The Establishing Operation in Organizational Behavior Management

Agnew, Judy L.

doi:10.1300/j075v18n01_02

Cited by 61 publications

(29 citation statements)

References 12 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…21,No. 2) contained sections dedicat-ed to the EO. The EO concept has also been discussed in several other publications (e.g., Agnew, 1998;Biglan, 1995;Chase & Hyten, 1985;Dougher & Hackbert, 2000;Guerin, 1994;Hall & Sundberg, 1987;Klatt & Morris, 2001;Lamarre & Holland, 1985;Lohrmann-O'Rourke & Yurman, 2001;Poling, 1986;Poling & Byrne, 2000;Schlinger & Poling, 1998;Sigafoos, 1999;Wilder & Carr, 1998). The EO concept has even appeared in non-English-language journals.…”

mentioning

confidence: 92%

Motivating Operations and Terms to Describe Them: Some Further Refinements

Laraway

Snycerski

Michael

et al. 2003

J of App Behav Analysis

534

381

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Over the past decade, behavior analysts have increasingly used the term establishing operation (EO) to refer to environmental events that influence the behavioral effects of operant consequences. Nonetheless, some elements of current terminology regarding EOs may interfere with applied behavior analysts' efforts to predict, control, describe, and understand behavior. The present paper (a) describes how the current conceptualization of the EO is in need of revision, (b) suggests alternative terms, including the generic term motivating operation (MO), and (c) provides examples of MOs and their behavioral effects using articles from the applied behavior analysis literature.DESCRIPTORS: motivation, establishing operations, abolishing operations, motivating operations, behavior-analytic terminologyThe term establishing operation (EO), originally used by Keller and Schoenfeld (1950) and then by Millenson (1967) to denote motivating events, has been revived and reformulated in a series of papers by Michael (e.g., 1982Michael (e.g., , 1983Michael (e.g., , 1988Michael (e.g., , 1993aMichael (e.g., , 1993bMichael (e.g., , 2000. Michael defined EOs as environmental events, operations, or stimulus conditions that affect an organism's behavior by altering (a) the reinforcing or punishing effectiveness of other environmental events and (b) the frequency of occurrence of that part of the organism's repertoire relevant to those events as consequences. Michael termed the first effect the reinforcer-establishing effect and the second effect the evocative effect. Unconditioned establishing operations (UEOs) do not require a learning history to change the effectiveness of consequences. In contrast, conditioned establishing operations (CEOs) acquire their motivating function as a result of a particular learning history. Michael

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 92%

Motivating Operations and Terms to Describe Them: Some Further Refinements

Laraway

Snycerski

Michael

et al. 2003

J of App Behav Analysis

534

381

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…They describe mands as verbal behavior being controlled by "establishing operations and specific reinforcers" (p.127). Agnew (1998) defines establishing operations as a "motivative variable which establishes the effectiveness of certain stimuli as consequences, and alters the probability of behavior which has been consequated with those stimulus events" (p. 8). Therefore, a mand made by SR managers may be the incentive received by SRs for closing the sale, which reinforces the likelihood of performing key verbal behaviors in the customer interaction.…”

Section: Verbal Behaviorsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Increasing Sales by Managing the Interlocking Contingencies Between Sales Representatives and Customers Using Behavioral Self-Monitoring

Copeland

Ludwig²,

Bergman³

et al. 2018

Journal of Organizational Behavior Management

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The interlocking contingencies that exist between a customer and sales representatives may contribute to buying decisions. The purpose of this study is to redesign the sales call verbal process of five sales representatives to shape the verbal behaviors most likely to result in a sale. Using the behaviors found to be statistically significant through a correlational analysis, behaviors related to closing sales were identified by sales representatives in a focus group meeting and were used to develop a self-observation check sheet. After five weeks of self-monitoring, the sales representatives began to receive weekly performance feedback on the targeted behaviors. On average, the six targeted verbal behaviors related to sales increased eight percentage points over baseline compared to a two percentage point increase in the comparison group. While the self-monitoring phase was associated with an average increase of 12 percentage points over baseline, the subsequent performance feedback phase was associated with an average increase of four percentage points over baseline. The greatest behavior change occurred in the behaviors "Contact" (asks for customer's contact information including email address) and "Project" (asks customer v what they are using the building for). The customer verbal behaviors associated with sales were "Phone" (provided phone number) and "Email" (provided email address), which increased 17 percentage points over baseline. These changes were associated with 130% more sales during the intervention period for the experimental group compared with 32% more sales for the comparison group. The interlocking contingencies between certain sales representative verbal behaviors, consisting of "Contact" (asks for customer's contact information including email address) and "Deposit" (states how much of a deposit can get the order started) and certain customer verbal behaviors consisting of "Phone" (provided phone number) and "Want" (did customer say they want to buy a building) seemed to occasion an increase in customer buying behavior. For each sales representative, this increase in sales translates into $1,126,528 more in annualized revenue and $4,989 more in annualized sales commission.vi Acknowledgments

show abstract

“…Supervisory feedback has been preferred over feedback from other sources, because supervisory feedback of course informs the supervisor of employee performance, and because supervisors control many of the consequences that are important to employees (Daniels, 1989). It has been suggested that supervisory feedback may have direct reinforcing consequences (Komaki et al, 1978), may function as an establishing operation, or have reinforcing consequences because of an association with other reinforcers (Agnew 1998;Duncan, & Bruwelheide, 1985). If the supervisor controls reinforcers such as work scheduling, raises and promotions, positive supervisory feedback can become effective as a conditioned reinforcer.…”

Section: John Austin Brent Helton and Sigurdur Oli Sigurdsson Westementioning

confidence: 99%

O Uso De Feedback Do Supervisor E Feedback Afixado Publicamente Para Aumentar a Segurança Em Um Ambiente De Fábrica

Austin

Helton

Sigurðsson

2016

REBAC

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

RESUMOO estudo empregou um delineamento de linha de base entre comportamentos para avaliar os efeitos de feedback do supervisor sobre comportamentos relevantes, relacionados com segurança, em uma fábrica de manufaturas. Durante a linha de base, a segurança do depósito atingiu uma média de 35,3% para os comportamentos e condições do Checklist 1, e 35,0% para comportamentos e condições do Checklist 2. Quando o feedback verbal do supervisor foi implementado, a média da segurança do depósito aumentou para 50,6% para o Checklist 1 e para 75,7% para o Checklist 2. Quando o feedback do supervisor passou a ser afixado como parte do programa de intervenção, a média da segurança do trabalho subiu ainda mais, chegando a 58,0% para a Checklist 1 e 83,3% para a Checklist 2. Esses resultados são consistentes com descobertas anteriores de que o feedback sobre o desempenho pode aumentar comportamentos críticos na situação de trabalho.Palavras-chave: saúde, prevenção de danos físicos, segurança baseada no comportamento, feedback, acidentes.ABSTRACT The effects of safety-related and behaviorally relevant verbal and posted feedback from supervisors in a manufacturing plant were evaluated using a multiple baseline across behaviors design. During baseline, plant safety averaged 35.3% for the behaviors and conditions on Checklist 1, and 35.0% for the behaviors and conditions on Checklist 2. When verbal supervisory feedback was implemented, the plant safety average increased to 50.6% for Checklist 1, and 75.7% for Checklist 2. When posted supervisory feedback was added to the intervention package, the plant safety average further increased to 58.0% for Checklist 1, and 83.3% for Checklist 2. These results are consistent with previous findings that performance feedback can increase critical work behaviors.

show abstract

The Establishing Operation in Organizational Behavior Management

Cited by 61 publications

References 12 publications

Motivating Operations and Terms to Describe Them: Some Further Refinements

Motivating Operations and Terms to Describe Them: Some Further Refinements

Increasing Sales by Managing the Interlocking Contingencies Between Sales Representatives and Customers Using Behavioral Self-Monitoring

O Uso De Feedback Do Supervisor E Feedback Afixado Publicamente Para Aumentar a Segurança Em Um Ambiente De Fábrica

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About