Assessing the Effects of Motivative Augmentals, Pay-For-Performance, and Implicit Verbal Responding on Cooperation
- 134 Downloads
Motivative augmentals are rules or statements that temporarily change the effectiveness of a consequence, similar to establishing operations for nonverbal consequences (Hayes, Barnes-Holmes, & Roche, 2001). Many communications by an organization's leadership may function as such and alter the function of stimuli in the workplace, which in turn may influence employee behaviors (Houmanfar & Rodrigues, Journal of Applied Radical Behavior Analysis, N1, 22–27, 2012). There is a lack of experimental research regarding this, however, particularly under different organizational pay systems (i.e., financial contingencies), which have been repeatedly shown to influence performance (e.g., Gupta & Shaw, Compensation and Benefits Review, 30(2), 26–32, 1998; Locke, Feren, McCaleb, Shaw, & Denny, 1980). The current study sought to compare the two by measuring the effect of motivational statements on individual versus cooperative responding under two different pay-for-performance contingencies in an organizational analogue. Stimuli for the motivational statements were selected utilizing an Implicit Relational Assessment Procedure (IRAP) with one group of participants, and these statements were then tested under piece-rate and profit-share conditions with a second group of participants in a counterbalanced reversal design. Results indicated that the financial contingencies had more of an effect on responding, but that motivational statements influenced behavior as well. In particular, motivational statements affected whether a participant chose to cooperate or behave individually more under financially neutral conditions (i.e., profit share) when there was no financial cost for doing so. As such, organizations can utilize memos or speeches to increase performance, but it is important for the content to align with financial contingencies in order to maximize performance.
KeywordsMotivative augmentals Pay-for-performance Implicit relational assessment procedure Rules Cooperation Relational frame theory
Compliance with Ethical Standards
Conflict of Interest
Sharlet Rafacz declares that she has no conflict of interest, Ramona Houmanfar declares that she has no conflict of interest, Greg Smith declares that he has no conflict of interest, and Mike Levin declares that he has no conflict of interest.
All procedures performed in this study involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.
Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.
- Abernathy, W. B. (1996). The sin of wages: Where the conventional pay system has led us, and how to find a way out. Memphis, TN: PerfSys Press.Google Scholar
- Abernathy, W. B. (2000). Managing without supervising: Creating an organization-wide performance system. Memphis, TN: PerfSys Press.Google Scholar
- Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
- Daniels, A. C., & Bailey, J. S. (2014). Performance management: Changing behavior that drives organizational effectiveness. Atlanta, GA: Aubrey Daniels International.Google Scholar
- Filson, B. (1991). Ten keys to a successful motivational speech. Incentive, 165(9), 85–86.Google Scholar
- Hayes, S. C., Barnes-Holmes, D., & Roche, B. (Eds.). (2001). Relational frame theory. A post-Skinnerian account of human language and cognition. New York, NY: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Press.Google Scholar
- Houmanfar, R., & Rodrigues, N. J. (2012). The role of leadership and communication in organizational change. Journal of Applied Radical Behavior Analysis, N1, 22–27.Google Scholar
- Kantor, J. R. (1982). Cultural psychology. Chicago, IL: Principia Press.Google Scholar
- Kaufman, A., Baron, A., & Kopp, R. E. (1966). Some effects of instructions on human operant behavior. Psychonomic Monograph Supplements, 1, 243–250.Google Scholar
- Lawler III., E. E. (1990). Strategic pay. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
- Locke, E. A., Feren, D. B., McCaleb, V. M., Shaw, K. N., & Denny, A. T. (1980). The relative effectiveness of four methods of motivating employee performance. In K. D. Duncan, M. M. Gruneberg, & D. Wallis (Eds.), Changes in working life (pp. 363–388). London, UK: Wiley.Google Scholar
- Maglieri, K. (2007). Evaluation of performance under various pay systems (unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Nevada, Reno, Reno, NV.Google Scholar
- McKenna, I. M., Barnes-Holmes, D., Barnes-Holmes, Y., & Stewart, I. (2007). Testing the fake ability of the implicit relational assessment procedure (IRAP): The first study. International Journal of Psychology and Psychological Therapy, 7(2), 253–268.Google Scholar
- Weitzman, M. L., & Kruse, D. L. (1990). Profit sharing and productivity. In A. S. Blinder (Ed.), Paying for productivity (pp. 95–140). Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.Google Scholar
- Wilder, D. A., & Sigurdsson, S. O. (2015). Applications of behavior analysis to improve safety in organizations and community settings. In H. S. Roane, J. L. Ringdahl, & T. S. Falcomata (Eds.), Clinical and organizational applications of applied behavior analysis (pp. 583–601). San Diego, CA: Elsevier.CrossRefGoogle Scholar