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 sociai iearning theory approach that incorporates the
interactive nature of aii the variabies of organizational behavior — the
behavior itseif, the environment, and the person (internal cognitions). We
differentiate social learning theory from operant theory, highiighting 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 jungie [Koontz, 1961, organizational behavior today are closely
1980; Luthans, 1973], the emerging fieid of organi- associated with this theoretical base.
zationai behavior has seemed to reach the same 2. fl = 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
Unfortunately, many of the theoreticai expianations [1953] operant conditioning, this position is ex-
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 organizationai 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 hypotheticai constructs as and a general learning approach [Luthans &
motivation, satisfaction, and ieadership as ends in Ottemann,1973]to organizationai behavior and,
more specifically, to organizational behavior
themselves. We think it is time to re-emphasize the modification [Luthans & Kreitner, 1975] and
point [haWehaviors are the empirical reality, not the behavioral management [Miller, 1978] is
labels attached to the attempted expianations of the representative of this theoretical position.
behaviors.
3. B=f(P,E), The third major theoreticai base that
If behavior is given its rightful place as the focus
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 organizationai behavior is a function of the per-
readily identified. Briefly summarized, they are: son and the environment. Usually attnbuted to
the work of Kurt Lewin, this theoretical frame-
1 . 6 = f(P). According to this theoretical position, work recognizes that both the person (internal
behavior is explained as a function of the per- constructs) and the environment (externai con-
son. In particular, internal psychological con- tingencies) must be taken into account in order
structs such as motivation, perception, attitudes, to explain behavior. The traditional definition of
expectancies, and personaiity characteristics organizationai behavior (i.e., the study of human
are used to explain why peopie behave the way behavior in organizations) recognizes this theo-
they do. Most of the motivationai theories [e.g., retical position. The vast majority of organiza-
Maslow, 1954; Vroom, 1964; Adams, 1965; tional behavior scholars today stress the
© 19B0 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 roie of social iearning and imitation. Recent exposi-
internal cognitive variables and external tions of this social learning approach have been
environmentai variables.
provided by Mischel [1973, 1976], Mahoney [1974],
Our purpose in this paper is to point out stiii Meichenbaum [1974, 1977], Staats [1975], and
another, often overiooked, theoreticai base for or- Bandura[1968,1976,1977b]. The various interpre-
ganizational behavior. This fourth aiternative base tations of social iearning theory are compiex and
for organizationai behavior is best embodied in the difficult to integrate. However, the work of Albert
term social learning theory, Aithough traditionaiiy Bandura provides a complete, yet parsimonious,
there have been impiicit assumptions of the inter- interpretation of social learning.
active nature between the participant and the Bandura [1977b] takes the position that the best
organizationai environment, the behavior itself, as expianation of behavior is in terms of a continuous,
an interacting variabie, has been ignored. In reciprocai interaction between cognitive, behavior-
addition, there have been some recent appiications al, and environmental determinants. In a unidirec-
of modeiing to empioyee training [Burnaska, 1976; tional conception of interaction [e.g., the Lewin
Kraut, 1976; Latham & Saan, 1979], but a sociai formuia that B = f(P,E)], the person and the envi-
iearning approach — which is becoming an increas- ronment are considered to be independent entities
ingly important theoreticai base for psychology — that somehow combine to determine behavior.
has been iargeiy ignored by organizationai Sociai iearning 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
Fortunateiy, a sociai iearning theory base for or- iimiting and not accounting tor the interactive effect
ganizationai behavior is complementary rather than between the person, the environment, and the
competitive with previous approaches. We contend behavior itself.
that the existing theoreticai 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 oniy a partiai ex- internal cognitions be considered as causal deter-
pianation of the complexities of organizationai minants irrespective of their behaviors and the envi-
behavior. What seems to be needed is a compre- ronment. The sociai learning theory approach
hensive theory that is able to incorporate the inter- would expiain that it is iargeiy through their actions
active nature of ail the variables of organizationai that people produce the environmentai conditions
behavior — the behavior itseif, the environment that affect their behavior in a reciprocai fashion. The
(especially other organizationai participants and experiences generated by behavior also partly de-
the organization), and the organizationai participant termine what a person becomes and can do which,
(inciuding internai cognitions). Sociai iearning the- in turn, affects subsequent behavior [Bandura,
ory seems to best fili in some of the existing 1977b, p. 9].
deficiencies. Even those organizationai behavior theorists
What is Meant by who argue that they are taking a bi-directional or
reciprocai approach (either in an exchange sense
Social Learning Theory?
between superior and subordinate or between or-
From the outset it should be recognized that ganizational participant and situation) still retain a
sociai iearning theory is a behaviorai theory. It uti- unidirectional view toward the behavior itself. The
lizes the principies of ciassical and operant condi- causai 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 deveiopment of complex sociai be- (inciuding other persons), but the behavior itself is
havior through S-R bonds or seiective reinforce- ignored as an interacting determinant. In other
ment of each discrete response (R-S) has graduaily words, under social learning theory the conception
282
 that B?^ f(PE) is also rejected. The Role of Vicarious Processes
In summary, a social learning theory of organiza-
tional behavior can best be depicted by the modei in Sociai iearning theory derives its name from the
Figure 1 [adapted from Bandura, 1977b]: emphasis it piaces on iearning from other people —
that is, sociai iearning. Whiie sociai learning theory
Organizational Participant agrees with the operant view that iearning takes
(includes cognitive processes) place as a resuit of directiy experienced response
consequences, it aiso emphasizes that iearning
can take piace vicariousiy through observing the
effects on the sociai environment of other people s
behavior. The operant view is therefore considered
Environment as incomplete rather than incorrect. According to
(includes other sociai iearning theory, vicarious observationai
organizational iearning accounts for the acquisition of compiex
Organizational
Behavior participants and patterns of sociai behavior more readily than does
variables) the isoiated reinforcement of discrete behaviorai
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 soieiy on this
It can be seen that in a sociai iearning theory ap- basis . . . it is difficult to imagine a socialization
proach, organizationai behavior is in reciprocai process m which the language, mores, vocational
interaction with cognitive processes and the envi- activities, familial customs, and the educational,
ronment. Organizational behavior is viewed as af- religious, and political practices of a culture are
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 exempiify 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 exampie [Bandura,
Differ from Operant Theory? 1976, p. 5].

So far the discussion has emphasized that a Considerabie research has demonstrated how
social learning approach considers the person- people quickiy reproduce the actions, attitudes, and
behavior-environment interaction as a theoretical emotional responses exhibited by modeis [Bandura
base for organizational behavor. There may be iin- & Waiters, 1963: Bandura, 1969: Fianders, 1968].
gehng doubts or confusion as to how this reaiiy Vicarious, imitative iearning seems to better expiain
differs from an operant learning approach. Like the rapid transference of behavior than does the
operant iearning, social iearning is viewed as deriv- tedious seiective reinforcement of each discrimin-
ing from the consequences of behavior. In other able response. The operant and sociai 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 uiitmately dependent on the rein-
» then, does social learning differ from operant learn- forcing effects of the environment. However, sociai
ing? According to Bandura [1969, 1977b], the major learning theory extends this view by showing that
differences between the two revolve around three learning aiso takes place through observing or
major factors: (1) the roie of vicarious processes modeling the reinforcing or punishing outcomes of
(i.e., modeling), (2) the effects of covert cognitive other peopie 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 interreiated 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 naturai selection and whether they leave any lasting effects, what val-
reinforcement. Simiiarly, 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. Sociai iearning theory posits a fulier An impiicit 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 abiiity to re-evoke
Vicarious iearning has important impiications for situations in the imagination and represent them
training [Sorcher & Goidstein, 1972] and the devei- verbaliy in symboiic form liberates human action
opment of general behavior patterns at work [Imita- from the stimulus effects of the immediate situation.
ting modeis, 1978]. According to the sociai iearning This seif-reflective capability is responsibile for seif-
theory view, organizationai participants iearn how reguiatory activity and sustained goal-oriented
to behave from observing those around them. The behavior.
dictum "Do as I say, not as i do" seems uniikely to Skinnerian behaviorism has often been criticized
be followed. Job descriptions, ruies, and poiicies on the grounds of strict environmentai determinism.
are more iikeiy to be interpreted from watching what This view of one-way causality has been a major
others do than following wntten directives. The ex- reason why cognitive theorists have rejected the
ampie by behavior that managers provide for their operant modei. The operant approach depicts the
peopie may be more important than the instructions organism as "operating on the environment but
they provide. both the acquisition and maintenance of behavior
are considered to be controiled by the environmen-
The Effects of Cognitive Processes
tai consequences. Social learning theorists [Ban-
A second major difference between social and dura, 1977b, 1978; Mahoney, 1977; Thoresen &
operant iearning theory concerns the mediating ef- Mahoney, 1974], with their recognition of cognitive
fects of covert cognitive processes. Virtuaiiy aii processes, view the person, environment, and be-
aspects of sociai iearning 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 foiiows:
covert cognitions (feeiings, 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 behaviorai psy- tions. . . . Cognitions influence behaviors, which
choiogists (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 metaphysicai that is far more comprehensive and defensible than
and having no rightfui place in the scientific study of traditional unilateral views [1977, p. 8].
behavior.
Mahoney points out that in the social learning view
An ever-increasing research iiterature reports on
each person responds not only to the environment
the important roie that cognitive processes piay in
per se but also to a cognitive representation of the
human behavior [Bandura, 1968, 1969, 1977a;
environment. This means that the same physicai
Jacobs & Sachs, 1971; McGuigan & Schoonhover,
environment can take on vastly different meaning
1973; Meichenbaum, 1974, 1977]. Bandura holds
for those who share it.
that:
At this point we should emphasize that there are
[If] human behavior could be fully explained in some major differences between the social iearning
terms of antecedent inducements and response
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- possibie on observable, verifiabie behaviorai
vironmental context in which they take place [Mash events. Thus, the main focus of sociai iearning the-
STerdal, 1976]. In other words, in a sociai iearning ory is to investigate the mediating effects that covert
approach, reiiance soieiy on indirect questionnaire cognitive processes may have on an otherwise
methods of measuring behavior is inadequate. In observabie sequence of events.
addition, the behavior and its interactive eiements To account for cognitive mediating processes
shouid be directiy observed in specific situations. and covert variabies in a sociai iearning approach to
A social iearning approach requires an anaiysis organizational behavior, we empioy 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 anaiyze the functionai reiationslnips.
ner [1953] does give recognition to the piace of We use S-O-B-C to represent the four interacting
cognitive processes in his discussion of covert variabies. It is intended to portray the interactive,
operants, but his suggested technique for the sci- reciprocal nature of environmentai events [both
entific study of behavior that he cailed functional antecedent discriminative stimuii (S) and conse-
anaiysis is not designed to account for the roie of quences (C)], intrapersonai, cognitive processes
cognitive processes. The recognition of covert (O), and behaviorai (B) variabies. Figure 2 shows
processes is not included in the operant functionai the S-O-B-C model. Note that there are impiicit
anaiysis of antecedent-behavior-consequence, or interactions and feedback loops between the envi-
A-B-C [Skinner, 1969]. Sociai learning theorists ronmentai (S and C), cognitive (O), and behaviorai
stress that the variabies in this three-term contin- (B) variabies.
gency — i.e., the antecedent stimuius conditions, One couid argue what ietters to use in represent-
the behavior, and the consequences — may be ing the variabies, but we chose these based on their
overt or covert. As Mahoney [1974, p. 77] points use in our eariier writings [Luthans, 1977, 1979;
out, this gives rise to eight possibie combinations. Luthans & Davis, 1979; Davis & Luthans, 1979], in
Thus, there is a possibiiity that the three-term con- which we tried to combine the estabiished, widely
tingency may be completely covert and thus unob- recognized cognitiveiy based S-O-R model (stim-
servabie and undetectabie to anyone but the uius-organism-response) and the operant-based
affected party. Meichenbaum [1974], for exampie, A-B-C modei (antecedent-behavior-consequence),
has drawn attention to situationai antecedents, be- in other words, the S-O-B-C framework permits
haviors, and consequences created entireiy m the functionai anaiysis of environmental-cognitive-
imagination of the person. It is this capabiiity that behaviorai events (both antecedent and conse-
aiiows a person to think through the possibiiities of quent environment). It represents a departure from
aiternative courses of action without having to ex- the operant A-B-C functionai anaiysis by inserting
perience them directiy. However, from a philosophy the O to recognize the roie of cognitive mediating
of science perspective that stresses operational- processes and aiso to recognize that both environ-
ism, the study of behavior must focus as closely as mental events (both S and C) and the behavior itseif

B
A
Situation Organism Behavior Consequence
The discriminative stim- The cognitive processes The response or pattern The contingent conse-
uius 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 weil as overt. Just as the A-B-C written. . . . Becauseof their great representational
model serves as a technique for functional analysis and self-reactive capacities, humans are less de-
pendent upon immediate external supports for their
in the operant approach to organizationai behavior
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 modei serve as a technique for the explanatory power of reinforcement principles
functionai anaiysis in the sociai iearning approach as applied to human functioning [1976, p. 28].
to organizationai behavior. This S-O-B-C frame- Self-evaluative reactions to self-created con-
work is especiaily important to the expianation and sequences may be considered the underiying self-
appiication of the third major factor in sociai iearning controliing processes. This suggests that people
theory — self-control processes. learn to modify their behavior when their own self-
created consequences or standards are not
Self-Control Processes
fulfilled. The self-reinforcement consequence is
Aithough Skinner [1953] shouid probabiy be particularly important to virtuaiiy aii sustained goal-
credited with iaying the foundations of a behaviorai oriented behavior and expiains how behavior per-
approach to self-control, the operant approach, with sists despite the lack of immediateiy compeiling
its aimost total emphasis on the controiiing roie of externai support.
the environment, may be considered inimicai to Kanfer and Karoiy [1974, p. 209] note that self-
theones of "seif" reguiation. Thus, the emphasis controlling responses come into being when a
given to seif-controi processes in sociai iearning choice point is reached, or an externai event inter-
theory marks a significant departure from operant rupts and refocuses attention, or if the activation
theory. A fuller understanding of the processes of level suddenly changes. In effect, behaviorai con-
behaviorai self-controi has important implications troi switches from automated, environmental con-
for organizational behavior and manageriai effec- troi (habitual responding) to a state of cognitive
tiveness [Luthans & Davis, 1979]. awareness in which a self-evaiuative judgment is
The recognition given to the mediating role that made about the appropriateness of behavior. This
cognitive processes piay in the individuals reiation- does not mean that a clearcut distinction can be
ship with the environment establishes the important made between environmentai control and self-
influence that seif-reguiatory functions can have on controi. Kanfer and Karoiy view self-controi as the
the controi of behavior. Research by sociai iearning introduction by the individual of suppiementary
theorists [Bandura, 1968, 1977a; Kanfer & Karoiy, cognitive contingencies that are overiaid on the ex-
1972; Mahoney & Thoresen, 1974] reveals that a isting environmental contingencies and aliow the
given action typicaliy produces two outcomes — an person to anaiyze and aiter the external regulatory
externai environmentai consequence and an inter- reiationship. Cognitive awareness aione, however,
nal self-evaiuative consequence. In other words, is not enough to ailow self-controlling behavior to
people are affected not oniy by the externai conse- take piace. In Kanfer and Karoiy s words. The
quences of their behavior but aiso by the conse- degree to which internal stimuiation and self-gener-
quences they create tor themseives. Bandura
ated reinforcing events take on importance de-
explains this interpretation as foiiows:
pends on the magnitude and specificity of these
The notion that behavior is controlled by its conse- variables, and on the richness and compiexity of the
quence is unfortunately interpreted by most people person s avaiiabie covert behaviors as they moder-
to mean that actions are at the mercy of situationai ate and interact with the effects and directions of
influences. In fact, behavior can, and is, extensively
self-regulated by self-produced consequences for externai 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 roie 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 iearning extends
ance until they are satisfied with what they have operant theory by recognizing the role of vicarious,
286
cognitive, and self-control processes. Obviousiy, training (which, of course, is grounded in sociai
there is more to social iearning theory than these iearning theory) is aiready weii estabiished. Just
three dimensions. In a social iearning approach to beginning, but what we feei has considerable
organizational behavior, there is a shift away from potential for managerial effectiveness, is behaviorai
metaphoric constructs such as motivation and self-management.
leadership. The unit of anaiysis becomes behavior To impiement a seif-management approach,
patterns studied in relation to antecedent and con- awareness of the contingencies reguiating behav-
sequent environmental situations and cognitiveiy ior is acquired mainiy through seif-observation and
mediated processes. As Mischel [1973, p. 265] seif-monitoring. This requires that the person not
points out, in the social learning approach the focus oniy attend to a particuiar target behavior but also
shifts (1) from attempting to compare and general- carefully record its occurrence. Generaiiy, 4 ' x 5"
ize about what different individuais "are iike" to an cards, wrist counters, behaviorai diaries, and wali
assessment of what they do behavioraiiy and cog- charts are used for this purpose. Self-monitoring
nitively — in relation to the psychoiogicai 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 anaiyzmg cues (A), cognitions (O), response consequences
the specific interactions between conditions and the (C)] when they take piace. Seif-monitoring aiso pro-
cognitions and behaviors of interest. vides an objective basis for evaiuating behavior and
Mischei s last point is at the very heart of a sociai designing an intervention strategy. Generaiiy, the
iearning approach to organizationai behavor. We goal is to estabiish a new behavior, increase or
must begin to study an organizationai participant s maintain an existing behavior, or reduce or elimin-
behavior in specific interaction with particuiar/n situ ate a behavior [Mahoney & Thoresen, 1974;
organizationai conditions. In other words, as Watson & Tharp, 1977].
posited in a sociai learning approach, we must be- Foilowing the iead of Mahoney and Thoreson, we
gin to study and analyze the dynamics of organi- can identify two major strategies for behaviorai self-
zation member-behavior-environment interaction. management: (1) stimuius management and (2)
For too long we have tended to concentrate oniy on consequence management. Stimulus manage-
the organization member (e.g., what motivates him ment refers to methods of overt or covert stimuius
or her) or only on the organizaton environment control such as antecedent stimuius modification,
(e.g., what is the appropriate structure) or, in a few seif-reguiated stimuius exposure, preprogramming
cases, the organization member/environment in- of response consequences, or the use of seif-
teraction (e.g., contingency modeis of leadership or instructions. The individual pians and implements
task design). What the sociai iearning approach changes in these reievant situationai factors before
caiis for is an ecoiogical 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 aii incoming maii
situations; see Gibbs [1979]). (antecedent stimuius modification); permit handling
correspondence oniy during certain times of the day
(seif-reguiated stimuius exposure); ask others to
A Social Learning Application:
stop sending her correspondence (preprogram-
Behavioral Self-Management ming of response consequences); and continually
One way of demonstrating how sociai learning re-evoke certain seif-instructions — "i must cut
theory can be specifically appiied to organizationai down on my paperwork; I want a ciean desk when i
behavior analysis, especiaiiy an ecologically orien- go home every evening!" A number of studies in
ted analysis, is through a behavioral self-manage- clinical and educationai psychoiogy [Upper &
ment strategy in reai-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 stimuius 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 reai organi-

287
zations, we have been abie 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 seif-
management administers the consequences that Summary and Conclusions
foliow a given behavior. This inciudes the act of Sociai iearning is proposed as a theoreticai base
self-monitoring as well as the use of self-admin- for organizationai behavior. If researchers in this
istered rewards and punishments. After engaging in fieid concentrate on the behavior part of organiza-
a behavior, certain cognitive self-evaluations occur. tionai behavior, then the prevaiiing theoretical ex-
The act of seif-monitoring provides the individual pianations (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 behaviorai responses, behavior is a function of the environment and the
depending on whether the individuai s own seif- person) wiii be seen to be too limiting. Social learn-
created consequences or standards are fulfiiied. ing theory suggests that organizational behavior
Aiternativeiy, the individuai may introduce an added can be best understood in terms of an interacting,
consequence — a reward or punishment — contin- reciprocai determinism between the behavior itself,
gent on satisfactory or unsatisfactory performance the organizationai participant, and the environment.
of a target response. For instance, the manager Even though many organizational behavior theo-
may give himseif an extra coffee break for having a rists wouid 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 educationai nature has not been stressed, and the roie that the
and ciinicai psychoiogy have clearly demonstrated behavior itseif plays has been aimost compieteiy
the effectiveness of self-recording, seif-reward, and ignored. We beiieve it is time to recognize that all
seif-punishment [Bucher & Fabncatore, 1970; Bro- three interacting components play a vital role in
den. Hall, & Mitts, 1971; Johnson & White, 1971; organizationai behavior. Perhaps even more im-
Bolstad & Johnson, 1972; Fiannery, 1972; Sobeii & portant is the interactive tenant of a sociai learning
Sobell, 1973; Axeirod, 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 isoiation or in the
managerial setting [Luthans & Davis, 1979]. response sets of researchers' questionnaires. In-
stead, organizationai behavior occurs in interactive,
The stimuius and consequence management
unique, reai-worid situations. There is a definite
strategies of seif-management invoive manipuiat-
need to study organizational behavior in situ or from
ing the stimulus conditions or response conse-
an ecoiogicai perspective and get away from
quences that reguiate behavior. These methods
reiiance on indirect questionnaire measures of
may be used separateiy or in combination to bring
behavior, which are too iimiting and faii to analyze
about a desired behavior change. To date, research
the organization member-behavior-situation
on this approach to behaviorai change has deait
interaction.
with a reiativeiy narrow range of behavior probiems
(e.g., obesity, smoking, aicohoiism, psychiatric dis- One way to a better understanding of social
orders, study habits, or maritai difficuities). The iearning theory is to differentiate it from the more
number of studies using a variety of measures (not estabiished operant theory. In particuiar, the key
just self-reports), empioying 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 (ciinicai, 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 seif-controi 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 seif-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 organizationai be- ment but is aiso partiy sociaily derived and partiy a
havior and certainiy has pragmatic advantages for product of conscious self-regulation and choice.
diagnosing, predicting, and controiiing employee The uitimate usefulness of sociai iearning theory
behaviors in the workplace [Luthans, 1980], but the depends on whether it can be effectiveiy appiied.
notion of the organism "operating" on the envi- The modeling process has aiready proved its worth
ronment provides too limited an explanation of how as a training appiication, and we suggest that the
behavior is actively acquired and maintained. The self-controi process has potentiaiiy significant im-
lack of attention given to covert cognitive processes plications for overali managerial effectiveness. In
by the operant approach impiicitiy suggests that the finai anaiysis, however, ecologicaliy based re-
individuai reasoning and other cognitions piay no search that carefuiiy examines the interaction of the
important role in organizational behavior. The person-behavior-environment dynamic is needed
sociai iearning theory concepts of modeiing, cogni- to establish sociai learning as a viabie theoreticai
tive processes, and seif-controi provide a more base for studying organizationai behavior.
comprehensive view of organizationai behavior.

REFERENCES
Adams, J. S. Inequity in sociai exchange. inL. Beri<owitz (Ed.), Broden, M.: & Haii, R. V : & Mitts, B. The effects of seif-
Advances in experimentai sociai psychology (Voi. 2). NewYorl<: recording on the classroom behavior of two eighth-grade
Academic Press, 1965, pp. 267-299 students. Journai of Applied Behavior Anaiysis, 1971. 4, 191-
Axeirod, S.; Hali, R. V.; Weiss, L.; & Rohrer, S. Use of seif- 199.
imposed contingencies to reduce the frequency of smoi<ing Bucher, B.; & Fabricatore, J. Use of patient-administered
beiiavior. in M. J. Mahoney & C. E. Thoresen (Eds.), 1974, pp. shock to suppress hailucinations. Behavior Therapy, 1970, 7,
77-85. 382-385.
Bandura, A. A social learning interpretation of psychoiogicai Burnaska, R. F. Theeffectsof behavior modeling training upon
dysfunctions, in P. London & D. Rosenham (Eds), Foundations managers' behavior and employees perceptions. Personnel
of abnormal psychology. New York: Holt, Rineiiart & Winsfon, 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 Yorl<: behaviorai approach. Academy of Management Review, 1979,
Hoit, Rinehart & Winston, 1969. 4, 237-248.
Bandura, A. Sociai iearning theory, in J. T. Spence, Fianders, J. P. A review of research on imitative behavior.
R. C. Carson, & J. W. Thibaut (Eds.), Behaviorai approaches to Psychological Bulletin, 1968, 69, 316-337.
therapy, Morristown, N.J.: Generai Learning Press, 1976, pp Fiannery, R. B. Use of covert conditioning in the behaviorai
1-46. treatment of a drug-dependent coiiege dropout. Journal of
Bandura, A. Seif-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavior Counseiing Psychology, 1972, 79, 547-550.
change. Ps/cA)o/og/ca/flewew, 1977,84,191-215. (a) Gibbs, J. C. The meaning of ecoiogicaily oriented inquiry in
Bandura, A. Sociai ieaming theory. Engiewood Ciitfs, N.J.: contemporary psychoiogy. American Psychologist, 1979, 34,
Prentice-Hali, 1977. (b) 127-140.
Bandura, A. The seit-system in reciprocai determinism. imitating models: A new management tool. Business Week, May
American Psychoiogist, 1978,33, 344-358. 8, 1978, pp. 119-120.
' Bandura, A.; & Walters, R. IH. Social learning and personaiity Jacobs, A.; & Sachs, L. B. (Eds). The psychology of private
deveiopment. New York: IHoit, Rinehart & Winston, 1963. events: Perspectives on covert response systems. New York:
Beneke, W. M.; & Harris, M. B. Teaching self-controi ot study Academic Press, 1971.
behavior. Behavior Research & Therapy, 1972, 10, 35-41. Johnson, S. M.; & White, G. Seif-observation as an agent of
Bernard, H. S.; & Efram, J. S. Eiiminating versus reducing behavior change. Behavior Therapy, 1971, 2, 488-497.
smoking using pocket timers. Behavior Research & Therapy, Kanfer, F. H. Self-monitoring: Methodoiogicai iimitations and
1972, 70,399-401. ciinicai appiications. Journai of Consulting & Ciinicai Psychol-
Bolstad, O. D.; & Johnson, S. M. Self-regulation in the modifi- ogy, 1970,35, 148-152.
cation of disruptive classroom behavior. Joumai of Applied
Behavior Analysis, 1972,5,443-454.
289
Kanfer, F. H.;& Karoiy, P. Some additionai conceptualizations, Mahoney, M. J.; & Thoresen, C. E. (Eds). Seif-controi: Power
in R. C. Johnson, P. R. Dokecki, & O. H. Mowrer (Eds.), Con- to the person. Monterey, Caiit.: Brooks/Coie, 1974.
science, contract, and social reality. New York: Hoit, Rinehart & Mash, E. J.; & Terdai, L. G. (Eds). Behavior therapy assess-
Winston, 1972, pp. 428-437 ment: Diagnosis, design, and evaiuation. New York: Springer,
Kanfer, F. H.; & Karoiy, P Self-controi: A behavionstic 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.: Generai Learning Press, 1974.
Koontz, H. The management theory jungie. Academy of Meichenbaum, D. Cognitive behavior modification: An inte-
Management Journal, 1961,4, 174-188. grative approach. NewYork: Pienum, 1977.
Koontz, H. The management theory jungle revisited. Academy Miiler, L. M. Behavior management. New York: Wiiey, 1978.
of Management Review, 1980, 5, 175-187. Mischei, W. Toward a cognitive reconceptuaiization of per-
Kraut, A. i. Deveioping manageriai skiils via modeiiing
sonaiity. Psychoiogicai Review, 1973, 80, 284-302
techniques: Some positive research findings - A symposium.
Mischel, W. introduction to personality (2nd ed). New York:
Personnei Psychology, 1976, 29, 325-369
Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 1976.
Latham, G. P.; & Saari, L. M. Application of sociai-iearning
Nord, W. Beyond the teaching machine: The neglected area of
theory to training supervisors through behavior modeiing.
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.
Organizationai Behavior & Human Performance, 1968, 3, 157-
Porter, L W.; & Lawier, E. E. Manageriai attitudes and per-
189.
formance. Homewood, Hi : Irwin. 1968.
Luthans, F. Contingency theory of management: A path out of
Skinner, B. F. Science and human behavior. New York: Free
the jungie. Business Horizons, 1973, 76, 67-72. Press, 1953.
Luthans, F. Organizationai behavior (2nd ed ). New York:
Skinner, B. F. Contingencies of reinforcement. New York:
McGraw-Hiii, 1977.
Appieton-Century-Crofts, 1969.
Luthans, F. Leadership: A proposai tor a sociai iearning theory
Sobeii, L. C : & Sobell, M. B. A self-feedback technique to
base and observationai and functionai analysis techniques to
monitor drinking behavior in aicohoiics. Behavior Research &
measure ieadership behavior, in J. G. Hunt & L. L. Larson (Eds),
Therapy, 1973, 7 7, 223-238.
Crosscurrents in ieadership. Carbondaie: Southern Illinois Uni-
versity Press, 1979, pp. 201-208. Sorcher, M.: & Goidstein, A. P A behavior modeiing approach
in training Personnei Administration, 1972, 35, 35-41.
Luthans, F. Functionai analysis is the best technique for
diagnostic evaiuation of organizationai behavior. In B. Karmei Staats, A. W. Learning ianguage and cognition. New York:
(Ed), Point and counterpoint in organizationai behavior Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 1968.
Hinsdale, iii.: Dryden, 1980, pp. 48-90. Staats. A. W. Sociai behaviorism. Homewood, Mi.: Dorsey
Luthans, F.: & Davis, T. R. V. Behaviorai seif-management: Press, 1975.
The missing iink in manageriai effectiveness. Organizationai 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- Generai Psychiatry, 1972, 26, 391-398.
tion. Glenview, iii.: Scott-Foresman, 1975. Thoresen, C. E.; & Mahoney, M. J. Behaviorai seif-controi.
Luthans, F.; & Ottemann, R. Motivation vs. iearning approach- New York: Hoit, Rinehart & Winston, 1974.
es to organizationai behavior Business Horizons, 1973, 76, Upper, D.: & Meredith. L. A A times-interval procedure for
55-62. modifying cigarette-smoking behavior Unpubiished manu-
script. Brockton Veteran's Administration Hospitai, Brockton,
Maslow, A. H. Motivation and personaiity. New York: Harper,
Mass., 1971.
1954.
McGuigan, F. J.; & Schoonhover, R. A. Thepsychophysiology Vroom, V. H Work and motivation. New York: Wiiey, 1964.
of thinking. New York: Academic Press, 1973. Watson, D. L.; & Tharp, R. G. Seif-directed behavior: Self-
Mahoney, M J Cognition and behavior modification. Cam- modification for personai adjustment (2nd ed). Monterey, Calif.:
bridge, Mass : Baiiinger, 1974. Brooks/Coie, 1977.

Mahoney, M. J. Refiections on the cognitive-iearning trend in Watson, J. B. Psychoiogy as the behaviorist views it. Psycho-
psychotherapy. American Psychoiogist, 1977, 32, 5-13. iogicai Review, 1913, 20, 158-177.

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

at Cieveiand State University, Cieveland, Ohio.

Fred Luthans holds the National Bank of Commerce

Chair of Management at the University of Nebraska,
Lincoin.

Received 2/27/79
290