Behavioral Systems Analysis
Behavioral Systems Analysis (BSA) comes from a synthesis of the fields of behavior analysis and systems analysis and can be defined as the analysis of behavior that occurs in complex and organized social environments. BSA offers much to promote behavioral solutions to socially significant practices within large social units like organizations and cultures.
Course objectives:
- Explain conceptual development and technological application of behavioral systems analysis
- Describe conceptual, methodological, and technological strengths and weaknesses associated with this approach
- Integrate themes and topics in behavior analysis that may contribute to the conceptual, methodological, and technological development of BSA
Items |
Competencies |
Core/Foundational Readings |
Suggested/Ancillary Readings |
Introduction to OBM, BSA, & Systems Theory |
Students will define (state the main components of) organizational behavior management.
Students will define (state the main components of) general systems theory.
Students will define (state the main components of) behavioral systems analysis.
Students will differentiate among organizational behavior management, general systems theory, and behavioral systems analysis.
|
Brethower, D. M. (2000). A systematic view of enterprise: Adding value to performance. Journal of Organizational Behavior Management, 20 (3/4), 165-190.
Caws, P (2015). General Systems Theory: Its Past and Potential. Systems Research & Behavioral Science, 32, 514–521. doi: 10.1002/sres.2353.
Krapfl, J. E. & Gasparotto, G. (1982). Behavioral systems analysis. In L. W. Fredericksen (Ed.) Handbook of Organizational Behavior Management. New York, NY: Wiley.
|
n/a |
Selection & Cultural Change |
Students will name, define, and describe the three kinds of selection including the units of analysis and how the selection occurs over time.
Students will describe how each kind of selection is necessary but different from each of the other kinds of selection.
Students will define and differentiate between and among an individual response, a behavioral lineage, and a cultural (culturo-behavioral) lineage and provide examples of each.
Students will define (including the critical components and the relations between the components) and differentiate between and among the concepts of the metacontingency, the macrocontingency, and the cultural cusp.
Students will define and differentiate among "process", "content", and "procedure" in operant contingencies and metacontingencies.
Students will describe at least two ways in which one might produce cultural change.
|
Glenn, S. S. (2004). Individual behavior, culture, and social change. The Behavior Analyst, 27(2), 133-151.
Glenn, S. S., Malott, M. E., Andery, M. A. P. A., Houmanfar, R. A., Sandaker, I., Todorov, J. C., Tourinho, E. Z., Vasconcelos, L. A. (2016). Toward consistent terminology in a behaviorist approach to cultural analysis. Behavior and Social Issues, 25, 11-27.
Skinner, B. F. (1981). Selection by consequences. Science, 213, 501-504.
|
Malott, M. E., & Glenn, S. S. (2006). Targets of interventions in cultural and behavioral change. Behavior and Social Issues, 15, 31-56.
Mattaini, M. A. (2013). Behavioral Systems Science and Nonviolent Struggle (Chapter 4). In Strategic Nonviolent Power. Edmonton, AB: Athabasca University Press.
|
Complexity & Emergence |
Students will describe the types of selection processes that have been proposed (including the units that are selected and the contingency arrangements) to be involved in cultural evolution and the various perspectives with respect to these processes (e.g., Skinner; Couto & Sandaker, Glenn; Krispin).
Students will define systems, complex systems, complex adaptive systems, and self-organizing systems.
Students will describe and analyze the concepts of emergence and complexity in the context of cultural and systems evolution and large-scale change.
Students will describe some of the challenges in designing complex systems and in predicting and producing large scale change.
Students will summarize and provide a critical analysis of some of the proposed strategies for promoting large scale change.
|
Krispin, J. V. (2017). Positive feedback loops of metacontingencies: A new conceptualization of cultural-level selection. Behavior and Social Issues, 26, 95-110. doi: https://doi.org/10.5210/bsi.v26i0.7397.
Moroni, S. (2015). Complexity and the inherent limits of explanation and prediction: Urban codes for self-organising cities. Planning Theory, 14(3), 248-267.
Couto, K. C., & Sandaker, I. (2016). Natural, behavioral and cultural selection-analysis: An integrative approach. Behavior and Social Issues, 25, 54-60. https://doi.org/10.5210/bsi.v25i0.6891
Waddock, S., Meszoely, G. M., Waddell, S., & Dentoni, D. (2015). The complexity of wicked problems in large scale change. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 28(6), 993-1012.
|
Krispin, J. V. (2016). What is the metacontingency? Deconstructing claims of emergence and cultural-level selection. Behavior and Social Issues, 25, 28-https://behaviorandsocialissues.org/ojs/index.php/bsi/article/view/6186 |
Transdisciplinary Considerations on Complexity and Systems |
Students will describe the implications of theories (social-ecological systems approach, system dynamics, exploratory modeling and analysis, institutional economics analysis of social dilemmas) that consider or discount the interdependencies among constituents in complex systems.
Students will describe the approaches to modeling (predictive modeling, exploratory modeling and analysis), the strengths and limitations of each, and the types of research questions that can be addressed by each.
Students will explain how different perspectives within systems theory have been used to understand global societal challenges (wicked problems) including the strengths and limitations of each (particularly with respect to systems boundaries and prediction).
Students will compare and contrast transdisciplinary perspectives on complexity and systems with behavioral systems analysis perspectives on complexity and systems, particularly related to cultural, societal, and organizational change.
|
Folke, C., Biggs, R., Norström, A. V., Reyers, B., & Rockström, J. (2016). Social-ecological resilience and biosphere-based sustainability science. Ecology and Society, 21(3).
Kwakkel, J. H., & Pruyt, E. (2015). Using system dynamics for grand challenges: the ESDMA approach. Systems Research and Behavioral Science, 32(3), 358-375.
Valentinov, V., & Chatalova, L. (2016). Institutional economics and social dilemmas: A systems theory perspective. Systems Research and Behavioral Science, 33(1), 138-149.
|
Grossmann, K. & Haase, A. (2016) Neighborhood change beyond clear storylines: What can assemblage and complexity theories contribute to understandings of seemingly paradoxical neighborhood development? Urban Geography, 37, 5, 727-747. doi: 10.1080/02723638.2015.1113807
Kohl, P., Crampin, E. J., Quinn, T. A., & Noble, D. (2010). Systems biology: An approach. Nature Publishing Group, 88(1), 25-33.
Rizzo, A., & Galanakis, M. (2015). Transdisciplinary urbanism: three experiences from Europe and Canada. Cities, 47, 35-44.
|
Communication & Cultural Change |
Students will describe the form and function that communication typically serves in the organizational setting including examples of communication in the context or form of communication networks, rules, rumor, leadership, etc.
Students will explain what Relational Frame Theory adds to analysis of cultural practices with a specific focus on derived relational responding, rules, and the associated effects on the behavior of individuals as well as "interlocked behaviors".
Students will describe the difference between sociological and psychological events (Kantor, 1982) and what the implications of this are for culture and the metacontingency more specifically.
Students will define (including the critical components and the relations between the components) and differentiate between and among the components of the expanded (five-term) metacontingency.
Students will describe the rationale, method, and findings of some of the experimental work that has explored the role of verbal behavior in understanding the cultural practices of organizations.
|
Smith, G. S., Houmanfar, R., & Denny, M. (2012). Impact of rule accuracy on productivity and rumor in an organizational analog. Journal of Organizational Behavior Management, 32, 3-25.
Houmanfar, R. A., Rodrigues, N. J., & Smith, G. S. (2009). Role of Communication Networks in Behavioral Systems Analysis. Journal of Organizational Behavior Management, 29, 257-275.
Houmanfar, R. A., Rodrigues, N. J., & Ward, T. A., (2010). Emergence & metacontingency: Points of contact and departure. Behavior and Social Issues, 19, 78-103
Smith, G. S., Houmanfar, R., & Louis, S. J. (2011). The participatory role of verbal behavior in an elaborated account of metacontingency: From theory to investigation. Behavior and Social Issues, 20, 112 – 145.
|
Houmanfar, R., & Rodrigues, N. J. (2012). The role of leadership and communication in organizational change. Journal of Applied Radical Behavior Analysis. N1, 22–27. (also accepted for publication in Psicologia Applicata alla Medicina del Lavoro e della Riabilitazione). |
Leadership & Cultural Change |
Students will define leadership from a behavioral perspective.
Students will describe the key functions of leadership including the characteristics of good leaders, particularly with respect to communication; the variables that promote effective leadership; and how leadership entails shifts in metacontingencies.
Students will explain how leaders promote organizational values and how leaders can promote prosociality, balancing financial and social capital and contingencies
Students will summarize the key findings from behavior analytic efforts at understanding leadership and the behaviors and related contingencies that leaders might exhibit to produce cultural change that promotes the well-being of society.
|
Houmanfar, R., Alavosius, M. P., Morford, Z. H., Reimer, D., Herbst, S. A. (2015).
Functions of organizational leaders in cultural change: Financial and social well-being. Journal of Organizational Behavior Management, 35, 4-27.
Houmanfar, R. A., & Mattaini, M. A. (2016). Leadership and cultural change: Implications for Behavior Analysis. The Behavior Analyst, 39, 41-46.
Malott, M. E. (2016a). What studying leadership can teach us about the science of behavior. The Behavior Analyst, 39, 47-74.
Mattaini, M. A. (2013). Organization and leadership in resistance movements (Chapter 6). In Strategic Nonviolent Power. Edmonton, AB: Athabasca University Press.
|
Alavosius, M. P., Houmanfar, R. A., Anbro, S., Burleigh, K., & Hebein, C. (2017). Leadership and crew resource management in high-reliability organizations: A competency framework for measuring behaviors. Journal of Organizational Behavior Management, 37, 142-170.
Krapfl J. E, & Kruja, B. (2015). Leadership and culture. Journal of Organizational Behavior Management, 35, 28-43.
|
Selection & Organizational Change |
Students will describe the role of selection (behavioral and cultural), the corresponding units of analysis, and under which conditions each is most appropriate in the context of organizations.
Students will describe the relationships between behavioral contingencies, interlocking behavioral contingencies, metacontingencies and the total performance system.
Students will define, identify the relations between the organization, the system, and the subsystem and compare and contrast them; describing how the boundaries of a system or organization are identified.
Students will describe the different types of complexity and the relationships between them and explain how complexity affects an organization.
Students will describe the implication of growth in management and how that relates to the interlocking behavioral contingencies at lower levels.
Students will compare and contrast behavior systems analysis/performance systems analysis and organizational behavior analysis.
Students will summarize how applied behavior analysis and organizational behavior management employ utopian thinking in their practice and describe the four recommendations made by Abernathy (2009) that could improve the implementation and sustainability of "behaviorist utopia" within the context of existing organizations.
|
Malott, M. E. (2003). Paradox of organizational change. Reno, NV: Context Press. Chapters 1, 2, & 3.
Abernathy, W. B. (2009). Walden two revisited: Optimizing behavioral systems. Journal of Organizational Behavior Management, 29, 175 -192.
Glenn, S. S., & Malott, M. M. (2004). Complexity and selection: Implications for organizational change. Behavior & Social Issues, 13, 89-106.
|
n/a |
Cultural Contingencies in Organizations: Functional Assessment & Process Analysis |
Students will perform a Total Performance System analysis of an organization.
Students will identify, define, and provide the rationale for at least one measure for each components in their Total Performance System analysis.
Students will prepare a summary of the administrative structure and prepare a department-function analysis for an organization.
Students will prepare a detailed analysis (including a detailed process map and units of measurement) of at least one process within an organization that includes: 1) process identification, 2) scope, 3) sub processes, 4) units, 5) general tasks, 6) aggregate products, 7) participants, 8) uniqueness, and 9) duration.
Students will prepare a contingency analysis and task analysis for one performer within an organization.
Students will identify, within an organization, an existing contingency, a performance management contingency that could change that contingency, the corresponding interlocks, and the measures that will allow them to determine if there was a shift in performance.
Students will describe, from a behavioral systems analysis perspective, the three repertoires and the contingencies associated with promotion of each that are necessary to sustain effective resistance campaigns.
|
Malott, M. E. (2003). Paradox of organizational change. Reno, NV: Context Press. Chapters 4 to 9
Mattaini, M. A. (2013). Sustaining resistance movements: Solidarity, discipline, and courage (Chapter 5). In Strategic Nonviolent Power. Edmonton, AB: Athabasca University Press.
|
n/a |
Cultural Contingencies in Organizations: Behavioral Systems Engineering Model |
Students will summarize the rationale, method, and stages of the Behavioral Systems Engineering Model and will describe how the model can be used to produce organizational change.
Students will describe external complexity and internal complexity and what the internal and external selection practices might be with respect to how aggregate products and interlocking behavioral contingencies are selected in organizations and industry.
Students will differentiate behavioral cusps from cultural cusps and will differentiate cultural cusps from cultural incidents.
Students will construct an analysis of an organizational/community process or a set of interrelated processes or functional units based on Malott’s (2003) Behavioral Systems Engineering Model.
|
Malott, M. E. (2003). Paradox of organizational change. Chapter 10
Malott, M. E. (2016b). Selection of business practices in the midst of evolving complexity. Journal of Organizational behavior Management, 36, 103-122.
Malott, M. E., & Martinez, W. S. (2006). Addressing organizational complexity: A behavioral systems analysis application to higher education. International Journal of Psychology, 41(6), 1-12.
|
n/a |
Applications to Complex Systems: Ecological Analyses Part 1 |
Students will explain how behavioral systems science is ecological and selectionist, how ecological strategy differs from the traditions of behavior analysis, and how ecological strategy might place cultural systems science as a specialty in ecological science.
Students will summarize the process/method, the uses, and limitations of 1) feedback-guided analysis and 2) Dyball and Newell’s (2015) "cultural adaptation template"
Describe the three types of cultural analytic scholarship, their contributions, and their limitations.
Students will explain why new analytic tools are necessary for those engaged in cultural systems science and describe some of the tools that might be necessary.
|
Baer, D. M. (1974). A note on the absence of a Santa Claus in any known ecosystem: A rejoinder to Willems. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 7(1), 167-169.
Dyball, R., & Newell, B. (2015). Chapter 7: Towards a shared theoretical framework. In R. Dyball & B. Newell, Understanding human ecology (pp. 111-137). London & New York: Routledge.
Mattaini, M. A. (under review). Out of the Lab: Shaping an Ecological Cultural Science. Perspectives on Behavior Science.
Mattaini, M. A. (2015). Toward a Twenty-First Century, Science-Based "Constructive Programme". In R. Amster, L. Finley, E. Pries, & R. McCutcheon (Eds). Peace studies between tradition and innovation (pp. 83-101). Newcastle upon Tyne, UK: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
|
Mattaini, M. A. (2003). Constructing nonviolent alternatives to collective violence: A scientific strategy. Behavior and Social Issues, 12, 148-163.
Mattaini, M. A. & Atkinson, K. (2011). Constructive noncooperation: Living in truth. Peace and Conflict Studies, 18(1), 3-43.
Willems, E. P. (1974). Behavioral technology and behavioral ecology. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 7(1), 151-165. https://doi.org/10.1901/jaba.1974.7-151
|
Applications to Complex Systems: Ecological Analyses Part 2 |
Students will differentiate between "collective one-time actions" and "persistent cultural practices" and describe why these constitute the behavioral systems dynamics.
Students will describe the general process one may use "to influence the values or actions of a larger population" (Mattaini, 2013, p. 259), the goals of this process, the phenomena for which this process is appropriate, and how the process can be adapted when the analysis shifts to that of behavioral systems.
Students will describe the conditions under which shifts in metacontingencies are insufficient to create large scale change and will describe the types of analyses that might be useful under those conditions.
Students will summarize how behavioral systems analysis and constructional methods can contribute to meaningful change as related to youth violence.
Students will generate a diagram that depicts the likely interdependencies between several sectors within a community or organization that influence collective outcomes.
Students will generate a matrix, illustrating prosed practices within multiple sectors that could help construct and sustain a desirable cultural practice among a target group and provide an ecological rationale for their analysis.
|
Aspholm, R. R., & Mattaini, M. A. (2017). Youth Activism as Violence Prevention. InPeter Sturmey (Ed.), The Wiley handbook of violence and aggression (page numbers unknown). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley and Sons, Ltd.
Mattaini, M. A. (2013). Constructive noncooperation (Chapter 7) & Toward "undreamt of" discoveries (Chapter 11). In Strategic nonviolent power: The science of Satyagraha. Edmonton, AB: Athabasca University Press.
|
Bates, M. (1950). The nature of natural history. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Chapter 18 |
Creating Solutions to Social Problems: Sustainability & Climate Change |
Students will describe the processes embedded in and the advantages to applying language-based psychological intervention methods to sustainability issues.
Students will describe the role of organizations in affecting behaviors contributing to climate change and describe systems-level interventions that could be employed and researched.
Students will explain the rationale, general strategy, and the supporting science for culture-based solutions that might lead to a more promising future with respect to climate change.
Students will describe how climate change is a "super wicked problem" and note how policy change initiatives could be made more effective if a path-dependent, applied forward reasoning approach were employed.
Students will identify how culture-based solutions to climate change intersect with path-dependent and applied forward reasoning approaches to policy intervention as related to climate change.
|
Newsome, W. D. & Alavosius, M. P. (2011). Toward the prediction and influence of green behavior: Seeking practical utility in research. Behavior and Social Issues, 20, 44-77.
Alavosius, M.P., Newsome, W.D., Houmanfar, R. & Biglan, A. (2016). A Functional Contextualist Analysis of the Behavior and Organizational Practices Relevant to Climate Change. In R. Zettle, S. C. Hayes, D. Barnes-Holmes, A. Biglan (Eds). Handbook of Contextual Behavior Science. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell.
Grant, L. K. (2011). Can we consume our way out of climate change? A call for analysis. The Behavior Analyst, 34(2), 245-266.
Levin, K., Cashore, B., Bernstein, S., & Ault, G. (2012) Overcoming the tragedy of super wicked problems: Constraining our future selves to ameliorate global climate change. Policy Science, 45, 123-153.
|
Luke, M. & Alavosius, M. P. (2012). Impacting community sustainability through behavior change. Behavior and Social Issues, 21, 54-79.
Wilson, D. S., Ostrom, E., Cox, M. E. (2013). Generalizing the core design principles for the efficacy of groups. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 905, 521-532.
|
Creating Solutions to Social Problems: Common Pool Resources |
Students will describe Hardin’s (1968) Tragedy of the Commons.
Students will describe Ostrom’s work related to remediating the Tragedy of the Commons.
Students will draw parallels between Ostrom’s work and a culturo-behavioral systems science perspective.
Students will describe current (and potential) efforts from behavioral scientists at employing a culturo-behavioral systems science perspective to research variables derived from Ostrom’s work at governing the use of common-pool resources.
|
Camargo, J. & Haydu, V. B. (2016). Fostering the sustainable use of common-pool resources through behavioral interventions: An experimental approach. Behavior and Social Issues, 25, 61-76.
Ostrom, E. (1998). Coping with tragedies of the commons. Paper prepared for delivery at the 1998 Annual Meeting of the Association for Politics and the Life Sciences (APLS).
|
n/a |
Creating Solutions to Social Problems: Experimental Microcultures |
Students will explain game theory, Nash equilibrium, and the way experimental games are used to measure preference, particularly social preference, and the advantages and limitations of doing so especially as compared with field experiments.
Students will describe the Prisoner's’ Dilemma game and at least two additional experimental games including the following information: 1) the definition of the game, 2) the predictions game theorists make regarding the game, 3) the procedural variations, and 4) the way the findings are interpreted.
Students will describe the primary preparations, experimentally arranged contingencies, and other important methodological distinctions in research on cultural selection processes.
Students will describe the major conclusions that can be drawn from the extant literature-based on cultural selection processes and the limitations of this research.
Students will comment on the need to differentiate between the effects of individual operant level contingencies and cultural consequences contingent upon the culturant, as well as on the work that has attempted to draw parallels between operant level selection and cultural selection.
|
Tourinho, E. Z. (2013). Cultural consequences and interlocking behavioral contingencies: Selection at the cultural level. Behavior and Philosophy, 41 60-60.
Camerer, C. F., & Fehr, E. (2004). Measuring Social Norms and Preferences Using Experimental Games: A Guide for Social Scientists. In J. Henrich, R. Boyd, S. Bowles, C. Camerer, E. Fehr, & H. Gintis (Eds). Foundations of Human Sociality: Economic Experiments and Ethnographic Evidence from Fifteen Small-Scale Societies. New York, NY: Oxford.
Soares, P. F. R., Martins, J. C. T., Guimaraes, T. M. M., Leite, F. L., & Tourinho, E. Z. (2019). Effects of continuous and intermittent cultural consequences on culturants in metacontingency concurrent with operant contingency. Behavior and Social Issues.
|
Todorov, J. C. (2010). Schedules of cultural selection: Comments on "Emergence and Metacontingency". Behavior and Social Issues, 19, 86-89. |
Creating Solutions to Social Problems: Community Health & Social Justice |
Students will explain how the criteria for applied behavior analysis align with applying behavior analysis to community-level research.
Students will describe the five values indicative of developing collaborative relationships between behavioral researchers and participants.
Students will describe the four values and principles that underlie community needs and resource assessments
Students will describe the five values that should guide community-based interventions and dissemination efforts for behavioral research conducted in community settings.
Students will describe how mentalism and attribution theory more specifically might impede social justice efforts and will explain why behavior analysis offers a constructive alternative to mentalism as it relates to social justice, prejudice, racism, and discrimination more generally.
Students will provide an example of a community needs and resources assessment and develop a community-based intervention focused on social justice, including a description of how the information gathered from the assessment informs the intervention.
|
Fawcett, S. B. (1991). Some values guiding community research and action. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 24(4), 621-636.621
Moore, J. (2003). Behavior analysis, mentalism, and the path to social justice. The Behavior Analyst, 26(2), 181-193.
Watson-Thompson, J., Collie-Akers, V., Woods, N. K., Anderson-Carpenter, K. D., Jones, M. D., & Taylor, E. L. (2014). Participatory Approaches for Conducting Community Needs and Resources Assessments. In V. C. Scott & Wolfe, S. M. Community Psychology: Foundations for Practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
|
n/a |
Creating Solutions to Social Problems: Activism, Advocacy, & Accompaniment |
Students will describe and provide examples of the role nonprofits and advocacy organizations can serve in reducing negative externalities
Students will describe and provide examples of the contingencies that shape the practices of advocacy groups.
Students will explain the set of policies described by Biglan (2009) that can sharpen the contingencies that influence advocacy organizations such that they can act effectively in the interest of public wellbeing.
Students will examine several case studies detailing activism and advocacy efforts led or described by behavior analysts and will summarize the critical features of each.
Students will describe the contingencies they would arrange to lead an activism and/or advocacy effort for a cause of their choosing.
|
Biglan, A. (2009). The role of advocacy organizations in reducing negative externalities. Journal of Organizational Behavior Management, 29, 215-230.
Brogran, K. M., Richling, S. M., Rapp, J. T., Thompson, K. R., & Burkhart, B. R. (2018). Collaborative efforts by the Auburn University Applied Behavior Analysis Program in the treatment of adolescents adjudicated for illegal sexual behavior. Behavior and Social Issues, 27, AA16-AA20.
Luna, O., Rapp, J. T., Newland, M. C., Arena, R., LaPointe, L. L., Kierce, E., & Lusche, P. (2018). Alabama Psychiatric Medication Review Team (APMRT): Advocating for foster children. Behavior and Social Issues, 27, AA11-AA15.
Nevin, J. A. (2018). Variation, selection, and social action. Behavior and Social Issues, 27, AA1-AA3.
Schlinger, H. (2018). The Venus Project and behavioral science. Behavior and Social Issues, 27, AA4-AA5.
Tsipursky, G., & Morford, Z. (2018). Addressing behaviors that lead to sharing fake news. Behavior and Social Issues, 27, AA6-AA10.
|
n/a |
Developing Solutions for Organizational Problems: Total Performance System |
Students will define and distinguish between rule governed behavior and contingency shaped behavior in organizations, outlining Abernathy’s (2003) free operant approach.
Students will list the components and sub-components of Abernathy’s (2003) Total Performance System (TPS), list and describe the main principles of effective behavior change measures, and list the main consequential variables identifying which one is essential during the beginning stages of TPS implementation.
Students will compare and contrast different types of leadership and managerial styles in organizations with respect to how they affect performance.
Students will compare and contrast Abernathy’s (2003) and Malott’s (2003) behavioral systemic approaches.
|
Abernathy, W. B (1996). Sin of wages. Atlanta, GA: Performance Management Publications.
Abernathy W. B. (2001). An analysis of twelve organizations’ total performance system. In L. J. Hayes, J. Austin, R. Houmanfar, & Clayton, M. C. (Eds.), Organizational Change (pp. 239-272). Reno, NV: Context Press.
Abernathy, W. B. (2003). Creating a high performance organization through a "free operant workplace." Performance Systems Analysis. Retrieved November 5, 2003 from Cambridge Center for Behavioral Studies (http://store.behavior.org/resources/396.pdf).
|
n/a |
Developing Solutions for Organizational Problems: Human Performance Technology & Organizational Culture |
Students will describe the key features of the Performance Chain model and the Six Boxes model of behavior influence.
Students will differentiate behavior from accomplishments and describe why "work outputs" is the term preferred to "accomplishments".
Students will explain how cultural values influence performance expectations.
Students will describe how to use the Behavioral Systems Analysis Questionnaire to guide performance within an organization.
Students will explain how the Critical Practices Cultural Audit can be used to align an organization's culture and performance with customer value and will describe the steps one needs to take to perform and implement such an analysis.
Students will list and describe the steps in the Human Performance Technology approach to behavioral systems analysis.
|
Binder, C. (2016). Integrating organizational-cultural values with performance management. Journal of Organizational Behavior Management, 36(2-3), 185-201.
Diener, L. H., McGee, H., M., & Miguel, C. F. (2009). An integrated approach for conducting a behavioral systems analysis. Journal of Organizational Behavior Management, 29, 108-135
Tosti, D., & Herbst, S. A. (2009). Organizational performance and customer value. Journal of Organizational Behavior Management, 29, 294 – 314.
Rummler, G. (1999). Transforming organizations through human performance technology. In H. D. Stolovitch & E. J. Keeps (Eds.), Handbook of human performance technology, (pp. 47-66). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Pfeiffer.
|
Binder, C. (2017). What it really means to be accomplishment based. Performance Improvement, 56(4), 20-25.
Binder, C. (1998). The Six Boxes™: A descendent of Gilbert’s Behavior Engineering Model. Performance Improvement 37(6), 48-52.
Binder, C. (1995). Promoting HPT innovation: A return to our natural science roots. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 8(2), 95–113.
Wilmoth, F. S., Prigmore, C., & Bray, M. (2002). HPT models: An overview of the major models in the field. Performance Improvement, 41(8), 16-25.
|
Note: These are additional recommended books and papers that are not unit specific but may be helpful for persons teaching courses in behavioral systems analysis.
RECOMMENDED READINGS: BOOKS
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.
Bar Bar-Yam, Y. (1997). Dynamics of complex systems. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Gilbert, T. F. (1978). Human competence: Engineering worthy performance. New York, NY: McGraw- Hill.
Hackenberg, T., Hanley, G. P., & Lattal, K. A. (Eds.) (2013). APA handbook of behavior analysis, Vol. 2. Translating principles into practice. Washington, DC, US: American Psychological Association.
Houmanfar, R. A., Fryling, M. & Alavosius, M. P. (Eds.) (in press). Applied behavior science in organizations: Consilience of historical and emerging trends in organizational behavior management. New York, NY: Springer.
Mitchell, M. (2009). Complexity: A guided tour. New York: Oxford University Press.
Moran, D. J. (2013). Building safety commitment. Joliet, IL: Valued Living Books, Inc.
Morieux, Y., & Tollman, P. (2014). Six simple rules: How to manage complexity without getting complicated. Watertown, MA: Harvard Business Review Press.
Rummler, G. A. & Brache, A. P. (1995). Improving performance: How to manage the white space on the organization chart. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Skinner, B. F. (1971). Walden Two (1948, 1976, 2005). Indianapolis, IN. Hackett.
Thaler, R.H., & Sunstein, C.R. (2009) Nudge: Improving decisions about health, wealth, and happiness. New York, NY: Penguin Books.
RECOMMENDED READINGS: ARTICLES & CHAPTERS
Abernathy, W. B. (2013). Behavioral approaches to business and industrial problems: Organizational behavior management. In G. J. Madden, W. V. Dube, T. D. Hackenberg, G. P. Hanley, & K. A. Lattal (Eds.), APA handbook of behavior analysis, Vol. 2. Methods and principles (pp. 501-521). Washington, DC, US: American Psychological Association.
Alavosius, M. A., Getting, J., Dagen, J., Newsome, W., & Hopkins, B. (2009), Use of a cooperative to interlock contingencies and balance the commonwealth. Journal of Organizational Behavior Management, 29, 193 – 211.
Alavosius, M. P., Newsome, W. D., Houmanfar, R. & Biglan, A. (2015). A Functional Contextualist Analysis of the Behavior and Organizational Practices Relevant to Climate Change. In Zettle, R. D., Hayes, S. C., Barnes-Holmes, D., & Biglan, A. (Eds). Handbook of Contextual Behavior Science. NY: John Wiley & Sons.
Baker, T., Schwenk T., Piasecki M., Smith G. S., Reimer, D., Jacobs N., Shonkwiler, G., Hagen J., & Houmanfar R. A. (2015). Change in a medical school: A data-driven management of entropy. Journal of Organizational Behavior Management, 35, 95-122.
Bates, M. (1950). Chapter 18: Tactics, strategy, and the goal. In M. Bates, The nature of natural history (pp. 268-284). Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Beckage, B., Kauffman, S, Gross, L. J., Zia, A., & Koliba, C. (2013). More complex complexity: Exploring the nature of computational irreducibility across physical, biological, and human social systems. In H. Zenil (Ed.), Irreducibility and Computational Equivalence (pp. 79-88). Berlin: Springer-Verlag.
Baum, W. M., Richerson, P. J., Efferson, C. M., & Paciotti, B. M. (2004). Cultural evolution in laboratory microsocieties including traditions of rule giving and rule following. Evolution and Human Behavior, 25(5), 305-326.http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2004.05.003
Biglan, A. (2003). Selection by consequences: one unifying principle for a transdisciplinary science of prevention. Prevention Science, 4, 213-232.
Biglan, A. (2009). Increasing psychological flexibility to influence cultural evolution. Behavior and Social Issues, 18, 1-10.
Biglan, A., & Glenn, S. S. (2013). Toward prosocial behavior and environments: Behavioral and cultural contingencies in a public health framework. In G. J. Madden (Ed), APA Handbook of Behavior Analysis (pp. 255-275). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Biglan, A., & Hinds, E. (2009). Evolving prosocial and sustainable neighborhoods and communities. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 5, 169-196.
Bogard K., Ludwig T., Staats C., & Kretchmer D. (2015) An industry’s call to understand the contingencies involved in Process Safety: Normalization of deviance. Journal of Organizational Behavior Management, 35, 70-80.
Bosch, S., & Fuqua, W. (2011). Behavioral cusps: A model for selecting target behaviors. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 34, 123–125.
Brown, L., & Houmanfar, R (2015). The cost of affluence: A closer look at the food industry. Behavior and Social Issues, 24, 4-22.
Chase, J., Houmanfar, R., Hayes, S., Ward, T., Plumb, J., & Follette, V. (2013). Values are not just goals: Online ACT-Based Values Training adds to goal setting in improving undergraduate college student performance. Journal of Contextual Behavioral Science, 2, 79-84.
Dickinson, A. M. (2000). The historical roots of organizational behavior management in the private sector: The 1950s-1980s. Journal of Organizational Behavior Management, 20(3/4), 9-58.
Diener, L. H., McGee, H., M., & Miguel, C. F. (2009). An integrated approach for conducting a behavioral systems analysis. Journal of Organizational Behavior Management, 29, 108-135
Fantino, E. (1985). Behavior analysis and behavioral ecology: A synergistic coupling. The Behavior Analyst, 8(2), 151-157. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03393147
Foxall, G. R (2015). Consumer Behavior Analysis and the marketing firm: Bilateral contingency in the context of environmental concern. Journal of Organizational Behavior Management, 35, 44-69.
Foxall, G.R. (2010). Invitation to consumer behavior analysis. Journal of Organizational Behavior Management, 30, 92-109.
Galbraith, J. R. (1982). Designing innovative organization. Organization Dynamics. Winter, 5-25.
Granic, I., & Patterson, G. R. (2006). Toward a comprehensive model of antisocial development: A dynamic systems approach. Psychological Review, 113(1), 101. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.113.1.101
Hantula, D. (2015). Job Satisfaction: The Management Tool and Leadership Responsibility. Journal of Organizational Behavior Management, 35, 81-94.
Hayes, L. J., Dubuque, E. M., Fryling, M., & Pritchard, J. K. (2009). A behavioral systems analysis of behavior analysis as a scientific system. Journal of Organizational Behavior Management, 29, 315 – 332.
Hayes, S. C., & Sanford, B. (2014). Cooperation game first: Evolution and human cognition. Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 101, 112-129.
Herbst, S. A., & Houmanfar, R. (2009) Psychological approaches to values in organizations and organizational behavior management. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 29, 47-68.
Houmanfar, R. A., Alavosius, M.P., Morford, Z. H., Herbst, S. A., & Reimer, R. (2015). Functions of organizational leaders in cultural change: Financial and social well-being. Journal of Organizational Behavior Management, 35, 4-27.
Houmanfar, R. & Johnson, R. (2003). Organizational Implications of Gossip and Rumor. Journal of Organizational Behavior Management, 23, 117-138.
Houmanfar, R., & Rodrigues, N. J. (2006). Behavior analysis & cultural analysis: Points of contact and departure. Behavior and Social Issues, 15, 13-30.
Houmanfar, R. A., Rodrigues, N. J., & Smith, G. S. (2009). Role of Communication Networks in Behavioral Systems Analysis. Journal of Organizational Behavior Management, 29, 257-275.
Hyten, C. (2009). Strengthening the focus on business results: The need for systems approaches in organizational behavior management. Journal of Organizational Behavior Management, 29, 87–107.
Johnson, K., (2015). Behavioral Education in the 21st Century. Journal of Organizational Behavior Management, 35, 135-150.
Johnson, R. A., Houmanfar, R., & Smith, G. S. (2010). The effect of implicit and explicit rules on customer greeting and productivity in a retail organization. Journal of Organizational Behavior Management, 30, 38-48.
Krapfl, J. E., Cooke, J., Sullivan, T., & Cogar, W. (2009). Iterative processes and reciprocal controlling relationships in a systemic intervention, Journal of Organizational Behavior Management. 29, 136 – 154.
Krapfl J. E, & Kruja, B. (2015). Leadership and culture. Journal of Organizational Behavior Management, 35, 28-43.
Loehle, C. (2004). Challenges of ecological complexity. Ecological Complexity, 1(1), 3-6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecocom.2003.09.001
Lydon, C. A., Rohmeier, K. D., Yi, S. C., Mattaini, M. A., & Williams, W. L. (2011). How far do you have to go to get a cheeseburger around here? The realities of an environmental design approach to curbing the consumption of fast-food. Behavior and Social issues, 20, 6-23. doi:10.5210/bsi.v20i0.3637
Maraccini, A. M., Houmanfar, R. A., & Szarko, A. (2016). Motivation and complex verbal phenomena: Implications for organizational research and practice. Journal of Organizational Behavior Management, 36, 282-300.
Mattaini, M. A. (2007). Editorial: Technical language in cultural analysis. Behavior and Social Issues, 16, 1-4.
Mawhinney, T. C. (2009). Identifying and extinguishing dysfunctional and deadly organizational practices. Journal of Organizational Behavior Management, 29, 231–256.
Mihalic, M. T., & Ludwig, T. (2009). Behavioral system feedback measurement failure: Sweeping quality under the rug. Journal of Organizational Behavior Management, 29, 155–174.
Rosales-Ruiz, J., & Bear, D. M. (1997). Behavioral cusps: A developmental and pragmatic concept for behavior analysis. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 30, 533–544.
Rummler, G. (1999). Transforming organizations through human performance technology. In H. D. Stolovitch & E. J. Keeps (Eds.), Handbook of human performance technology, (pp. 47-66). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Pfeiffer.
Sandaker, I. (2009). A selectionist perspective on systemic and behavioral change in organizations. Journal of Organizational Behavior Management, 29, 276–293.
Sigurdsson, S. O., & Austin, J. (2006). Institutionalization and response maintenance in organizational behavior management. Journal of Organizational Behavior Management, 26(4), 41-77.
Stewart, I., Barnes-Holmes, D., Barnes-Holmes, Y., Bond, F. W., Hayes, S. C. (2006). Relational Frame Theory and Industrial/Organizational Psychology. Journal of Organizational Behavior Management, 26, (1/2), 55-90.
Tosti, D., & Herbst, S. A. (2009). Organizational performance and customer value. Journal of Organizational Behavior Management, 29, 294 – 314.
Wilhite, C. J. & Houmanfar, R. (2015). Mass news media and American culture: An interdisciplinary approach. Behavior and Social Issues, 24, 88-110.
Weick, K. E., & Gilfillan, D. P. (1971). Fate of arbitrary traditions in a laboratory microculture. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 17(7), 179-191.
Willems, E. P. (1974). Behavioral technology and behavioral ecology. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 7(1), 151-165. ttps://doi.org/10.1901/jaba.1974.7-151
Wilson, D. S., Hayes, S. C., Biglan, A., & Embry, D. (2014). Evolving the Future: Toward a science of intentional change. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 37, 395–460.