Incentive programs, bonuses, fringe benefits, and promotions are traditional contingency addition strategies. All too often, however, these programs prove costly and ineffective because they are not granted contingently or because they are not genuine reinforcers. To be effective in increasing and maintaining behaviors, the reinforcer must be desired by the target individual and must be contingent on the performance of a particular behavior. An annual bonus and a dental plan given to all employees are rarely effective, because they are not contingent. When they are granted contingently, too often the employee actually receives the bonus so much later than the performance of the behavior that it will be virtually ineffective as a reinforcer.
Furthermore, benefits and bonuses may not be desired by the target person. Because they are not refused does not mean they are actively desired.
Often supervisors and managers believe that they know what is reinforcing to employees. In a recent study, supervisors and employees were asked to rate the importance of ten factors in motivating employees. The results revealed that supervisors had a very different idea about employee motivators than employees did. Employees rated "appreciation or deserved praise" as first, "feeling in on things" as second, and "understanding personal problems" as third in importance. Supervisors considered these factors to be the least effective motivators (eighth, tenth, and ninth, respectively) and, on the other hand, rated as very potent motivators "good wages" (first), "promotion" (third), and "good working conditions" (fourth). Employees rated these factors as considerably less important (fifth, seventh, and ninth, respectively). A recent survey conducted by Psychology Today, on its readership underscores these findings. Of 18 job factors explored, readers rated the following as the six most important: (1) chances to do something that makes you feel good about yourself; (2) chances to accomplish something worthwhile; (3) chances to learn new things; (4) opportunities to develop your skills and abilities; (5) the amount of freedom you have in your job; (6) chances you have to do things you do best. Those factors that have been traditionally assumed to be potent motivators fell low on the list. For example, job security rated eleventh, amount of pay rated twelfth, fringe benefits rated sixteenth, chances for promotion rated seventeenth, and physical surroundings rated eighteenth. Clearly, managers and supervisors have a very different idea of what is reinforcing to employees than what actually is reinforcing. Money and fringe benefits are not the powerful motivators they have been assumed to be, and therein lies the problem. Supervisors too frequently assume that they know what is reinforcing. No wonder so many finely conceived incentive programs have failed! The solution to this dilemma is to observe and to ask questions.
The task is to discover what is reinforcing to the target person and then to insert it in the if-then statement. The primary difference between the strategies of rearranging contingencies and of adding contingencies is that in the first, only those reinforcers currently in operation are used, whereas in the second more of the existing reinforcers as well as new reinforcers are employed. In general, contingency addition does not require additional expense; rather, it involves additional attention, additional opportunities for recognition and skill development, and additional privileges (generally more of those privileges that already exist).
Potential reinforcers are identified in the same way as existing reinforcers, but the emphasis is on the manager's asking the employee. Usually employees are keenly aware of what they want and what they find reinforcing. For one employee, it may be more or longer breaks; for another, it may be more input into decisions; for yet another, it may be the opportunity to work on tasks that will eventually lead to greater skills. Michael Maccoby's intensive inter views with top-level executives revealed many of their potential rein forcers, such as more autonomy, opportunities to build an effective team, and a chance to feel like a winner. Many of the most powerful potential reinforcers are already available to supervisors and do not need formal organizational approval or reorganization. Some of the most useful ones are listed here.
Special Attention Reinforcers: Praise, Praise in front of others, Special work assignments, Reserved parking space, Choice of office, Selection of own office furnishings, Invitation to higher-level meetings, Choice of work attire, Social contacts with others, Solicitation of opinions and ideas, Choice of work partner and Flexible job duties
Company Time Reinforcers: Time off for work-related activities, Time off for personal business, Extra break time, Extra meal time and Choice of working hours or days off
Monetary Reinforcers Promotion: Paid days off, Company stock, Company car, Pay for sick days not taken, Pay for overtime accumulated, Tickets to special events, Free raffle or lottery tickets, Extra furnishing for office, Gift certificates, Dinner for family at nice restaurant, Personalized license plate, Personalized gifts, Desk calculator or computer terminal, Business cards, Expense account, Participation, Voice in policy decisions, Help set standards, Be a representative at meetings, More responsibility and Opportunity to learn new skill. Of course, not all of these will be reinforcing to any one person, Select a reinforcer tailored to the person (by observing and asking), and insert it into the if-then statement. For example, as a consequence of making a suggestion, Betty’s supervisor might make a comment about its creativity to his own supervisor in Betty's presence. Or the radio station manager might take Charles out to lunch if he negotiates with Rosemary about getting the projection on time.
Extinction and Punishment as Contingent Consequences
Contingency management is routinely employed by most managers, but unfortunately the contingencies are often punishment or extinction. "If you are late, then I will dock your pay," or "If you make a typo, then I will criticize you" are examples of if-then statements in which the then-consequence is punishment. Contingency extinction is characterized by statements such as "If you are on time, then I will ignore you," or "If you correct all the typos, then I will say nothing." Of course, such contingencies are rarely conceptualized, but the observant eye reveals their operation.
A much more effective approach is to think of a desirable behavior to be increased rather than an undesirable behavior to be decreased. Think of what you want the target people to do rather than what you want them to stop doing. Just making this simple change in your way of looking at the problem will assist you in becoming more reinforcing. Once the problem behavior has been translated in this way, use a combination of reinforcement plus extinction as the contingent con sequences. For example, "If you are on time, then I will make a friendly good morning greeting; if you are late, then I will say nothing," Extinction is almost always preferable to punishment. (Extinction or the reduction in the frequency of a behavior occurs when the behavior has no consequence.) Thus, the best strategy is to ignore or extinguish the undesirable behavior and to reinforce an incompatible desirable one. If done systematically, this strategy will effectively increase the frequency of the desired behavior and avoid the negative side effects of punishment.
Many managers have difficulty accepting this approach. A frequent response is, "He gets paid to work. Why should I have to reinforce him?" This viewpoint advocates extinguishing desirable work behavior. Considering the paycheck in terms of the principles of reinforcement, we see that it is not given for doing efficient work, but rather for putting in a specified number of hours. Other supervisors feel, "She knows she's supposed to be on time-I just can't say nothing when she comes in late!" It is easy to get caught up in "she shoulds" and "he knows" and fears that if the smallest error goes unmentioned it will spread like a malignancy. But innumerable studies have demonstrated that long-term behavior changes are most effectively accomplished through positive reinforcement plus extinction.
It becomes easier to understand when you view the target person in the context of the environment and ask the question: "What environmental consequences are maintaining this undesirable behavior?" Sometimes it is the very response meant to be a punisher. In a low-reinforcing environment, negative attention can become reinforcing. In other situations, the negative attention is perceived as positive ("Boy, did I get her goat that time!"). The best testimonial is experience. By abandoning punitive consequences and substituting extinc tion plus reinforcement, for example, you will decrease the amount of avoidance as well as the frequency of nonproductive emotional reactions (such as anger, fear, and crying) that are so common a side effect of punishment.
In some instances a manager may feel that commenting on sub standard performance is essential. When necessary, confront the undesired behavior in a way that is not punitive-that is avoid evaluation or criticism. Begin by describing the substandard performance, then express your concern about bringing the behavior up to standards and ask for suggestions to improve performance. Finally, negotiate a contingency contract. For example, you might say the following to a salesman who has failed to meet his quota; "Ben, you closed seven deals last week. I am concerned about this, because the quota is six teen. What suggestions do you have for increasing your sales?" Use any reasonable suggestion as a starting point for negotiating a change plan.
There are times when punishment might be the most appropriate consequence, but these instances are few. If the undesirable behavior is a threat to people or to property (such as driving a forklift too fast around the yard), punishment in the form of a reprimand would be appropriate. But punishment should always be used in combination with reinforcement. Punish the undesirable behavior of driving the forklift too fast, and reinforce the desirable behavior of driving the forklift slowly. Punishment usually results in immediate cessation of the punished behavior, but punishment does not teach or encourage a desirable behavior. Once the forklift driver stops speeding, how he does drive is left to chance. And punishment does not result in a lasting reduction in most cases. By using it in combination with reinforcement, you create a hiatus in the performance of undesirable behavior. This is your opportunity to use your reinforcing skills to promote the more appropriate behavior.
