Job Satisfaction in Two Research Cultures:

Industrial and Organizational Psychology and

Organizational Behavior Management/Applied Behavior Analysis

Presented @ ABAI Denver May 30, 2011Tom Mawhinney

College of Business AdministrationUniversity of Detroit Mercy

1. Explore important historical and contemporary perspectives of

5. And job performance (JP) among members of formal organizations (FOs).

2. The Industrial and Organizational Psychology (IOP) and

3. Organizational Behavior Management (OBM) research cultures

4. And their practices regarding their conceptions and roles of Job Satisfaction (JS) in

Purpose

Grand theories underpinning the two paradigms or research

cultures.• For IOP the grand theory is: • B = (P,E) [Very widely used]• Ahistoric

• For OBM it is:• B = (S,H) [Often used de facto]• Historic

IOP Definition of B

According to Zedek (2010, p. xxii) “Behavior is often defined as “observable actions,” but I/O psychologists study more than observable actions. They also study intentions, attitudes, emotions, habits, motives, values, beliefs, and any otherpersonal construct that can be used to

describe people. They study knowledge, abilities, skills, and other characteristics of people that influence what someone does and thinks of in a work setting.

B = f(P,E): BC = f(PC,EC)According to Vroom (1964), “Lewin (1935) distinguishedbetween historic and ahistorical explanations of behavior. … From anahistorical point of view behavior at a given time is viewed asdepending only on events existing at that time. The problem isone of accounting for the actions of a person from a knowledge ofthe properties of his life space at the time the actions are occurring.From an historical standpoint, behavior is dependent onevents occurring at an earlier time. The historical problem isto determine the way in which the behavior of a person at onepoint in time is affected by past situations he has experienced andthe responses he has made to them. Freud’s constant emphasis onthe dependence of adult behavior on events which occurred inchildhood and Hull’s stress on reinforcement of previous responsesprovide us with good examples of historical explanations.” (Vroom,1964; pp. 13‐14)

B = f(P,E): BC = f(PC,EC)

Source: Organ & Bateman(1986, 118)

Effort Choice Model

Satisfaction Model

• Vroom’s is essentially the unobservable “law of effect” as the Matching Law (Brown & Herrnstein, 1975) moved “inside” the decision maker to provide an account of motivated choices observed as stimulus control; at least for choices among ratio schedules. Like the matching laws, the ultimate decision rule is reinforcement or “valence” maximization (Rachlin, 1982). Unlike matching, it does not deal explicitly with effects of delay on outcome values. The valence component is essentially a perceived or anticipated satisfaction model; Vj. 

Extensions of and Elaborations upon Vroom’s Model

• The Staw (1977) Work Level Theory

• The Porter and Lawler (1968) Dynamic Theory

• The House (1972) Path‐Goal Leadership Theory. 

• Note: Mawhinney and Ford (1977) published an “Operant Interpretation …” of the House Theory using the Matching Law (Herrnstein, 1970) and Correlation Based Law of Effect (Baum, 1973) in place of Vroom’s Theory.

The Porter and Lawler (1968) theory added two feedback loops and two moderators of the Effort  Performance element of their theory [ a) abilities and traits and b) role perceptions ] and one moderator effect on the rewards received  job satisfaction link. This third moderator is perceived equity of rewards received.  

Source: Organ & Bateman (1986) (Equity theory is also rooted in the work of J. Stacy Adams (1961))

Equity is perceived when “one’s” ratio is perceived to be equal to “other’s.”

OBM Definition of B• “Behavior is a difficult subject matter, not because it is inaccessible, but because it is extremely complex. Since it is a process, rather than a thing, it cannot be easily held still for observation.” (Skinner, 1953, p. 15) Therefore, operant behavior ,OB, is functionally defined as “… behavior the properties of which can be modified by its effects on the environment. This class of behavior has also been called instrumental, and corresponds closely to the behavior colloquially referred to as voluntary” (Catania, 1968, p. 340). 

B = f(S,A): B = f(S,H)• B = f(S,A) by B. F. Skinner (1938/1966)• From a behavior analytic perspective, 

operant behavior is behavior that obeys the laws of effect: the contiguity based laws of effect (Skinner, (1966b) and Thorndike (1911)), the law of relative effect (Herrnstein, 1970; Brown & Herrnstein, 1975) and the correlation based law of effect (Baum, (1973).

• For purposes of predicting behavior from any of these laws, the status of H, reinforcement history of B, must be known or controlled.

WHAT IS JOB SATISFACTIONFrom the IOP Perspective?

• Patricia Cain Smith (1967) defined JS “ … as an affective response of the worker to his job. It is viewed as a result or consequence of the worker’s experience on the job in relation to his own values, i.e., to what he wants or expects from it. Satisfaction can be viewed as similar in meaning to pleasure.”

WHAT IS JOB SATISFACTIONFrom the IOP Perspective?

• “…,  Locke (1969) defined job satisfaction as a positive emotional state resulting from an employee’s perception that his or her job allowed for the fulfillment of his or her values.”

• “  … Cranny, Smith, and Stone (1992) defined job satisfaction as an emotional state resulting from an employee’s comparison of actual and desired job outcomes.” (Schleicher et al. (2010),p. 148) 

WHAT IS JOB SATISFACTIONFrom the OBM Perspective?

• “… we know that people are reinforced by events ‘which generate the condition felt as joy’ (Skinner, 1974, p. 240) and by events which serve to reduce aversive conditions associated with deprivation.” (Beehr, Jex, & Ghosh, 2001; Mawhinney, 1984) 

• Job satisfaction should be assessed for purposes of OBM interventions’ social validation (Wolf, 1978)

• Any number of IOP job satisfaction measures may tap “conditions felt as joy” arising from a history of relatively satisfying events associated with facets of experiences with their work environment(s). (Wilk & Redmon, 1997)

WHAT IS JOB PERFORMANCE FROM AN IOP PERSPECTIVE?

• Job Performance from the IOP perspective ranges from direct observational measures (rare) through recollections of past events by performance assessors using any number of rating systems to provide the performer with performance feedback.(Cf. DeNisi, A. S., & Sonesh, S. (2010). The appraisal and management of performance at work. In S. Zedeck (Ed.), APA handbook of industrial and organizational psychology, 1, 255 279. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.)

• Absenteeism, turnover and tardiness may be directly observed and recorded while more complex concepts of performance may be measured fairly indirectly, e.g., attitudes associated with work, people at work, social issues at work are tapped by measures of attitudes toward them. 

(Cf. Wildman et al. (2010). In S. Zedeck (Ed.), APA handbook of industrial and organizational psychology, 1, 303‐331. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.)

HOW DO (JOB) ATTITUDES INFLUENCE BEHAVIOR ?

• Schleicher, Hansen, & Fox, 2010 (p. 142) draw on the work of Ajzen (1991) when describing how attitudes are related to behavior. The most proximate “cause” of behavior is “behavioral intention.” And behavioral intention is a function of three variables: a) attitude toward the behavior, b) subject norm and c) perceived behavioral control. This is called the theory of planned behavior. 

WHAT IS JOB PERFORMANCE FROM AN OBM PERSPECTIVE?

• Job Performance from the OBM perspective is any human behavior per se such as a speech, a song sung solo or by a cooperative group or choir…

• It may be social interactions face‐to‐face or at a distance via phone, PC, or solo interactions with electronic media in any location via the web

• It may be any behavior upon which reinforcements can be made contingent, which implies effective specification of what qualifies as performance-related behavior (Luthans & Krietner, 1985) for purposes of administering reinforcements.

• It may be accomplishments, i.e., the recordable,  tangible, financial and other consequences of behavior … 

(Abernathy, 1996, 2000, 2001; Bailey & Austin, 2001;  Daniels & Daniels, 2004; Gilbert, 1978; Hantula, 2001;  Komaki & Minnich, 2001;  Luthans & Krietner, 1985; Mager & Pipe, 1997; Malott, Whaley, & Malott, 1991); Rummler, 2001; Reid, 1998; Rummler & Brache, 1979;  Sulzer‐Azaroff & Mayer,  1991; Wilk, 2000; 

WHAT IS JOB SATISFACTION FROM AN OBM VANTAGE POINT AND IS IT WORTHY OF OUR

ATTENTION?

• “Happiness [satisfaction] is a feeling, a by‐product of operant reinforcement. The things which make us happy are the things which reinforce us, but it is the things, not the feelings, which must be identified and used in the prediction, control, and interpretation.” (B. F. Skinner, 1974)

SATISFACTION and PERFORMANCE ( AS ATTENDANCE and ABSENTEEISM and TURNOVER) ARE POORLY

CORRELATED.

SO WHY WORRY ABOUT JOB SATISFACTION ?Absenteeism:

r = ‐.17 (K = 25, N = 4,741) (highest r in Table 4.1)

Turnover:

r = ‐.154 (K = 12,     N = 3,059)   (highest r in Table 4.1)

p = ‐.300 (K =  312, N = 54,451) (highest p in Table 4.1)

(Table 4.1; Schleicher, D. J., Hansen, D., & Fox, K. E. (2010). Job Attitudes and Work Values.  In S. Zedeck (Ed.),  APA handbook of industrial and organizational psychology, 3, 137‐ 189. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.)

IS THERE ANY OTHER REASON?YES, IT IS AN ETHICAL DUTY

• Hantula and Kondash (2007)  averred for the following  proposition regarding rights and responsibilities of performance managers: “Demonstrated control of work environment[s] implies responsibility for [them] … Improving affective reaction to work is within … [the] … realm [of our control] and [therefore] becomes our duty …” (ppt, slide 15)

• (Cf. Beehr, Jex, & Ghosh, 2001, Re Stress Mgt.).

The modern world of work is one in which employees are frequently faced with Hobson’s Choice: Stay in one’s current job or risk losing the security of a known job and income. With 9% unemployment it’s not a “real choice.” (Mawhinney, 1984; 1982).

YES, AND IT IS PRAGMATIC.

LOW CORRELATIONS DON’T MEAN NOCORRELATIONS AND MAY MEAN THERE IS

SOMETHING THAT PREVENTS THE CORRELATION FROM TELLING WHAT IT MIGHT ABOUT CONDITIONS OF WORK.

Data Source: Table 1 Correlations Between Job-Satisfaction Levels and Attendance Levels on- Individual Days for the Chicago and New York Groups, Smith (1977)

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

Super Amt Work Kind Work $ Reward Future Identify

Chicago

New York

VERY HIGH !!!

VERY HIGH !!!

To Borrow or Develop Our Own Means of Assessing Job Satisfaction?

• Aguinis’ (2010) chapter in the APA Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology entitled Organizational Responsibility [OR]: Doing Good and Doing Well is arguably the functional equivalent in the IOP culture of Wolf’s (1978) “Social Validity [SV]: The case for subjective measurement or how applied behavior analysis is findings its heart” in the OBM/ABA culture, but many years later. 

Social Validity A La IOP• Aguinis’ (2010) definition characterizes what we call Social Validity in these terms “ … context‐specific organizational actions and policies [or PRACTICES] that take into account stakeholders’ expectations [needs and/or rights] and the triple bottom line of economic, social, and environmental performance.” (emphasis in original p. 855). 

Some of Us Do This Already!

Mawhinney & Fellows‐Kubert (JOBM, 1999) 

A SIMPLE MEASUREOF JS .

DO YOU WANT THEINTERVENTION TOBE CONTINUED?

14 OF 14 VOTED YES!Even though 2 withheldPerformances for a time.

Wolf (1978) pinpointed ABA and OBM cultures’ actions/practices that should be classified as contributing to social validity of members’ behavior and accomplishments:“1. The social significance of the goals. Are the specific behavioral goals really what society wants?”“2. The social appropriateness of the procedures. … That is, do the participants, caregivers and other consumers consider the treatment procedures acceptable?” [emphasis added]

Wolf’s (1978) pinpoints continued“3. The social importance of the effects. Are consumers satisfied [emphasis added] with the results? All the results, including any unpredicted ones?” (p. 207) This begs the question “Who are our customers?” Who we call our customers depends on whoand where we are in the FO system.We could be FO leaders, managers, supervisors and members of the OBM/ABA culture

… we could have internal customers in our first line workers, staff or service delivery personnel.

Parsons (1998) has reviewed the OBM/ABA literature regarding what, in the IOP culture, would be called job satisfaction and in the human services sector of OBM/ABA that might well be called consumer satisfaction and/or procedural acceptability.

What if anything have we been doing in this regard?

… based on field experiences, Daniels and Daniels (2004) recognized and alerted supervisors, managers and leaders to the fact that what function as reinforcing consequences at one place and point in time can and do vary through time.

This may be one explanation of the Wilder, Rost, and McMahon (2007) finding that managers are not highly reliable predictors of consequences that will function as reinforcers among those whose behavior they are charged with managing.

A related issue clearly implicated by the matching law is negative effects of delayed positive reinforcer deliveries on reinforcement value of those delayed consequences (Rachlin, 1989).

Reid and Parsons (1996) verified this fact among participants in a training program, albeit not with respect to the quantitative matching law

… socially validated practices of which the positive reinforcers may become a part (Cf. Wilder, Therrien, & Wine, 2006) should yield increased job satisfaction among organizational members.

Green, Reid, Passante, & Canipe (2008) described and validated efficacy of a complex set of procedures, or a behavior change strategy that involved “Changing Less-Preferred Duties to More-Preferred .. “ OBM research in this tradition provides a stellar example of a difference between IOP and OBM traditions and strategies.

I find the emerging OBM traditions that effectively fit people to jobs by changing both (Green, et al., 2008), whether “one-shot” and using highly specialized assessment instruments or those more standardized or in the process of being standardized and validated, highly innovative and interesting.

OBM/ABA Small Scale and Organization‐Wide Development Using IOP‐Type Job Satisfaction Assessment Technologies 

Because absenteeism, is believed to reflect JS, and Wilk and Redmon were paying attention to it, theynoticed a rise in the absence rate (as a job satisfaction indicator) coincident with onset of their intervention. They also noted a decline in absenteeism as the intervention continued. Because JS was not otherwise assessed, however, there was no way to know whether the “blip” in absenteeism was due to the intervention or some other source of reduced satisfaction or an increase in dissatisfaction.

Their next goal setting and feedback intervention (Wilk & Redmon, 1997) was designed to increase productivity and JSusing a goal setting and feedback intervention. Job satisfaction was measured with an IOP-type measure, the Work Environment Scale (WES) (Moos, 1981).

All facets (N = 10) of the JS measure improved as a result of the intervention and more so for facets one would expect to improve as a result of their specific intervention.

“Most importantly, task clarity and supervisor support were reported as greatly improved (more than two standard deviations), while work pressure was reported to have been reduced (one standard deviation).” (Wilk & Redmon, 1997, p. 60)

This would be expected to result in reduced job-related stress (Beehr, Jex, & Ghosh, 2001).

• In an invited address to members of the Association for Behavior Analysis (ABA) entitled “Meaningful Change at the Cultural Level: Behavioral Systems Revisited,” Bill Redmon critiqued OBM’s penchant for small scale organizational change interventions and described a system he was responsible for creating and assessing in his capacity as Manager of Leadership and Development at The Bechtel Group, Inc. a global Engineering and Construction company. I recently asked Bill whether he was still using JS systems as a means or establishing social validity (Wolf, 1978) and organizational member development and assessment. In response Bill said:

“Every Senior Vice President who runs a business or manages an organization is accountable for action planning to address gaps in employee satisfaction. …

As far as leadership, I monitor several items on the survey as well as some multi-item indices to see if the results we are getting are being obtained in the “right way.” …, I monitor Satisfaction with Immediate Supervisor which has moved from a neutral zone to a strength over the 5 years that we have been doing upward feedback for our supervisors. Also, I monitor satisfaction with Senior Management as an indicator of their effectiveness in communicating, supporting and enabling their organizations to be successful.” (Personal communication with Bill Redmon, September, 2010)

OBM/ABA IOP Hybrid Research With Implications for Job Satisfaction

• Filipowski and Johnson (2008), capitalized on the opportunity afforded them by the closing of another plant within their focal organization’s complex and geographically dispersed operations revealing differences between and reactions among union and non-union members.

These differences were reflections of differences in their cultural practices (Mawhinney, 1992, 1995; Redmon & Mason, 2001)

In the authors words: “Layoffs and employment changes caused by current economic conditions have significant effects on employee work behavior and emotions as well as organizational outcomes. We examined the relationships between measures of job insecurity [IOP constructs], organizational commitment [OC, an IOP construct], turnover, absenteeism, and worker performance [OBM measures] within a manufacturer in Chapter 11 bankruptcy. A positive relationship was found between job insecurity [IOPconstruct] and intentions to turnover [IOP construct], and a small negative correlation was found between measures of job insecurity [IOP construct] and organizational commitment [IOP construct]. “

“… Unobtrusive observations [ABA and OBM measurement technologies] of union and nonunion [members’] performance over 4 months showed that nonunion production workers were on-task more frequently, although on-task behavior was high for both.Productivity and quality [OBM] measures of different factories favored nonunion locations. Although comparisons between sites were constrained by a quasi-experimental design, repeated behavioral and outcome measures [ABA and OBM measurement technologies] within sites showed differential effects when the company announced a plant closing in another state.”

[Unplanned and uncontrolled “natural” treatment] “Job insecurity [IOP construct] appeared to be an establishing operation [BA, ABA, and OBM technical term/concept] that produced differential effects between union and nonunion sites as well as among individual employees within sites.” (pp. 218-219)

Field studies such as this one may well provide clients with deeper insights into issues such as why union workers might be more likely to resist efforts to improve their performance compared to non union workers. The methods described by Bill Redmon might well be used to improve supervisory and management dealings with their subordinates.

Filipkowski, M., & Johnson, C. M. (2008). Comparisons of performance and job insecurity inunion and nonunion sites of a manufacturing company. Journal of Organizational Behavior Management, 28 (4), 218-237

Announcement of Plant Closure

SUMMING UP

• The OBM/ABA culture should not, …, eschew all OB and IOP practices associated with developing measures that get at “subjective” perspectives of people or the world as experienced (H) from the consumers’ (our clients’) perspective’. But such practices should be recognized as serving two purposes among OBM/ABA members:

a) Gaining a better understanding of peoples’ behavior  in the sense that IOP seeks to understand people so that we may communicate with members of other cultures also interested in improving social validity of behavioral interventions and programs in FOs, e.g., those of IOP members, andb), continue to support Hall’s (1980) reminder that: “The goal of the field of OBM is to establish a technology of broad-scale performance improvement and organizational change so that employees will be more productive and happy [Skinner, 1974], and so that our organizations and institutions will be more effective and efficient in achieving their goals.

“This has obvious benefits for our society.” (Hall, 1980, JOBM, p. 142) 

LET’S TALK ABOUT IT!

THANK YOU