Chapter 11
A Pragmatic Approach for Building Employee Motivation to Promote
Creativity and Organizational Innovation
Douglas A. Johnson
Merrilyn Akpapuna

The New Professions of a Future Fantastic
Throughout human history, technology has dramatically reshaped our world, including thenature of occupations and work processes. Visions of robotic integration into society are no longer
science fiction fantasies, but represent the current status quo to a degree greater than many people areaware. Automation has made a profound impact on the employment landscape, with human
employees increasingly being replaced by robotic counterparts (Bogue, 2014; Chelliah, 2017; Frey &Osborne, 2017). The arrival of lights-out manufacturing has created entire factories that do not
require the presence of humans. One of the more famous of these factories, FANUC in Japan, alreadyhas robots manufacturing other robots in the complete absence of humans (Autor, 2015). As one
FANUC executive phrased it, “Not only is it lights out, we turn off the air conditioning and heat,too.” For many years, customer service has been seen as a refuge for the dramatic loss of employment
opportunities within agriculture and manufacturing on the premise that customers would always
desire human contact during their transactions. However, even customer service functions are being
increasingly taken over by adaptive software programmed for human persuasion (Landry, Mahesh, &Hartman, 2005). Such automation has created a great deal of anxiety about the role of humans in theworld of tomorrow.
Although this irreversible trend shows many jobs being lost forever, it does not mean thatwork itself has been eliminated. As old jobs are eliminated through technological advances, new jobs

242

begin to arise that require new sets of skills (Asimov, 1991). This is not a new discovery, as
prominent psychologists and behavior analysts have spent decades calling for the improvement ofeducation and training in order to meet the growing demand for specialized labor (Barlett, 1962;
Skinner 1958; 1961). The skills that seem to be most reliant upon a human workforce are those thatare typically characterized as creative and innovative (e.g., developing promotional and marketing
solutions, composition and directing of music, graphics, and other arts, writing instructional orentertainment materials, developing theories and research, fashion design, choreography, designingof exhibits, video game development, use of social media, etc.), for machinery and software have yet
to sufficiently master these skills (Autor, 2015; Brynjolfsson & McAfee, 2014; D. Johnson, 2015;
Landry, Mahesh, & Hartman, 2005). Modern demands have forced organizations to adapt to everevolving novel conditions and this may necessitate more than the simple hiring of well-educatedindividuals. Instead, businesses find themselves increasingly pressured to engineer environments that
continually promote innovation by their employees (Gundry, Muñoz-Fernandez, Ofstein, & OrtegaEgea, 2016). The ability of an organization to survive in the future may reside in the innovation of its
employees and therefore creativity has become a business necessity.
Perhaps unsurprisingly, the demand for guidelines to promote creativity and innovation has
led to a variety of recommendations from mass market books. The advice of these books can be far
ranging and typically use the plurality of anecdotes as their evidence (Catmull & Wallace, 2014;
Michalko, 2001; Robinson & Stern, 1998). For example, the bestselling book Drive continuallysuggests that the key to innovation is to harness intrinsic sources of motivation (Pink, 2009). This
book is the latest in a series of arguments to suggest the destructive potential of extrinsic rewards(Kohn, 1993); although Daniel Pink tends to be a bit more forgiving regarding the past use of
extrinsic rewards for the rote and mindless work that dominated the industries of yesterday.

243Nonetheless, the argument is made that the creative needs of future organizations have little room forsuch external sources of motivation.
These arguments serve as clear warnings against the use of behavior analysis and byextension, organizational behavior management (OBM), even when these disciplines are notexplicitly named by the authors. The implication is that external sources of motivation may have beenvalid in the past, but nowadays they are a relic in the modern business world—a 1950s psychology
for a 1950s workplace. The field as a whole becomes marginalized as the psychology of rats, pigeons,
intellectual impairments, and mindless work tasks. The more important complex higher-order skills
are viewed as outside of the purview of behavior analysts and their simplistic carrots and sticks.
While this is not all the field does, this is what it is mostly known for. In fairness to these criticisms,
the literature of OBM often does itself a disservice. Popular OBM books and articles tend to have
only the most superficial mentions of motivation (as it relates to both simple and complex behavior),
creativity, and innovation, if these topics are mentioned at all (Braksick, 2007; Daniels, 2016; Daniels& Bailey, 2014; C. M. Johnson, Redmon, & Mawhinney, 2001). If the field is not as limited as thecritics assert, then it is essential that the issues related to motivation, creativity, and innovation are
addressed within a behavioral paradigm. Furthermore, it is equally essential the arguments of these
critics are carefully examined.
Clarifying the Many Muddled Arguments
Addressing the critics of a behavioral approach can sometimes be difficult because they often
employ definitions that are inconsistent, unobservable, impractical, and incompatible with abehavioral framework. Clear examples of this conceptual disagreement in regards to the concept ofmotivation can be seen with the terms such as “reward/reinforcer” and “intrinsic/extrinsic
motivation”. As a starting point, it is important to clarify what is intended by these concepts fromboth behavioral and non-behavioral perspectives.

244

Motivation is typically defined as a theoretical construct which is inferred from goal-directedbehaviors. According to Levy (2017), “among the many definitions of work motivation, one thatstrikes me to be particularly useful is to view it as a force that drives people to behave in a way thatenergizes, directs, and sustains their work behavior.” He explains further that “Motivation is an
abstract internal concept that cannot be seen, touched or measured directly. We infer motivation from
employees’ behaviors; we operationalize it by measuring behavior choice, intensity and persistence.”
In defining motivation, it is important to look at what makes the verbal community call someone“motivated”; it is also necessary to focus on those variables that can be observed and controlled for if
the goal is to generate motivated people. With these aims in mind, motivation may be defined as theprocess in which variables control and maintain goal directed behaviors. It is often divided into two
categories: intrinsic and extrinsic motivation.
Perhaps due to the fact that intrinsic motivation is often treated as a hypothetical constructinferred from the behavior it is supposedly causing, it appears difficult to develop a universally
accepted definition of this concept (Akin-Little, Eckert, Lovett, & Little, 2004). In general, intrinsic
motivation is considered the causal variable for when performance occurs in the absence of obvious
extrinsic rewards (Cameron & Pierce, 1994). There is often the implication that such internally driven
actions are innate in origin (Dickinson, 1989), although it is sometimes also suggested that intrinsic
motivation can also be learned (Pink, 2009). This conceptualization can be problematic because
intrinsic motivation becomes the default source of motivation when observers fail to locate extrinsic
sources of motivation. The fact that there is no easily discovered external variable driving a behavior
does not mean that such variables do not exist. Extrinsic motivation could involve singular or
multiple sources of reinforcement that may be subtle or infrequent, which means the external control
could be easily missed by casual observation (e.g., very thin schedules of reinforcement, small facial
expressions that quickly convey approval, etc.).

245

A behavioral conceptualization of intrinsic motivation is more explicit about the source ofcontrol. From this perspective, intrinsic reinforcers involve the sensory consequences directly
produced by behavior and do not require the mediation by other individuals (Hayes, Rincover, &Volosin, 1980; Peters & Vollmer, 2014). The natural products of responding can have unlearned
reinforcing properties or be acquired through pairing with other reinforcing stimuli. Despite theassertions of some critics, the possibility of genetically determined sources of reinforcement is notproblematic for behavior analysis, especially since the reinforceability of an organism requires a
genetic inheritance in the first place (MacCorquodale, 1970). This perspective allows for a form of
automatic reinforcement in which response products may strengthen the very responses that produced
them. This opens up the possibility of learned behavior persisting for extended periods of time in theabsence of direct social mediation. Given the right history of pairing, the response products resulting
from intense efforts could also become intrinsic reinforcers, creating a type of learned industriousness(Eisenberger & Armeli, 1997). While taking note of the implications for delivery considerations,
there is no reason to believe that automatic and mediated sources of reinforcement would differ
dramatically in terms of their effect on behavior. The question of whether intrinsic or extrinsic
rewards/reinforcers have differential effects is ultimately an empirical issue, which will be discussed
shortly.
Before examining the evidence, some more terminological clarification is necessary. It is
important to recognize that rewards and reinforcers are not synonymous despite the fact many
researchers have treated them as though they were interchangeable (Akin-Little, Eckert, Lovett, &Little, 2004; Dickinson, 1989; Peters & Vollmer, 2014). Rewards are performance consequences
assumed to increase the probability of behavior, although a demonstration of this effect is not
required. Reinforcers are performance consequences that increased the strength of subsequent
behavior, regardless of any assumptions being made about their impact. To put it differently,

246

rewards are defined by their intended effect on behavior whereas reinforcers are defined by theiractual effect on behavior. Although these concepts sometimes overlap with one another, in practicethey are not always conveniently connected. The problem with confusing rewards with reinforcers isthat many of the studies that concluded that reinforcers decrease intrinsic motivation actually usedrewards. Another point of confusion between behavioral and non-behavioral conceptualizations
relates to the range of stimuli that qualify as external consequences. It becomes clear that many nonbehavioral authors only equate extrinsic consequences with token reinforcers. For example, Pink
(2009) frequently criticizes the use of monetary rewards to extrinsically motivate creative
performance, yet never seems to tackle stimuli such as praise, recognition, feedback, or verbal eventsin general. Behavioral conceptualizations of extrinsic reinforcers tend to be broader and more flexible
than the stimuli imagined by many critics.
The Drive for Shunning Extrinsic Rewards as a Means of Producing Innovation
The arguments against extrinsic rewards appear to stem from viewpoints related to theoverjustification effect, self-actualization, and a romanticism philosophy. The first of these—theoverjustification effect—suggests that behavior motivated by intrinsic outcomes will be underminedor damaged if extrinsic rewards are applied (Bernstein, 1990; Cameron & Pierce, 2002; Kohn, 1996;
Lepper, Keavney, & Drake, 1996). For example, if an employee is motivated by an interest in theirjob and an employer implements a performance-contingent reward system for a while and then stops
it, that employee will no longer be motivated by their interest in the job. This detrimental effect is
implied to be permanent which might explain the reason why extrinsic rewards are frowned upon.
There have been several claims made with bold confidence that are not matched by strong
evidence in the empirical literature. As secondary sources elevated such inconsistent and weakevidence to the status of “accepted fact,” the non-empirical claims of danger posed by external247

rewards became even bolder. One of the most prolific opponents of rewards went as far as to claimthat simply telling children “good job!” was a damaging parenting strategy and warned schools andbusinesses of the threat from behaviorism (Kohn, 1996; 2001; 2012). Some of the more fair-minded
critics have tried to downplay the unwarranted extensions by their colleagues (Lepper, Keavney, &Drake, 1996), but this does not alter the fact that ungrounded speculations have caused countlesseducators, parents, and managers to view extrinsic incentives with suspicion (Cameron & Pierce,
2002; Deci & Ryan, 2013; Eisenberger & Cameron, 1996; Flanagan, 2017).
As mentioned earlier, the book Drive makes heavy use of claims about the potential harm of
external incentives (Pink, 2009). A brief review of the content of this book may prove instructive forreaders as an exercise in critical thinking. This book is not being chosen because of something
particularly unique about it; these types of claims have been made before and variations of theseclaims will doubtlessly be made again. However, this bestseller does serve as a recent exemplar for
illustrating the problems of bold and unwarranted claims regarding the relation between rewards,
motivation, and creativity. Any OBM professional should be prepared to encounter these types ofclaims at some point in their career. In his book, Pink asserts three fundamental operating systems
through which he claims that humans function: Motivation 1.0, Motivation 2.0, and Motivation 3.0.
According to him, Motivation 1.0 presumes that humans are driven by basic needs such as food, sex,
shelter, water, etc. He explains that this fundamental presumption worked in primitive times whenhumanity’s sole purpose was survival, but the species is now long past such conditions. For thatreason, Motivation 2.0 eventually emerged. The premise of Motivation 2.0 is that humans are also
driven by rewards and punishment. Motivation 2.0 assumes that humans are not so different fromother animals in regards to these original two sources of motivation. However, humans have become
substantially more complex than they used to be. They are no longer required to do routine boringjobs and are now being tasked with interesting jobs that require creativity. He further argues

248

that extrinsic rewards and punishment may work for algorithmic tasks (i.e., rote behaviors that caneasily follow a clear and simple set of rules), but they are detrimental to more complex tasks that
depend greatly on intrinsic motivation. This leads him to claim that Motivation 2.0 has run its courseand has become largely obsolete. In its place, he recommends an upgrade termed Motivation 3.0.
The underlying premise of Motivation 3.0 is that the behavior of humans are not justinfluenced by basic needs, rewards and punishment, but that humans have higher drives, many ofwhich are internal. In order to fulfill this set of needs, Pink suggests that we do away with extrinsic
motivation and focus on cultivating intrinsic motivation by ensuring that individuals have autonomy,
mastery and purpose. To illustrate this, Drive—like many other popular press books—relies on
several anecdotes that are easily captivating in the absence of a critical analysis. For example, thefirst chapter (Pink, 2009) opens with a thought experiment involving an economist living back in
1995 who is told about two upcoming encyclopedias:
The first encyclopedia comes from Microsoft. As you know,
Microsoft is already a large and profitable company. And with this year's
introduction of Windows 95, it's about to become an era-defining colossus.
Microsoft will fund this encyclopedia. It will pay professional writers andeditors to craft articles on thousands of topics. Well-compensated managers
will oversee the project to ensure it's completed on budget and on time.
Then Microsoft will sell the encyclopedia on CD-ROMs and later online.
The second encyclopedia won't come from a company. It will becreated by tens of thousands of people who write and edit articles for fun.
These hobbyists won't need any special qualifications to participate. And
nobody will be paid a dollar or a euro or a yen to write or edit articles.

249

Participants will have to contribute their labor sometimes twenty and thirty
hours per week—for free. The encyclopedia itself, which will exist online,
will also be free—no charge for anyone who wants to use it. (pp. 15-16)
The hypothetical economist is then asked to predict the fates of these two encyclopedias,
stating that any rational person would naturally select Microsoft’s Encarta over Wikipedia. Of course,
the outcome of the described encyclopedias will likely be known to the present day reader. The
Encarta encyclopedia no longer exists, except as an entry on the popular Wikipedia. This issuggestive to the reader that the typical understanding of what drives human behavior is somehow
seriously flawed. The conclusion is then drawn that the extrinsically driven Encarta employees weresomehow negatively impacted, as compared with the intrinsically driven Wikipedia contributors.
However, this anecdote is misleading in that the motivation of employees was not the key factor in
Encarta’s demise. When it launched, Encarta had a staff of 70 editors, fact checkers, and indexers(Microsoft, 1997), as compared with the thousands of active contributors that have worked for
Wikipedia each year for most of its existence. Even the most motivated 70 full-time employees aregoing to have difficulty competing with thousands and thousands of part-time contributors. This
example also seems to grant little consideration to the experience of users in this contest between
Encarta and Wikipedia. If the hypothetical economist had been asked, “Which do you think would
succeed, the product that is free, easily found in popular search engines, and easy to access or the
product that costs $30-$100 and is difficult to access?”, it would be easy to imagine the economist
making an accurate prediction. Unfortunately, due to the relative name recognition of the products forthe average reader, this type of anecdote is likely to be quite persuasive, even though the success of
Wikipedia had nothing to do with a demotivating effect of extrinsic rewards on Encarta employees. A
similar misleading anecdote is later presented with the web browser, Firefox, again suggesting thatthe lack of extrinsic rewards for the Firefox volunteers was somehow the prime

250

factor for the browser’s success (ignoring the fact that more popular browsers currently exist thathave been created by paid employees). Management advice books like this often abound with such
imprecise analyses of anecdotes, twisting them into whatever point the author is hoping to make at
the moment. Again, the use of misleading anecdotes like this is not unique to Pink and any OBM
professional would be wise to critically analyze the arguments from any author depending on them.
In many ways, the philosophy of Pink and his contemporaries could be viewed as a type of
Maslow 2.0, a new wave of humanism mixed with some cognitive science. Pink frequently makes
references to self-direction and self-actualization throughout his book as the main motivators forcreativity and innovation. Self-actualization is the topmost need on Maslow’s hierarchy of needs andPink argues that organizations should be designed with this mind. Of course, the notion thatorganizational structures that foster employee progression through Maslow’s hierarchy of needs will
promote creativity is hardly a new one (Ghiselli & Johnson, 1970). Overall, Pink’s claim is thathumans possess higher drives such as the motivation to learn, to create, and to better the world.
Unfortunately, theories of this type give managers very little recourse, except to perhaps stay out of
the way of their employees and hope for the best.
The Puzzling Empirical Foundation behind the Shunning of Extrinsic Rewards
To the credit of Pink, he does cite some empirical studies to back up his anecdotes, primarilya series of studies conducted separately by Harry Harlow and Edward Deci. As depicted by Pink,
Harlow investigated sources of motivation using eight rhesus monkeys. The book describes anexperimental setup in which a mechanical contraption in the form of a puzzle was placed in the cagesof the monkeys. To solve this puzzle, the monkeys would have to pull out a vertical pin, unhinge ahook, and then lift a metal hasp. Perplexingly, the monkeys spent two weeks solving this puzzle
without any prompting by the experimenters. In the words of Pink, the monkeys spent their timesolving the puzzles with “focus, determination, and what looked like enjoyment” (p. 2) and251

became quite adept at this daily challenge. Towards the end of the two week period, Harlow added an
extrinsic reward in the form of raisins. However, Pink reports that the introduction of an extrinsic
reward disrupted performance by increasing errors. This is presented as an unexplainable finding
according to the prevailing theories that was so contentious that Harlow had to abandon the researchrather than fight the scientific establishment.
Unfortunately, Pink’s description of the Harlow experiment is inaccurate for multiple reasons.
The study in question—Harlow, Harlow, and Meyer (1950)—did indeed involve eight monkeys, but
the procedures Pink described only applied to four of the monkeys. The monkeys were divided into
two equal groups: Group A that was supposed to disassemble the puzzle and Group B that was
supposed to assemble the puzzle. However, no instances of assembling behavior were observed withGroup B and no data were reported for these four monkeys in regards to food rewards. The remaining
four monkeys in the disassembling Group A did indeed spend much of the two weeks interactingwith the puzzle, although the article never described their behavior in terms of focus, determination,or enjoyment (this embellishment was Pink’s invention). Such patterns of behavior would not be
unexplainable to behavior analysts, despite Pink’s suggestion of a confused establishment (there is noevidence that Harlow was pressured to quit his supposedly “controversial” research), who have longacknowledged the possibility of sensory stimulation as an unlearned form of intrinsic reinforcement(Hayes, Rincover, & Volosin, 1980; Skinner, 1953). In regards to errors, there are several important
things to note. First, for one of the four monkeys in Group A (Subject 151), the error rate actually
decreased following the introduction of the raisins underneath the metal hasp. It is also worth notingthat the most error prone monkey (Subject 143) had a history of making many errors prior to theintroduction of external rewards. Finally, the topography of the errors is noteworthy. As Harlow andhis colleagues stated,

252

The difference in the kind of errors is also very striking. In the initial
10 tests without food reward, the monkeys never approached the problem bytouching the hasp first; in the subsequent tests, all three monkeys always
erred by attacking (literally) the hasp first. (p. 231)
In other words, the monkeys tried to directly access the raisin that was crushed beneath the hasprather than perform the preceding steps of removing the pin and hook securing that hasp. When thishastier tactic failed, emotional and aggressive behaviors were evoked that were likely incompatible
with careful manipulation of the puzzle. None of these events sound like monkeys suffering a loss of
performance motivation, even though Pink spends much of his book arguing about the demotivating
effects of external rewards on creative performance (also worth highlighting that Harlow’s puzzle
was a rote, not creative, task). Nonetheless, the performance of only three monkeys wasinappropriately twisted to support a completely separate premise. Yet, for readers who are notattentive to the finer details found in primary sources, it is likely that Pink’s argument against
external incentives will be persuasive. Pink further bolsters his empirical evidence with humanparticipants using research studies conducted by Edward Deci. In his studies, Deci used the soma
puzzle which consists of seven pieces: six pieces with four one-inch cubes and one piece with three
one-inch cubes. Deci investigated the effects of monetary rewards on participants’ engagement withthe puzzles. The detrimental effect of external rewards did not, in the words of the author, “reach thecustomary .05 level” of statistical significance (Deci, 1971). Nonetheless, the author still claimed thatthe findings supported the proposed hypothesis. One year later, the author conducted a similar
follow-up study which did not yield significant outcome (p < .24), yet it was claimed that the
supposed detrimental effect was “substantial and deserves some attention.” (Deci, 1972). Much like
Harlow’s puzzle, it is unclear how the rote puzzle solving behavior from an ambiguous set ofresearch results ties into workplace creativity, but the equivalence between external rewards and253

negative outcomes is still being made in service of that argument. This shaky empirical foundation
combined with several anecdotes forms the basis of asserting that creativity and innovation must be
developed through intrinsic motivation. Again, Pink’s arguments are not unusual within the larger
context of criticisms leveled against rewards for influencing motivation and creativity, so, concerns
about the misuse of anecdotes and evidence should not be restricted to this particular author.
Common Flaws across Research Studies
The research studies examining the detrimental effect of extrinsic rewards are more expansive
than the few problematic studies cited earlier. As noted by several behavioral researchers, thefollowing flaws are commonly seen across many research studies examining the impact of extrinsic
rewards on intrinsic motivation (Akin-Little, Eckert, Lovett, & Little, 2004; Bernstein, 1990;
Cameron & Pierce, 2002; Dickinson, 1989; Eisenberger & Armeli, 1997; Eisenberger & Cameron,
1996; Peters & Vollmer, 2014; Williams, 1980):•

Research designs: Research studies often fail to conduct repeated measures of
performance, despite the fact that the primary concern is whether motivation isnegatively impacted over time. Instead, much of the research utilizes pre- and posttest
samplings of behavior. The observation periods of the sessions used in the studies are
typically short and there is usually no follow-up after the study. The majority ofstudies that have employed repeated measures do not find evidence of a detrimental
effect of external rewards.

•

Consequences: It is rare that the consequences used in the studies that criticize
external reinforcement are actually tested for reinforcing properties. Rather, the use ofuntested and often non-contingent rewards is assumed to be equivalent to the use ofcontingent reinforcers. This is a problematic assumption for reasons discussed earlier.

254

•

Performance standards: The manner in which instructions are given for earning
rewards tends to be overlooked by researchers. Many studies do not establish
minimum standards for rewards to be earned, unlike typical real world applications.
Instructions can have a powerful effect on subsequent performance, a variable rarely
controlled for in many studies critical of external consequences.

Given the inconsistency of evidence supporting the viewpoint that external rewards have a damaging
effect on performance (creative or otherwise), it is curious how passionate the warnings against theiruse have been. As past authors have pointed out, this may be because at the heart of the matter resides
a philosophical rather than empirical dispute (Akin-Little, Eckert, Lovett, & Little, 2004; Bernstein,
1990; Dickinson, 1989; Eisenberger & Cameron, 1996; Winston & Baker, 1985). The success ofexternal rewards challenges the romantic individualism perspective of humanity, in which theautonomous organism is the initiator of their own actions. From this viewpoint, any perceived
attempt to influence how people engage in self-discovery, self-expression, and self-fulfillment would
be seen as threatening and/or wrongheaded, regardless of the results found in research. In a rush tohave a confrontation for philosophical reasons, the science can sometimes be lost in the name ofrevolution (MacCorquodale, 1970). Nonetheless, for those more interested in practical, rather thanphilosophical, solutions for motivational issues, it is worth exploring a behavioral view of motivationand innovation. This is a critical consideration because many business owners may not be able to findemployees who are innately motivated to a sufficient degree and therefore will need guidance toimpact the variables that are under their control.
Behavioral Approaches for Driving Motivation
People with little knowledge of behavior analysis tend to think of it as a very simplistic
approach to influencing behaviors. The field tends to be much more complex than imagined, evenwhen it comes to the issue of motivation. First off, it is important to note that behavior analysts (and255

society in general) rarely apply external consequences when behavior is already occurring to a
sufficient degree. As B. F. Skinner said during his famous debate with Carl Rogers, our culture
objects to “wasting reinforcers where they are not needed or will do no good.” (Rogers & Skinner,
1956, p. 1058). Perhaps due to the response effort on the part of the delivery agent, the societal statusquo (including the practices of behavioral experts) is to reserve mediated reinforcement for situations
in which the level of behavior is insufficient, thus rendering many of the concerns regarding theapplication of unnecessary and detrimental reinforcers superfluous. When the baseline levels of selfmotivation are not strong enough to serve the needs of the organization, there are several proceduresthat can be used to increase goal directed behavior (McGee & Johnson, 2015). In fact, one of themain advantages of conceptualizing motivation in terms of factors that influence goal directedbehavior, rather than as a hypothetical construct, is that it makes several behavior improvement
strategies more apparent.
There are several antecedent strategies that can increase goal directed behavior, such as task
clarification, goal setting, feedback, and process redesign, which are discussed elsewhere in thisvolume. Another antecedent strategy that is quite important in regards to motivation is the concept ofthe motivating operation. A motivating operation is a change in the environment that increases theeffectiveness of consequences and evokes behaviors that are related to those consequences. Several
unlearned examples readily illustrate how motivating operations can make outcomes more valuable.
Food deprivation will make food more effective as a reinforcer and will evoke food seeking
behaviors. Food satiation will make food less effective as a reinforcer and will abate food seeking
behaviors. Salt ingestion will make liquid more effective as a reinforcer and will evoke liquid seeking
behaviors. Other unlearned motivating operations include environmental changes related to sleep,
oxygen, temperature, activity, sexual stimulation, and pain (Michael, 2004). As powerful as these
operations are, unlearned motivating operations are largely irrelevant in organizational settings since256managers cannot legally or ethically manipulate the variables related to these events. Alternatively,
conditioned motivating operations—in which the evocative effects are acquired through learning—remain quite relevant for workplace interventions. Two operations with the broadest applicability to
OBM, reflexive conditioned motivating operations (CMO-R) and transitive conditioned motivating
operations (CMO-T), will be covered here.
Reflexive CMOs involve the presentation of stimuli that are correlated with the onset of someenvironmental worsening and whose removal will function as reinforcement (Michael, 2004). It may
be helpful to think of the CMO-R as a type of warning stimulus about a forthcoming aversive event.
One of the most obvious examples involves managers who frequently capitalize on threats tomotivate their employees. The threat (CMO-R) is correlated with the onset of environmental
worsening (e.g., demotion, public embarrassment, loss of income, termination). The threat also
evokes behaviors (e.g., working harder, faster, or more carefully) to remove the same threat.
Unfortunately, this motivational strategy tends to be a short-term organizational solution in that
CMO-Rs are self-terminating. This is because the CMO-R evokes behaviors that will remove thatsame CMO-R and once these behaviors are successful, the evocative effect will be immediately
removed (i.e., no motivation once the threat is gone). Although a manager could consider constantly
re-establishing the CMO-R (i.e., continuously making threats correlated with aversive outcomes),
doing so may raise the overall aversive properties of the workplace beyond industry standards,
resulting in undesirable side effects (e.g., turnover, sabotage, excessive sick time, avoidance ofauthority figures).
Some CMO-Rs may involve a time element that results in the evocative effects becoming
progressively stronger, such as is the case with deadlines. Most members of society likely have alearning history in which missing a deadline has resulted in some type of environmental worsening
created by the social community. Typically, two conditions need to be present for the social

257

community to apply such aversive control: a) the task was incomplete and b) there is no longer any
time left to complete the task. Through enough pairings of these conditions with aversive stimulation,
the compound stimulus condition of “task incomplete-no time left” begins to function as a CMO-R.
A removal or decrement of either component will weaken the evocative effects of such a deadlinebased CMO-R. For example, at the beginning of an interval in which work has been assigned, theevocative effects tend to be weak because there is plenty of time remaining. Likewise, the evocative
effects will also be weak if there is little time remaining but the task is nearly complete. However, if
the task remains incomplete and time elapses, the current stimulus conditions begin to moreprogressively resemble the CMO-R and therefore the evocative effects become progressively
stronger, typically resulting in the procrastination scallop described elsewhere (Michael, 2004). Just
as it may be helpful to think of a CMO-R as a warning stimulus, it may also be helpful to think of adeadline-based CMO-R as a warning stimulus that gradually gets louder over time. The history thatdevelops such patterns of behavior is learned inconsistently across members of culture and therefore
is should be expected that there will be great variability in the responsiveness of individuals to
deadlines.
Transitive CMOs involve an environmental change where one stimulus (S1) alters thereinforcing effectiveness of another stimulus (S2) and evokes behaviors related to that reinforcer (S2)(Michael, 2004). This is a conditional type of operation, in that the reinforcer becomes valuable in thepresence of the CMO-T and stops being valuable in the absence of that CMO-T (technical note: thisdiffers from discriminative stimuli in that this relationship is not based on the availability ofreinforcement for responding, just its effectiveness). For example, a pet store employee may beapproached by a customer asking for a cichlid fish. The customer request (S1) serves as a CMO-T
that makes the stimulus of a fish net (S2) more valuable. The customer request also evokes
behaviors related to the fish net, such as searching for the net or asking another employee about the258

net’s location. Another example of a CMO-T could be seen in a night club where a bartender
encounters a drunk and belligerent customer (S1), which would establish the close proximity of theclub security (S2) as reinforcing. In the presence of this CMO-T, behaviors related to S2, such as
waving a bouncer over or telling another employee to call security, are evoked. A final example
could be seen in a restaurant kitchen. Line cooks are able to sample their food to gauge its saltiness
whenever they want, but may lack the motivation to do so. One night the restaurant manager
institutes a new and ongoing policy stating that from then onwards, he will be randomly sampling thefood before sending it out to customers. The notification of product sampling (S1) establishes
appropriately seasoned food (S2) as more reinforcing and evokes behaviors such as adjusting salt
levels and tasting the food before plating it. Notice that appropriately seasoned food does not become
more available, just more valuable. Furthermore, since the evoked behaviors do not remove thepolicy of managerial product sampling, this does not qualify as a reflexive type of CMO.
Although antecedent changes can be quite effective in motivating performance, so canchanges in organizational procedures related to consequences. For example, certain schedules ofreinforcer delivery will be more effective than others. Details on specific schedules can be foundelsewhere in this volume, but for this chapter it will suffice to point out that the intermittent
reinforcement of goal directed behavior will create more resistance to extinction than will continuous
reinforcement (D. A. Johnson, Harrell, & Pachman, 1979). With the proper and careful thinning of areinforcement schedule, behavior can persist with little change in its overall pattern despite extensive
durations of unreinforced responses (Ferster & Skinner, 1957: Skinner, 1950). Regardless of thedelivery schedule, it is important to ensure that the outcomes actually have reinforcing properties,
either through motivating operation manipulations or identifying already effective consequences via
the use of preference assessments (discussed elsewhere in this volume).

259

Establishing Reinforcement for Behavior That Has Never Occurred Before
Even a highly motivated (intrinsically or extrinsically) employee will not automatically becreative, despite popular press suggestions to the contrary. It is important to develop certain aspectsof the behavioral repertoire that will be capitalized upon using a properly engineered environment. At
this point, it may be worthwhile to distinguish between novelty and creativity. This is a challenging
task since definitions of creativity are seemingly endless and easily argued over. However, mostdefinitions of creativity seem to involve two features: 1) the production of a novel behavior and 2)
that behavior having value to the society at large (D. Johnson, 2015; Kubina, Morrison, & Lee,2006). As such, novelty involves instances of behavior that are sufficiently different from previously
emitted behavior, whereas creativity further involves novel behavior that is valued by the social
community. Sometimes creativity is further distinguished between minor forms of creativity(response variability, rule following, imitation, etc.) and major forms of creativity (when controllingvariables are not easily observed by others).
It may also be useful to distinguish between three general types of learning: psychomotor,
simple cognitive, and complex cognitive (Sota, Leon, & Layng, 2011; Tiemann & Markle, 1990).
Psychomotor learning involves the differentiation of responding without reference to any particular
controlling stimulus. For example, the motion of twisting a tool or acquiring the unique movement of
vocal musculature to produce a particular pronunciation would fall under psychomotor learning.
Simple cognitive learning involves the development of discriminative control over responding so that
reliably trained relations emerge. An example of this would be recognizing a customer cue as anantecedent to deliver a scripted sales tactic. Complex cognitive learning involves the extension of
behavioral relations to novel controlling variables that were not directly trained. For example, pulling
together several previously trained behaviors and customizing them to the demands of a new type ofcustomer. The novel extensions seen within the last category is where the desired forms of creative260

behavior are found, but that doesn’t necessarily mean the complex cognitive skills should be the firsttarget for intervention. This is because learning lower-order skills can foster the emergence ofadvanced higher-order skills, especially if the skills are developed to fluency. Developing
psychomotor skills to a fast and accurate level of proficiency will make the acquisition of simple
cognitive skills more likely, just as mastery of simple cognitive skills will help with the acquisition ofcomplex cognitive skills. Fluency with all skills at each of the levels will make it more likely theindividual will combine and recombine behavioral components to produce novel patterns of behavior
when placed in situation requiring creativity (K. Johnson & Street, 2004). If the trained repertoires
are well selected, the potential is tremendous for countless novel extensions (Alessi, 1987), some ofwhich will be trivial and some of which will be of great practical value.
The benefit of establishing diverse components to fluency within the employee’s repertoire
can be seen with research related to the interconnection of repertoires and contingency adduction(Kubina, Morrison, & Lee, 2006). With both types of learning, the individual is placed in a situationthat necessitates a novel pattern of behavior. To successfully meet this demand, previously
established knowledge, skills, or abilities are recruited and combined into novel behavior patterns inservice of a similar reinforcement contingency (interconnection) or in service of a completely
different reinforcement contingency (adduction). With both phenomena, key skills are trained tofluency and the training of these component skills may even be separated across great lengths oftime. The observed process for such prior training may involve a slow and gradual acquisition of
new skills that is fairly well understood by the general public (i.e., keep practicing until mastery).
When facing an unfamiliar situation necessitating a behavior pattern that had never been emitted
before, the previously discontinuous skills are then rapidly combined into a new successful
composite pattern. If an observer was ignorant of the previous training of the separate component
skills, the occurrence of the composite pattern would likely be ascribed to mentalism (e.g., “the261solution was suddenly perceived in the mind”), quasi-magical processes (e.g., “the solution just camefrom out of nowhere”), or a satisfied appeal to ignorance (e.g., “the amazing thing about creativity is
how mysterious it is”). Such explanations are antithetical to engineering new instances of novelty andwill likely lead to wait-and-hope types of interventions. The behavioral conceptualization provides analternative and pragmatic formulation in which skills thought likely to be relevant to a solution can betrained to fluency and the individual can be placed in situations that warrant new combinations of old
skills.
Experimental work done by Epstein, Kirshnit, Lanza, & Rubin (1984) can provide an
example of this type of sudden emergence of useful novelty. In their replication of Köhler’s (1925)
famous chimpanzee insight demonstration, pigeons were placed in a chamber containing a small box
on the ground and a plastic banana suspended out of the pigeon’s reach. Pecking the banana would
produce food reinforcement, but not if the pigeon jumped or flew towards the banana. To be
successful under these circumstances called for a pattern of behavior never seen before by the
pigeons, in that they would have to move the box underneath the banana, climb the box, and thenpeck the banana for food (roughly analogous to the situation that confronted Köhler’s
chimpanzees). Some pigeons solved this problem readily whereas other pigeons never solved it. The
critical variable determining success or failure was the pre-existing repertoire of the pigeons. Some ofthe pigeons had histories that firmly established three component skills to fluency: 1) directional
pushing of a box, 2) climbing a box while pecking a banana, and 3) extinction of flying and jumping
in the presence of the banana. These skills were never chained together during training, butinterconnected into a complete and successful behavior pattern during the test situation. Any
pigeons who were trained on some, but not all, of the three component skills failed to produce thecreative solutions. Although this study involves animals in a controlled setting, the fundamentals ofcombining previously established repertoires with new demands remains just as relevant for262

organizations needing to engineer innovations on the part of employees. For example, an employee
may create a novel proposal for a mobile app well-suited for the current market demands by
combining skills acquired in their past education and their experience with divisions related to thosemarkets. A repertoire that was deficient in any of the relevant skills would have prevented the
production of the creative idea.
Not only is the employee’s history relevant to the production of a creative solution, but thecurrent environment is also equally relevant. Changes in the current environment will alter the
probability of the appropriate solutions being emitted. Either management or the employees
themselves can make these alterations. The notion of individuals rearranging their own environments
is a major element in a behavioral approach to problem-solving (Robbins, 2011; Skinner, 1953;
Tiemann & Markle, 1990). This is because in the process of arranging and rearranging features of thesurrounding environment, new supplementary sources of stimulation begin to exert stimulus control
over successful solutions. For example, a copywriter unable to develop a viable marketing slogan
may begin to read new books or take a walk while eavesdropping on the surrounding conversations.
The exposure to new sources of stimulation may evoke a response that was weak in the previous
environment and the copywriter suddenly has an “insight” of the perfect slogan for the advertisement.
As discussed elsewhere in this volume, behavior has many different dimensions that can betargeted for intervention, such as frequency, duration, quality, timeliness, and more. Novelty andcreativity can also be considered dimensions of behavior and reinforcing outcomes can be madecontingent upon such behaviors (Eisenberger & Cameron, 1996). Although some authors havewarned that extrinsic incentives tend to narrow behavior so that creativity is excluded (Pink, 2009), it
is important to note that many of the studies showing detrimental effects of external rewards uponcreativity were studies that targeted productivity alone (Lepper, Greene, & Nisbett, 1973). However,263

when researchers differentially reinforced original instances of behavior, novel performances were
found to increase (Byron & Khanzanchi, 2012; Eisenberger & Armeli, 1997). If a manager wants
creativity, it is important that the manager pays for creativity; not pay for some other dimension of
behavior while hoping for creativity. The announcement of stated policies to target creativity may
serve as a motivating operation to establish novel response products as reinforcing. If creativity is
exclusively targeted, it may be possible that a performer will spend extensive periods of time emitting
novel behavior without reinforcement. This is because creativity depends upon the values of thesocial community, not just the individual’s performance, and what will be valued is often not
explicitly known to either the performer or the social community itself in advance. This can becorrected for by either targeting novelty instead of creativity or by establishing a reinforcement
history that results in a high resistance to extinction. The latter approach may be advantageous incapitalizing upon the principle of resurgence (Epstein, 2015). Resurgence involves the emittance ofprevious forms of behavior when recent forms of behavior are no longer reinforced. Resurgence often
produces novel variations, combinations, and extensions of previously reinforced behavior and thesenew patterns of behavior may represent desired forms of creativity to the organization.
Interconnecting the Previous Components (Summary Guidelines)
Even if the conceptual digressions above are beyond the interests of a manager, the practicalguidelines that emerge remain relatively straightforward and practical. Managers interested inengineering a workforce that persistently works towards innovation would do well to consider thefollowing practices:•

Personnel selection and training should ensure employees have fluency with knowledge,
skills, and abilities suspected to be components of the innovative needs. Of course, sinceinnovation may involve outcomes presently unknown to the company, it may be important tobe generous with the inclusion of components suspected to be relevant to a solution. The

264

more diverse these components are, the more likely that interconnections and extensions canoccur that will be of value to the organization. Building fluency efficiently may require
careful behavior-based instructional design (D. A. Johnson, 2014; Markle, 1990; Tiemann &Markle, 1990) and training (Brethower & Smalley, 1998).
•

Valuable innovation will require many creative failures, so it is important to engineer
persistence through intermittent reinforcement and to minimize aversive consequences forerrors to offset the effects of punishment.

•

Novelty and/or creativity should be directly and explicitly targeted as a dimension of
behavior for reinforcement. Whether done through motivating operations or preference
assessments, it is important to ensure organizational rewards actually have reinforcing
properties.

•

Frequently rearrange the environment (through employee or managerial initiatives) so thatnovel sources of stimulus control can evoke creative behaviors that would otherwise be
weak.

•

Pair the response products of creative endeavors with reinforcing stimuli. If done correctly,
novel response products themselves will serve as automatic reinforcement. This may help
facilitate novel performance during times when social mediation is not possible.

•

Do not expect intrinsic motivation to be sufficient for creativity, even if explicitly depending
upon automatic reinforcement. Behaviors of interest to the organization will not continue
perpetually in the absence of external consequences, even after arranging for a very thinschedule of reinforcement. Occasional re-pairing procedures will be needed to maintainbehavior in the long run (Conard, Johnson, Morrison, & Ditzian, 2016; Malott, 2001).

265

Although this list is a useful starting point for practitioners, much remains to be discovered. In order
to continue proving the relevance of behavior analysis and OBM for higher order skills, researchers
are strongly encouraged to tackle this fertile and complex area.

266

References
Alessi, G. (1987). Generative strategies and teaching for generalization. The Analysis of Verbal Behavior,
5, 15-27.
Asimov, I. (1991). Robot visions. New York, NY: Roc.
Autor, D. H. (2015). Why are there still so many jobs? The history and future of workplace automation.
Journal of Economic Perspectives, 29(3), 3-30. doi:10.1257/jep.29.3.3
Akin-Little, K. A., Eckert, T. L., Lovett, B. J., & Little, S. G. (2004). Extrinsic reinforcement in theclassroom: Bribery or best practice. School Psychology Review, 33(3), 344-362.
Bartlett, F.C. (1962). The future of ergonomics. Ergonomics, 5, 505–511.
Bernstein, D. J. (1990). Of carrots and sticks: A review of Deci and Ryan’s intrinsic motivation and selfdetermination in human behavior. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 54(3), 323332.
Bogue, R. (2014). What future for humans in assembly? Assembly Automation, 34, 305-309.
doi:10.1108/AA-06-2014-057
Braksick, L. W. (2007) Unlock behavior, unleash profits: Developing leadership behavior that drives
profitability in your organization. New York: McGraw Hill Professional.
Brethower, D., & Smalley, K. (1998). Performance-based instruction: Linking training to businessresults. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass/Pfeiffer.
Brynjolfsson, E., & McAfee, A. (2014). The second machine age: Work, progress and prosperity in atime of brilliant technologies. New York, NY: W.W. Norton & Company, Inc.
Byron, K., & Khazanchi, S. (2012). Rewards and creative performance: A meta-analytic test oftheoretically derived hypotheses. Psychological Bulletin, 138(4), 809-830. doi:10.1037/a0027652
Cameron, J., & Pierce, W. D. (1994). Reinforcement, reward, and intrinsic motivation: A meta-analysis.
Review of Educational Research, 64(3), 363-423.

267

Cameron, J. & Pierce, W. D. (2002). Rewards and intrinsic motivation: Resolving the controversy.
Westport, CT: Bergin & Garvey.
Catmull, E., & Wallace, A. (2014). Creativity, Inc.: Overcoming the unseen forces that stand in the wayof true inspiration. New York, NY: Random House.
Chelliah, J. (2017). Will artificial intelligence usurp white collar jobs? Human Resource Management
International Digest, 25, 1-3. doi:10.1108/HRMID-11-2016-0152
Conard, A. L., Johnson, D. A., Morrison, J. D., & Ditzian, K. (2016). Tactics to ensure durability of
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. doi:10.1080/01608061.2016.1201036
Daniels, A. C., & Bailey, J. S. (2014). Performance management: Changing behavior that drives
organizational effectiveness. Atlanta, GA: Performance Management Publications.
Daniels, A. C. (2016). Bringing out the best in people: How to apply the astonishing power of positive
reinforcement. New York, NY: McGraw Hill Professional.
Deci, E. L. (1971). Effects of externally mediated rewards on intrinsic motivation. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 18(1), 105-115. doi:10.1037/h0030644
Deci, E. L. (1972). Intrinsic motivation, extrinsic reinforcement and inequity. Journal of Personality andSocial Psychology, 22(1), 113-120. doi:10.1037/h0032355
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2013). The ombudsman: Do CEO’s aspirations for wealth harm
stockholders? Interfaces, 43, 593-595. doi:10.1287/inte.2013.0707
Dickinson, A. M. (1989). The detrimental effects of extrinsic reinforcement on “intrinsic motivation”. The
Behavior Analyst, 12(1), 1-15.

268

Eisenberger, R., & Armeli, S. (1997). Can salient reward increase creative performance without reducing
intrinsic creative interest? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72(3), 652-663.
doi:10.1037/0021-9010.86.1.42
Eisenberger, R., & Cameron, J. (1996). Detrimental effects of reward: Reality or myth? American
Psychologist, 51(11), 1153-1166. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.51.11.1153
Epstein, R. (2015). On the rediscovery of the principle of resurgence. Revista Mexicana de Análisis de laConducta [Mexican Journal of Behavior Analysis], 41, 19-43.
Epstein, R., Kirshnit, C. E., Lanza, R., & Rubin, L. C. (1984). “Insight” in the pigeon: Antecedents anddeterminants of an intelligent performance. Nature, 308, 61–62. doi:10.1038/308061a0
Ferster, C. B., & Skinner, B. F. (1957). Schedules of reinforcement. East Norwalk, CT: AppletonCentury-Crofts.
Flanagan, L. (2017, August 29). How ending behavior rewards helped one school focus on student
motivation and character. MindShift. Retrieved fromhttps://ww2.kqed.org/mindshift/2017/08/29/how-ending-behavior-rewards-helped-one-schoolfocus-on-student-motivation-and-character/
Frey, C. B., & Osborne, M. A. (2017). The future of employment: How susceptible are jobs tocomputerization? Technological Forecasting & Social Change, 114, 254-280.
doi:10.1016/j.techfore.2016.08.019
Ghiselli, E. E., & Johnson, D. A. (1970). Need satisfaction, managerial success, and organizational
structure. Personnel Psychology, 23, 569-576. doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.1970.tb01373.x
Gundry, L. K., Muñoz-Fernandez, A., Ofstein, L. F., & Ortega-Egea, T. (2016) Innovating inorganizations: A model of climate components facilitating the creation of new value. Innovatingin Organizations, 25(2), 223-238. doi:10.1111/caim.12116

269

Harlow, H. F., Harlow, M. K., & Meyer, D. R. (1950). Learning motivated by a manipulative drive.
Journal of Experimental Psychology, 40(2), 228-234. doi:10.1037/h0056906
Hayes, S. C., Rincover, A., & Volosin, D. (1980). Variables influencing the acquisition and maintenanceof aggressive behavior: Modeling versus sensory reinforcement. Journal of Abnormal Psychology,
89(2), 254-262. doi:10.1037/0021-843X.89.2.254
Johnson, C. M., Redmon, W. K., & Mawhinney, T. C. (2001). Handbook of organizational performance:
Behavior analysis and management. Binghamton, NY: The Haworth Press.
Johnson, D. A. (2014). The need for an integration of technology, behavior-based instructional design,and contingency management: An opportunity for behavior analysis. Revista Mexicana deAnálisis de la Conducta [Mexican Journal of Behavior Analysis], 40, 58-72.
Johnson, D. (2015). Teaching outside the lines: Developing creativity in every learner. Thousand Oaks,
CA: Corwin.
Johnson, D. A., Harrell, E. H., & Pachman, J. (1979). Effects of delay of extinction on resistance toextinction. The Psychological Record, 29(1), 111-118.
Johnson, K., & Street, E. M. (2004). The Morningside model of generative instruction. What it means toleave no child behind. Concord, MA: Cambridge Center for Behavioral Studies.
Köhler, W. (1925). The mentality of apes. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Kohn, A. (1993). Punished by rewards: The trouble with gold stars, incentive plans, A’s, praise, andother bribes. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Kohn, A. (1996). By all available means: Cameron and Pierce’s defense of extrinsic motivators. Review of
Educational Research, 66(1), 1-4. doi:10.2307/1170722
Kohn, A. (2001). Five reasons to stop saying “good job”. Young Children, 56(5), 24-30.
Kohn, A. (2012). The case against grades. Educational Leadership, 69(3), 28-33.

270

Kubina, R. M., Morrison, R. S., & Lee, D. L. (2006). Behavior analytic contributions to the study ofcreativity. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 40(4), 223–242. doi:10.1002/j.21626057.2006.tb01275.x
Landry, B. J., Mahesh, S., & Hartman, S. (2005). The changing nature of work in the age of e-business.
Journal of Organizational Change Management, 18(2), 132-144.
doi:10.1108/09534810510589561
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(1), 129–137. doi:10.1037/h0035519
Lepper, M. R., Keavney, M., & Drake, M. (1996). Intrinsic motivation and extrinsic rewards: A
commentary on Cameron and Pierce’s meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 66(1), 532. doi:10.2307/1170723
Levy, P. E. (2017). Motivation. In Industrial/Organizational Psychology: Understanding the workplace(281-315). New York, NY: Worth Publishers.
MacCorquodale, K. (1970). On Chomsky’s review of Skinner’s verbal behavior. Journal of theExperimental Analysis of Behavior, 13(1), 83-99. doi:10.1901/jeab.1970.13-83
Malott, R. W. (2001). Occupational safety and response maintenance: An alternate view. Journal of
Organizational Behavior Management, 21(1), 85-102. doi:10.1300/J075v21n01_08
Markle, S. M. (1990). Designs for instructional designers. Champaign, IL: Stipes Publishing Company.
McGee, H. M., & Johnson, D. A. (2015). Performance motivation as the behaviorist views it.
Performance Improvement, 54(4), 15-21. doi:10.1002/pfi.21472
Michael, J. (2004). Concepts and principles of behavior analysis (2nd ed.). Kalamazoo, MI: Associationfor Behavior Analysis International.
Michalko, M. (2001). Cracking creativity: The secrets of creative genius. New York, NY: Ten Speed
Press.

271

Microsoft (1997, March 11). Microsoft Encarta Encyclopedia named first in its class by both PC
Magazine and FamilyPC. [Press release] Retrieved fromhttp://news.microsoft.com/1997/03/11/microsoft-encarta-encyclopedia-named-first-in-its-classby-both-pc-magazine-and-familypc/
Peters, K. P., & Vollmer, T. R. (2014). Evaluations of the overjustification effect. Journal of Behavioral
Education, 23(2), 201-220. doi:10.1007/s10864-013-9193-1
Pink, D. H. (2009). Drive: The surprising truth about what motivates us. New York, NY: Riverhead
Books.
Robbins, J. K. (2011). Problem solving, reasoning, and analytical thinking in a classroom environment.
The Behavior Analyst Today, 12, 40-47. doi:10.1037/h0100710
Robinson, A. G., & Stern, S. (1998). Corporate creativity: How innovation and improvement actually
happen. San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler Publishers.
Rogers, C. R., & Skinner, B. F. (1956). Some issues concerning the control of human behavior: A
symposium. Science, 124, 1057-1066. doi:10.1126/science.124.3231.1057
Skinner, B. F. (1950). Are theories of learning necessary? Psychological Review, 57, 193-216.
doi:10.1037/h0054367
Skinner, B. F. (1953). Science and human behavior. New York, NY: Simon and Schuster.
Skinner, B. F. (1958). Teaching machines. Science, 128, 969-977. doi:10.1126/science.128.3330.969
Skinner, B. F. (1961). Why we need teaching machines. Harvard Educational Review, 3, 377-398.
Sota, M., Leon, M., & Layng, T. V. J. (2011). Thinking through text comprehension II: Analysis of verbal
and investigative repertoires. The Behavior Analyst Today, 12, 12-20. doi:10.1037/h0100707
Tiemann, P. W., & Markle, S. M. (1990). Analyzing instructional content. Champaign, IL: Stipes.
Williams, B. W. (1980). Reinforcement, behavior constraint, and the overjustification effect. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 39(4), 599-614. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.39.4.599

272

Winston, A. S., & Baker, J. E. (1985). Behavior analytic studies of creativity: A critical review. The
Behavior Analyst, 8, 191-205.

273