Promoting Critical Operant-Based Leadership While Decreasing Ubiquitous Directives and Exhortations

Abstract

Equipping leaders to successfully motivate their teams is daunting, especially when the prevailing management practice is to simply tell people what to do. Training based on the theoretically and empirically based Operant Model of Effective Supervision was provided to seasoned managers in the private and public sectors. A randomized posttest-only design was used. Trainees responded in their own words to diverse true-to-life scenarios in an in-basket assessment. In both settings, training not only increased the newly learned skills of monitoring and providing positive/neutral consequences, but it also reduced lackluster antecedent-only strategies.

Keywords:

• leadership
• training
• operant model of effective supervision
• in-basket exercise
• in-box simulation

Acknowledgments

The authors wish to thank Glen Konwaler for facilitating the research in EMS, as well as all the trainees who graciously agreed to participate.

Notes

¹Please refer to Komaki (1998) for detailed discussions of seven of the eight field studies conducted by Komaki et al., Brewer et al., and Niehoff and Moorman. Due to space limitations, they are not referenced. The eighth study by Reynard Minnich, Komaki, and Donovan (2004) is referenced.

²The only study in which antecedents were related to effectiveness, r = –.40, p < .05, was conducted in a three-member team that had not previously worked together, with one of the members a neophyte. Because of the inexperience of one of the members and the lack of seasoning of the team, it was not unexpected that effective leaders would spend more time than usual telling people what to do.

³Go to the publisher's online edition of Journal of Organizational Behavior Management for a supplemental table—Additional Managerial Training Experiments in the I/O Literature—that includes descriptions of 26 experiments evaluating training aimed at improving employees' attitudes (e.g., self-efficacy), managers' performance appraisal skills, as well as aspects ranging from employee assistance programs to union-management relations. The extended table can also be found on the OBM Network website and newsletter.

⁴Control and treatment groups in both samples did not differ significantly in demographic characteristics such as age, years of education, and supervisory experience. The only significant difference was in EMS participants' self-rated motivational skills, with the treatment group rating themselves higher than the control group.

⁵These neutral consequences fit the definition of a consequence because they showed knowledge of the message received or the target's performance.

⁶For Exp. 1, the first and second authors were PS, and the third and fifth authors were the other scorers. For Exp. 2, the second author was the PS and the fourth author the other scorer.

⁷One fairly elaborate but subtle example took place after a difficult call in which a new medication had been used. The paramedic unit came back to discuss the call with a well-regarded captain on duty. Instead of denigrating their questions, the captain monitored by reviewing the associated medical indices (EKGs) and assured them that their diagnosis, while nonobvious, was appropriate. For the next crew, the captain made a copy of the EKGs and posted them with the following question: How would you treat this patient? A few days later, the captain posted the crew's treatment and outcome for all to see, broadcasting the unit's correct diagnosis.

⁸With the exception of a brief mention in Exp. 1 at the end of week 4 about avoiding antecedents when providing a negative consequence.