior analysis. American Psychologist, 47(11), 1344–1358. https://doi.org/10.1037//0003066x.47.11.1344
Palmer, D. C. (2008). On Skinner’s definition of verbal behavior. International Journal of
Psychology and Psychological Therapy, 8(3), 295–307.
Palmer, D. C. (2009). Response strength and the concept of the repertoire. European Journal of
Behavior Analysis, 10(1), 49–60. https://doi.org/10.1080/15021149.2009.11434308
Paradise, R. C. (1984). Introducing a phobia program into a community mental health center.
Journal of Organizational Behavior Management, 6(2), 15–21. https://doi.org/10.1300/
J075v06n02_04
Poling, A., & Braatz, D. (2001). Principles of learning: Respondent and operant conditioning
and human behavior. In C. M. Johnson, W. K. Redmon, & T. C. Mawhinney (Eds.),
Handbook of organizational performance: Behavior analysis and management (pp. 23–49).
Routledge.
Porto, R. B., & Foxall, G. R. (2019). The marketing firm as a metacontingency: Revealing themutual relationships between marketing and finance. Journal of Organizational Behavior
Management, 39(3–4), 115–144. https://doi.org/10.1080/01608061.2019.1666774
Rafacz, S. D., Boyce, T. E., & Williams, W. L. (2011). Examining the effects of a low-cost
prompt to reduce retail theft. Journal of Organizational Behavior Management, 31(2), 150–
160. https://doi.org/10.1080/01608061.2011.570087
Reetz, N. K., Whiting, S. W., & Dixon, M. R. (2016). The impact of a task clarification andfeedback intervention on restaurant service quality. Journal of Organizational Behavior
Management, 36(4), 322–331. https://doi.org/10.1080/01608061.2016.1201035
Rhoton, W. W. (1980). A procedure to improve compliance with coal mine safety regulations.
Journal of Organizational Behavior Management, 2(4), 243–249. https://doi.org/10.1300/
J075v02n04_01
Schlinger, H., & Blakely, E. (1987). Function-altering effects of contingency-specifying stimuli.
The Behavior Analyst, 10(1), 41–45. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03392405

188

D. A. JOHNSON AND R. FERGUSON

Scott, W. E., & Podsakoff, P. M. (1985). Behavioral Principles in the Practice of Management. Wiley.
Shimp, C. P. (2014). How molecular, molar, and unified analyses change the meaning of
behavioral variability. International Journal of Comparative Psychology, 27(2), 82–105.
Skinner, B. F. (1935). The generic nature of the concepts of stimulus and response. The Journalof General Psychology, 12(1), 40–65. https://doi.org/10.1080/00221309.1935.9920087
Skinner, B. F. (1945). The operational analysis of psychological terms. Psychological Review, 52(5), 270–277. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0062535
Skinner, B. F. (1950). Are theories of learning necessary? Psychological Review, 57(4), 193–216.
https://doi.org/10.1037/h0054367
Skinner, B. F. (1957). Verbal behavior. Prentice-Hall.
Skinner, B. F. (1969). Contingencies of reinforcement: A theoretical analysis. Prentice-Hall.
Skinner, B. F. (1978). Reflections on behaviorism and society. Prentice-Hall.
Squires, J., & Wilder, D. A. (2010). A preliminary investigation of the effect of rules on
employee performance. Journal of Organizational Behavior Management, 30(1), 57–69.
https://doi.org/10.1037/h0042782
Staats, A. W., & Staats, C. K. (1958). Attitudes established by classical conditioning. Journal of
Abnormal and Social Psychology, 57(1), 37–40.
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
Twarek, M., Cihon, T., & Eshleman, J. (2010). The effects of fluent levels of big 6 + 6 skill
elements on functional motor skills with children with autism. Behavioral Interventions, 25(4), 275–293. https://doi.org/10.1002/bin.317
Weatherly, N. L. (2021). The ethics of organizational behavior management. Journal of
Organizational Behavior Management, 41(3), 197–214. https://doi.org/10.1080/01608061.
2021.1890664
Wine, B., Reis, M., & Hantula, D. A. (2014). An evaluation of stimulus preference assessment
methodology in organizational behavior management. Journal of Organizational Behavior
Management, 34(1), 7–15. https://doi.org/10.1080/01608061.2013.873379