This article was downloaded by: [New York University]

On: 30 April 2015, At: 15:13

Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954
Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Journal of Organizational Behavior

Management
Publication details, including instructions for authors and
subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/worg20

Organizational Behavior
Modification
a b
Fred Luthans & Mark J. Martinko
a
Department of Management, University of Nebraska
b
Department of Management, Florida State University
Published online: 26 Oct 2008.

To cite this article: Fred Luthans & Mark J. Martinko (1982) Organizational Behavior
Modification, Journal of Organizational Behavior Management, 3:3, 33-50, DOI: 10.1300/
J075v03n03_04

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1300/J075v03n03_04

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information
(the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor
& Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties
whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the
Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and
views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The
accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independently
verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable
for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages,
and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in
connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any
substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,
systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.
Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/
page/terms-and-conditions
 ORGANIZATIONAL BEHAVIOR MODIFICATION:
A WAY TO BRIDGE THE GAP
BETWEEN ACADEMIC RESEARCH
AND REAL WORLD APPLICATION
Fred Luthans
Mark J. Martinko

Professors Luthans and Mahnko discuss an issue commonly raised by working

magers-the primacy of theory and the paucity of practicality for day to day manage-
ment decision makers. A fundamental point of this chapter is that the gap between theory
Downloaded by [New York University] at 15:13 30 April 2015

and practice can be flled with a behavioral approach to management issues. After lay-
ing out some basic characteristics of what they called the Organizational Behavior
Modification approach, Luthans and Maliinko suggest several steps and a problem-
solving system by which to implement OBM principles. Finally, several examples are
offered which illustrate the practicality and the benetit of mutual working relations be-
tween the bastion of theory (academia) and the bastion of nuts and bolts management
(industly).
Mr. McDonald provides a manager's perspective on the utility of OBM. He
acknowledges the relative f a i l u ~of traditional management theories to provide prac-
tical management techniques, but he'also asks whether OEM will realize a better fate.
Mr. McDonald also raises important questions about the effficacy of OBM over long
periods of time, for both management and line workers.

The existence of a gap between academic theorylresearch on manage-

ment and the actual of management is recognized and lamentedby
both practitioners and academicians. Some examples and symptoms of this
existing gap include the following:

1. The many large organizations which have developed in-house

management training programs to provide their people with practical
skills and experiences which they do not believe are available in tradi-
tional academic programs.
2. The many large universities which now offer a series of management
oriented continuing education programs which differ markedly from
traditional academic offerings.
Fred Luthans is with the D e p m e n t of Management. University of Nebraska, and Mark
1. Martinko is with the Department of Management at Florida State University.
O 1982 by The Haworth Press, Inc. A11 rights reserved. 33
 34 ORGANIZ4TIONAL BEHAVIOR MANAGEMEN7

3. Numerous student complaints regarding irrelevant academic courses

in management.
4. Complaints by managers regarding the general lack of applicable
management techniques and the irrelevancy of abstract approaches
such as strategic planning, task design, employee motivation and
organizational development.
5. The proliferation of textbooks, casebooks, workbooks, and computer
simulation games which are all prefaced by the comment that they are
intended to bridge the gap between theory and practice.
6 . Numerous articles and reviews which suggest that the application and
effectiveness of popular techniques such as job enrichment, transac-
tional analysis, MBO,strategic planning, MIS, and flextime are the,
answer to all problems.

One of the most convincing recent disclosure of the theorylpractice gap

Downloaded by [New York University] at 15:13 30 April 2015

is provided by Henry Mintzberg (1973) in his book Ihe Nature of Managerial

Work. The basic thesis of the Mintzberg book, supported by his obsewa-
tional data, is that the tmditional theoretical view of the manager as a reflec-
tive planner, organizer, controller, and leader is more folklore than fact.
Through systematic observation he found that the average manager rarely
engages in systematic planning, favors and relies on informal verbal com-
munication, and uses judgment and intuition in making decisions more often
than sophisticated management science technique. Data cited by Mintzberg
to support his contention of what managers really do includes the fact that:
(1) half of the activities of chief executives lasted less than nine minutes;
(2) supervisors average almost 600 activities per day; (3) top managers, on
the average, work unintenupted for over one-half hour only once every two
days; and (4) managers spend almost 70 percent of their time in verbal com-
munications. This data, of course, demonstrates an obvious gap betwen ac-
tual managerial behavior and the traditional viewpoint of a manager as a
reflective and systematicplanner, decision-makerand leader. Mitzberg con-
cludes that management academics must do a much better job of identify-
ing critically important management behaviors and providing specific skills
training to achieve those behaviors.

Bridging the Gap

We feel that there is a way to bridge the theorylpracticegap. The answer

may lie in the application of the principles of opemt psychology to the prac-
tice of management. In patticular, we label this application as organizational
behavior modijcation or simply O.B. Mod. O.B. Mod, has its roots in
modem behavioristic psychology and stems for Skinner's distinction between
 Fred Olrhans and Mark J. Marlinko 35

operant and respondent behaviors. Respondent behaviors are elicited by

stimuli and can be characterized as reflexive. In other words, the environ-
ment acts upon the organism to stimulate behavior. These behaviors, for the
most part, constitute only a small portion of important performance behaviors
in most jobs. Operant behaviors, on the other hand, are those that operate
on the environment (and thus the term "operant") in order to produce
desirable consequences. When desirable consequences occur, then accord-
ing to the classic law of effect the behavior is strengthened or reinforced.
On the other hand, when punishing consequences or no consequences oc-
cur, the behavior is weakened and is less likely to recur. Thus, the basic
premise of O.B. Mod. is that behavior is largely afirnction of its conse-
quences. While the principles of this approach are relatively simple, there
are several important implications which need to be highlighted in order to
serve as an effective bridge for the theorylpractice gap.
Downloaded by [New York University] at 15:13 30 April 2015

Behavior as the Unit of Analysis

One of the most basic principles of O.B. Mod. is that only observable
and measurable behaviors and environmental events are appropriate units
of analyses. Accordingly, all components of analysis are operationally de-
fined and an empirical, scientific perspective is taken. This perspective in-
sures that the appproach is grounded in empirical reality and actual behavior.
In contrast, the majority of the other theoretical properties use unobservable,
internal cognitive states such as feelings, attitudes, and beliefs which are
measured through indirect questionnairegathered data (Martido and Carter,
1978). Examples of vague approaches not grounded in behavior include
classical management theory, job enrichment, sensitivity training, and most
of the formulations of leadership theory. These approaches are largely
based upon standardized questionnaires which have been shown to lack con-
struct validity (e.g., Schriesheim and Ken, 1977). We have argued elsewhere
for the need to get back to behavior as'the unit of analysis and the need for
alternatives to questionnaires as methods of measurement (Luthans, 1979;
Davis & Luthans. 1979; and Luthans & Davis. 1979a1. O.B. Mod. is a point
of departure in developing a science of human reso&e managemen; that
is grounded in behavior rather than vague inner states and accompanying
surveys which have questionable validity.

Experimental Emphasis

Another important contribution of the O.B. Mod perspective is its em-

phasis on experimentation as the vehicle for asserting cause-and-effect.
Beginning with Skinner's experiments on lower animals, operant psychology
 36 ORGAN124 TIONAL BEHAVIOR MMAGEMENT

has developed a track record based on the experimental analysis of the rela-
tionships between observable behaviors and the objective environment. Ex-
amples of concepts developed through these experimental techniques include
discrimination, generalization, shaping, and schedules of reinforcement, all
of which have been solidly grounded in the "real," empirical world. This
emphasis on experimentation has continued throughout the development of
the operant approach in institutional, educational, and organizational set-
tings. Thus, while many organizational researchers express a concern over
the lack of field experimentation (e.g. Weick, 1965; Evan, 1971), a notable
exception is the O.B. Mod. apprnach which has continually stressed an ex-
perimentally based approach to the analysis of organizational behavior.

Bottom-Line Perspective
Downloaded by [New York University] at 15:13 30 April 2015

Finally, another characteristic of the O.B. Mod. approach is the emphasis

on performance improvement as the dependent variable in organizational
-
research. That is, according to the O.B. Mod. perspective (Luthans and
Kreitner. 1973,.. there must be an empirical relationship between the behavior
and bottom-line indices of organizational effectiveness. Thus, imtating
behaviors such as employee complaints, employee dress, and unusual work
habits are not considered as legitimate targets for change unless an empirical
relationship can be demonstrated between these behaviors and performance.
Because bottom-line performance is an explicit dimension of the O.B. Mod.
approach, there is relatively little or no problem in the applicability of the
research results. On the other hand, research involving many other aspects
of management theory often use attitudinal data as dependent measures which
has the problem of applicability to "bottom-line" organizational results.
The above brief review of the major characteristics of the O.B. Mod.
approach suggest that it has considerable potential for bridging the
theorylpractice gap. While early reviews of O.B. Mod. were sometimes
critical because of the lack of field research validating the success of O.B.
Mod. interventions, we can now happily say there is now considerable
evidence demonstrating its effectiveness (Ottemann & Luthans, 1975;
Luthans and Kreitner, 1975; Luthans & Bond, 1977; VanNess & Luthans,
1979; Snyder & Luthans, 1979; and Luthans & Schweizer, 1979). Before
summarizing some of this research, it is necessary to have a brief overview
of specifically what is meant by O.B. Mod.
 Fred Luthans and Mark I. Maninko

' The O.B.Mod. Approach

While there is some variability in the specific intervention guidelines sug-

gested by what is commonly called organizational behavior management,
-
our model is called organizational behavior modification or O.B. Mod. and
its background approach and specific steps for implementations were spell-
ed out in the 1975 Luthans and Kxeimer book called Organizational Behavior
Modification, (Scott, Foresman, 1975). More recently we (Luthans and Mar-
tinko) have developed a workbook (7he Power ofPositive Reinforcement,
McGraw-Hill, 1978) to assist teaching and applying O.B. Mod. Since com-
prehensive treatment of O.B.Mod. is given in these sources, only a brief
description is provided here. The application of O.B. Mod. to the control
and management of human resources leading to performance improvement
is spelled out in the five step model shown in Figure 1.
Thefirst step in O.B. Mod. is the identification of performance-related
Downloaded by [New York University] at 15:13 30 April 2015

behavioral events. This is perhaps the most critical step since, if the change
agent identifies an attitude or "inner" state which cannot be observed or
measured, it will not be possible to provide consequences which are con-
tingent upon the appearance of this state. On the other hand, if the behavior
can be directly observed it will be amenable to'consequation and modifica-
tion. The second important point in the first step is that the behavior must
be related to that performance. Thus, the hequencies of the targeted behavior
must be related to performance measures.
The second step is the measurement of the behavior. This can be done
through simple fequency counts of the behavior. These frequencies are then
graphed overtime to provide a topology of the behavior. The measurement
and graph serve several functions. First they indicate theseverity of the
behavio-ral problem, particularly if the behavior can be graphed in conjunc-
tion with a performance measure. Secondly, the gmph helps to identify en-
vironmental consequences. Where increases in behavioral frequencies are
found it is known that reinforcement is occumng in the environment. Simi-
larly, decreases indicate punishers are present or that reinforcement has been
discontinued. Finally, the graph provfdes a baseline with which to evaluate
the potency of reinforcers or punishers that will eventually be applied in order
to modify the behavior.
The functional analysis of the behavior is the third step of O.B.Mod.
This consists of breaking the behavior and the environment down into the
functional components described as Antecedent(A)-Behavior@)-Con-
 38 ORGANIZATIONAL BEHAVIOR MANAGEMENT

frequency of target + / A-B-C

Time

behavioral contin- Antecedent Behavior Consequence

gencies through

Develop contin- Consider organizational

environment. variables:
1.) Structure 4.) Groups
2 . ) Processes 5.) Task
Downloaded by [New York University] at 15:13 30 April 2015

contingency inter- 1.1 Reinforcement

2 . ) Punishment l.)Modeling
3.) Extinction 2.)Shaplng
4.1 Combination I

resulting behavior

Figure 1. The 0 . 8 . Mod. problem solving model

from Luthans h Kreitner, 1974, 1975.

sequence(C)or A-B-C. Several methods may be used for identifying

antecedents and consequences. First, observation of the situation often
enables the change agent to list the possible cues and consequences. Inter-
 Fred Luthans and Mark J. Martinko 39

viewing the performers or other persons in the environment is also an ef-

fective method of identifying elements in the environment which are sup-
porting or controlling the behavior. Finally, by examining the graphs of
behavioral frequencies, "celerations" in the behavior can often be related
to environmental events which cue or maintainlchange the behavior in ques-
tion. The end product of this step is a list of specific factors supporting and
controlling the behavior.
R e fourth step is the development of an intervention smtegy. Very simp-
ly, this means rearranging or introducing cues and consequences in the en-
vironment to change the behavior in the appropriate direction. Figure 2 sug-
gests several ways that consequences can be combined to modify behavior.
Generally combined strategies such as extinction (for decreasing undesirable
behaviors) and positive reinforcement (for increasing desirable behaviors)
are recommended.
Contingently applied social reinforcers and feedback systems are the most
Downloaded by [New York University] at 15:13 30 April 2015

commonly used intervention. Once the intervention strategy is applied, it

should be monitored according to the measurement procedures described in
Step Two. The measurements help identify the effectiveness of the interven-
tion, especially if it is applied in a step-by-step progression. If the interven-
tion strategy appears to be changing the behaviors in the appropriate direc-
tion, it is then maintained through an appropriate schedule of reinforcement.
The fifth and final step in the O.B.Mod. is an experimentally based evalua-
tion to insure that the intervention with its effect on behavior is leading to
performance improvement. Reversal, multiple baseline, and control group
experimental designs are employed in this evaluation process. If both the
behavior and performance are changing in the desired direction, the interven-
tion strategy developed in Step Four is maintained. If either the behavior
or the performance is not changing in the desired direction, the steps in the
model are repeated.
Although very brief, these five steps as described above are the essence
of the O.B. Mod approach to human resource management.
Experiences With O.B.Mod.: A Mutually Beneficial
Relationship Between Academic Research and
Organizational Performance
In the remainder of the paper, some of our research studies on the use
of O.B. Mod. to improve performance are described. As will be seen in these
studies, their is a mutually beneficial outcome for both academic research
with its objectives of understanding, prediction, and control and real world
application with its objective of performance improvement.
 ' 9 v 'd 'SL6T 'Lauayalx pus sueqanl :aalnoS
sa~SalBllSooraeJr3rPoa iorneqag Teuoraezyuesxo axn8r.g
Downloaded by [New York University] at 15:13 30 April 2015

3 asuodsax 3 0 d ~ u a n b luamaxojnyaz
-az3 aql uy assalJuy anoqe 3 9 8 anyaysodfauamqsyund
:g asuodsaz 30 d ~ u a n b palsy1 sa~uanbas sasuodsax
-ax3 aqa uy aseazJaa -ua> 30 uoy>myqmo3 a1qy3sdmlu1 auama~aojuya~
aAy3~sod/uoyl~uylu3
 Fred Luthans and Mark J . Maninko 41

Industrial Applications

One of our first and most comprehensive studies (Ottemann & Luthans,
1975) of the application of O.B. Mod. employed a pre-test, post-test con-
trol group experimental design. The setting was a light manufacturing firm
and our subjects consisted of nine first-line supervisors who received O.B.
Mod. training that was then applied and nine other supervisors served as con-
trols. The experimental and control groups were selected according to age,
experience, education, and intellingence so that there were few systematic
differences between the groups with the exception of the O.B. Mod. train-
ing and application.
The O.B. Mod. training consisted of ten one-hour weekly sessions. These
training session basically followed the five step model shown in Figure I.
The trainees were dealing with real problem areas throughout the ten weeks
and developed individualized intervention strategies to solve these problems.
Downloaded by [New York University] at 15:13 30 April 2015

The identified problem areas included safety, scrap rates, presence at the
work station, tardiness, inspection, quality, complaints, and interruptions.
In each of these cases, the supervisors followed the O.B. Mod. steps by iden-
tifying key performance behaviors, measuring the frequency of occurrence,
funtionally analyzing, developing intervention strategies, and evaluating.
Throughout the sessions, the bottom-line performance of the organization
was stressed.
In all cases, the experimental subjects were able to readily change key
performance behaviors of their subordinates. More importantly, however,
was that this approach to human resource management led to overall per-
foernance improvement in their respective areas of responsibility. The overall
results of the intervention in terms of the departmental efficiency rates for
both the experimental and control groups are graphically summarized in
Figure 3. Both visual inspection and statistical analyses of these data indicate
that there were significant differences between the two groups. Statistical
comparisons between the two-month baseline period and the five-month
period during and after the intervention indicated significantly higher pro-
ductivity in the latter period for the experimental group. Similarly, the
analysis indicated that the mean productivity levels for the O.B. Mod. trained
supervisors were significantly higher than those of the untrained supervisors.
There are several important implications of this study for both academi-
cians and practitioners. First, the study provides evidence that first-line super-
visors can learn the principles of O.B.Mod. within a classroom environ-
ment and transfer this training to their actual work environment. Second,
the study demonstrates that O.B. Mod. not only has potential for modify-
 ORGANIZATIONAL BEHAVIOR MANAGEMENT

FIGURE 3

O V E W L PERFORMANCE RESLnTS OF O.B. MOD. IN AN INDUSTRIAL APPLICATION

Week Trdning j - Erperimnnta'

:j 10Intervention : --'
Downloaded by [New York University] at 15:13 30 April 2015

I $

Aug Sspt OCt Nov Oec Jan Feb Mar

Intergroup comparison of performance results.

-
Noce: The figures on the lines an the graph
represent the mean for the respective
months.

Source: Otteman and L u t h n n s , 1975,

ing specific employee behaviors such as complaints or intemptions or not

doing celtain procedures that have implications for quantity, quality or safety,
but that O.B. Mod. also, through the cumulative effect of these behaviors,
has potential for improvement of overall bottom-line performance. Finally,
the field experhen& design leads to cause-and-effec; conclusions resulting
in better understanding, prediction, and control. Thus, for the academican,
this type of study allows-relative confidence that the O.B. Mod. strategy is
indeed effective in modifying behaviors and inducing higher levels of ef-
fectiveness within organizations. The academician, of course, is much more
involved in the statistical analyses, theoretical interpretation of the results,
and the problem of generalizing the results to other organizations. However,
such research also benefits the practitioner in a number of ways.
Because the first-line supervisors have charted behavioral changes (Step
Two of O.B.Mod.) along with their depamental effectiveness, they are
 Fred Lufhanr and Mark J . Maninko 43

able to "ball park" the effectiveness of their strategies by simple visual in-
spection. In addition, the top management of the organization has an objec-
tive evaluation of the impact that the intervention has on organizational ef-
fectiveness. Using charts and tables of performance such as the one illushted
in Figure 3, they can, without any sophisticated statistical analysis, estimate
the effectiveness of the strategy. Moreover, because they also have infor-
mation on the control group's performance, they may rule out alternatecauses
of performance improvement. This, of course, is much better than evaluating
the intervention on the basis of trainee attitudes or testimonials from in-house
trainers or consultants. At the very least, the data helps to insure that the
organization will not embark on a " popular" program which may even be
detrimental to performance.
Another more recent study we conducted in a small water bed manufac-
turing plant (Luthans and Schweizer, 1979) seems also important because
it extends the application of O.B. Mod. beyond first-line supervisosy train-
Downloaded by [New York University] at 15:13 30 April 2015

ing to the total organizational development process. In this study, the O.B.
Mod. program was implemented in three major phases. The first phase was
primarily educational and consisted of training all three levels of manage-
ment in the principles of O.B. Mod. (Basically following the five step ap-
proach as was done in the first study). The second stage involved a simula-
tiontexperiential approach. At first, the participants analyzed case studies
and developed intervention strategies. Then, once both the padcipants and
the researcherstminers had developed confidence in the participants' skills,
the participants applied O.B.Mod. principles to their own work areas in a
manner similar to that already described in the first study. The third and final
phase of the intervention involved the development of a total organizational
performance management system. In this phase, all levels of management
collaborated to identify key behaviors and performance indices. An
organization-wide feedback system was then developed based on key
behaviors and performance measures. In addition, programs for specific
problem areas were developed.
The results of this comprehensive, total organization intervention in-
dicated that there were significant impmvements in both productivity (number
of beds produced) and quality (percent of rejects). In fact, record perfor-
mance was attained. Although we did conduct sophisticated statistical
analyses to verify the significance of these changes, they were not needed.
Simple inspection of the graphical representation of the data shown in Figure
4 is sufficient. The left-hand portion of the graph depicts both the average
levels and variability of both productivity and quality prior to the interven-
tion. The next segment of the graph displays the effects of contingent time-
 ORGANIZATIONAL BEHA VlOR MANAGEMENT

PIGliRe 4

PERFORHANCE RESUITS OF M E O.B. WD. P R O W IB A WAIL F A C m R Y

Boeelinr Intarvantion lntrrventim inlrrvrntlm

(309. (Cantin t (Fudback (k.dbak/sociol raln-
Errw 3 Beds . t i m at?$
plied to m
saeial r e h -
forcere ap-
tarcur o lied to pro-
ductivity?
Rote) ductirity! - vllatt to quolit")

l209e
Error
Rat*)

(10%
Downloaded by [New York University] at 15:13 30 April 2015

Error
Rote)

. .,.:'. .....,. ......................

.......
4.
c
'-5 ...............
......+...
Jan Fab Mar Apr MY Juna

-
Source: L u d s n a and Schueirer. 1979, p. 49.

off intervention on productivity when no consequences were being applied

to quality. As evidenced by the changes illustrated, productivity improved
with the application of the contingent time-off consequences while the quality
level, for which consequences were not changed, remained the same. The
third segment then demonstrates the positive impact of the contingent ap-
plication of social reinforcers on quality, while the productivity levels re-
mained about the same. Finally, the last segment demonstrates impmved
levels of both quality and pmductivity under the control of the feedback
system and contingent social reinforcement. To the researcher, the design
graphed in Figure 2 is termed a multiple-baseline and it demonstrates that
two different behaviors (in this case quality and productivity) can be brought
under control at different times through the intervention. By withdrawing
the reinforcement at selected intervals (a reversal design) the researcher could
further demonstrate the contml of the behavior through the intervention (See
Luthans and Maris, 1979 for the use of reversals to evaluate personnel pro-
grams and research). The problem with reversals, of course, is the reluc-
tance of practitioners to withdraw the intervention simply to prove cause-
 Fred Lurhans and Mark J. Maninko 45

and-effect. The rationale is that if performance is improving why bother it

just to prove the intervention is causing it. However, it is our contention that
such evaluations are important to practitioners since they need to know if
their intervention strategies are effective. Strategies such as contingent time-
off, for example, are extremely costly and can only be justified with the kind
of objective evidence provided by the researcher's evaluation. It would cer-
tainly seem unwise to simply rely on testimonials or questionnaire responses.
Yet, this is how most programs, including some of these in organizational
behavior management, are evaluated.
Finally, it needs to be emphasized that, in this particular study, there was
almost total collaboration between the researcher and practitioners in develop-
ing- the research design
- and measures of effectiveness. Because of this close
cooperation, both groups perceived the data as particularly meaningful,
understood the advantages and limitations of the data, and supported the col-
lection and analysis of the data. In this collaborative relationship, the distinc-
Downloaded by [New York University] at 15:13 30 April 2015

tion between practitioner and academician was almost completely obscured,

and both appeared to benefit equally from the results of the study.

Nonmanufacruring Application

One particularly nagging criticism of the O.B. Mod. approach has been
that, while it may be applicable for structured environments such as are found
in the typical manufacturing plant, there may be difficulty in less structured
environments such as service organizations. We conducted (Snyder &
Luthans, 1979) a recent study in hospital setting to try to see if O.B. Mod.
can work in a nonmanufacturing environment. The method of conducting
this study was similar to the first one described (Ottemann & Luthans, 1975).
That is, eleven hospital supervisors were given O.B. Mod. training in eight
sessions covering a two-month period. During this training they learned the
principles of O.B.Mod. and used the five step approach, i.e., they iden-
tified, measured, functionally analyzed, and intervened to change key per-
formance behaviors of their subordinates in their respective areas of
responsibility.
The results of this program are summarized in Figure 5. Only a pre-post
(AB) design was applied in this study but these data do provide a rather con-
vincing argument that the O.B. Mod. intervention was effective in modify-
ing a broad-range of performance-related behaviors. The behaviors modified
included complex interpersonal behaviors such as employee complaints and
direct outcome measures such as drug output and the number of EKG pro-
cedures accomplished. Moreover, the data indicate that each of the individual
 -
m - 2
"? 1 ?
* "
.?.:
i - m
"
N

n
? .
. -.
ID.,
.?.
nNN
1"
"
-3.7

=
D.
".

. , -." -
z
.
O.
?
D.
?
UN 2 2
r? -
?

--
e
1 7 ?
m - -
.?. .: -. . .
*
?9? 11 . " 0
?9
.,
'"
D. N N IDN_
T
N

w
. .-
m-
O
N
D * O g n n
a
m
y03,2Z4
m
"
. . N *
Downloaded by [New York University] at 15:13 30 April 2015
 Fred Lurhnns and Mark J . Marn'nko 47

supervisors was successful in applying the intervention despite the wide varie-
ty of situations encountered.
This hospital study is important for three main reasons. First, as previous-
ly noted, the study shows -at least the potential of O.B. Mod. in non-
industrial, service organizations. Second, the O.B. Mod. approach forced
the hospital supervisors to identify critical performance-related behaviors.
Although the before-after design cannot lead to cause-andsffect conclusions,
with a number of replications of this research, the identified performance-
related behaviors can be generalized to improve productivity. For example,
replications within hospital pharmacies may eventually succeed in
establishing some general contingencies that may be used to control d u g out-
put in all hospitals. Finally, as with the previous studies, the data collec-
tion and analysis procedures are an integral part of the O.B. Mod. interven-
tion and become part of supervising behavior. Thus, although the collec-
tion of data and analysis for research purposes ended when we left, it is likely
that the supervisors continued these measurement functions and approach
Downloaded by [New York University] at 15:13 30 April 2015

to human resource management because they found them to be valuable in

the control of their employees and performance improved. In other words,
these supervisors were reinforced for using the O.B. Mod. approach and,
therefore, will tend to use it as their method of management.

Closing Comments

In discussing the studies we have conducted in manufacturing and non-

manufacturing organizations, many implications for pmctitioners were sug-
gested. In this closing section we will summarize and reiterate these com-
ments and provide further insight into the future of the O.B. Mod. approach,
and in particular, the practitionerlresearcher relationship.

The Researcher/Practitioner Relationship

In each of the studies discussed, a research design and statistical analysis

were employed. While in the past practitioners have sometimes viewed such
research designs and statistical analyses as irrelevant to them, the practitioners
whom we worked with felt that was an important aspect of the program. They
became convinced that the research design and analyses techiques were a
vital part of the O.B. Mod. approach in terms of both the intervention itself
and, especially, the evaluation. Some of the specific features of O.B. Mod.
which promote and almost require a close intemction between the research-
oriented emphasis of academicians and the applied emphasis of practitioners
are the following:
 48 ORGANIZ4TlONAL BEHAVIOR MANAGEMENT

1 . Behavioral Emphasis. The primary unit of analysis in O.B. Mod. is

behavior. The strategy begins on a solid foundation with a specific behavioral
description of the problems and, as a result, many of the ambiguities and
measurement problems inherent in other strategies simply do not exist.
2 . Performance Emphasis. The O.B. Mod. approach emphasizes the
establishment of the relationship between behavior and performance at the
onset. As a result, there is minimal ambiguity in relating the program results
to behaviod and performance change. Moreover, the ambiguity is also
minimal because of the participation of the practitioner has in developing
these measures and relationships.
3. Measurement Emphasis. Specific emphasis on measurement skills,
observation, and data interpretation are an explicit part of the O.B. Mod.
training strategy. Because the participants receive information on measure-
ment strategies and participate in the development of these strategies, the
research ~ s u l t and
s analysis become meaningful and important feedback for
their own development. Thus, there is little resistance to data collection and
Downloaded by [New York University] at 15:13 30 April 2015

considerable interest in the interpretation of this data.

4. Data Consequences. One of the most potent consequences for modi-
fying behavior stressed in the O.B. Mod. approach is data feedback. As a
result, many practitioners become directly involved in data collection and
feedback. The skills they develop in using these data, of course, contribute
to a positive approach toward the research process. Moreover, as they begin
to graph and analyze the data for employee feedback, the data begin to
become very important to them.
5 . The Functional Nature ofBehavior. Throughout the O.B. Mod. pro-
cess the principle that behavior is a function of its consequences is stressed.
As practitioners develop their understanding of this concept, it becomes m d i -
ly apparent that the only way to determine these functional relations is
through careful measurement and evaluation. After this concept "strikes
home" the interpretation and collection of data become representative to
anyone who is seriously trying to change behavior.
6 . Collaborative Approach. Finally, during the O.B. Mod. training pm-
cess a collaborative give-and-take approach between the researchersltrainers
and participants is stressed. For the most part, the participants are viewed
as the "experts" in identiGing performance related behaviors and measure-
ment strategies. As a result of their "hands-on" involvement in all phases
of the training, interest and involvement in the results is developed.
In summation, a major strength of an O.B. Mod. approach is its pragmatic
behavioml emphasis which forces participants to observe the effects of their
interventions and to relate them directly to bottom-line performance. As
 Fred Lurhans and Mark I . Maninko 49

demonstrated in the cases we have discussed this "had-nosed" empirical

approach has resulted in significant changes in organizational behavior and
bottom-line performance. Moreover, because of the participation and in-
volvement which practitioners must have in identifying, measuring, analyz-
ing, designing successful interventions, and evaluating, the resemherlprac-
titioner distinction is minimized and builds upon one another. We feel it is
a truly mutually rewarding relationship.

B. Mod.
Future Developments and Expansion of 0.

We certainly feel that O.B. Mod. has a bright future and we have argued
here and elsewhere (e.g. see Luthans, in press) that it is an effective approach
to human resource management. But, for better theoretical understanding
we have recently (Davis and Luthans, in press) moved more toward a social
Downloaded by [New York University] at 15:13 30 April 2015

learning apprach (e.g. Bandura, 1977) and away from a strict operant ap-
proach. This expanded theoretical base still maintains that behavior is the
appropriate unit of analysis and recognizes the operant principles (e.g.
behavior is grounded in environmental consequences), but also recognized
the importance of cognitive mediating processes and that the antecedents,
behaviors, and consesuences can be covert as well as overt. Under a social
learning approach, vicariouslmodeling processes, cognitive mediating pro-
cesses, and especially self-management processes are additive dimensions
to the operant theoretical base. To date, we have primarily focused our at-
tention on leadership (Luthans and Davis, 1976 and Davis and Luthans,
1979) and self-management (Luthans and Davis, 1979a) as a strategy to im-
prove managerial effectiveness.
In the future we feel that O.B. Mod. as described in this paper will con-
tinue to be a viable strategy for improving key performance areas in organiza-
tions. However, a social learning approach which recognizes the interac-
tive nature between the person (including cognitions), the environment (in-
cluding organization and other person variables) and the behavior itself, may
be a more comprehensive and thus a better explanatory theoretical base for
organizational behavior. In addition, social leaming theory's off shoot of
behavioral self-management may be a key ingredient to improved managerial
effectiveness in the future. In any event, even with the expanded social leam-
ing theoly base, the O.B. Mod. t e c h q u e as described in this paper will con-
tinue to play an important role in our recommended approach to human
resource management and can provide an effective bridge between academic
research and real world application.
 ORGANIWTIONAL BEHAVIOR MANAGEMENT

REFERENCES

Bandura, A. Social Learning lheory. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1977.

Davis, T.R.V. and Luthans, F. Leadership Reexamined: A Behavioral Approach. Academy
of Management Review, 1979, 4, 237-248.
Davis, T.R.V. and Luthans, F. A Social Learning Appmach to Organizdtional Behavior.
Academy of Mawgement Review, in press.
Evon, W.M. (ed.). Organizational Erperimenrs: Laboratory and FieldResearch, New York:
Harper and Row, 1971.
Luthans, F. Organizational Behavior Modification Resolves: Functional Analysis is the Best
Technique for Diagnostic Evaluation of Organizational Behavior. In K m e l , B. (Ed.) Cross-
currents in Leadership. Cabondale, IU.: Southern Illinois University Press, 1979,201-208.
Luthans. F. and Bond, K. The use of reversal designs in organizational Behavior Research.
In Taylor, R. L. et.al. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 37th Annual Meeting of the Academy
of Mawgemenl. Orlando, Florida, 1977, 86-90.
Luthans, F. and Davis, T.R.V. Operationalizing a Behavioral Appmach to Leadership. In Miller,
E. G. (Ed.) Proceedings of the 22nd Annual Midwest A c d m y of Management Conference.
Ann Arbor, Michigan: Gtaduate School of Business, University of Michigan, 144-155.
Luthans, F. and Kreitner, R. OrganizariowI Behavior Modifcarion. Glenview, Ulinois: Scott,
Foresrnan. 1975.
Downloaded by [New York University] at 15:13 30 April 2015

Luthans, F. and Kreibler, R. The Management of Behavioral Contingencies. Personnel, July-

August, 1974. 7-16.
Luthans, F. and Maris, T.L. , Reversals: A New Technique to Evaluate Personnel Programs.
Personnel Journal, October, 1979.
Luthans, F. and Schweizer, I. O.B. Mod. in a Small Factory: How Behavior Modification
Techniques can improve Total Organizational Performance. Management Review.
September, 1979, 43-50.
Maninko, M.J. and Carter N. A Critical Evaluation of Methodology in Organizational Research.
In Miller, E. L. (Ed.) Proceedings of the 22nd Annual Midwest Academy of Management
Conference. Ann Arbor, Michigan: Graduate School of Business University of Michigan,
1978, 321-326.
M~ntzbcrg.H 7he Nature of Munagenal Work New York. Harper and How. 1973
Oltemsnn. R and Luthans. F. An Exoenmental Analvsis of the Effcct~venessof an Oreaninl-
tional Behavior ~odificationF'rogram in industry: 1n Bedion, A. et.al. (Eds.) froc;edings
of rhe 35th Annual Meeting of rhe Academy of Mawgemenr. New Orleans, 1975, 140-142.
Schriesheim, C. A. and Ken, S. Theories and Measures of Leademhip: A Critical Appraisal
of Current and Future Directions. In Hunt, J. G. and Larson, L.L. (Eds.) Leadership: lhe
Curring M g e , Carbondale, Illinois: Southern Illinois University Press, 1977, 9-45.
Snyder, C. and Luthans, F. The Application of O.B. Mod. to Increase the Productivity of
Hospital Personnel. Unpublished Manuscript, College of Business Adminisdon, University
of Nebraska, 1979.
VanNess, P. and Luthans, F. Multiple-Baseline Designs: An Alternative Strategy for Organiza-
tional Behavior Research. In Miller. E.L. (Ed.) Proceedings of the 22nd Annual Midwesr
Academy of M w g e m e n t Conference. Ann A h r . Michigan: Graduate School of Business,
University of Michigan, 1978, 336-350.
Weick, K.E. Laboratory Experimentation with Organizations. In March, I. G. (Ed.) Hand-
book of Organizarionr. Chicago: Rand McNally. 1965. 194-260.