The first step involves the identification of critical behavior.

These behaviors are those which make a significant impact on performance the ten percent of the behaviors that account for eighty percent of the performance. Critical behaviors may be identified by a person closest to the job, like the immediate supervisor or the job holder. The next step involves measuring the behaviors. A baseline frequency is obtained by counting the number of times the behavior occurs under existing conditions. Measurement also occurs after the intervention as well to note changes occurring because of the intervention. It is important that observational data be gathered as unobtrusively as possible. After identification and measurement of the behaviors, a functional analysis is performed (A-B-C). A is the antecedent cue, B is the behavior, and C is the contingent consequence. The functional analysis often reveals that there are many competing contingencies for behavior. Thus, it is important to identify only the contingent consequences. The intervention strategy strengthens and accelerates functional performance behaviors and/or weakens and decelerates dysfunctional behaviors. There are two major strategies: Positive reinforcement represents a form of positive control of behavior; it is more effective and long lasting than negative control. This involves the application of a positive consequence following functional performance behavior. Punishment/positive reinforcement It should be used to weaken and decelerate dysfunctional behaviors. it should never be used alone but always be combined with positive reinforcement. Reasons for this include the fact that punished behavior tends to be only temporarily suppressed, that it may have a disastrous side effect, and it is difficult for a supervisor to switch roles from punisher to positive reinforcer. The last step involves a systematic evaluation of performance improvement. There are four levels of evaluation: The reaction level refers to whether people administering and experiencing the approach like it. The second level is learning. This helps answer the question of whether people using the approach know why they are using it. The third level is aimed at behavioral change; that is, are the behaviors actually changing? The Fourth level is performance improvement, which is the overriding purpose for O.B. Mod. This step is important, since behavioral change may not necessarily reflect performance improvement.

OB Modification

Form of Operant conditioning -- reinforcement techinques, e.g., punishment.

 Intervention strategy Following flow chart shows OB Mod program design. The key step is evaluating for performance improvement at the end. You can make all the changes you want, but if you do not begin with a baseline measure of
the activity and measure it again later, you are engaging in change for its own sake.

Organizational Behavior Modification (OB-Mod): A corrective behavior strategy

This approach to motivation and dealing with problem behaviors is based on the application of learning theory to people in the workplace. Reinforcement theory holds that a desirable behavior can be increased by linking that behavior with positive outcomes, while undesirable behaviors can be decreased by linking them with negative consequences or by eliminating reinforcers. The advantage of this approach is that it focuses on specific behaviors in the workplace and is thus performance based. It also, at least to some degree, avoids sensitive personal counseling issues in a person's personal life, by focusing on what needs to be done to improve performance. Finally, it provides a clear structure and consequences to employees that encourages them to change in an observable way in a structured time frame. The model below outlines the stages of its use.

The effectiveness of OB-MOD This relatively simple and straight forward approach has been used in a variety of organizations with varying rates of success. For example, B.F. Goodrich has used OB-Mod to increase productivity by more than 300%, and Weyerhauser increased productivity in three different groups by 8%. However, a program initiated by Standard Oil of Ohio was discontinued due to failure to meet objectives, and A Michigan Bell program was considered only modestly successful.