management

An examination of the "reinforcement theory" of motivation, and the strategies used to implement it.

Reinforcement Theory: A Practical Tool

Maurice F. Villere and Sandra S. Hartman

Leadership & Organization Development Journal, Vol. 12 No. 2, 1991, pp. 27-31 © MCB University Press, 0143-7739

introduction

"Process" theories are so-called because they deal with the process through which motivation comes about, rather than with inner needs which may activate motivation. Technically, reinforcement theory, as pioneered by Skinner (1969), is also a process theory, but it is one which is radically different from the other process theories.

While other process theories, such as equity theory and expectancy theory, attempt to look inside the human mind to see how an individual's beliefs, expectations, desires and values lead to motivate behaviour, Skinner's focus is almost entirely external (Staats, 1988). Skinner maintains that behaviour is determined by its consequences, what happens as a result of a person's actions (Skinner, 1969). To put it in simple terms, behaviour which is rewarded or which has positive consequences will be repeated while behaviour which receives either no rewards or negative consequences will cease. This simple idea can have profound consequences for managers. For example, a management trainee who is praised for his efforts on a project will continue to work hard on the project. On the other hand, if he is ignored or even reprimanded for his efforts then he will cease to produce in that area. Reinforcement theory has a very important implication for management: if management wants to maximise goal obtainment, it must carefully manage consequences so

that therightbehaviours are rewarded. Michael LeBoeuf in his best selling book, The Greatest Management Principle in the World (1985), says there are two important lessons that managers must learn if they are going to get the best results from people [p. 23]:

1. (1)  You get more of the behaviour you reward. You don't get what you hope for, ask for, wish for or beg for. You get what you reward. Come what may, you can count on people and creatures to do the things that they believe will benefit them most.

2. (2)  In trying to do the right things it is easy to fall into the trap of rewarding the wrong activities and ignoring or punishing the right ones. The result is that we hope for A, unwittingly reward B and wonder why we get B.

Do things like this happen in "real life?" Perhaps you have overheard employees saying things like this: "Oh, sure! Management says they want quality, but look at what happens when you take a little time to try to correct a defect. They're all over you! But hit the numbers, even if you're producing a bunch of defects, and all of a sudden you're a hero." In a situation like this Skinner would be quick to say that management is actively training its employees to emphasise quantity, even at the expense of defective work, whether they intend to or not! As Steve Kerr (1975) points out, it does not matter what management intends — it's the reward and the punishment, from the employee's perspective that motivates.

According to Luthans and Kreitner (1985) in their text on organisational behaviour modification (which is the application of reinforcement theory to organisations), there are four types of behavioural consequences or strategies that managers might use in shaping the behaviours of employees.

(1) Positive Reinfonement

Behaviour which is positively reinforced has a greater probability of recurrence. This is because a positive or desirable reward is applied to the behaviour after it occurs. Thus, it pays for the employee to repeat the behaviour. For example, an employee who is praised for his work on a report of specific type will continue to direct his energies towards that report in the future (Scott et. al, 1988).

(2) Negative Reinforcement

Negative reinforcement is similar to positive reinforcement and is often confused with punishment (which will be discussed subsequently). Like positive reinforcement, negative reinforcement encourages the repetition of behaviour which is desired by management. However, unlike positive reinforcement, negative reinforcement gains the desired response not by the attachment of desirable

Downloaded by VICTORIA UNIVERSITY (Australia) At 00:50 27 August 2015 (PT)

28 LEADERSHIP & ORGANIZATION DEVELOPMENT JOURNAL 12,2

rewards to the behaviour but by the removal of noxious or undesirable rewards. Let us suppose that a training director's boss nags him about the development of a new training programme. If the training director works hard and develops the programme in order to get his boss off his back, the work on the training programme is said to be negatively reinforced. By working hard on the training programme, the training director causes the undesirable nagging to be withdrawn.

(3) Punishment

Unlike negative reinforcement, punishment operates in such a way that it decreases the frequency of a subsequent behaviour. Punishment occurs in one of two possible ways: something undesirable can be applied to the unwanted behaviour or something desirable can be withdrawn. Both approaches tend to weaken the frequency of subsequent responses. For example, a marketing manager may be reprimanded for errors causing poor performance on her sales presentations or she may be removed from conducting the presentations in particularly desirable surroundings, such as in plush resort areas. In either case, the punishment applied (whether in the form of a noxious reprimand or the withdrawal of the desirable resort training) will help decrease the frequency of the errors.

(4) Extinction

Extinction has the same effect on subsequent behaviour as punishment in that it also decreases the probability that certain behaviours will recur. Unlike punishment, extinction involves the nonreinforcement of behaviour. The principle being that behaviour which is ignored will not be repeated. Behaviours which are not reinforced tend towards extinction. For example, if a manager's memos concerning a new expensive piece of equipment are ignored by his boss, he will probably drop the idea of pursuing the new equipment.

An extensive review of the literature by Hamner (1983) on motivation indicates that the most productive reinforcement programmes use a maximum amount of positive reinforcement and a minimum amount of punishment. Punishment often tends to be counter- productive by leaving the worker feeling controlled and coerced. Also, when threatened by punishment, workers become less effective and more hostile towards the source of the punishment — the manager. Additionally, morale — in terms of lower absentee and turnover rates — is much better under positive reinforcement. Under positive reinforcement workers are "turned on" by their jobs rather than "turned off" as is often the case with punishment. The most effective positive reinforcement programmes appear to use a strategy which combines positive reinforcement with extinction. Under this strategy, positive areas of an employee's performance are doubly reinforced —by self-feedback to the employee of what he or she has accomplished in terms of goals — and by

praise from the supervisor. Deficient areas are ignored. Knowledgeable employees are already aware of their deficiencies. There is no reason for the supervisor to persist with additional criticism. If it does become necessary to give negative feedback, it should be done in a positive fashion. Suggestions on helping the employee perform better will reap more positive results than accusations (Hamner, 1983). Obviously, there are limits. Prompt negative action must be taken, of course, where an employee's erroneous actions are dangerous to the employee or others, or when they will cause serious harm to the organisation. Furthermore, the situation enters in. Suppose a telephone operator is entirely too chatty and as a result, is handling calls much more slowly than the company goal. The pleasant conversation with the customers may prove highly rewarding to the operator and we can be certain, following Skinner's guidelines, that the chatty behaviour will continue unless management intervenes (Meyer, 1990).

Suggestions on helping the employee perform better will reap more positive results than accusations

Positive reinforcement programmes are not merely academic exercises. According to Peters and Waterman, Jr., in their text, In Search ofExcellence (1982), the best run organisations not only appreciate the value of positive reinforcement, but they know how to manage it well. Sometimes even small rewards can make a difference. In the early days at Foxboro when a technical advance was desperately needed for the survival of the company, a scientist rushed into the president's office with a prototype solution. Dumbfounded but impressed with the solution, the president gave the scientist the only positive reinforcer he could find at the time —a banana. Today, at Foxboro, the highest accolade for scientific achievement is the "gold banana" pin award (Szilagyi, 1981).

Scheduling Reinforcement

The second key ingredient in any type of reinforcement programme is how the reinforcers are administered. In terms of timing, the closer the reinforcer is to the occurrence of the behaviour, the greater impact it will have. This idea has tremendous implications to managers who say things like, ' 'Jane's doing better on her completion reports. I think I'll see if she keeps it up over the next week or so and then compliment her.'' This manager is likely to be unwittingly using extinction, not positive reinforcement. We predict a decline in Jane's work! The moral here is that if you see good work, praise it immediately. Don't wait and see if it "sticks".

Downloaded by VICTORIA UNIVERSITY (Australia) At 00:50 27 August 2015 (PT)

Table I. Reinforcement Schedules and their Effects upon Behaviour

Schedule

Continuous — Reinforcer follows every response

Intermittent — Reinforcer does not come after every response.

(1) Fixed ratio — A set number of responses per reward.

(2) Variable ratio — A varying number of responses per reward.

(3) Fixed interval — A reward per set period of time.

(4) Variable interval — Reinforcement after a varying period of time.

Probable effects

High frequency of rewards may lead to premature satisfaction. Behaviour weakens quickly when rewards are withdrawn.

The low frequency of rewards tends to make the behaviour more lasting

Usually produces a vigorous and durable response.

Tends to produce a high rate of response which are very resistant to change.

Tends to produce an uneven response — unenergetic right after the reward and vigorous immediately preceding it.

Usually produces a high response rate which is steady and very resistant to change.

Examples

Always greeting the secretary with a smile in the morning. The single non- greeting stands out.

The occasional pat on the back from the boss.

The piece-rate system. An award.

Weekly or monthly pay check. A promotion.

Adapted from Luthans and Kreitner (1985, p. 58)

Also very critical to the success of any reinforcement programme is the scheduling of rewards (Luthans and Kreitner, 1985; Szilagyi, 1981). There are two broad categories of reinforcement schedules — continuous and intermittent. Continuous schedules mean that the behaviour is reinforced every time it occurs. For example, if a recruiter is praised every time a new employee is hired, this would be continuous reinforcement. Continuous reinforcement schedules are often not very durable in maintaining a certain level of performance because their impact can be easily extinguished. As long as the reinforcer follows every behavioural event, the continuous schedule will maintain the given level of performance. However, if through oversight or inattention, the reinforcer is not applied, this interruption in the scheduling of rewards will stand out in the mind of the employee and the behaviour will undergo extinction. The recruiter who ceases to be praised a few times for hiring new employees may begin to slack off in recruiting efforts.

Intermittent reinforcers are those which are not given after each behaviour. Though it might come as a surprise, intermittent reinforcers tend to be more durable in maintaining a certain level of performance. Racetrack wagering is an excellent example of the strength of intermittent reinforcement. The potential of winning on the next race keeps gamblers coming back again and again to the paramutual ticket windows. Better yet, such a schedule is far more realistic for most managers who are often not in a position (time-wise or reward-wise) to reinforce each and every behaviour.

Intermittent schedules may be further broken down into two other sets of categories. First, intermittent reinforcers may be given after a certain amount of time — an interval schedule — or they may be administered after a number of acceptable responses — a ratio schedule (see Table I for examples of different types of reinforcement schedules and their effects on behaviour.) Second, reinforcers may be given on a fixed and variable basis. A fixed schedule is one which would follow a set or unchanging format and a variable schedule is one which follows no predictable format (Pittenger and Pavlick, 1988 (a) and (b)).

As shown in Figure 1, a fixed interval schedule would be a weekly or monthly paycheque. A piece-rate system where employees are paid on the basis of units produced or a sales commission where they are paid a percentage of units sold would be examples of fixed ratio schedules. A variable interval reinforcement schedule would consist of a promotion which is not based on strict seniority. Promotions based on strict seniority or after a fixed period of time would be examples of fixed interval schedules. A variable ratio schedule may be praise from the boss which does not come after any set number of good efforts on the part of the employee (Killeen and Fetterman, 1988). As shown in Figure 1, one of the most powerful reinforcement schedules in sustaining motivated work behaviour in employees is the variable ratio schedule. One reason given for this is because the reward is tied directly to the behaviour being reinforced.

Regardless of the rewards or schedule used, reinforcement theory will not work unless appropriate levels of

REINFORCEMENT THEORY: A PRACTICAL TOOL 29

Downloaded by VICTORIA UNIVERSITY (Australia) At 00:50 27 August 2015 (PT)

30 LEADERSHIP & ORGANIZATION DEVELOPMENT JOURNAL 12,2

Figure 1. Work Behaviour/Reward Exercise

Directions: Fill in the blanks in terms of your own job. Rewards may be positive (such as a raise or praise) or negative (such as a cut in pay or a reprimand) or neutral (such as being ignored).

Job behaviour As a consequence of:

(1) Doing excellent work, I am (2) Never being absent, I am (3) Asking my boss for advice, I am (4) Exceeding my quota, I am (5) Saving money for the organisation, I am (6) Asking for new equipment, I am (7) Doing a routine job creatively, I am (8) Bringing in new clients, I am (9) Doing twice as much work as usual, I am

Reward

(10) Counselling a problem employee, I am Feel free to add other relationships which are most suitable to your own occupation.

performance (high, average, poor) are tied to appropriate consequences. If effective performance is rewarded equally with poor performance, then mediocrity will be the order of the day (Bonem and Crossman, 1988). One of the keys to installing an effective reinforcement programme is an effective performance appraisal system. For an appraisal system to be effective, it must have force behind it — rewards must be attached to performance. One rather simple but effective way of seeing if appropriate work behaviours are attached to the proper consequences or reinforcers is through some type of performance or work behaviour/reinforcer or consequence questionnaire. We recommend a simple questionnaire such as shown in Figure 1 to get an idea of what the connection is between work behaviours and rewards at your job. If the linkages do not make sense maybe management needs to do a better job of managing the consequences which are critical to getting the behaviour it wants.

Where Do We Stand Now?

Reinforcement theory or behaviour modification programmes have received high praise from a research perspective. Research on these programmes has been characterised by a careful application of the scientific method. Great care has been taken by researchers to

define concepts, to clarify variables, and to carefully report results (Gibson, et. al., 1988). Much of the research has been done in actual business settings and not primarily in behavioural laboratories with college students.

However, in spite of the favourable reviews, reinforcement programmes are not without their critics. Most criticisms of reinforcement programmes are based on "value" issues rather than on research methodology concerns. For example, a very frequently lodged criticism is that reinforcers are, in effect, really bribes. It is contended that employees do not really change behaviours. They are just being "bribed' to perform by the use of some reinforcer like pay. Bribery is certainly not the correct term to use when referring to reinforcers used in organisations. Bribes refer to the illicit use of rewards for the purpose of corrupting the conduct of another individual. Reinforcers as applied in the industrial setting are designed to bring about behaviours which benefit both the individual worker and the organisation (Bushardt et. al., 1989; Dierks and McNally, 1987). Another common criticism is that individuals can become conditioned to become too dependent on external and extrinsic rewards like pay. Hence, without the promise of the reward, they will not perform. However, the truth of this relationship or the durability of reinforcers has not been adequately tested (Gibson et al., 1988).

Downloaded by VICTORIA UNIVERSITY (Australia) At 00:50 27 August 2015 (PT)

REINFORCEMENT THEORY: A PRACTICAL T

As it stands now, reinforcement theory offers an easy-to- use, highly effective way for managers to deal with employee motivation. It shifts attention away from what's going on in the employee's mind and onto factors which are directly controllable by the manager — the consequences of the employee's behaviour. The keys are: first, take a close look at what really follows employee actions. Make sure that what happens is rewarding when you want it to be and that undesired behaviour is not being rewarded in some way. Look again at Figure 1 for ideas. Second, watch the timing. It does no good to tell an employee that you liked something he did weeks, or even months after the behaviour occurred. Finally, think about the reinforcement schedule that is in effect in your organisation. Remember that it is most effective when employees cannot precisely predict which correct actions will be rewarded, but they know that only correct actions will get a reward! Reinforcement is a vital tool, and it should be found in every manager's leadership arsenal.

References

Bonem, M. and Crossman, E.K. (1988), "Elucidating the Effects of Reinforcement Magnituate", Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 104 No. 3, pp. 348-62.

Bushardt, S.C., Fowler, A.R. Jr., Debnath, S. (1989), "Sales Force Motivation: A Theoretical Analysis", Human Relations, Vol. 41 No. 12, pp. 901-13.

Dierks, W. and McNally, K.A. (1987), "Incentives You Can Bank On", Personnel Administrator, Vol. 32, pp. 60-5.

Gibson, J.L., Ivancevich, J.M. and Donnelly, J.H. Jr. (1988), Organization, (6th ed.), Business Publishing Inc., Piano, TX.

Hamner, W.C. (1983), "Worker Motivation Programs: The Importance of Climate Structure, and Performance Consequences" in Pearman, K., Schmidt, F.L. and Hamner, W.C. (Eds.), Contemporary Problem in Personnel, (3rd ed.), Wiley, New York.

Kerr, S. (1975), "On the Folly of Rewarding A while Hoping for B", Academy ofManagementJournal, Vol. 18, pp. 769-83.

Killeen, P.R. and Felterman, J.G. (1988), "A Behavioral Theory of Timing", Psychological Review, Vol. 95 No. 2, pp. 274-95.

LeBoeuf, M . (1985), The Greatest Management Principle in the World, Putnam, New York.

Luthans, F. and Kreitner, R. (1985), Organizational Behavior Modification and Beyond: An Operant and Social Learning Approach, Scott, Foresman, Glenview, ILL.

Meyer, J.K. (1990), "Substitute Reinforcement: A Major Psychological Source of Creative Capacity", Education, Vol. 110 No. 3, pp. 369-73.

Peters, T.J. and Waterman, R.H. Jr. (1982), In Search of Excellence: Lessons from America's Best Run Companies, Harper & Row, New York.

Pittinger, D.J. and Pavlik, W.B. (1988a), "Analysis of the Partial Reinforcement Extinction Effect in Humans Using Absolute and Relative Comparisons of Schedules", American Journal of Psychology, Vol. 10 No. 1, pp. 1-14.

Pittinger, D.J. and Pavlik, W.B. (1988b), "Analysis of the Practical Reinforcement Extinction Effect in Humans as a Function of Sequence of Reinforcement Schedules", American Journal of Psychology, Vol. 10 No. 3, pp. 371-82.

Scott, W.E. Jr., Farh, J.L. and Podsakoff, P.M. (1988), "The Effects of "Intrinsic" and "Extrinsic" Reinforcement Contingencies on Task Behavior", Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Vol. 41, pp. 405-25.

Skinner, B.F. (1969), Contingencies ofReinforcement, Appleton Century — Crafts, New York.

Staats, A.W. (1988), "Skinner's Theory and the Emotion — Behaviour Relationship: Incipient Change with Major Implications", American Psychologist, Vol. 43, pp. 747-8.

Szilagyi, A.D. Jr. (1981), Management and Performance, Goodyear, Santa Monica, CA.

Maurice F. Villere and Sandra S. Hartman are attached to the Department of Management, College of Business Administration, at the University of New Orleans, USA.

Downloaded by VICTORIA UNIVERSITY (Australia) At 00:50 27 August 2015 (PT)

This article has been cited by:

1. Julia Schamari, Tobias Schaefers. 2015. Leaving the Home Turf: How Brands Can Use Webcare on Consumer-generated Platforms to Increase Positive Consumer Engagement. Journal of Interactive Marketing 30, 20-33. [CrossRef]

2. Christos Bimpitsos, Eugenia Petridou. 2012. A transdisciplinary approach to training: preliminary research findings based on a case analysis. European Journal of Training and Development 36:9, 911-929. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

3. Cary L. Cooper, Peter Makin, Charles Cox. 1993. Managing the Boss. Leadership & Organization Development Journal 14:5, 28-32. [Abstract] [PDF]

4. Robert E. Ripley, Marie J. Ripley. 1993. Empowerment. Journal of Managerial Psychology 8:3, 3-9. [Abstract] [PDF]

Downloaded by VICTORIA UNIVERSITY (Australia) At 00:50 27 August 2015 (PT)