The behavioural approach to change, as the name implies, very much focuses on how one individual can change another individual’s behaviour using reward and punishment, to achieve intended results. If the intended results are not being achieved then an analysis of the individual’s behaviour will lead to an understanding of what is contributing to success and what is contributing to non-achievement. In order to elicit the preferred behaviour the individual must be encouraged to behave that way, and discouraged from behaving any other way. This approach has its advantages and disadvantages.
For example, an organization is undergoing a planned programme of culture change, moving from being an inwardly focused bureaucratic organization to a flatter and more responsive customer oriented organization. Customer facing and back office staff will all need to change the way they behave towards customers and towards each other to achieve this change. A behavioural approach to change will focus on changing the behaviour of staff and managers. The objective will be behaviour change, and there will not necessarily be any attention given to improving processes, improving relationships or increasing involvement in goal setting. There will be no interest taken in how individuals specifically experience that change.
This whole field is underpinned by the work of a number of practitioners. The names of Pavlov and Skinner are perhaps the most famous. Ivan Pavlov noticed while researching the digestive system of dogs that when his dogs were connected to his experimental apparatus and offered food they began to salivate. He also observed that, over time, the dogs started to salivate when the researcher opened the door to bring in the food. The dogs had learnt that there was a link between the door opening and being fed. This is now referred to as classical conditioning.
CLASSICAL CONDITIONING
Unconditioned stimulus (food) leads to an unconditioned response (salivation).
If neutral stimulus (door opening) and unconditioned stimulus (food) are associated, neutral stimulus (now a conditioned stimulus) leads to unconditioned response (now a conditioned response).
Pavlov (1928)
Further experimental research led others to realize that cats could learn how to escape from a box through positive effects (rewards) and negative effects (punishments). Skinner (1953) extended this research into operant conditioning, looking at the effects of behaviours, not just at the behaviours themselves. His experiments with rats led him to observe that they soon learnt that an accidental operation of a lever led to there being food provided. The reward of the food then led to the rats repeating the behaviour.
Using the notion of rewards and punishments, four possible situations arise.
STOP AND THINK!
What rewards and what punishments operate in your organization? How effective are they in bringing about change?
So in what ways may behaviourism help us with individuals going through change? In any project of planned behaviour change a number of steps will be required:
Step 1: The identification of the behaviours that impact performance.
Step 2: The measurement of those behaviours. How much are these behaviours currently in use?
Step 3: A functional analysis of the behaviours – that is, the identification of the component parts that make up each behaviour.
Step 4: The generation of a strategy of intervention – what rewards and punishments should be linked to the behaviours that impact performance.
Step 5: An evaluation of the effectiveness of the intervention strategy.
Reinforcement strategies
When generating reward strategies at Step 4 above, the following possibilities should be borne in mind:
Financial reinforcement
Traditionally financial reinforcement is the most explicit of the reinforcement mechanisms used in organizations today, particularly in sales oriented cultures. The use of bonus payments, prizes and other tangible rewards is common. To be effective the financial reinforcement needs to be clearly, closely and visibly linked to the behaviours and performance that the organization requires.
A reward to an outbound call centre employee for a specific number of appointments made on behalf of the sales force would be an example of a reinforcement closely linked to a specified behaviour. A more sophisticated system might link the reward to not only the number of appointments but also the quality of the subsequent meeting and also the quality of the customer interaction.
An organization-wide performance bonus unrelated to an individual’s contribution to that performance would be an example of a poorly linked reinforcement.
Non-financial reinforcement
Non-financial reinforcement tends to take the form of feedback given to an individual about performance on specific tasks. The more specific the feedback is, the more impactful the reinforcement can be. This feedback can take both positive and negative forms. This might well depend on the organizational culture and the managerial style of the boss. This feedback perhaps could take the form of a coaching conversation, where specific effective behaviours are encouraged, and specific ineffective behaviours are discouraged and alternatives generated.
Social reinforcement
Social reinforcement takes the form of interpersonal actions: that is, communications of either a positive or negative nature. Praise, compliments, general recognition, perhaps greater (or lesser) attention can all act as a positive reinforcement for particular behaviours and outcomes. Similarly social reinforcement could also take the form of ‘naming and shaming’ for ineffective performance.
Social reinforcement is not only useful for performance issues, but can be extremely useful when an organizational culture change is underway. Group approval or disapproval can be a determining factor in defining what behaviours are acceptable or unacceptable within the culture. New starters in an organization often spend quite some time working out which behaviours attract which reactions from bosses and colleagues.
Motivation and behaviour
The pure behaviourist view of the world, prevalent in industry up to the 1960s, led to difficulties with motivating people to exhibit the ‘right’ behaviours. This in turn led researchers to investigate what management styles worked and did not work.
In 1960 Douglas McGregor published his article The Human Side of Enterprise. In it he described his Theory X and Theory Y, which looked at underlying management assumptions about an organization’s workforce.
Theory X was built on the assumption that workers are not inherently motivated to work, seeing it as a necessary evil and therefore needing close supervision. Theory Y stated that human beings generally have a need and a desire to work, and given the right environment are more than willing to contribute to the organization’s success. McGregor’s research appeared to show that those managers who exhibited Theory Y beliefs were more successful in eliciting good performance from their people.
Frederick Herzberg also investigated what motivated workers to give their best performance. He was an American clinical psychologist who suggested that workers have two sets of drives or motivators: a desire to avoid pain or deprivation (hygiene factors) and a desire to learn and develop (motivators). His work throughout the 1950s and 1960s suggested that many organizations provided the former but not the latter.
An important insight of his was that the hygiene factors did not motivate workers, but that their withdrawal would demotivate the workforce.
STOP AND THINK!
- What are the underlying assumptions built into the behaviourist philosophy, and how do they compare to McGregor’s theories?
- In a change programme based on the behaviourist approach, what added insights would Herzberg’s ideas bring?
- If one of your team members is not good at giving presentations, how would you address this using behaviourist ideas?
Summary of behavioural approach
If you were to approach change from a behaviourist perspective you are more likely to be acting on the assumption of McGregor’s Theory X: the only way to motivate and align workers to the change effort is through a combination of rewards and punishments. You would spend time and effort ensuring that the right reward strategy and performance management system was in place and was clearly linked to an individual’s behaviours. Herzberg’s ideas suggest that there is something more at play than reward and punishment when it comes to motivating people. That is not to say that the provision of Herzberg’s motivators cannot be used as some sort of reward for correct behaviour.