When discussing methods that can be used to increase desired workplace behaviors, it is first important to understand reinforcement and punishment.  Cooper, Heron, and Heward (2007) define reinforcement as having occurred when a stimulus change follows a response and leads to an increase in the future frequency of that type of behavior in similar conditions.  An example of this would be: a child screams for candy and his mom gives him candy.  In the future, when he wants candy, he will be more likely to use this method to try to obtain it, since his learning history indicates that it has been effective in the past.  This concept can also be used to increase desired behaviors.  An example of this would be: an employee cleans his work area before leaving and receives a compliment from his supervisor.  Again, the principle of reinforcement indicates that he will be more likely to clean up his work area when presented with the same stimulus in the future due to this behavior having been reinforced in the past.

Punishment is defined as having occurred when a stimulus change follows a response and the response’s future frequency is decreased under similar circumstances in the future. (Cooper, et al., 2007) Examples of this are numerous in our everyday lives.  One such example is an individual being yelled at by a supervisor for using a phone on the job if, in the future, the individual is less likely to use their phone than they were before.  The scolding had a punishing effect on their behavior of using their phone in the workplace.

As Daniels and Bailey (2014) indicate, behavior analysts do not prefer to think of punishment as being necessary in workplaces, in large part due to its side effects.   Unfortunately, because punishment is so common in our natural environments, and is reinforcing to the person doing the punishing (results are often instantaneous), it is a lot of supervisors’ preferred method of addressing poor or insufficient staff performance.

There are several side effects of punishment.  Daniels and Bailey (2014) say that punishment can cause individuals to engage in escape and avoidance behaviors.  This can take many forms, such as: blaming others, avoiding the supervisor, or even quitting their job. Punishment can also increase aggression, both verbal and physical due to its aversiveness to most people.  Additionally, since punishment does not teach or reinforce a replacement behavior, the undesired behavior is likely to return once the punishing agent/situation is removed.  (Daniels & Bailey, 2014) These are among the reasons that behavior analysts prefer to focus on reinforcing desired behaviors rather than punishing those that are not desired.

When identifying possible reinforcers, it is important to remember that each person has a different learning history that will influence their preferences and behaviors.  No two people will find all of the same things reinforcing.  For example, many people may find vocal praise reinforcing, but for some it can be aversive, particularly if they do not like everyone looking at them.  It is vital that available reinforcers are individualized to the degree that is possible.  This applies in all situations, including the workplace.

There are several methods that can be used to determine things that could possibly serve as effective reinforcers.  First, supervisors could ask the employees what they like.  This could be done informally in conversation, or using a survey.  Second, supervisors could observe the employees to see what they seem drawn to.  This is also where supervisors could use the Premack Principle, in which the employee is told that once they finish a task, they get something they find reinforcing.  The third method for finding potential reinforcers discussed by Daniels and Bailey (2014) is to simply test consequences using trial and error.

There are several types of preference assessments that are discussed by Cooper, Heron, and Heward (2007).  The first is free operant observation, which involves observing the individual to see what he or she accesses when no contingencies are in place.  Within this type of assessment are the contrived and naturalistic free operant observations.  The contrived observation includes providing access to predetermined stimuli and taking data on which items are chosen, whereas the naturalistic observation involves taking data on chosen items in the individual’s natural environment.

A second type of preference assessment is the single stimulus methods.  During this assessment, the individual’s reaction to a stimulus is observed and reported upon.  A strength of this type of assessment is that it can be useful for individuals who struggle to make choices (Cooper, Heron, & Heward, 2007).

A third type of preference assessment is a paired stimuli assessment, which is also known as a forced choice assessment.  During this assessment, two items are presented and data is taken on which item is chosen.  This is repeated multiple times and a hierarchy is created based upon choice patterns (Cooper, Heron, & Heward, 2007).

A fourth type of preference assessment is a multiple stimuli assessment.  In this case, multiple stimuli are presented and the order in which they are chosen is noted.  In a multiple stimuli without replacement (MSO) assessment, after a stimulus is chosen, another stimulus is not put in its place.  It is simply a ranking of the items by order chosen.  In a multiple stimuli with replacement (MSW) assessment, the chosen item remains available but the items that were not chosen are replaced with different items (Cooper, Heron, & Heward, 2007).

When considering reinforcement, it is important to also consider factors that alter the value of a reinforcer.  These factors are referred to as motivating operations.  Cipani and Schock (2011) discuss the two types of motivating operations (MO).  Establishing operations (EO) are factors that increase the value of a specific outcome.  Conversely, abolishing operations (AO) are factors that decease the value of a specific outcome.  If a student hasn’t eaten in a few hours, she will likely find the value of food to be increased due to the current state of deprivation.  Therefore, she will be more likely to emit behaviors that have the potential to provide her access to food.  An AO is the opposite.  If a student just ate a huge lunch, she will be less likely to emit behaviors that provide access to food due to her state of satiation.  It is essential to recognize and understand the MOs that are in play when designing a performance incentive plan.

Daniels and Bailey (2014) discuss several characteristics of effective reinforcers in the workplace, and provide an acronym (CARE) as a memory aid to keep these characteristics in mind.  First, they state that an effective reinforcer must be controllable.  This means that if a manager cannot follow through on providing a reinforcer, it should not be used.  Before offering something as reinforcement, it is important to ensure that there is funding for it and that it is acceptable under company policy.  Additionally, it is important to consider the effect the reinforcer’s presentation to a staff member will have on other staff members, as well as the company as a whole.  Will a new precedent be set?  Is this opportunity going to be offered to everyone?  If so, do resources exist to make it so?  If not, why not?

The second characteristic of an effective reinforcer is that it needs to be available.  It is important that reinforcement is provided as soon as possible after the desired behavior occurs. (Cooper et al., 2007) This means that the reinforcer needs to be immediately (or at least quickly) available.  Daniels and Bailey (2014) use the example of social praise and similar social behaviors as reinforcers that are always available.  (It is important to note that social behaviors are not reinforcing for everyone, as indicated above.)  They list tangibles as an example of a reinforcer that requires advance planning due to factors like budgetary approval and lag associated with procuring said reinforcement.

Another characteristic of effective reinforcers is that they must be repeatable.  For example, promotions cannot be given every time a desired behavior is emitted, but social praise, or a small trinket, possibly can.  If the reinforcer cannot be used more than once, the contingency between the desired behavior and its consequence may be broken, leading to a decrease in said behavior (Cipani & Schock, 2011).

Finally, an effective reinforcer must be efficient.  This means that the reinforcer’s value should match up well with the value of the behavior performed.  A promotion need not be given because an employee showed up on time once.  Social praise would be a better fit to use as reinforcement in this case, as it is sustainable for the organization.  Now that reinforcement, motivating operations, and the characteristics of effective workplace reinforcers have been discussed, it is possible to discuss specific incentive programs, and what the research has shown about them (Cipani & Shock, 2011).

Performance-based pay is a form of positive reinforcement involving, as the name indicates, pay based upon predetermined performance criteria being met.  Bucklin and Dickinson (2001) provide a comprehensive look at the different relationships that can exist between performance and pay.  They compiled data from existing research and the results indicated that financial incentives paired with feedback led to an increase in performance levels.  Further, they discuss that the biggest factor in determining the success of a pay for performance program is the schedule of reinforcement, not the amount of financial reinforcement available.  Basically, this means that the dollar amounts offered do not matter as much as establishing the contingency between a certain amount of work earning a certain amount of pay.

Research by Long, Wilder, Betz and Dutta (2012) examined the effectiveness of two types of payment systems on the rate of check processing and on-task behavior by the study’s participants.  In this study, participants received pay using either pay for time (PFT) or pay per performance (PFP).  After data were taken regarding performance under each system, the participants were given a choice as to which system they wanted to work under for the final phase of the experiment.  The results indicated that the PFP system led to higher rates of performance as well as more time on task than did PFT systems, which replicates previous research.  Interestingly, although PFP resulted in higher levels of performance, and therefore greater levels of performance incentives, some participants chose to work under the PFT system.  This lead the authors to indicate that further research may be necessary to evaluate the relationship between PFP, PFT, employee choice, and job satisfaction.

An additional study on performance-based pay was done by Koffarnus, DeFulio, Sigurdson, and Silverman (2013).  In this study, the effects on performance of hourly pay and productivity-based pay were examined.  The participants were individuals who were learning how to type as a step towards future employability. The study showed that not only did most participants indicate a preference for performance-based pay over hourly pay, but most participants’ performance levels were higher under that condition as well.

Overall, the research indicates that pay for performance is more effective at producing higher rates of productivity than hourly pay.  Unfortunately, hourly pay scales are still the norm in most companies possibly due to the need for predictable cash flows for payroll.  Additionally, research shows the need for further studies relating to employee preference and its relationship to the different types of pay for performance systems.

There are many incentive programs in use aside from salary and pay for performance systems.  Daniels (2009) discusses several common incentive programs, why they do not work, and offers replacement programs.  He first discusses employee of the month programs, which he states are ineffective because only one person obtains reinforcement.  The rest of the staff, no matter how highly-performing they are, does not receive reinforcement for their work.  Daniels suggests that instead of an employee of the month program, a program is developed that recognizes all individuals that achieve the predetermined criteria.  Johnson and Dickinson’s (2010) research agrees with Daniels’s assertions, showing that not only did employee of the month programs not lead to sustained performance improvement, but that they also may be detrimental to the performance of staff members who are not recognized for their work, and breed unhealthy competition and bitterness among staff members.

Another type of staff incentive program is the point system.  As Daniels and Bailey (2014) explain, point systems involve employees earning points for meeting predetermined criteria, and then trade those points for reinforcers.  These can be things like, days off, gift cards, or other tangibles.  The text states that for many individuals, simply having the points is reinforcing enough, and they may never actually spend them.  This makes the arrangement reinforcing for the staff member, and inexpensive for the company.  An example of this would be a checklist of cleaning tasks that are to be completed each day.  The supervisor goes around at the end of the day and awards a point for each task successfully completed.  The staff member is frequently notified of the number of points that have been earned, and has an opportunity to spend them or save them up for something they find even more reinforcing.

Aside from increasing desired employee behaviors, point systems provide valuable data to the organization that could be used to diagnose work flow issues, equipment problems, etc.  (Daniels & Bailey, 2014) For example, if one task seems to be missed by multiple staff members, supervisors should consider looking at potential barriers to completion of the task.

Lotteries are another type of incentive program that is used to improve staff performance.  (Reid, Parsons, & Green, 2012) In this case, staff members earn chances to be entered into a lottery in which they can win reinforcers.  Examples of reinforcers are gift cards, time off, selecting their work schedules, a special parking spot, etc.  (Reid, et al., 2012) In a study done by Iwata, Bailey, Brown, Foshee, and Alpern (1976), lotteries were shown to be successful in increasing the target behaviors of staff members in a residential care facility.  These authors also commented on the fact that in addition to being effective, it was a relatively inexpensive incentive due to only one person winning.  They also suggest that this type of incentive program could be successful when used in organizations of any size.  Notable disadvantages of a lottery system are that they can be perceived as gimmicky and insincere by employees, as well as the fact that very few people receive reinforcement.  This could lead to performance decreases in the future as some individuals never receive reinforcement.  (Reid, et al., 2012)

Reid, et al. (2012) also discuss phone calls received by staff at home.  While phone calls at home from one’s boss are usually aversive due to the possible indication of a punitive or emergency situation, the tables can be turned rapidly when the call received consists of praise.  The authors caution that this method, while appreciated by many, still disrupts the lives of the employee and his/her family, and should be used sparingly due to this fact.

In a study involving the safety-related behavior of roofers, Austin, Kessler, Riccobono, and Bailey (1996) utilized both financial rewards and paid time off to increase desired behavior.  In this study, both methods were effective in increasing desired responding.  Using paid time off as a reinforcer can be an effective at impacting employee behavior, and it has the additional benefit of not being very expensive.  Obviously, in some cases, full staffing is vital, or even legally required, and this method may be less desirable, but in cases wherein a staff member missing a day every now and then isn’t going to have a significant effect, this method of reinforcement may well be ideal.

According to Daniels and Bailey (2014), the least expensive and easiest method of reinforcement that can be given to employees is feedback.  This can come in many forms, including vocal, written, formal, informal, group, individual, public, and private, but should always be provided using the following evidence-based protocols.  This will help the feedback retain value as a reinforcer instead of becoming aversive.  (Reid, et al., 2012) First, feedback should start with a positive statement, or one that shows empathy. Next, the staff member should be informed of things they did correctly.  Then, they are informed of things they did incorrectly, followed by a description of what they need to do to correct this behavior.  They should then be asked if they have any questions and informed of next steps regarding the target behavior.  Finally, the feedback session should be ended with another positive or empathetic statement.  The person that is providing feedback should be fluent in performing the task being discussed, as well as at providing feedback. (Reid, et al., 2012) Daniels and Bailey (2014) supply additional guidelines for providing effective feedback.  First, feedback should include specific instructions and/or action steps that will provide the person with the tools needed to make the desired changes.  Second, feedback should only be given relating to behaviors the person can control.  If the staff member is unable to meet deadlines because the person responsible for getting him the necessary materials is not on time, it is not within his ability to change his performance.  Third, feedback should be immediate.  As discussed above, research has shown that immediate feedback leads to greater increases in desired responding than delayed feedback.  Fourth, feedback should be individualized for each person.  If this is not possible, feedback should be given to the smallest group possible.  This is due to the possibility of reinforcing the work of those who are not pulling their weight in the group.  Finally, feedback should be easily understood.  If the individual cannot understand the feedback, how can they know whether and what they need to change or keep doing?

Feedback is inexpensive and always available.  Most people find it reinforcing (when it is sincere), and it has the added benefit of being reinforcing for most supervisors as well.  Obviously, there will be times when feedback and positive praise alone are not sufficient for changing staff behaviors, but these methods are a good starting point. (Daniels & Bailey, 2014)

An area in which there is limited research is in the area of employee preference.  This looks at what causes a person to choose one potential reinforcer over another.  Future research could identify EOs involved in employee choices of reinforcement, including familial issues, financial issues, age, health considerations, etc.  Hopefully, this line of research is picked up in the future, as it will help corporations with bottom lines while also increasing the quality of life of employees while they are at work.

A focus on both bottom lines and employee job satisfaction is what lends the current topic its social validity.  Social validity relates to whether or not the behavior(s) being changed will lead to socially meaningful, or significant, change.  (Cooper et al., 2007) In the field of applied behavior analysis, any behaviors that are targets for change should have social significance for the individual(s) whose behavior is going to be changed, with attention paid to the effects on other relevant individuals.  The Professional and Ethical Compliance code for Behavior Analysts (BACB, 2014) lays out guidelines relating to choosing behaviors that will be changed, as well as methods that can be used for changing them, and other considerations to be made prior to starting any treatment or intervention package. Additionally, the BACB Fourth Edition Task List (BACB, 2012) discusses the core competencies expected of those who attempt to undertake behavior change services or programs.  Being proficient in the field should increase the likelihood of successfully identifying socially significant problems that can be targeted.

In addition to social validity, as Baer, Wolf, and Risley (1968) pointed out, behavior change programs should aim to have generality, or the capability of being applied to more than one situation, setting, individual, etc.  This means that the procedures developed for one group, if behaviorally sound, should be able to be applied successfully in more than one set of circumstances.

In conclusion, there are many methods that can be used to increase desired staff behaviors.  Most of these involve positive reinforcement used in varying ways.  They require differing levels of effort and resources from supervisors and organizations, and must be customized to fit the organization and individuals involved, with ethical considerations always in the forefront of the practitioner’s mind.

Ethics and Integrity

When considering ethics, professionalism, and responsibility in relation to increasing desired behaviors in staff, both the Professional and Ethical Compliance Code for Behavior Analysts (BACB, 2014) and additional ethical guidelines more specific to organizational behavior management (OBM) should be discussed, even though a comprehensive set of goals specific to OBM with the scope of those accepted by the field of ABA in general has not yet been created and universally agreed upon (Johnson, Redmon, & Mawhinney, 2001).

Since a lot of work in the field of OBM is done via consulting, ethical and professional concerns related to this role will be the focus of this section of the paper.  One of the first Code guidelines, 1.04, relates to following through with agreed upon commitments (BACB, 2014). Behavioral services should involve a contract, and these should be honored.  This is important for several reasons.  First, the goal of behavior analysts is to create socially significant change for our clients.  This cannot be done if a practitioner is not fulfilling obligations related to helping clients attain desired outcomes.  Second, the reputation of the consultant, and the related effects on future business, is affected by failures in this regard.  Clients are unlikely to give repeat business, or word of mouth recommendations to an individual that fails to fulfill their commitments.  Third, another Code item, 6.01, addresses practitioners’ obligation to represent the field of behavior analysis ethically.  This is how the field will spread and gain support among not only clients, but funding sources and government entities as well.

Another Code item that applies to the current topic is 2.02, which concerns identifying exactly who the client(s) is (BACB, 2014).  This Code item requires that behavior analysts be aware of all individuals that can be considered clients, not just the individual who is paying them, and that this should be made clear up front.  In the case of changing staff behaviors, the clients are not only the managers who are paying for the service, but also the employees whose behaviors are being changed, their direct supervisors, shareholders, etc.  The Code states that a behavior analyst is obligated to consider all clients’ needs.  Bailey and Burch (2011) take this a step farther and require that behavior analysts identify the most vulnerable person(s) involved in the situation and advocate for their needs above others.

Code item 2.12 discusses the obligations of practitioners to create a contract with clients and outline compensation and billing.  Bailey and Burch (2011) recommend using a Declaration of Professional Services to clarify this information as soon as is feasible in order to avoid questions and issues about these issues later.  Getting these items taken care of and agreed upon up front may save a lot of time and energy later, and will ensure that everyone involved is operating in good faith.

Item 4.01 of the Code requires that behavior analysts ensure that all programs are behavior-analytic in nature and supported by research (BACB, 2014).  This means that interventions and programs recommended to clients should be consistent with the operant learning theories upon which the field is based (Bailey and Burch, 2011).  Pseudo-science, flavor of the month interventions, and miracle cures cannot be used by behavior analysts.  Only interventions that are backed by peer-reviewed research are appropriate.  If a behavior analyst is involved in a collaboration where these items are suggested, the behavior analyst is obligated to inform all involved that only behavior analytic, research-supported interventions can be used according to their ethical obligations.

Section 4 of the Code also addresses gaining full consent from clients regarding assessment, treatment, and mastery criteria (BACB, 2014).  This is achieved by fully explaining all steps of the behavior-analytic process.  After all, can one give truly informed consent if they do not know exactly what they are agreeing to?

Aside from the Code, it is worthwhile to address a seminal work on ethics in behavior analysis.  The article, entitled The Right To Effective Behavioral Treatment (Van Houten, Axelrod, Bailey, Foxx, Iwata, & Lovaas, 1988), outlines client rights that are considered essential and required within the field.  Some of these guidelines need to be adjusted in order to apply to workplace situations, but many are still applicable, such as the right of a client to be treated by a competent behavior analyst, and the right to have access to the most effective treatments available.  Obtaining and maintaining competency in the field requires not only initial training in ABA, but also a continuation of those studies via trainings, classes, reading journals, etc.  Additionally, BCBAs can meet their continuing education requirements by performing activities such as attending conferences, teaching university courses, or presenting at workshops (Fisher, Piazza, & Roane, 2011). These activities ensure that clients are receiving the most accurate and up to date treatments in the field.

Another right addressed by Van Houten, et al. (1988) is the right of an individual to have goals be in the interest of their personal welfare.  This right relates to the fact that when attempting to change staff behaviors at the request of companies, the individuals hiring a BCBA may be concerned about the bottom line, but the BCBA must be concerned about the welfare of employees as well.  This means that any intervention should have a benefit to the employees by increasing their job satisfaction, teaching them useful skills, increasing access to reinforcement, etc.

In addition to the ethical obligations laid out by the Board, behavior analysts must comply with laws and any guidelines of their place of employment (although their responsibilities as BCBAs take priority).  Additionally, personal morals and ethics need to be taken into account in any given situation.  If a behavior analyst is instructed to do something unethical or that they find personally unacceptable, it is useful to review the Code and then look to colleagues, supervisors, professors, etc. for advice as to how to proceed.  It is worth noting that if a behavior analyst’s personal values and ethics interfere with effectively and ethically treating a client, the behavior analyst should refer the client to another qualified professional in order to remain in compliance with BACB obligations.

The ethical and professional responsibilities of behavior analysts are many and cover a wide range of topics.  Due to the importance of ethical behaviors to our clients, colleagues, and our field, the BACB requires continuing education in ethics for all of its certificants.  This is not sufficient, however, and it is the responsibility of all behavior analysts to stay up to date on current best practices related to the ethics and values of the field (Johnson, Redmon, & Mawhinney, 2001).

Collaboration with Families and Stakeholders

In the course of practice, BCBAs will need to collaborate effectively with others in order to achieve behavior change goals.  When discussing employee motivation, this is no less true.  Although families are not necessarily involved in the collaboration process, it will be necessary to collaborate with all relevant parties within both the BCBA’s agency and the hiring organization.

The first step in effective collaboration is to identify who the stakeholders are.  In the case of employee behavior change, the stakeholders may include the employees, their direct supervisors, executives, and even the customers served by the organization.  It is important to consider the effects of all actions on these groups prior to and during implementation (Bailey and Burch, 2010).

Porterfield, Evans and Blunden (1985) conducted a study that underlined the importance of involving stakeholders in the implementation and evaluation of behavior plans.  In this study, they illustrated that when staff and family members were trained to target certain behaviors of both themselves and their clients, improvements were seen across the board in targeted skills, and were maintained long after the study’s conclusion.  Furthermore, this study discussed previous research on the topic that yielded similar results.  Obtaining buy-in and support from significant others is vital to a successful intervention.

To that end, Bailey and Burch (2010), discuss the importance of keeping the audience in mind.  This includes recognizing that individuals who are outside of the field of ABA likely do not know the technical terminology used by BCBAs.  Using this language can make it difficult for others to fully understand and participate in the planning and intervention processes.  Additionally, they suggest that usage of technical language may have an effect on the BCBA’s ‘likeability’, which could have an impact on the buy-in obtained by stakeholders.

Block and Markowitz (2012) explain that truly effective collaboration occurs only when the individuals involved in an endeavor form connections with one another.  They further suggest that these connections are formed by getting to know all collaborators and, as noted above, using this knowledge to select an appropriate manner of speaking, as well as appropriate topics for focus.  For example, if the supervisor who is contracting for a BCBA’s services is concerned about the bottom line financial aspect of a situation, the BCBA would be well-served to focus discussions of outcomes around financial benefits of the plan. In this same way, if the employees are more concerned with correcting barriers to their work performance, that should be the focus of discussions with the employee group.

Another important consideration to be made when collaborating with others is the fact that at some point, it is likely that someone will propose something unethical.  Whether the suggestion comes from a superior, another BCBA, or any other source, it is important to handle the situation delicately in order to both maintain ethical standards and keep the working relationship intact.  Bailey and Burch (2012) stress the importance of speaking up in these circumstances and outline tips for doing so effectively.  They, of course, suggest that knowing the ethics code is the most important thing a BCBA can do to prepare for types of situations, but they also give other suggestions.  One suggestion they provided was buying some time when possible, which will give the BCBA time to both find all relevant information and resources, as well as time to formulate a well thought-out, coherent response.  Additionally, they discuss that instead of immediately confronting a person with an ethical issue, the BCBA should establish rapport, ask questions, listen, state the facts, refer to the ethical issue, and then discussing the steps to be taken to correct the issue.

Even with suggestions for navigating ethical conundrums, interactions of this type can be uncomfortable and intimidating.  This is even more applicable when the individual who is being confronting is a supervisor.  In this case, Bailey and Burch (2012) suggest following the suggestions above, but also presenting a solution.  Additionally, they stress the importance of remaining calm and thinking before speaking, particularly since the BCBA’s job, and possibly career, may depend upon the other party.  Furthermore, failure to maintain a positive working relationship can lead to less fruitful collaborations in the future, and make obtaining buy-in more difficult.

Another subject that relates to collaboration is cultural responsiveness.  Fong, Catagnus, Brodhead, Quigley, and Field (2016), wrote a paper providing suggestions for behavior analysts to increase their cultural awareness practices through understanding of both their own cultural factors and those of their clients, colleagues, etc. They stress that being culturally aware is important in building rapport and gaining support and follow through for data collection, interventions, etc.

The first suggestion given is to develop a cultural awareness of self.  In order to do this, a BCBA could participate in discussions about diversity in client and colleague interactions within group discussions, journals, meetings, or other forums.  Exposure to these types of activities can increase the BCBA’s self-awareness as well as their awareness of varying cultural considerations.  (Fong et al., 2016)

The second suggestion is to be mindful and attending to the current moment, trying to avoid judging or evaluating events as they are occurring.  This may help increase self-observation skills as well as reduce the biases that can reveal themselves when interacting with culturally diverse people by keeping those types of thoughts from emerging (Fong et al., 2016).

Finally, the reliance by BCBAs on data instead of personal opinions and biases can result in a more culturally-aware practice.  Collecting and evaluating data instead of relying upon personal experience and anecdotes reduces the level of bias that could otherwise interfere in providing culturally sensitive service.  (Fong et al., 2016)

Fong et al., 2016, also note that there are self-assessment tools available to help BCBAs become more aware of their personal cultural biases and values, and suggest that these assessments may provide insight that can lead to BCBAs providing more culturally aware services.

Additionally, there are existing studies and tools available to assist BCBAs in maintaining culturally-sensitive and responsive practices.  These include research across several fields and describe things like terminology differences, etiquette differences, and differences in overall behavioral norms across various cultures (Fong et al., 2016).

Overall, the most important aspect of a BCBA achieving high levels of cultural responsiveness in practice is to remain aware of the fact that cultural differences exist, and that they are not merely related to race, gender, nationality, etc.  Any number of factors can create a ‘culture’, and wherever a culture exists, the BCBA needs to be aware of the effects it may have on clients, interventions, etc. (Fong et al., 2016).

The goal of a BCBA is to improve the lives of clients in socially significant ways.  This is a goal that can be reached more quickly and effectively through collaboration with all stakeholders.  Therefore, BCBAs should constantly be working on their interpersonal skills (Bailey and Burch, 2012).

Measurement and Assessment

When considering measurement and assessment relating to increasing desired staff behaviors, it is important to consider assessing employee preferences as well as intervention efficacy, since finding effective reinforcers is vital to effective behavior change (Wine, Kelley, & Wilder, 2014).

Waldvogel and Dixon (2008) conducted a study that compared the effectiveness of a survey and a preference assessment using the multiple stimulus without replacement (MSWO) method in identifying effective reinforcers.  An MSWO preference assessment consists of an array of potentially reinforcing stimuli are presented to the subject simultaneously.  The participant is asked to choose one.  The choice is recorded and then the process is repeated until a hierarchy of preferences is identified (Fisher, Piazza & Roane, 2011).

The results of the study indicated that the MSWO appeared to yield more accurate results in regard to employees’ reinforcer preferences.  Additionally, the study illustrated that implementing these types of assessment in the workplace could be relatively simple and non-intrusive into the work environment (Waldvogel & Dixon, 2008).

In adding to the OBM literature on preference assessments with their 2014 study, Wine, Kelley, and Wilder discussed the importance of not making the assumption that money alone is reinforcing for everyone.  They explain that too often organizations offer monetary awards without considering whether or not the employees find these reinforcing enough to lead to behavior change.  Additionally, organizations tend to fail to account for the changing preferences of their staff members.  To address these issues, this study evaluates the use of a survey assessment and a ranking assessment for identifying potential reinforcers for employees, as well as evaluating how often these assessments should be done.

The survey assessment consisted of participants scoring how much work they would be willing to do to procure the item on a scale from 0 (no work) to 4 (a lot of work).  The ranking assessment required participants to rank the items from 1 to 8, where 1 means they would perform the least amount of work to access that item and 8 means they would perform a lot of work to access that item (Wine, Kelley & Wilder, 2014).

The results showed that employee preferences were relatively stable for a week, but then shifts in preferences began to occur at 2, 3 and 4 weeks.  This indicates that employers need to be more aware of the constantly changing effectiveness of reinforcers.  Resistance to this idea may be due to the amount of time and resources such an endeavor requires (Wine, Kelley & Wilder, 2014).

In addition to discovering potentially reinforcers for employees, the problem itself must be diagnosed.  An intervention cannot be put into place to solve a problem when the function of the employees’ behavior is understood. One tool that can be useful in assessing the factors that contribute to performance issues, specifically in the field of human services, is the Performance Diagnostic Checklist —Human Services (Austin, 2000).

Ditzian, Wilder, King & Tanz (2015) state that the PDC-HS is the most widely-used performance analysis tool in existence.  It can identify variables that can contribute to employee performance issues, which can point the BCBA towards the most effective intervention possible.  Their study expanded on previous research by evaluating the effectiveness of the PDC-HS when used with a different type of behavior.  Their study showed that the PDC-HS was more effective than a non-PDC-HS intervention (in the form of a written prompt) at identifying factors that contributed to performance issues.  The authors did, however, state that methods of assessment that involve direct observation and assessment could be more accurate than the PDC-HS, but that due to ease of use, the PDC-HS is likely to remain more commonly used than direct assessment methods.

The PDC-HS focuses on identifying possible performance and environmental issues in four areas: training, task clarification and prompting, resources, materials and processes, and performance consequences, effort and competition (Austin, 2000).

The training area focuses on what levels and types of training the employee has received relating to the target task, and whether or not that training seems to have been effective.  The task clarification and prompting area evaluates whether the employee knows that they are supposed to perform the task and why the task is performed, as well as whether or not prompts in the form of job aids exist.  This section also investigates whether the environment is well-suited to task completion (Austin, 2000).

The resources, materials and processes section evaluates staffing levels, the availability and effectiveness of job-related materials, the dependence of task completion on other behaviors being performed first, and the dependence of task completion on the behavior of others.  The performance, consequences, effort, and competition section of the PDC-HS focuses on the frequency and levels of supervision and feedback, response effort, and potentially competing tasks (Austin, 2000).

The assessment also provides a resource page at the end of the survey that gives suggested articles that may help practitioners find solutions and interventions that will work for the identified performance issues (Austin, 2000).  This assessment should help the BCBA identify areas that can be targeted in order to help employees increase the desired target behavior.

Aside from reinforcement and assessment of problem areas, it is necessary to track and display collected data in a way that is reliable and understandable.  In the field of ABA, most research is done using single-subject research designs.  Within this type of design there are several subtypes that can be used when evaluating and displaying data (Bailey and Burch, 2002).

In general, collecting baseline data is a vital part of the data collection process.  Without baseline data, the BCBA will not have anything to compare the intervention data with in order to determine its effectiveness.  However, Bailey and Burch (2002), do discuss an experimental design called B-Only, which involves just treatment.  This is considered a very weak design because it does not show experimental control.

The AB experimental design consists of baseline data and an intervention.  This is an improvement over the B-Only design, but still does not show solid experimental control due to the fact that an unrelated variable could have caused the behavior change (i.e. something else in the environment, etc.).  Similar to the AB design is the ABC design, which consists of baseline, and intervention, and a second intervention. Even more interventions can be added as desired (ABCDEF…etc.) (Bailey & Burch, 2002).

When looking to show that an intervention is effective (experimental control), reversal designs can be used.  These designs consist of a baseline phase, and intervention phase, and a return to baseline phase.  Additional intervention and return to baseline phases can also be added to show even more experimental control.  It should be noted that this type of intervention cannot be used when looking at skill acquisition, because once the skill is learned it cannot be unlearned (Bailey & Burch, 2002).

Multiple-baseline designs evaluate the effects of an intervention on multiple behaviors.  First, the intervention is applied for one behavior.  Then, when that behavior has improved to meet criteria, the intervention is applied to the second behavior.  This can go on for multiple behaviors, and the relationships between the behaviors and interventions can be visually analyzed.  This design can also be used for multiple participants in much the same way.  The intervention is applied to the target behavior of on individual until criteria are met and then applied to other individuals.  Finally, the design can be used across settings, with baseline data in each setting and interventions put into place as each setting’s behavior meets criteria (Bailey & Burch, 2002).

A third type of treatment design is the multielement design, which is also referred to as alternating treatment design.  This design brings one behavior under the control of multiple factors associated with certain discriminative stimuli.   Stimuli are presented in no set order to participants in order to keep patterns from having an effect on behavior.  The strength of this design is that it gathers a lot of data very quickly.  Instead of breaking up data gathering into separate phases, data for multiple situations can be gathered concurrently (Bailey & Burch, 2002).

In the field of Organizational Behavior Management, group designs may be helpful, as frequently organizational change involves changing the behaviors of multiple people.  Group designs are not, however, common in the field of ABA, and have the limitation of not being able to show true causality, focusing instead on probabilities and averages (Bailey & Burch, 2002).

In conclusion, main factors that should be considered related to measurement and assessment of employee behaviors include reinforcer preferences, assessment and diagnostics of problem behavior(s), and research design.  Each of these items involves careful thought and attention to the participants, stakeholders, and environments involved.

Teaching and Learning

The technologies and research produced by behavior analysts are only useful when they can be understood and used by others.  In the field of OBM, this was pointed out as a weakness within the field and its journals by Balcazar, Shupert, Daniels, Mawhinney, and Hopkins (1989).  The difficulty arises from the fact that the field of applied behavior analysis contains a large number of technical terms that are difficult for those without a background in behavior to understand.  The Professional and Ethical Compliance code for Behavior Analysts (BACB, 2014), requires behavior analysts to be able to discuss ABA principles in both technical and layman’s terms.  This requirement certainly applies to those working in the field of OBM as well, and should be considered by any behavior analyst working in any setting.

Additionally, if clients, stakeholders, etc. do not fully understand what the behavior analyst is saying during the evaluation and intervention processes, they are not truly giving informed consent, which is another Code requirement.

In addition to using accessible language, behavior analysts should concern themselves with obtaining buy-in from all involved in any diagnostic and intervention process.  McSween, Myers, and Kuchler (1990) stated that in order to be successful, behavior analysts must provide a service that meets clients’ needs.  They further discussed that this requires both knowing the needs of clients, and focusing on their needs as well as the needs of their customers.  When considering increasing desired employee behaviors, it is vital that management, as well as the employees themselves, understand the value to them and how they are getting their needs met. Additionally, clients should feel as though the behavior analyst has listened to and fully reconciled any concerns expressed by all parties.  This builds trust and increases the likelihood that involved individuals will want to collaborate with the behavior analyst.  Even a well-constructed, principally sound intervention will fail if not implemented properly.  Fully invested behavior-change agents that feel respected and understood, and that understand the value and purpose of the undertaking are more likely to follow through with behaviors that lead to successful interventions (McSween, Myers, Kuchler, 1990).

A third consideration that behavior analysts should be aware of when teaching clients, staff, and significant others how to perform proposed interventions is training.  To this end, Adams, Tallon, and Rimmell (2008) compared the use of lecturing versus role-playing when training staff to use positive reinforcement.  Their research added to previous research that showed that role-playing tends to be more effective in leading to successfully training staff behaviors than lecturing.  This occurred despite the fact that the role-playing training was shorter than the lecture training, which is important because it decreases the amount of time trainers must spend training staff, which leads to an effect on the organization’s bottom line (Adams, Tallon, & Rimmell, 2008).

Fisher, Piazza, and Roane (2011) also discussed procedures to train staff that included the role-playing aspect.  The procedures discussed were specifying desired behaviors, describe them and the rationale for them to staff, provide staff with a written description of desired behaviors, model the behaviors for staff, support the staff in practicing the skills (role-playing), provide both positive and corrective feedback based on observations, and repeating the final three steps until mastery is achieved.  When looking at increasing staff behaviors, this list is applicable not just for the staff members whose behavior is targeted for change, but also for their managers who will be implementing interventions.  Given this research, behavior analysts looking to train others to implement interventions may want to consider role-playing as one part of their training package (Fisher, Piazza, & Roane, 2011).

One method for training staff that addresses maintenance of training program fidelity is pyramidal training.  This training technique was evaluated by Page, Iwata, and Reid (1982), who illustrated its effectiveness in training staff, as well as discussed its cost benefits.  Pyramidal training, also sometimes referred to as “train the trainer”, consists of one person training supervisors to then, in turn, train their supervisees.  One benefit of this type of training is the fact that the original trainer’s presence is required for a much shorter amount of time than it would be if each staff member were trained individually.  This frees up the trainer to do other tasks, or, if the trainer is a contractor, it allows the organization to save money since less of the contractor’s time is spent working with staff (Page, Iwata, & Reid, 1982).  When dealing with employee behaviors, behavior analysts are frequently working with corporations or other organizations which are concerned with the bottom line.  Pyramidal training is likely an attractive teaching option for these types of organizations from both a financial and manpower point of view.

From the broader perspective of disseminating information about OBM research related to staff behavior, the first consideration is to consider the usage of technical terms, as discussed above. Few people would be interested in attending a conference or speech when the language used is incomprehensible for them.  The same goes for any writings that are done for public consumption.  While scholarly research is vital to the field, less technical and intimidating writing styles will be more effective in gaining and maintaining the attention of individuals that are not experts in the field of applied behavior analysis.  Additionally, when technical language is used, a result may be that individuals do not correctly understand what they have been told and then go out and spread misinformation.  There is already plenty of misinformation about the field of ABA, so it is important that behavior analysts are careful about adding to it.

As discussed above concerning staff training, helping the audience identify the benefits to them will pique and retain interest.  Behavior analysts may consider leading off a speech or paper with data, facts, and anecdotes relating to successful interventions and outcomes relating to the topic.  Again, these should be accessible and low on technical language.

The Professional and Ethical Compliance code for Behavior Analysts (BACB, 2014) requires that behavior analysts stay up to date on research and best practices.  This can be a challenge, particularly when after graduate school, many newly minted behavior analysts lose access to the resources required to maintain competency.  One way to combat this problem is to join social media groups that share information and resources.  These can be invaluable tools that lead behavior analysts to new information as well as new methods of accessing research.

In conclusion, there are numerous factors that need to be taken into consideration when training others on interventions, as well as obtaining and spreading information about the field of applied behavior analysis.  Keeping them in mind when developing proposals, interventions, speeches, presentations, and articles will be invaluable in both obtaining cooperation regarding treatment procedures, as well as fulfilling the ethical obligation to disseminate information about the field of ABA.

References

Adams, G. L., Tallon, R. J., & Rimell, P. (2008) A Comparison of Lecture Versus Role-Playing in the Training of the Use of Positive Reinforcement, Journal of Organizational Behavior Management, 2:3, 205-212, DOI: 10.1300/J075v02n03_06

Austin, J. (2000). Performance analysis and performance diagnostics. In J. Austin & J. E. Carr (Eds.), Handbook of applied behavior analysis (pp. 321–349). Reno, NV: Context Press.

Austin, J., Kessler, M. L., Riccobono, J. E., & Bailey, J. S. (1996). Using feedback and reinforcement to improve the performance and safety of a roofing crew. Journal of Organizational Behavior Management, 16(2), 49. Retrieved from http://ezproxy.lindenwood.edu:2048/login?url=https://search-proquest-com.ezproxy.lindenwood.edu/docview/199260393?accountid=12104

Austin, J., Weatherly, N. L. and Gravina, N. E. (2005), USING TASK CLARIFICATION, GRAPHIC FEEDBACK, AND VERBAL FEEDBACK TO INCREASE CLOSING-TASK COMPLETION IN A PRIVATELY OWNED RESTAURANT. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 38: 117–120. doi:10.1901/jaba.2005.159-03

Bailey, J. S., Burch, M. R. (2010) 25 essential skills & strategies for the professional behavior analyst: expert tips for maximizing consulting effectiveness New York: Routledge.

Bailey, J. S., Burch, M. R. (2011) Ethics for behavior analysts. New York: Routledge

Bailey, J. S., & Burch, M. R. (2002). Research methods in applied behavior analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA, US: Sage Publications, Inc.

Balcazar, F.E., Shupert, M. K., Daniels, A.C.,  Mawhinney, T. C. & Hopkins, B.L. (2008) An Objective Review and Analysis of Ten Years of Publication in the Journal of Organizational Behavior Management, Journal of Organizational Behavior Management, 10:1, 7-37, DOI: 10.1300/J075v10n01_02

Behavior Analyst Certification Board (2012). BACB Fourth Edition Task List.

Retrieved from https://www.bacb.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/160101-BCBA-BCaBA-task-list-fourth-edition-english.pdf

Behavior Analyst Certification Board (2014). Professional and ethical compliance code

For behavior analysts. Retrieved from https://www.bacb.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/170706-compliance-code-english.pdf

Block, Peter; Markowitz, Andrea. (2012). The Flawless Consulting Fieldbook and Companion. Hoboken, NJ: Pfeiffer.

Bucklin, B. R., & Dickinson, A. M. (2001). Individual monetary incentives: A review of different types of arrangements between performance and pay. Journal of Organizational Behavior Management, 21(3), 45-137.

Carr JE, Wilder DA, Majdalany L, Mathisen D, Strain LA. An assessment-based solution to a human-service employee performance problem: an initial evaluation of the Performance Diagnostic Checklist—Human Services. Behavior Analysis in Practice. 2013;6(1):16–32.

Cipani, E., & Schock, K. M. (2011). Functional behavioral assessment, diagnosis, and treatment: A complete system for education and mental health settings, 2nd ed. New York, NY, US: Springer Publishing Co.

Cooper, J. O., Heron, T. E., & Heward, W. L. (2007). Applied behavior analysis, 2nd ed. Upper    Saddle River, N.J.: Pearson Prentice Hall.

Crowell, C. R., Anderson, D. C., Abel, D. M. and Sergio, J. P. (1988), TASK CLARIFICATION, PERFORMANCE FEEDBACK, AND SOCIAL PRAISE: PROCEDURES FOR IMPROVING THE CUSTOMER SERVICE OF BANK TELLERS. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 21: 65–71. doi:10.1901/jaba.1988.21-65

Daniels, A. C. (2009). Oops! 13 management practices that waste time and money (and what to do instead). Atlanta, GA: Performance Management Publications.

Daniels, A., & Bailey, J. (2014). Performance management: Changing behavior that drives organizational effectiveness (5th ed.). Atlanta, GA: Performance Management.

Ditzian, K. , Wilder, D. A., King, A. and Tanz, J. (2015), An evaluation of the performance diagnostic checklist–human services to assess an employee performance problem in a center‐based autism treatment facility. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 48: 199-203. doi:10.1002/jaba.171

Fisher, Wayne W., Piazza, Cathleen C.Roane, Henry S. (Eds.) (2011) Handbook of applied behavior analysis /New York : Guilford Press.

Fong, E. H., Catagnus, R. M., Brodhead, M. T., Quigley, S., & Field, S. (2016). Developing the Cultural Awareness Skills of Behavior Analysts. Behavior Analysis in Practice, 9(1), 84–94. http://doi.org/10.1007/s40617-016-0111-6

Fryling, M. J., Wallace, M. D. and Yassine, J. N. (2012), IMPACT OF TREATMENT INTEGRITY ON INTERVENTION EFFECTIVENESS. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 45: 449–453. doi:10.1901/jaba.2012.45-449

Iwata, B. A., Bailey, J. S., Brown, K. M., Foshee, T. J. and Alpern, M. (1976), A PERFORMANCE-BASED LOTTERY TO IMPROVE RESIDENTIAL CARE AND TRAINING BY INSTITUTIONAL STAFF. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 9: 417–431. doi:10.1901/jaba.1976.9-417

Johnson, C. Merle., Redmon, William K., Mawhinney, Thomas C. (Eds.) (2001) Handbook of organizational performance :behavior analysis and management. New York : Haworth Press.

Johnson, D. and Dickinson, A. (2010) “Employee-of the-Month Programs”, Journal of Organizational Behavior Management, 30: 308–24.

Lindenwood University. Student learning outcomes. Retrieved from   http://www.lindenwood.edu/academics/academic-schools/school-of-education/educational-leadership/student-learning-outcomes/

Long, R. D., Wilder, D. A., Betz, A. and Dutta, A. (2012), EFFECTS OF AND PREFERENCE FOR PAY FOR PERFORMANCE: AN ANALOGUE ANALYSIS. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 45: 821–826. doi:10.1901/jaba.2012.45-821

McSween, T. E., Myers, W. & Kuchler, T. C. (2008) Getting Buy-In at the Executive Level, Journal of Organizational Behavior Management, 11:1, 207-221, DOI: 10.1300/J075v11n01_13

Missouri Department of Elementary and Secondary Education. (2013) Teacher Standards. Retrieved from: https://dese.mo.gov/sites/default/files/TeacherStandards.pdf

Page, T. J., Iwata, B. A., & Reid, D. H. (1982). Pyramidal training: a large-scale application with institutional staff. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 15(3), 335–351. http://doi.org/10.1901/jaba.1982.15-335

Pipkin, C. St. P., Vollmer, T. R. and Sloman, K. N. (2010), EFFECTS OF TREATMENT INTEGRITY FAILURES DURING DIFFERENTIAL REINFORCEMENT OF ALTERNATIVE BEHAVIOR: A TRANSLATIONAL MODEL. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 43: 47–70. doi:10.1901/jaba.2010.43-47

Porterfield, J., Evans, G., & Blunden, R. (1985). Involving families and staff in service improvement. Journal of Organizational Behavior Management, 7(1-2), 117-133.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1300/J075v07n01_08

Reid, D. H., Parsons, M.B. and Green, C.W.(2012). Supervisor’s guidebook: Evidence-based strategies for promoting work quality and enjoyment among human service staff. Morganton, N.C: Habilitative Managment Consultants.

Szabo, T.G., Williams, W.L., Rafacz, S.D., Newsome, W. &. Lydon, C.A. (2012) Evaluation of the Service Review Model With Performance Scorecards, Journal of Organizational Behavior Management, 32:4, 274-296, DOI: 10.1080/01608061.2012.729408

Van Houten, R., Axelrod, S., Bailey, J. S., Favell, J. E., Foxx, R. M., Iwata, B. A. and Lovaas, O. I. (1988), THE RIGHT TO EFFECTIVE BEHAVIORAL TREATMENT. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 21: 381–384. doi:10.1901/jaba.1988.21-381

Waldvogel, J. M. & Dixon, M. R. (2008) Exploring the Utility of Preference Assessments in Organizational Behavior Management, Journal of Organizational Behavior Management, 28:1, 76-87, DOI: 10.1080/01608060802006831

Wine, B., Kelley III, D.P. and Wilder, D.A. (2014) An Initial Assessment of Effective Preference Assessment Intervals Among Employees, Journal of Organizational Behavior Management, 34:3, 188-195, DOI: 10.1080/01608061.2014.944747