The menu provides an easy method of using a variety of reinforcers. Target people can select the most powerful Points Rewarding Activity
5 Five minutes leisure reading at desk
5 Five-minute break
10 Five minutes added to lunch hours
10 Five minutes off early on Friday
10 Ten minutes reviewing learning tapes
10 Ten minutes studying in library
15 Ten minutes skill supervision (by appointment)
100 One day off for training seminar
Consider the following system worked out between Roger, a management trainee, and Louis, his supervisor. "Roger did quality work, but he also took a lot of breaks and was often late in the morning and at lunch," said Louis. "I met with Roger for a coaching session. We discussed the problem. I expressed my expectations and explored reinforcers. Roger said he was primarily interested in learning the skills necessary to move into management. He said he wanted more direct supervision from me, and had had a hard time pinning me down. I didn't know this before. He continued to state that he liked to have flexibility in his time. I told him he had to arrive on time in the mornings, and he said that that was a real problem for him. I agreed to help him develop his management skills and suggested that the first area he needed to work on was to contribute more in the staff meetings. Roger agreed, but said it was difficult for him to speak out in groups. We carefully pinpointed each behavior expected, set up a point system, and agreed on a menu. Each day Roger was on time in the morning, he received one activity point. For each 15 minutes of task performance he received one point. And for each problem-solving comment made in the weekly staff meeting he received two active be used in several behavior change programs. Louis could assist Roger in increasing on-time behavior, in developing group leader skills, and in managing his time better. The reinforcers were of two kinds, those that allowed for leisure activities and those that encouraged professional growth. The leisure activities were those that Roger was currently enjoying non-contingently and that were causing Louis concern. The opportunity for development was something that had been promised but was not really forthcoming. By making the expectations and contingencies explicit, Louis was assisted in carrying out his responsibilities to Roger and Roger was confronted with having to assume responsibility for his choices. He could choose an immediate pleasurable activity or he could work toward a desired goal. In this process Roger had an opportunity to become self-managing.
The effectiveness of the reinforcement menu has been empirically validated in a variety of educational and therapeutic settings, but virtually no research has been conducted on its use in the organization, Many of the supervisors in my workshops, like Louis, have employed variations of the menu with positive results. Thomas Gordon says that effective leaders are those who can simultaneously meet their own needs and the needs of their employees. Contingency contracting is similar to Thomas Gordon's "no-lose method of conflict resolution"; the difference is that the contingency contract employs learning principles systematically.'?
Certainly the goal of meeting the needs of both supervisor and employee is essential. The contract that fails to meet one or the other's needs will probably fail to change the problem behavior. Carrying out the terms of the contract would not be reinforcing to that person.
Many supervisors react to contingency contracting as "bribery," but it can just as easily be viewed as a structured method of setting up a win-win interaction. The structure reduces trial and error and facilitates success.
When introduced on a department-wide basis, the same point system can be utilized for all employees, yet each can have a tailored reinforcement menu. In this way it can simultaneously be used as a corrective device with problem employees and as a maintenance device with those performing on target. After all, if you reserve it only for correcting problem behaviors, you may inadvertently be reinforcing problem behavior. That is, employees who exhibit too many undesirable behaviors or too few desirable ones may be reinforced for their undesirable behavior by the special attention and increased reinforcement, whereas those performing satisfactorily receive none of this. The example with Louis and Roger illustrated how to use reinforcement menus to maintain on-target behavior. Very simply Roger received one point for each 15 minutes of task performance.
Used on an ongoing department-wide basis, the menu can be a preventive measure. Consider the new staff member. This person has probably just left an environment that had dramatically different contingencies, and rarely are the daily operating contingencies explained to the new employee. Instead, upon entering your department, this person must decipher the contingencies through an unspoken trial-and-error process. Suppose that in the last position this person held, he or she was reinforced for autonomous work and independent decision making. Naturally this individual would probably exhibit this behavior in the new environment, your department. But if you prefer to review decisions and monitor work a bit more closely, you may view this employee's behavior as "getting out of control" and respond negatively, which would probably surprise the new person.
There is no way to predict how such an individual might respond -perhaps even with aggression or withdrawal. At this point it is easy to inadvertently set into action a negative vicious cycle, one that could have been avoided by having made explicit all your expectations and contingencies. At best there would be a period of confusion and re organization. The person would be experiencing "contingency shock," because several of the contingencies for his or her behavior would have been rearranged suddenly. Obviously, during such an adjustment period, the new person's work efficiency is likely to suffer.
Many of these problems can be prevented by meeting with the new person and setting up a contingency contract implemented by a reinforcement menu. The new person does not have to try to guess your subtle expectations, and can express his or her own expectations and desired contingencies. With this approach you can establish-from the very first day-open communication as well as a foundation for resolving problems. It provides a method of emphasizing the interrelationship of management and employee and of demonstrating genuine concern for the new person.
Another advantage of using the reinforcement menu on such an ongoing basis is that it provides a means of additional reinforcement: The menu can be expanded. Instead of being allotted (or assumed) on a random and non-contingent basis, privileges can be contingently linked to improved performance. By working out menus with employees, you have the opportunity to expand your own reinforcing repertoire. Many employees will suggest reinforcers that you may never have considered, but will find acceptable. In the process of negotiating contingencies, employees can be encouraged to question the standards and to provide feedback. Even when they do not agree with the standards, they are more likely to cooperate when they know that their reactions had been considered. Their feedback also provides an opportunity to reexamine and possibly alter outmoded or unrealistic standards. Finally, having such an ongoing system in effect makes more complex and sophisticated change programs easy to implement.
