University of Nebraska - Lincoln

DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln

Management Department Faculty Publications Management Department

1980

A Social Learning Approach to Organizational

Behavior
Tim R.V. Davis
Cleveland State University

Fred Luthans
University of Nebraska - Lincoln, [email protected]

Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/managementfacpub

Part of the Business Administration, Management, and Operations Commons, Management
Sciences and Quantitative Methods Commons, and the Strategic Management Policy Commons

Davis, Tim R.V. and Luthans, Fred, "A Social Learning Approach to Organizational Behavior" (1980). Management Department Faculty
Publications. 173.
https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/managementfacpub/173

This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Management Department at DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. It has
been accepted for inclusion in Management Department Faculty Publications by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@University of
Nebraska - Lincoln.
Published by Academy of Management. Used by permission.

Academy of Management Review 1980, Vol. 5, No. 2, 281-290

A Social Learning Approach to

Organizational Behavior
TIM R. V. DAVIS
Cleveland State University
FRED LUTHANS
University of Nebraska

After first reviewing the existing theoretical frameworks for human be-
havior, we present a social learning theory approach that incorporates the
interactive nature of all the variables of organizational behavior - the
behavior itself, the environment, and the person (internal cognitions). We
differentiate social learning theory from operant theory, highlighting the
processes of modeling, cognitions, and self-control. We suggest self-
management techniques as a way to apply the social learning framework
in order to enhance managerial effectiveness.

Just as the management field in general has Locke, 1968] that are popular in the field of
been depicted as a theory jungle [Koontz, 1961, organizational behavior today are closely
associated with this theoretical base.
1980; Luthans, 1973], the emerging field of organi-
zational behavior has seemed to reach the same 2. B = f(E). According to this theoretical position,
point. There is today a jungle of theories that at- behavior is explained as a function of the envi-
tempt to explain human behavior in organizations. ronment. Most closely associated with Skinner's
[1953] operant conditioning, this position is ex-
Unfortunately, many of the theoretical explanations
ternally oriented and, in particular, is concerned
have seemed to stray from behavior as the unit of with the role that reinforcing contingencies play
analysis in organizational behavior. There is a in maintaining and changing behavior. The
widespread tendency for both scholars and practi- recent attention given to an operant [Nord, 1969]
tioners to treat such hypothetical constructs as and a general learning approach [Luthans &
Ottemann,1973] to organizational behavior and,
motivation, satisfaction, and leadership as ends in
more specifically, to organizational behavior
themselves. We think it is time to re-emphasize the modification [Luthans & Kreitner, 1975] and
point that behaviors are the empirical reality, not the behavioral management [Miller, 1978] is
labels attached to the attempted explanations of the representative of this theoretical position.
behaviors.
If behavior is given its rightful place as the focus 3. B = f(P,E). The third major theoretical base that
has been widely adopted by the organizational
of attention in the theoretical development of orga-
behavior field is a compromise position that says
nizational behavior, three major approaches can be organizational behavior is a function of the per-
readily identified. Briefly summarized, they are: son and the environment. Usually attributed to
the work of Kurt Lewin, this theoretical frame-
1. B = f(P). According to this theoretical position,
behavior is explained as a function of the per- work recognizes that both the person (internal
son. In particular, internal psychological con- constructs) and the environment (external con-
structs such as motivation, perception, attitudes, tingencies) must be taken into account in order
expectancies, and personality characteristics to explain behavior. The traditional definition of
are used to explain why people behave the way organizational behavior (i.e., the study of human
they do. Most of the motivational theories [e.g., behavior in organizations) recognizes this theo-
Maslow, 1954; Vroom, 1964; Adams, 1965; retical position. The vast majority of organiza-
tional behavior scholars today stress the
? 1980 by the Academy of Management 0363-7425 importance of both the person and the environ-
281
 ment. For example, the widely recognized led to a less restricted theory that recognizes the
Porter and Lawler [1968] model contains both role of social learning and imitation. Recent exposi-
internal cognitive variables and external
environmental variables.
tions of this social learning approach have been
provided by Mischel [1973,1976], Mahoney [1974],
Our purpose in this paper is to point out still Meichenbaum [1974, 1977], Staats [1975], and
another, often overlooked, theoretical base for or- Bandura [1968, 1976, 1977b]. The various interpre-
ganizational behavior. This fourth alternative base tations of social learning theory are complex and
for organizational behavior is best embodied in the difficult to integrate. However, the work of Albert
term social learning theory. Although traditionally Bandura provides a complete, yet parsimonious,
there have been implicit assumptions of the inter- interpretation of social learning.
active nature between the participant and the Bandura [1977b] takes the position that the best
organizational environment, the behavior itself, as explanation of behavior is in terms of a continuous,
an interacting variable, has been ignored. In reciprocal interaction between cognitive, behavior-
addition, there have been some recent applications al, and environmental determinants. In a unidirec-
of modeling to employee training [Burnaska, 1976; tional conception of interaction [e.g., the Lewin
Kraut, 1976; Latham & Saari, 1979], but a social formula that B = f(P,E)], the person and the envi-
learning approach - which is becoming an increas- ronment are considered to be independent entities
ingly important theoretical base for psychology - that somehow combine to determine behavior.
has been largely ignored by organizational Social learning posits that the person and the envi-
behavior researchers. In fact, to our knowledge ronment do not function as independent units but
there has been no direct attempt to include social instead determine each other in a reciprocal man-
learning in the conceptual framework of organiza- ner. In other words, under social learning theory the
tional behavior.
conception that B = f(P,E) is rejected as being too
Fortunately, a social learning theory base for or- limiting and not accounting for the interactive effect
ganizational behavior is complementary rather than between the person, the environment, and the
competitive with previous approaches. We contend behavior itself.
that the existing theoretical bases [i.e., B = f(P), B = The same is true of more one-sided cognitive
f(E), and B = f(P,E)] are not wrong, but instead are views of behavior [i.e., B = f(P)] which suggest that
too limiting and, at best, provide only a partial ex- internal cognitions be considered as causal deter-
planation of the complexities of organizational minants irrespective of their behaviors and the envi-
behavior. What seems to be needed is a compre- ronment. The social learning theory approach
hensive theory that is able to incorporate the inter- would explain that it is largely through their actions
active nature of all the variables of organizational that people produce the environmental conditions
behavior - the behavior itself, the environment that affect their behavior in a reciprocal fashion. The
(especially other organizational participants and experiences generated by behavior also partly de-
the organization), and the organizational participant termine what a person becomes and can do which,
(including internal cognitions). Social learning the- in turn, affects subsequent behavior [Bandura,
ory seems to best fill in some of the existing 1977b, p. 9].
deficiencies.
Even those organizational behavior theorists
What is Meant by who argue that they are taking a bi-directional or
Social Learning Theory? reciprocal approach (either in an exchange sense
between superior and subordinate or between or-
From the outset it should be recognized that ganizational participant and situation) still retain a
social learning theory is a behavioral theory. It uti- unidirectional view toward the behavior itself. The
lizes the principles of classical and operant condi- causal input into the organizational participant's
tioning. But it deviates from a strict, Skinnerian behavior is the result of the interdependent ex-
approach to behavior. Over the years, the failure to change between the person and the environment
account for the development of complex social be- (including other persons), but the behavior itself is
havior through S-R bonds or selective reinforce- ignored as an interacting determinant. In other
ment of each discrete response (R-S) has gradually words, under social learning theory the conception
282
that Bo f(P,E) is also rejected. The Role of Vicarious Processes
In summary, a social learning theory of organiza-
Social learning theory derives its name from th
tional behavior can best be depicted by the model in
emphasis it places on learning from other people
Figure 1 [adapted from Bandura, 1977b]:
that is, social learning. While social learning theor
Organizational Participant
agrees with the operant view that learning takes
(includes cognitive processes) place as a result of directly experienced response
consequences, it also emphasizes that learning
can take place vicariously through observing the
effects on the social environment of other people
behavior. The operant view is therefore considere
Environment as incomplete rather than incorrect. According t
(includes other social learning theory, vicarious observational
organizational learning accounts for the acquisition of complex
Organizational
BOrgan vaiornal participants and patterns of social behavior more readily than doe
variables) the isolated reinforcement of discrete behavioral
responses:
Figure 1 Although behavior can be shaped into new patterns
Model of Social Learning Theory to some extent by rewarding and punishing con-
Of Organizational Behavior sequences, learning would be exceedingly labor-
ious and hazardous if it proceeded solely on this
It can be seen that in a social learning theory ap- basis... it is difficult to imagine a socialization
proach, organizational behavior is in reciprocal process in which the language, mores, vocational
interaction with cognitive processes and the envi- activities, familial customs, and the educational,
religious, and political practices of a culture are
ronment. Organizational behavior is viewed as af-
taught to each new member by selective reinforce-
fecting and being affected by the participant's cog- ment of fortuitous behaviors, without benefit of
nitions, the environment, and the person-situation models who exemplify the cultural patterns in their
interactions. own behavior. Most of the behaviors that people
display are learned either deliberately or inadver-
How Does Social Learning Theory tently, through the influence of example [Bandura,
Differ from Operant Theory? 1976, p. 5].

So far the discussion has emphasized that a Considerable research has demonstrated how
social learning approach considers the person- people quickly reproduce the actions, attitudes, and
behavior-environment interaction as a theoretical emotional responses exhibited by models [Bandura
base for organizational behavor. There may be lin- & Walters, 1963; Bandura, 1969; Flanders, 1968].
gering doubts or confusion as to how this really Vicarious, imitative learning seems to better explain
differs from an operant learning approach. Like the rapid transference of behavior than does the
operant learning, social learning is viewed as deriv- tedious selective reinforcement of each discrimin-
ing from the consequences of behavior. In other able response. The operant and social learning
words, the person learns from the effects that a views do converge in treating the maintenance of
particular behavior has on the environment. How, behavior as being ulitmately dependent on the rein-
then, does social learning differ from operant learn- forcing effects of the environment. However, social
ing? According to Bandura [1969, 1977b], the major learning theory extends this view by showing that
differences between the two revolve around three learning also takes place through observing or
major factors: (1) the role of vicarious processes modeling the reinforcing or punishing outcomes of
(i.e., modeling), (2) the effects of covert cognitive other people's behavior.
processes, and (3) the part played by self-control According to Bandura [1969, 1976, 1977b],
processes. A brief review of each of these will give modeling is regulated by interrelated subprocesses
us a better understanding of social learning theory such as attention, retention, motoric reproduction,
and of how these factors can be applied to the study and reinforcement. These processes account for
of organizational behavior. the acquisition and maintenance of observational
283
learning or modeling. On the other hand, the oper- through intermediary cognitive processes. Cogni-
ant learning approach accounts for the acquisition tive factors partly determine which external events
will be observed, how they will be perceived,
of behavior by a process of natural selection and
whether they leave any lasting effects, what val-
reinforcement. Similarly, reinforcement and the ence and efficacy they have, and how the informa-
notion of the organism "operating" on the environ- tion they convey will be organized for future use
ment are used to explain the maintenance of be- [1977b, p. 160].
havior. Social learning theory posits a fuller An implicit assumption of the operant approach is
explanation of the process affecting both the that all behavior is controlled by the immediate en-
acquisition and maintenance of new behavior. vironmental consequences. The ability to re-evoke
Vicarious learning has important implications for situations in the imagination and represent them
training [Sorcher & Goldstein, 1972] and the devel- verbally in symbolic form liberates human action
opment of general behavior patterns at work [Imita- from the stimulus effects of the immediate situation.
ting models, 1978]. According to the social learning This self-reflective capability is responsibile for self-
theory view, organizational participants learn how regulatory activity and sustained goal-oriented
to behave from observing those around them. The behavior.
dictum "Do as I say, not as I do" seems unlikely to Skinnerian behaviorism has often been criticized
be followed. Job descriptions, rules, and policies on the grounds of strict environmental determinism.
are more likely to be interpreted from watching what This view of one-way causality has been a major
others do than following written directives. The ex- reason why cognitive theorists have rejected the
ample by behavior that managers provide for their operant model. The operant approach depicts the
people may be more important than the instructions organism as "operating" on the environment but
they provide. both the acquisition and maintenance of behavior
The Effects of Cognitive Processes are considered to be controlled by the environmen-
tal consequences. Social learning theorists [Ban-
A second major difference between social and dura, 1977b, 1978; Mahoney, 1977; Thoresen &
operant learning theory concerns the mediating ef- Mahoney, 1974], with their recognition of cognitive
fects of covert cognitive processes. Virtually all processes, view the person, environment, and be-
aspects of social learning are considered to be af- havior as operating in an interactive state of recip-
fected by cognitive processes. Staats [1968], Ban- rocal determinism (as depicted in Figure 1). From
dura [1969], and Kanfer [1970] were among the first an individual learning perspective, Mahoney de-
behaviorists to demonstrate the importance of scribes this relationship as follows:
covert cognitions (feelings, images, and symbolic
Our actions - and particularly their consequences
processes) in the regulation of human behavior. - help to shape our cognitive representa-
Before their work, the majority of behavioral psy- tions. . ... Cognitions influence behaviors, which
chologists (starting with Watson [1913] and con- influence environments which influence cogni-
tinuing with Skinner [1953]) had dismissed tions. .and so on. The circularity here is not one of
logical tautology, however. It is a causal circularity
cognitive processes as being largely metaphysical
that is far more comprehensive and defensible than
and having no rightful place in the scientific study of traditional unilateral views [1977, p. 8].
behavior.
An ever-increasing research literature reports on Mahoney points out that in the social learning view
each person responds not only to the environment
the important role that cognitive processes play in
human behavior [Bandura, 1968, 1969, 1977a; per se but also to a cognitive representation of the
Jacobs & Sachs, 1971; McGuigan & Schoonhover, environment. This means that the same physical
1973; Meichenbaum, 1974, 1977]. Bandura holds environment can take on vastly different meaning
that: for those who share it.
At this point we should emphasize that there are
[If] human behavior could be fully explained in
terms of antecedent inducements and response some major differences between the social learning
consequences, there would be no need to postu- approach to explaining and studying cognitive
late any additional regulatory mechanisms. How- processes and the more traditional [i.e., B = f(P)]
ever, most external influences affect behavior cognitive theories. Social learning theory examines

284
both behavioral and cognitive processes in the en- possible on observable, verifiable behavioral
vironmental context in which they take place [Mash events. Thus, the main focus of social learning the-
& Terdal, 1976]. In other words, in a social learning ory is to investigate the mediating effects that covert
approach, reliance solely on indirect questionnaire cognitive processes may have on an otherwise
methods of measuring behavior is inadequate. In observable sequence of events.
addition, the behavior and its interactive elements To account for cognitive mediating processes
should be directly observed in specific situations. and covert variables in a social learning approach to
A social learning approach requires an analysis organizational behavior, we employ an expanded
technique that allows for both overt and covert vari- four-term contingency framework. This framework
ables. Although usually accused otherwise, Skin- can be used to analyze the functional relationships.
ner [1953] does give recognition to the place of We use S-O-B-C to represent the four interacting
cognitive processes in his discussion of covert variables. It is intended to portray the interactive,
operants, but his suggested technique for the sci- reciprocal nature of environmental events [both
entific study of behavior that he called functional antecedent discriminative stimuli (S) and conse-
analysis is not designed to account for the role of quences (C)], intrapersonal, cognitive processes
cognitive processes. The recognition of covert (O), and behavioral (B) variables. Figure 2 shows
processes is not included in the operant functional the S-O-B-C model. Note that there are implicit
analysis of antecedent-behavior-consequence, or interactions and feedback loops between the envi-
A-B-C [Skinner, 1969]. Social learning theorists ronmental (S and C), cognitive (0), and behavioral
stress that the variables in this three-term contin- (B) variables.
gency - i.e., the antecedent stimulus conditions, One could argue what letters to use in represent-
the behavior, and the consequences - may be ing the variables, but we chose these based on their
overt or covert. As Mahoney [1974, p. 77] points use in our earlier writings [Luthans, 1977, 1979;
out, this gives rise to eight possible combinations. Luthans & Davis, 1979; Davis & Luthans, 1979], in
Thus, there is a possibility that the three-term con- which we tried to combine the established, widely
tingency may be completely covert and thus unob- recognized cognitively based S-O-R model (stim-
servable and undetectable to anyone but the ulus-organism-response) and the operant-based
affected party. Meichenbaum [1974], for example, A-B-C model (antecedent-behavior-consequence).
has drawn attention to situational antecedents, be- In other words, the S-O-B-C framework permits
haviors, and consequences created entirely in the functional analysis of environmental-cognitive-
imagination of the person. It is this capability that behavioral events (both antecedent and conse-
allows a person to think through the possibilities of quent environment). It represents a departure from
alternative courses of action without having to ex- the operant A-B-C functional analysis by inserting
perience them directly. However, from a philosophy the O to recognize the role of cognitive mediating
of science perspective that stresses operational- processes and also to recognize that both environ-
ism, the study of behavior must focus as closely as mental events (both S and C) and the behavior itself

S - --- 0-- - B-I C

Situation Organism
Situation Organism Behavior
BehaviorConsequence__
Consequence
The discriminative stim- The cognitive processes The response or pattern The contingent conse-
ulus and the broader an- that play an important of behavior. This can be quence, which can be
tecedent environment. mediating role. Repre- overt or covert. reinforcing or punishing.
This can be overt or sents the person vari- An environmental event,
covert. able that is in interaction which can be overt or
with the environment covert.
and behavior.

Figure 2
Functional Analysis Framework for a Social Learning Approach to Organizational Behavior
285
can be covert as well as overt. Just as the A-B-C written.... Because of their great representational
model serves as a technique for functional analysis and self-reactive capacities, humans are less de-
in the operant approach to organizational behavior pendent upon immediate external supports for their
behavior. The inclusion of self-reinforcement phe-
[Luthans & Kreitner, 1975; Luthans, 1980], so does
nomena in learning theory thus greatly increases
the S-O-B-C model serve as a technique for the explanatory power of reinforcement principles
functional analysis in the social learning approach as applied to human functioning [1976, p. 28].
to organizational behavior. This S-O-B-C frame- Self-evaluative reactions to self-created con-
work is especially important to the explanation and
sequences may be considered the underlying self-
application of the third major factor in social learning
controlling processes. This suggests that people
theory - self-control processes.
learn to modify their behavior when their own self-
Self-Control Processes created consequences or standards are not
fulfilled. The self-reinforcement consequence is
Although Skinner [1953] should probably be particularly important to virtually all sustained goal-
credited with laying the foundations of a behavioral
oriented behavior and explains how behavior per-
approach to self-control, the operant approach, with
sists despite the lack of immediately compelling
its almost total emphasis on the controlling roleexternal
of support.
the environment, may be considered inimical to Kanfer and Karoly [1974, p. 209] note that self-
theories of "self" regulation. Thus, the emphasis controlling responses come into being when a
given to self-control processes in social learning choice point is reached, or an external event inter-
theory marks a significant departure from operant rupts and refocuses attention, or if the activation
theory. A fuller understanding of the processes level
of suddenly changes. In effect, behavioral con-
behavioral self-control has important implications trol switches from automated, environmental con-
for organizational behavior and managerial effec- trol (habitual responding) to a state of cognitive
tiveness [Luthans & Davis, 1979]. awareness in which a self-evaluative judgment is
The recognition given to the mediating role that made about the appropriateness of behavior. This
cognitive processes play in the individual's relation-
does not mean that a clearcut distinction can be
ship with the environment establishes the importantmade between environmental control and self-
influence that self-regulatory functions can have on
control. Kanfer and Karoly view self-control as the
the control of behavior. Research by social learning
introduction by the individual of supplementary
theorists [Bandura, 1968, 1977a; Kanfer & Karoly,cognitive contingencies that are overlaid on the ex-
1972; Mahoney & Thoresen, 1974] reveals thatisting a environmental contingencies and allow the
given action typically produces two outcomes - person
an to analyze and alter the external regulatory
external environmental consequence and an inter- relationship. Cognitive awareness alone, however,
nal self-evaluative consequence. In other words, is not enough to allow self-controlling behavior to
people are affected not only by the external conse-
take place. In Kanfer and Karoly's words, "The
quences of their behavior but also by the conse-
degree to which internal stimulation and self-gener-
quences they create for themselves. Bandura ated reinforcing events take on importance de-
explains this interpretation as follows:
pends on the magnitude and specificity of these
The notion that behavior is controlled by its conse- variables, and on the richness and complexity of the
quence is unfortunately interpreted by most people
person's available covert behaviors as they moder-
to mean that actions are at the mercy of situational
ate and interact with the effects and directions of
influences. In fact, behavior can, and is, extensively
self-regulated by self-produced consequences for external controlling events" [p. 208]. Thus, in this
one's own actions. In writing a term paper or pre- view, the cognitively based contingencies regulat-
paring a manuscript for publication, for example, ing behavior must be accurately identified if they are
authors do not require someone sitting at their to play an instrumental role in the systematic control
sides differentially reinforcing each written state- of behavior.
ment until a satisfactory version is produced.
Rather, authors possess a standard of what consti- Social Learning Theory in Perspective
tutes an acceptable work and they engage in
repeated self-editing of their own writing perform- So far we have seen that social learning extends
ance until they are satisfied with what they have operant theory by recognizing the role of vicarious,
286
cognitive, and self-control processes. Obviously, training (which, of course, is grounded in social
there is more to social learning theory than these learning theory) is already well established. Just
three dimensions. In a social learning approach to beginning, but what we feel has considerable
organizational behavior, there is a shift away from potential for managerial effectiveness, is behavioral
metaphoric constructs such as motivation and self-management.
leadership. The unit of analysis becomes behavior To implement a self-management approach,
patterns studied in relation to antecedent and con- awareness of the contingencies regulating behav-
sequent environmental situations and cognitively ior is acquired mainly through self-observation and
mediated processes. As Mischel [1973, p. 265] self-monitoring. This requires that the person not
points out, in the social learning approach the focus only attend to a particular target behavior but also
shifts (1) from attempting to compare and general- carefully record its occurrence. Generally, 4" x 5"
ize about what different individuals "are like" to an cards, wrist counters, behavioral diaries, and wall
assessment of what they do behaviorally and cog- charts are used for this purpose. Self-monitoring
nitively - in relation to the psychological conditions provides information on the frequency of the behav-
in which they do it; and (2) from describing situation- ior and helps define the contingencies [antecedent
free people with broad trait adjectives to analyzing cues (A), cognitions (O), response consequences
the specific interactions between conditions and the (C)] when they take place. Self-monitoring also pro-
cognitions and behaviors of interest. vides an objective basis for evaluating behavior and
Mischel's last point is at the very heart of a social designing an intervention strategy. Generally, the
learning approach to organizational behavor. We goal is to establish a new behavior, increase or
must begin to study an organizational participant's maintain an existing behavior, or reduce or elimin-
behavior in specific interaction with particular in situ ate a behavior [Mahoney & Thoresen, 1974;
organizational conditions. In other words, as Watson & Tharp, 1977].
posited in a social learning approach, we must be- Following the lead of Mahoney and Thoreson, we
gin to study and analyze the dynamics of organi- can identify two major strategies for behavioral self-
zation member-behavior-environment interaction. management: (1) stimulus management and (2)
For too long we have tended to concentrate only on consequence management. Stimulus manage-
the organization member (e.g., what motivates him ment refers to methods of overt or covert stimulus
or her) or only on the organizaton environment control such as antecedent stimulus modification,
(e.g., what is the appropriate structure) or, in a few self-regulated stimulus exposure, preprogramming
cases, the organization member/environment in- of response consequences, or the use of self-
teraction (e.g., contingency models of leadership or instructions. The individual plans and implements
task design). What the social learning approach changes in these relevant situational factors before
calls for is an ecological analysis of the interaction emitting the target behavior. For instance, a man-
between the organization member, behavior, and ager who is trying to cut down on her paperwork
environment (i.e., the study of real people in real may have her secretary keep all incoming mail
situations; see Gibbs [1979]). (antecedent stimulus modification); permit handling
correspondence only during certain times of the day
A Social Learning Application: (self-regulated stimulus exposure); ask others to
Behavioral Self-Management stop sending her correspondence (preprogram-
ming of response consequences); and continually
One way of demonstrating how social learning re-evoke certain self-instructions - "I must cut
theory can be specifically applied to organizational down on my paperwork; I want a clean desk when I
behavior analysis, especially an ecologically orien- go home every evening!" A number of studies in
ted analysis, is through a behavioral self-manage- clinical and educational psychology [Upper &
ment strategy in real-world organizations. Because Meredith, 1971; Bernard & Efram, 1972; Stunkard,
the field of organizational behavior is eventually 1972; Beneke & Harris, 1972] have shown how
grounded in the actual practice of management, managing the stimulus conditions can aid in suc-
such a demonstration seems appropriate. As men- cessful self-modification programs. In some of our
tioned before, a modeling approach to employee preliminary research with managers in real organi-
287
zations, we have been able to demonstrate that approach may have for managerial effectiveness.
stimulus management can lead to increased effec- However, before any generalizations can be made,
tiveness [Luthans & Davis, 1979]. more research needs to be done.
The consequence management method of self-
management administers the consequences that Summary and Conclusions
follow a given behavior. This includes the act of Social learning is proposed as a theoretical base
self-monitoring as well as the use of self-admin- for organizational behavior. If researchers in this
istered rewards and punishments. After engaging in
field concentrate on the behavior part of organiza-
a behavior, certain cognitive self-evaluations occur.
tional behavior, then the prevailing theoretical ex-
The act of self-monitoring provides the individual planations (i.e., that behavior is a function of the
with performance feedback that may serve to in- person, behavior is a function of the environment, or
crease or decrease future behavioral responses, behavior is a function of the environment and the
depending on whether the individual's own self-
person) will be seen to be too limiting. Social learn-
created consequences or standards are fulfilled.
ing theory suggests that organizational behavior
Alternatively, the individual may introduce an added
can be best understood in terms of an interacting,
consequence - a reward or punishment - contin- reciprocal determinism between the behavior itself,
gent on satisfactory or unsatisfactory performance
the organizational participant, and the environment.
of a target response. For instance, the manager Even though many organizational behavior theo-
may give himself an extra coffee break for having a
rists would claim that they have always given atten-
clean desk the preceding day or stay after work for a
tion to the person-organizational environment
half hour for each day that the paperwork is not
interface, its interactive, reciprocal deterministic
taken care of. A number of studies in educational
nature has not been stressed, and the role that the
and clinical psychology have clearly demonstrated
behavior itself plays has been almost completely
the effectiveness of self-recording, self-reward, and
ignored. We believe it is time to recognize that all
self-punishment [Bucher & Fabricatore, 1970; Bro-
three interacting components play a vital role in
den, Hall, & Mitts, 1971; Johnson & White, 1971;
organizational behavior. Perhaps even more im-
Bolstad & Johnson, 1972; Flannery, 1972; Sobell &
portant is the interactive tenant of a social learning
Sobell, 1973; Axelrod, Hall, Weiss, & Rohrer, 1974]
approach. It must be recognized that organizational
and our own work has shown that it works in a
behavior does not occur in isolation or in the
managerial setting [Luthans & Davis, 1979].
response sets of researchers' questionnaires. In-
The stimulus and consequence management stead, organizational behavior occurs in interactive,
strategies of self-management involve manipulat- unique, real-world situations. There is a definite
ing the stimulus conditions or response conse- need to study organizational behavior in situ or from
quences that regulate behavior. These methods an ecological perspective and get away from
may be used separately or in combination to bring reliance on indirect questionnaire measures of
about a desired behavior change. To date, research behavior, which are too limiting and fail to analyze
on this approach to behavioral change has dealt the organization member-behavior-situation
with a relatively narrow range of behavior problems interaction.
(e.g., obesity, smoking, alcoholism, psychiatric dis- One way to a better understanding of social
orders, study habits, or marital difficulties). The learning theory is to differentiate it from the more
number of studies using a variety of measures (not established operant theory. In particular, the key
just self-reports), employing adequate controls, and social learning processes of modeling, cognition,
focusing on issues of accuracy and reliability, is and self-control emerge as important factors that
very small. Most of the studies have been carried can contribute to a better understanding of organi-
out in limited (clinical, laboratory, and classroom) zational behavior. Both the operant and social
settings. Thus, to date, the majority of the support learning theories treat behavior as a function of its
for self-control techniques stems from clinical evi- response consequences. The major difference be-
dence from behavior therapy. Our own preliminary tween the two concerns the role of cognitive pro-
research on self-management in organizational cesses. Research by social learning theorists has
settings indicates the potential value that this clearly shown that both vicarious learning and self-
288
control processes are influenced by cognitive pro- They help explain that an organizational partici-
cesses. The operant approach provides a more pant's behavior may be grounded in the environ-
parsimonious interpretation of organizational be- ment but is also partly socially derived and partly a
havior and certainly has pragmatic advantages for product of conscious self-regulation and choice.
diagnosing, predicting, and controlling employee The ultimate usefulness of social learning theory
behaviors in the workplace [Luthans, 1980], but the depends on whether it can be effectively applied.
notion of the organism "operating" on the envi- The modeling process has already proved its worth
ronment provides too limited an explanation of how as a training application, and we suggest that the
behavior is actively acquired and maintained. The self-control process has potentially significant im-
lack of attention given to covert cognitive processes plications for overall managerial effectiveness. In
by the operant approach implicitly suggests that the final analysis, however, ecologically based re-
individual reasoning and other cognitions play no search that carefully examines the interaction of the
important role in organizational behavior. The person-behavior-environment dynamic is needed
social learning theory concepts of modeling, cogni- to establish social learning as a viable theoretical
tive processes, and self-control provide a more base for studying organizational behavior.
comprehensive view of organizational behavior.

REFERENCES

Adams, J. S. Inequity in social exchange. In L. Berkowitz Broden, M.; & Hall, R. V.; & Mitts, B. The effects of self-
(Ed.),
Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 2). New recording
York: on the classroom behavior of two eighth-grade
Academic Press, 1965, pp. 267-299. students. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 1971, 4, 191-
Axelrod, S.; Hall, R. V.; Weiss, L.; & Rohrer, S. Use of self- 199.

imposed contingencies to reduce the frequency of smoking Bucher, B.; & Fabricatore, J. Use of patient-administered
behavior. In M. J. Mahoney & C. E. Thoresen (Eds.), 1974, pp. shock to suppress hallucinations. Behavior Therapy, 1970, 1,
77-85. 382-385.

Bandura, A. A social learning interpretation of psychologicalBurnaska, R. F. The effects of behavior modeling training upon
dysfunctions. In P. London & D. Rosenham (Eds.), Foundations managers' behavior and employees' perceptions. Personnel
of abnormal psychology. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, Psychology, 1976, 29, 329-335.
1968, pp. 293-344. Davis, T. R. V.; & Luthans, F. Leadership re-examined: A
Bandura, A. Principles of behavior modification. New York: behavioral approach. Academy of Management Review, 1979,
Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 1969. 4, 237-248.
Bandura, A. Social learning theory. In J. T. Spence, Flanders, J. P. A review of research on imitative behavior.
R. C. Carson, & J. W. Thibaut (Eds.), Behavioral approaches to Psychological Bulletin, 1968, 69, 316-337.
therapy. Morristown, N.J.: General Learning Press, 1976, pp. Flannery, R. B. Use of covert conditioning in the behavioral
1-46.
treatment of a drug-dependent college dropout. Journal of
Bandura, A. Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavior Counseling Psychology, 1972, 19, 547-550.
change. Psychological Review, 1977,84,191-215. (a) Gibbs, J. C. The meaning of ecologically oriented inquiry in
Bandura, A. Social leaming theory. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: contemporary psychology. American Psychologist, 1979, 34,
Prentice-Hall, 1977. (b) 127-140.

Bandura, A. The self-system in reciprocal determinism. Imitating models: A new management tool. Business Week, May
American Psychologist, 1978,33, 344-358. 8, 1978, pp. 119-120.
Bandura, A.; & Walters, R. H. Social learning and personality Jacobs, A.; & Sachs, L. B. (Eds.). The psychology of private
development. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 1963. events: Perspectives on covert response systems. New York:
Beneke, W. M.; & Harris, M. B. Teaching self-control of study Academic Press, 1971.
behavior. Behavior Research & Therapy, 1972, 10, 35-41. Johnson, S. M.; & White, G. Self-observation as an agent of
Bernard, H. S.; & Efram, J. S. Eliminating versus reducing behavior change. Behavior Therapy, 1971, 2, 488-497.
smoking using pocket timers. Behavior Research & Therapy, Kanfer, F. H. Self-monitoring: Methodological limitations and
1972, 10, 399-401. clinical applications. Journal of Consulting & Clinical Psychol-
Bolstad, O. D.; & Johnson, S. M. Self-regulation in the modifi- ogy, 1970,35, 148-152.
cation of disruptive classroom behavior. Journal of Applied
Behavior Analysis, 1972,5,443-454.
289
Kanfer, F. H.; & Karoly, P. Some additional conceptualizations. Mahoney, M. J.; & Thoresen, C. E. (Eds.). Self-control: Power
In R. C. Johnson, P. R. Dokecki, & O. H. Mowrer (Eds.), Con- to the person. Monterey, Calif.: Brooks/Cole, 1974.
science, contract, and social reality. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Mash, E. J.; & Terdal, L. G. (Eds.). Behavior therapy assess-
Winston, 1972, pp. 428-437. ment: Diagnosis, design, and evaluation. New York: Springer,
Kanfer, F. H.; & Karoly, P. Self-control: A behavioristic excur- 1976.
sion into the lion's den. In M. J. Mahoney & C. E. Thoresen Meichenbaum, D. Cognitive behavior modification. Morris-
(Eds.), 1974, pp. 200-217. town, N. J.: General Learning Press, 1974.
Koontz, H. The management theory jungle. Academy of Meichenbaum, D. Cognitive behavior modification: An inte-
Management Journal, 1961,4,174-188. grative approach. New York: Plenum, 1977.
Koontz, H. The management theory jungle revisited. Academy Miller, L. M. Behavior management. New York: Wiley, 1978.
of Management Review, 1980, 5,175-187.
Mischel, W. Toward a cognitive reconceptualization of per-
Kraut, A. I. Developing managerial skills via modelling sonality. Psychological Review, 1973,80, 284-302.
techniques: Some positive research findings - A symposium.
Mischel, W. Introduction to personality (2nd ed.). New York:
Personnel Psychology, 1976, 29, 325-369.
Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 1976.
Latham, G. P.; & Saari, L. M. Application of social-learning
Nord, W. Beyond the teaching machine: The neglected area of
theory to training supervisors through behavior modeling.
operant conditioning in the theory and practice of management.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 1979, 64,239-246.
Organizational Behavior & Human Performance, 1969, 4, 375-
Locke, E. A. Toward a theory of task motivation and incentives. 401.
Organizational Behavior & Human Performance, 1968, 3, 157-
189. Porter, L. W.; & Lawler, E. E. Managerial attitudes and per-
formance. Homewood, III.: Irwin, 1968.
Luthans, F. Contingency theory of management: A path out of
Skinner, B. F. Science and human behavior. New York: Free
the jungle. Business Horizons, 1973, 16, 67-72.
Press, 1953.
Luthans, F. Organizational behavior (2nd ed.). New York:
Skinner, B. F. Contingencies of reinforcement. New York:
McGraw-Hill, 1977.
Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1969.
Luthans, F. Leadership: A proposal for a social learning theory
Sobell, L. C.; & Sobell, M. B. A self-feedback technique to
base and observational and functional analysis techniques to
monitor drinking behavior in alcoholics. Behavior Research &
measure leadership behavior. In J. G. Hunt & L. L. Larson (Eds.),
Therapy, 1973,11, 223-238.
Crosscurrents in leadership. Carbondale: Southern Illinois Uni-
versity Press, 1979, pp. 201-208. Sorcher, M.; & Goldstein, A. P. A behavior modeling approach
in training. Personnel Administration, 1972, 35, 35-41.
Luthans, F. Functional analysis is the best technique for
diagnostic evaluation of organizational behavior. In B. Karmel Staats, A. W. Learning language and cognition. New York:
Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 1968.
(Ed.), Point and counterpoint in organizational behavior.
Hinsdale, III.: Dryden, 1980, pp. 48-90. Staats, A. W. Social behaviorism. Homewood, III.: Dorsey
Press, 1975.
Luthans, F.; & Davis, T. R. V. Behavioral self-management:
The missing link in managerial effectiveness. Organizational Stunkard, A. New therapies for the eating disorders: Behavior
Dynamics, Summer 1979,8(1), 42-60. modification of obesity and anorexia nervosa. Archives of
Luthans, F.; & Kreitner, R. Organizational behavior modifica- General Psychiatry, 1972, 26, 391-398.
tion. Glenview, II.: Scott-Foresman, 1975. Thoresen, C. E.; & Mahoney, M. J. Behavioral self-control.
New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 1974.
Luthans, F.; & Ottemann, R. Motivation vs. learning approach-
es to organizational behavior. Business Horizons, 1973, 16, Upper, D.; & Meredith, L. A. A times-interval procedure for
55-62. modifying cigarette-smoking behavior. Unpublished manu-
Maslow, A. H. Motivation and personality. New York: Harper, script, Brockton Veteran's Administration Hospital, Brockton,
1954. Mass., 1971.

McGuigan, F. J.; & Schoonhover, R. A. The psychophysiology Vroom, V. H. Work and motivation. New York: Wiley, 1964.
of thinking. New York: Academic Press, 1973. Watson, D. L.; & Tharp, R. G. Self-directed behavior: Self-
Mahoney, M. J. Cognition and behavior modification. Cam- modification forpersonal adjustment (2nd ed.). Monterey, Calif.:
bridge, Mass.: Ballinger, 1974. Brooks/Cole, 1977.

Mahoney, M. J. Reflections on the cognitive-learning trend in Watson, J. B. Psychology as the behaviorist views it. Psycho-
psychotherapy. American Psychologist, 1977, 32, 5-13. logical Review, 1913, 20, 158-177.

Tim R. V. Davis is an Assistant Professor of Management

at Cleveland State University, Cleveland, Ohio.

Fred Luthans holds the National Bank of Commerce

Chair of Management at the University of Nebraska,
Lincoln.

Received 2/27/79
290