Journal of Organizational Behavior Management

ISSN: 0160-8061 (Print) 1540-8604 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/worg20

An Objective Review of the Effectiveness and

Essential Characteristics of Performance Feedback
in Organizational Settings (1985-1998)

Alicia M. Alvero , Barbara R. Bucklin & John Austin

To cite this article: Alicia M. Alvero , Barbara R. Bucklin & John Austin (2001) An Objective
Review of the Effectiveness and Essential Characteristics of Performance Feedback in
Organizational Settings (1985-1998), Journal of Organizational Behavior Management, 21:1, 3-29,
DOI: 10.1300/J075v21n01_02

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1300/J075v21n01_02

Published online: 12 Oct 2008.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 1866

View related articles

Citing articles: 119 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=worg20

Download by: [Nova Southeastern University] Date: 04 March 2017, At: 15:35
 REVIEW AND DISCUSSION ARTICLE

An Objective Review of the Effectiveness

and Essential Characteristics
of Performance Feedback
in Organizational Settings
(1985-1998)
Alicia M. Alvero
Barbara R. Bucklin
John Austin

ABSTRACT. Performance feedback has been used successfully to

increase performance in a variety of organizational settings for over 20
years. The main objective of the present review was to update the
feedback literature review conducted by Balcazar, Hopkins, and Suarez
in 1985. The current review identified 68 applications of feedback from
43 studies in applied organizational settings. Each application was cate-

Alicia M. Alvero is a doctoral student in the Psychology Department, Western

Michigan University. Barbara R. Bucklin and John Austin are both affiliated with
Western Michigan University.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to: John Austin,
Department of Psychology, Western Michigan University, Kalamazoo, MI 49008
(E-mail: john.austin@wmich.edu).
Portions of this paper were presented at the Association for Behavior Analysis
26th annual convention in Washington, D.C., May 2000.
Journal of Organizational Behavior Management, Vol. 21(1) 2001
E 2001 by The Haworth Press, Inc. All rights reserved. 3
4 JOURNAL OF ORGANIZATIONAL BEHAVIOR MANAGEMENT

gorized by: feedback effectiveness, combinations of other interventions

with feedback, and essential characteristics of feedback. The results of
our review support some findings of the previous review: (a) feedback
does not uniformly improve performance, and (b) the addition of other
procedures tends to improve the consistency of feedback effects. Our
review also suggests that more useful and practical information would
come from assessing the functional mechanisms of feedback. The im-
plications of these findings and suggestions for future research are
discussed. [Article copies available for a fee from The Haworth Document
Delivery Service: 1-800-342-9678. E-mail address: <getinfo@haworthpressinc.
com> Website: <http://www.HaworthPress.com>E 2001 by The Haworth Press,
Inc. All rights reserved.]

KEYWORDS. Performance feedback, objective review, effects of feed-

back characteristics, feedback only, feedback with other intervention com-
ponents, characteristics of feedback effects

The delivery of feedback to change performance can be traced back

to some of the landmark studies in organizational behavior manage-
ment (OBM) (e.g., Komaki, Barwick, & Scott, 1978; Sulzer-Azaroff,
1978). Performance feedback continues to be used to successfully
change performance in a variety of organizational settings (e.g., for a
university hockey team: Anderson, Crowell, Domen, & Howard,
1988; in the electric utility industry: Petty, Singleton, & Connell,
1992; for bank tellers: Crowell, Anderson, Abel, & Sergio, 1988; in a
textile factory: Welsh, Luthans, & Sommer, 1993; for hotel banquet
staff: LaFleur & Hyten, 1995; and for nursing home staff: Hawkins,
Burgio, Lanford, & Engel, 1992). In a review of the first ten years of
the Journal of Organizational Behavior Management (JOBM), Balca-
zar, Shupert, Daniels, Mawhinney, and Hopkins (1989) found that
some form of performance feedback was used in fifty percent of the
articles, and Nolan, Jarema, and Austin (1999) found the trend to
continue (i.e., in 71% of studies) over the past 10 years. The success
and popularity of this traditional intervention are not disputed, but the
use of the term, its exact meaning, and the behavioral principles re-
sponsible for its effectiveness continue to cause much discussion
(Duncan & Bruwelheide, 1985; Ford, 1980; Peterson, 1982).
Performance feedback has been defined a number of different ways.
Some of these definitions include: (a) information that is given to
persons regarding the quantity or quality of their past performance
 Review and Discussion Article 5

(Prue & Fairbank, 1981), (b) information transmitted back to the re-
sponder following a particular performance (Sulzer-Azaroff & Mayer,
1991), (c) information that tells performers what and how well they
are doing (Rummler & Brache, 1995), and (d) information about
performance that allows an individual to adjust his or her performance
(Daniels, 1994).
Just as there is no consensus for the exact definition of the term
‘‘feedback,’’ there is no agreement about the behavioral function(s) of
feedback. Some have argued that feedback is an antecedent (Daniels,
1994); others suggest that it functions as a reinforcer (Komaki et al.,
1978); and still others contend that it may serve multiple functions:
‘‘Feedback may function as a reinforcer or punisher; and/or may serve
a discriminative function’’ (Sulzer-Azaroff & Mayer, 1991, p. 590). It
might also act as an establishing operation, or engender rule-governed
behavior (Agnew, 1998; Agnew & Redmon, 1992).
The lack of uniformity concerning this popular and effective inter-
vention has led some researchers to advise caution when using the
term. Peterson (1982) advised, ‘‘Much ambiguity would be eliminated
if behavior analysts no longer used the term ‘feedback.’ It is not a new
principle of behavior and does not refer to a specific procedure; it at
best has simply become professional slang’’ (p. 102). In 1985, Balca-
zar, Hopkins, and Suarez conducted a review of the performance
feedback literature and found that feedback does not uniformly im-
prove performance. This finding should be of no surprise because the
function(s) of feedback has not yet been scientifically tested. If we do
not know what function(s) feedback serves, how can we determine
when and how to utilize it for maximal results?
Despite these concerns and the paucity of scientific research regard-
ing the behavioral function(s) of feedback, it continues to be widely
used in the field of OBM. Therefore, it is important to track the uses of
performance feedback in applied settings in order to determine:
(a) what changes, if any, have been made regarding its implementation
(e.g., combinations, characteristics), and (b) what steps have been
taken to improve the consistency of its effects.
The main purpose of the performance feedback literature review
conducted by Balcazar et al. (1985) was to determine what feedback
combinations and characteristics were most commonly used and
which were associated with the highest levels of consistent effects.
Their review of four premier journals, Academy of Management Jour-
6 JOURNAL OF ORGANIZATIONAL BEHAVIOR MANAGEMENT

nal (AMJ), Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis (JABA), Journal of

Applied Psychology (JAP), and Journal of Organizational Behavior
Management (JOBM), over eleven years (1974-1984) yielded 69 ar-
ticles that reported the use of performance feedback in applied set-
tings. Some of these articles used feedback in several interventions
and/or experiments, therefore, a total of 126 applications of feedback
were identified for review. The results of this widely recognized re-
view indicated that: ‘‘(1) adding rewards and/or goal setting proce-
dures to feedback improves the consistency of its effects, and (2) some
characteristics of feedback are more consistently associated with im-
proved performance than others’’ (p. 65) (e.g., the use of graphic
feedback; supervisors/managers as the source of feedback delivery).
Because performance feedback continues to be used as an intervention
in organizational settings, we felt that it was time to update the review
conducted by Balcazar et al. in 1985.
The present review has several purposes: (a) conduct an objective
review, similar to the one conducted by Balcazar et al. (1985), of the
more recent (1985-1998) performance feedback literature, (b) compare
the results of this review to those of the previous review, (c) make an
attempt to determine the impact, if any, that articles such as Peterson
(1982) and Balcazar et al. (1985) have had on the use of performance
feedback, (d) discuss any progress that has been, or should be, made
toward pinpointing the behavioral mechanisms responsible for change
in performance when using feedback as an independent variable in
organizational settings, and (e) discuss the benefits and/or implica-
tions of these findings for researchers and practitioners.

METHOD
All issues between 1985 and 1998 of the four journals reviewed by
Balcazar et al. (1985), AMJ, JABA, JAP, and JOBM, were reviewed to
identify articles that reported the use of performance feedback as an
intervention in applied studies. ‘‘Applied’’ or ‘‘field’’ experiments
were defined as research that studied the target behavior(s) in its
natural environment. Therefore, analog and laboratory studies were
excluded from further review. All field studies were further investi-
gated if the word ‘‘feedback’’ was used in the abstract or any part of
the method section. In keeping with this criterion, articles that reported
the effects of ‘‘information on task performance’’ (e.g., Meyer &
 Review and Discussion Article 7

Gellatly, 1988) or ‘‘destructive criticism on performance’’ (e.g., Bar-

on, 1990), but did not refer to the term ‘‘feedback,’’ were not included
in this literature review.
These criteria yielded a total of 43 articles. Some of these publica-
tions used several interventions involving feedback. For example,
Anderson et al. (1988) implemented three interventions that utilized
feedback to improve the performance of a university hockey team.
The three interventions following baseline were the implementation of
(a) feedback alone, (b) feedback plus goal setting, and (c) feedback,
goal setting and praise. To be consistent with the methods used by
Balcazar et al. (1985), each intervention that used feedback was classi-
fied as a separate ‘‘application’’ of feedback. Therefore, the 43 articles
reviewed yielded 68 applications of feedback. Table 1 lists the 43
articles included in this review, the number of feedback applications
found in each, and the results of all other variables reviewed.

INTEROBSERVER AGREEMENT

The first and second authors independently coded every article

published in JAP, JOBM, AMJ, and JABA between 1985 and 1998.
Each coder selected articles for inclusion in the present review based
on the selection criteria described earlier. The selected articles were
then classified according to the above-described categories. Agree-
ment on both the selection of the feedback articles and the criteria for
classifying feedback applications was calculated by dividing the total
number of agreements by the number of agreements plus disagree-
ments. Agreement on the selection of articles was 93%, and 82% for
classification of feedback applications. The first and second authors
then discussed all disagreements until they arrived at a unanimous
decision for both the selection and classification of all the articles
reviewed.

DATA COLLECTION

Feedback applications were categorized using methods similar to

those used by Balcazar et al. (1985). Each was classified according to
its effectiveness, feedback characteristics, and the feedback combin-
8
TABLE 1. List of All Articles Included in This Review and the Results for All Variables

Authors Appl.* Consistency Source Privacy Participants Content** Medium Frequency Combinations***
Alavosius & Sulzer- 1 Consistent Researcher Private Indiv. a verbal weekly FB & BC
Azaroff (1996) Supervisor written

Allison et al. (1992) 1 Unknown Effects Manager Private Indiv. a written daily FB Alone
graph weekly
2 Unknown Effects Expert Private Indiv. a written daily FB & BC
graph weekly

Anderson et al. 1 Mixed Manager Public Indiv. a verbal & graph weekly FB Alone
(1988a) 2 Mixed Manager Public Indiv. a graph weekly FB & GS
3 Mixed Manager Public Indiv. a graph weekly FB, GS & BC

Anderson et al. 1 Consistent Manager Public Indiv. a graph daily Ant. & FB
(1988b) Private

Arco (1997) 1 Mixed Researcher Private Indiv. c verbal did not report FB, GS & BC
written
2 Mixed Researcher Private Indiv. c verbal did not report FB & BC

Austin et al. (1996) 1 Consistent Researcher Private Indiv.& h verbal daily FB, GS & BC
Group graph weekly
2 Consistent Supervisor Public Indiv. & e verbal daily FB, GS & BC
Private Group graph

Babcock et al. 1 Mixed Researcher Private Indiv. & g verbal weekly FB & GS
(1992) Group written
graph
2 Mixed Researcher Private Indiv. & j verbal weekly FB & GS
Group written
graph

Brown & Sulzer- 1 Consistent Researcher Public Indiv. & f graph weekly FB Alone
Azaroff (1994) Private Group

Buller & Bell 1 No Effects Supervisor Private Indiv. & k written weekly FB & GS
(1986) Group graph

Calpin et al. 1 Mixed Self-generated Private Indiv. a written weekly FB Alone

(1988)
2 Mixed Self-generated Private Indiv. c written weekly FB & GS
 Authors Appl.* Consistency Source Privacy Participants Content** Medium Frequency Combinations***

Crowell et al. 1 Mixed Manager Public Indiv. a verbal daily FB Alone

(1988) Private graph
2 Consistent Manager Public Indiv. a verbal daily FB & BC
Private graph
DeVries et al. 1 Consistent Manager Private Indiv. c verbal bi-weekly FB & BC
(1991) written
graph
Doerr et al. 1 Mixed Researcher Public Group b graph daily FB, GS & BC
(1996) 2 Mixed Researcher Private Indiv. a verbal daily FB, GS & BC
Fox & Sulzer- 1 Consistent Supervisor Public Group b written weekly FB Alone
Azaroff (1989) Private
2 Consistent Expert Public Group b written weekly FB Alone
Private
Gaetani et al. 1 Consistent Self-generated Private Indiv. a written daily FB Alone
(1985)
2 Consistent Self-generated Private Indiv. a written daily FB & BC
Godbey & White 1 Consistent Researcher Private Indiv. a written weekly Ant., FB & BC
(1992) 2 Consistent Researcher Private Indiv. a verbal weekly FB & BC
Goltz et al. 1 Consistent Researcher Private Group b written daily FB Alone
(1989) graph weekly
2 Consistent Researcher Private Indiv. & f written daily FB Alone
Group graph weekly
Hawkins et al. 1 Unknown Effects Supervisor Public Indiv. d verbal bi-weekly FB & GS
(1992) Self-generated Private graph
2 Unknown Effects Supervisor Public Indiv. d verbal bi-weekly FB, GS & BC
Self-generated Private written
graph
Henry & Redmon 1 Consistent Manager Private Indiv. c written daily FB & BC
(1990)
Houmanfour & 1 Mixed Manager Private Indiv. a written weekly FB Alone
Hayes (1998) 2 Mixed Manager Private Indiv. f graph weekly FB Alone
Public
3 Mixed Manager Private Indiv. a written weekly FB Alone

9
10
TABLE 1 (continued)

Authors Appl.* Consistency Source Privacy Participants Content** Medium Frequency Combinations***
Johnson & Masotti 1 Mixed Manager Public Indiv. & f verbal daily FB, GS & BC
(1990) Group graph weekly
Johnson (1985) 1 Consistent Customer Private Indiv. k written less than every FB & BC
graph other month
Jones et al. (1985) 1 Consistent Supervisor Public Group b graph weekly Ant. & FB
Karan & Kopelman 1 Mixed Mechanical device Public Group b written monthly FB Alone
(1986)
Kortick & O’Brien 1 Mixed Did not report Public Group l written daily FB & BC
(1996) weekly
monthly
LaFleur & Hyten 1 Consistent Researcher Public Group e graph daily Ant., FB, GS &
(1995) Supervisor BC
Langeland et al. 1 Consistent Manager Private Indiv. c verbal weekly FB, GS & BC
(1998)
Nordstrom et al. 1 Consistent Manager Public Indiv. a verbal daily FB, GS & BC
(1988) graph
2 Consistent Manager Public Indiv. a graph 3 ’s a week FB, GS & BC
3 Consistent Manager Private Indiv. d written weekly FB, GS & BC
4 Mixed Manager Public Indiv. d graph weekly FB, GS & BC
Parsons & Reid 1 Mixed Researcher Private Indiv. c verbal did not report FB Alone
(1995) (after ea. session)
Parsons et al. 1 Consistent Supervisor Private Indiv. c verbal weekly Ant., FB & BC
(1987) monthly
2 Mixed Supervisor Private Indiv. c written weekly Ant., FB & BC
monthly
3 Consistent Supervisor Private Indiv. c written weekly Ant., FB & BC
monthly
Petty et al. 1 Mixed Manager Public Group e written quarterly FB & BC
(1992)
Porterfield et al. 1 Consistent Supervisor Public Indiv. c verbal 2 x’s a day FB Alone
(1985) Private graph
2 Consistent Supervisor Private Indiv. c verbal did not report FB Alone
 Authors Appl.* Consistency Source Privacy Participants Content** Medium Frequency Combinations***
Pritchard et al. 1 Consistent Researcher & Public Group i written & graph monthly FB Alone
(1988) Supervisor
2 Consistent Researcher & Public Group i written & graph monthly FB & GS
Supervisor
3 Consistent Researcher & Public Group i written & graph monthly FB, GS & BC
Supervisor
Ralis & O’Brien 1 Consistent Researcher Public Indiv. a verbal weekly Ant., FB & BC
(1986) Private graph

Richman et al. 1 Mixed Supervisor Private Indiv. c verbal 2 ’s a day FB Alone
1988 Self-generated written
Siero et al. 1 Consistent Supervisor Public Group b written weekly Ant. & FB
(1989)
Sulzer-Azarof f 1 Consistent Supervisor Public Group e verbal weekly FB, GS & BC
et al. (1990) graph
Welsh et al. 1 Mixed Supervisor Private Indiv. c verbal did not report FB & BC
(1993a)
Welsh et al. 1 Mixed Supervisor Private Indiv. c verbal did not report FB & BC
(1993b)

Wilk & Redmon 1 Consistent Supervisor Private Indiv. d verbal 2 ’s a day FB & GS
(1990) graph daily

Wilk & Redmon 1 Consistent Manager Private Indiv. d verbal 2 ’s a day FB, GS & BC
(1998)
2 Consistent Manager Private Indiv. c verbal 2 ’s a day FB, GS & BC
graph
Wilson et al. 1 Mixed Researcher Private Indiv. c verbal daily FB Alone
(1997) Supervisor written
Wittkopp et al. 1 Consistent Researcher Private Indiv. c verbal daily Ant. & FB
(1990) Supervisor mechanical weekly

* Refers to the number of applications identified in each article.

** These content categories correspond to those described in Table 2.

11
*** Feedback Combinations: Ant.: Antecedent; BC: Behavioral Consequences; FB: Feedback; GS: Goal Setting
12 JOURNAL OF ORGANIZATIONAL BEHAVIOR MANAGEMENT

ation used. The majority of the categorization definitions were the

same as those used in the Balcazar et al. review. The following is a list
of definitions for the categorization criteria used in this review.
Consistency of Effects
Four categories of consistency were used, as defined by Balcazar et al.
(1985):
Consistent Effects
Feedback was categorized as consistently effective when it uni-
formly produced desired mean increases or decreases of performance
compared with mean baseline levels and/or levels produced by any
other independent variable(s). Feedback effects had to be observed in
all of the participants, settings, and/or behavior analyzed in order to be
classified as consistent. The feedback in experiments reporting data
aggregated over participants was rated as being consistent when it
produced statistically significant effects for all of the dependent vari-
ables or conditions.
Mixed Effects
The effectiveness of feedback was categorized as mixed when it
produced desired mean baseline increases or decreases of performance
for some, but not all, of the participants, settings, and/or behaviors
analyzed. Studies reporting aggregated data were rated as having
mixed effects when feedback produced statistically significant effects
for some, but not all, of the dependent variables or conditions.
No Effects
A feedback procedure was classified as having no effects when
mean performance levels during feedback were equal to mean base-
line levels and/or when feedback effects were equivalent to the mean
effects observed in a control group.
Unknown Effects
This category was used to classify those studies in which the base-
line consisted of two data points or fewer, which would not allow for
comparisons of the effectiveness of the independent variables.
 Review and Discussion Article 13

Feedback Combinations

Feedback was used alone or in combination with any or all of the

following: antecedents, goal setting procedures, and behavioral conse-
quences.

Feedback Alone

Feedback alone referred to studies in which participants only re-

ceived information about the quantity or quality of their performance.

Feedback and Antecedents

This combination was not analyzed by Balcazar et al., but was

identified in several of the feedback applications included in this re-
view. Feedback and antecedents referred to studies in which partici-
pants received feedback and some form of antecedent stimuli, exclud-
ing goals (e.g., staff training, task analyses given to participants as
information, job aids, weekly task objectives/assignments, superviso-
ry prompts, etc.).

Feedback and Behavioral Consequences

Feedback and behavioral consequences referred to studies in which

participants received feedback and, additionally, events such as praise,
monetary incentives, and time off work were given following desired
changes in the target behaviors.

Feedback and Goal Setting

Feedback and goal setting referred to studies in which participants

received feedback and, additionally, performance goals were also
introduced. Goals specified a performance outcome or a standard of
individual or group performance.

Feedback, Antecedents and Behavioral Consequences

Studies that were classified under this category provided anteced-

ents (excluding goals), feedback, and behavioral consequences to par-
ticipants.
14 JOURNAL OF ORGANIZATIONAL BEHAVIOR MANAGEMENT

Feedback,Goal, Setting, and Behavioral Consenquences

Studies that provided feedback, goals and behavioral consequences
to participants were classified under this category.
Feedback, Antecedents, Goals, and Behavioral Consequences
This category was used to classify those studies that provided a
combination of feedback, goals, other antecedents and behavioral con-
sequences to participants.
Feedback Characteristics
The six characteristics used to classify each feedback application
are similar to those identified by Balcazar et al. (1985). Minor
changes, as described below, were made to four of the characteristics:
source, medium (i.e., mechanism), frequency, and content.
Feedback Source
Feedback source referred to the individual or device that presented
the information to the performer. Feedback sources were classified
into one of the following nine categories: (a) supervisors and/or man-
agers; (b) researchers; (c) self-generated feedback (from employees
using a self-recording procedure); (d) customers; (e) mechanical de-
vices; (f) experts (e.g., a fire safety expert delivered feedback to the
staff of an organization as part of fire evacuation training, Fox &
Sulzer-Azaroff, 1989); (g) supervisors and researchers; (h) supervisors
and self-generated feedback; and (i) studies that did not report the
source of feedback.
Feedback Medium
Feedback medium (called ‘‘mechanism’’ by Balcazar et al. 1985)1
described the means used to communicate the feedback information to
the recipients. Eight feedback media were identified: (a) graphs
(which display individual and/or group performance); (b) verbal;
(c) written; (d) verbal feedback and graphs; (e) verbal and written
feedback; (f) verbal and written feedback and graphs; (g) written
feedback and graphs; and (h) verbal and mechanical (e.g., videotape)
feedback.
 Review and Discussion Article 15

Feedback Frequency

Feedback frequency referred to how often feedback was provided

to recipients. Frequency of feedback was classified in eight intervals:
(a) daily (one or more times in a period of 24 hours); (b) weekly (any
frequency less than once per day and at least once per week); (c) monthly
(any frequency less than once per week and at least once per month);
(d) quarterly (any frequency less than once a month and at least once
every four months); (e) daily and weekly; (f) daily, weekly and month-
ly; (g) weekly and monthly; and (h) studies that did not report the
frequency.

Feedback Participants

Feedback participants referred to the people whose performance

was described by the feedback. The three types of participants were
the following: (a) individual(s); (b) group(s); and (c) individuals and
group(s) combined.

Feedback Privacy

Feedback privacy referred to how widely feedback information was

made available. There were three classifications of privacy: (a) public-
ly posted feedback (when feedback information was available not only
to the performing individual or group, but also to other members of the
organization); (b) private feedback (when feedback information was
provided only to the performing individual); and (c) a combination of
publicly posted feedback and private feedback (frequently used to
separate group and individual performance or when some of the infor-
mation was kept confidential).

Feedback Content

Feedback content identified the type of information provided to feed-

back recipients. Twelve types of content were identified and are listed
below as categories ‘‘a’’ through ‘‘l.’’ These content categories are also
summarized in Table 2: (a) comparison of an individual’s performance
with his/her previous performance; (b) comparison of a group’s perfor-
mance with its previous performance; (c) comparison of an individual’s
performance with a standard (e.g., a goal or a mean of performance) of
16 JOURNAL OF ORGANIZATIONAL BEHAVIOR MANAGEMENT

TABLE 2. Distribution of Feedback Content Dimensions According to Category

Category
Content dimension a b c d e f g h i j k l

Individual performance x x x x x x x x

Group performance x x x x x x

Standard of individual performance x x x

Standard of group performance x x x x x

Previous individual performance x x

Previous group performance x

Different group’s performance x x x

individual performance (information regarding previous performance

was not provided); (d) comparison of an individual’s performance with
his/her previous performance and a standard of individual performance;
(e) comparison of a group’s performance with a standard of group
performance; (f) comparison of individual performance with group
performance; (g) comparison of individual performance with a group
goal; (h) comparison of individual performance with group perfor-
mance and a standard of group performance; (i) comparison of group
performance with a different group’s performance; (j) comparison of
individual performance, a standard of group performance, and a differ-
ent group’s performance; (k) a comparison of individual and group
performance with a standard of both individual and group performance;
and (l) information regarding a different group’s performance.

RESULTS
Content
Table 3 summarizes the distribution of feedback applications accord-
ing to content and effectiveness. Unknown effects were observed in
four feedback applications. These four applications were excluded from
further review. Consistent effects were observed in 58% of the total
number (64) of feedback applications reviewed, mixed effects occurred
in 41% of the applications, and no effects were observed in only 1% of
the feedback applications. In the previous review, Balcazar et al. (1985)
identified consistent effects in 41% of the articles reviewed, mixed
effects in 49% and no effects in 10% of the articles.
 Review and Discussion Article 17

TABLE 3. Distribution of Feedback Applications According to Content and

Effectiveness

Feedback Effectiveness

Feedback combination Consistent Mixed No Effects Subtotal Unknown

Feedback alone 9 (47%) 10 (53%) 0 19 1

Feedback & antecedents 4 (100%) 0 0 4 0
Feedback & behavioral 7 (58%) 5 (42%) 0 12 1
consequences
Feedback & goal setting 2 (29%) 4 (57%) 1 (14%) 7 1
Feedback, antecedents & 4 (67%) 2 (33%) 0 6 0
behavioral consequences
Feedback, antecedents, goal 1 0 0 1 0
setting & behavioral consequences
Feedback, goal setting & 10 (67%) 5 (33%) 0 15 1
behavioral consequences
37 (58%) 26 (41%) 1 (1%) 64 4

Total: 68

Balcazar et al. (1985) found that the most frequently used procedure
was feedback alone. This continues to be the trend. The present review
found that feedback alone was used in 29% of the feedback applica-
tions. Despite its popularity, this procedure did not result in the most
consistent effects (47%). Applications that combined the use of ante-
cedents (excluding goals) and feedback produced the highest levels of
consistent effects (100%). The highest levels of mixed effects were
observed in applications that implemented a combination of feedback
and goal setting (57%) and feedback alone (53%). Using feedback in
combination with any other procedure(s) produced much higher levels
of consistent effects than using feedback alone, with the exception of
feedback and goal setting. Feedback and goal setting produced (a) the
lowest level of consistent effects (29%) and (b) the only application
that was categorized as having no effects.

FEEDBACK CHARACTERISTICS

Table 4 shows the distribution of feedback effectiveness as a function

of feedback characteristics. The four applications that were categorized
as having unknown effects were not included in the distribution.
18 JOURNAL OF ORGANIZATIONAL BEHAVIOR MANAGEMENT

TABLE 4. Distribution of Feedback Effectiveness as a Function of Feedback

Characteristics

Feedback Effectiveness

Feedback Characteristic Consistent Mixed No Effects Total

SOURCE

Supervisor/manager 20 (59%) 13 (38%) 1 (3%) 34

Supervisor & researcher 6 (86%) 1 (14%) 0 7
Supervisor & self-generated 0 1 0 1
Researchers 7 (50%) 7 (50%) 0 14
Self-generated 2 2 0 4
Customer 1 0 0 1
Expert 1 0 0 1
Mechanical 0 1 0 1
Not reported 0 1 0 1

37 26 1 64
MEDIUM

Graph 5 (50%) 5 (50%) 0 10

Verbal 5 (50%) 5 (50%) 0 10
Written 9 (53%) 8 (47%) 0 17
Verbal & graph 9 (75%) 3 (25%) 0 12
Verbal & written 1 (25%) 3 (75%) 0 4
Verbal, written & graph 1 (33%) 2 (67%) 0 3
Written & graph 6 (86%) 0 1 (14%) 7
Verbal & mechanical 1 0 0 1

37 26 1 64
FREQUENCY

Daily 12 (71%) 5 (29%) 0 17

Weekly 13 (52%) 11 (44%) 1 (4%) 25
Monthly 4 (80%) 1 (20%) 0 5
Quarterly 1 1 0 2
Daily & weekly 4 (80%) 1 (20%) 0 5
Daily, weekly & monthly 0 1 0 1
Weekly & monthly 2 1 0 3
Not reported 1 (17%) 5 (83%) 0 6

37 26 1 64
PARTICIPANTS

Individual 23 (55%) 19 (45%) 0 42

Group 10 (71%) 4 (29%) 0 14
Individual & group 4 (50%) 3 (38%) 1 (13%) 8

37 26 1 64
PRIVACY

Private 20 (56%) 15 (42%) 1 (2%) 36

Public 9 (50%) 9 (50%) 0 18
Private & public 8 (80%) 2 (20%) 0 10

37 26 1 64
 Review and Discussion Article 19

Feedback Effectiveness

Feedback Characteristic Consistent Mixed No Effects Total

CONTENT

(a) Individual 10 (56%) 8 (44%) 0 18

(b) Group 5 (71%) 2 (29%) 0 7
(c) Standard individual performance 9 9 0 18
(d) Individual & standard individual 3 (75%) 1 (25%) 0 4
performance
(e) Group & standard group 3 (75%) 1 (25%) 0 4
performance
(f) Individual & group 2 2 0 4
(g) Individual & standard group 1 0 1
performance
(h) Individual, group & standard group 1 0 1
performance
(i) Group & different group’s 3 0 0 3
performance
(j) Individual, standard group performance & 0 1 0 1
different group’s performance
(k) Individual, group, standard individual & 1 0 1 2
standard group performance
(l) Different group’s performance 0 1 0 1

37 26 1 64

Source

The most commonly used source of feedback continues to be super-

visors or managers (34/64 or 53% of applications). However, the
highest levels of consistent effects were associated with the delivery
by supervisors/managers and researchers (86%).

Medium

The use of graphs with written feedback and graphs with verbal
feedback resulted in the highest levels of consistent effects (86% and
75% respectively), but the most commonly used medium of feedback
delivery was written feedback alone (17/64 or 27% of feedback ap-
plications). The latter finding differs from the results found by Balca-
zar et al. (1985); they reported graphical feedback as the most com-
monly used feedback medium (used in 32% of the applications in their
20 JOURNAL OF ORGANIZATIONAL BEHAVIOR MANAGEMENT

previous review). There were no significant differences between the

effectiveness of the other media used to deliver feedback.
Frequency
Weekly feedback, at 39%, was the most common frequency for
feedback delivery (25/64 applications). The previous review (Balcazar
et al., 1985) found that daily feedback was the most frequently used
(54% of applications), but was not more consistently effective than
weekly feedback. The present review found that daily, monthly, and
the combination of daily and weekly feedback resulted in higher levels
of consistency effects (71%, 80% and 80%, respectively) than weekly
delivery of feedback (52%), which also produced the only application
categorized as having no effects.
Participants
Individuals continue to be the most common participants in feed-
back interventions (used in 42/64 or 65% of the applications in the
present review and 70% of the applications in the previous review),
but consistency effects were higher for applications that used group
participants (71% for groups and 55% for individuals). This finding
was also true for the literature reviewed by Balcazar et al. (1985),
although the differences were not as substantial (48% for groups and
40% for individuals).
Privacy
The previous literature review (Balcazar et al., 1985) did not find
any significant differences in consistency effects among the three
forms of privacy. The present review found the combination of private
and public feedback to be more consistently effective (80% of applica-
tions) than either private (56%) or public (50%) feedback independent
of one another. Although Balcazar et al. (1985) found that public
feedback was most common (54%), the current review identified pri-
vate feedback to be more frequently implemented (36/64 or 56% of
applications).
Content
The two most popular contents of feedback involved the (a) com-
parison of individual performance with his/her previous performance
 Review and Discussion Article 21

(18/64 or 28% of applications), and (b) comparison of individual

performance with a standard of individual performance (18/64 or
28%; information regarding previous performance was not provided).
Consistency effects for these applications were comparable (56% and
50%, respectively). The highest levels of consistency effects were
found in applications that provided information concerning the com-
parison of (a) group performance with a standard of group perfor-
mance (75% of applications), (b) individual performance with a stan-
dard of individual performance or previous performance (75% of
applications), or (c) group performance with its previous performance
(71% of applications).

DISCUSSION
The most significant difference between the previous review of the
performance feedback literature (Balcazar et al., 1985) and the present
review was the number of feedback articles and feedback applications
identified. Balcazar et al. (1985) reviewed eleven years of journal
publications and found 69 articles that used feedback as an interven-
tion and 126 feedback applications. The authors of the present article
reviewed 14 years of the same four journals and were only able to
identify 43 articles and 68 feedback applications.
Logically, some combination of two things occurred: (1) fewer
feedback articles were published and/or (2) the use of the term ‘‘feed-
back’’ decreased. The majority of the performance feedback articles
that were included in the previous and present review were found in
JOBM, which has significantly decreased its number publications.
Between 1977 and 1986, JOBM averaged 20 publications a year, but
the mean decreased to 12 publications a year between 1987 and 1997
(Nolan et al., 1999). As previously mentioned, there were a number of
articles that implemented feedback as an independent variable or as a
component of an intervention, but did not label the procedure as feed-
back (e.g., Baron, 1990; LaMere, Dickinson, Henry, Henry, & Poling,
1996; Meyer & Gellatly, 1988). It is plausible that behavior analysts
have been more cautious when using the term ‘‘feedback’’ as a result
of published concerns, such as Peterson’s (1982), regarding the use of
‘‘feedback’’ to represent procedures that can be explained by operant
principles. Future research could perhaps confirm and better deter-
mine why this reduction occurred.
22 JOURNAL OF ORGANIZATIONAL BEHAVIOR MANAGEMENT

Despite the possible variables responsible for decreases in the use

of the term ‘‘feedback’’ and the number of feedback publications, it is
important to consider the implications that such decreases may have
for the field of OBM. For example, one of the main objectives of the
present literature review was to determine what feedback combina-
tions and characteristics were associated with the highest levels of
consistent effects and how these findings compare to those of the
earlier review. The lack of consistency when referring to ‘‘feedback’’
made it difficult to identify objective selection criteria that would
include all of the literature that used performance feedback as an
independent variable. The low number of articles included in this
review suggests that some applications of feedback were not identified
by the inclusion criteria defined for this review (i.e., all field studies
were further investigated if the word ‘‘feedback’’ was used in the
abstract or any part of the method section). Due to the low number of
applications, we must be cautious when drawing conclusions from the
results of this literature review regarding the consistency effects of
feedback combinations and characteristics.
Another main difference between the two reviews was the additions
made to the number of feedback combinations and characteristic sub-
categories (e.g., medium: graph, verbal, written, etc.) identified. These
changes contribute to the difficulty in understanding the effectiveness
of feedback. Balcazar et al. (1985) identified two primary problems in
understanding the effectiveness of feedback: (a) the literature has not
always carefully differentiated among feedback when it is applied
alone or in combination with other procedures, and (b) feedback can
have many different characteristics. Unfortunately, these obstacles
continue to exist because of the increasing number of feedback com-
binations used and the growing number of feedback characteristics
implemented. For example, the current review identified three feed-
back combinations that were not analyzed in the previous review
(Balcazar et al., 1985): (a) feedback and antecedents (other than
goals), (b) feedback, behavioral consequences, and antecedents other
than goals, and (c) feedback, behavioral consequences, goals, and
other antecedent stimuli. Some changes made to the characteristic
sub-categories were as follows: (a) the addition of supervisors plus
researchers as the source of feedback, (b) the addition of the verbal,
written and graphic feedback combination under the medium category,
and (c) the addition of several sub-categories under feedback content
 Review and Discussion Article 23

that included the comparison of performance to a different group’s

performance (e.g., group A’s performance was graphed in comparison
to group B’s performance).
These changes, combined with the small number of applications
identified, make it difficult to compare these results with those found
by Balcazar et al. (1985). Table 5 summarizes the main findings of
both the previous and present review of the performance feedback
literature.
Overall, our findings corroborate those of Balcazar et al. (1985),
although specific dimensions depict more or less agreement. For
instance, the most consistent effects continue to occur when feedback
is used in combination with other procedures. However, our review
found feedback and antecedents to be most consistently effective,
whereas Balcazar et al. (1985) found feedback and consequences to be

TABLE 5. Overall Comparison of Findings from the Previous and Present

Review (Objective Review of FB)

Balcazar et al. (1985) Present review

Feedback Most frequently Highest consistency Most frequently Highest

used effects used consistency
effects

Combination Feedback alone FB & consqs (52%) Feedback alone Feedback &
FB & GS (53%) antecedents (100%)

Source Supervisor/ Supervisor/ Supervisor/ Supervisor &

manager manager (50%) Manager researcher (86%)

Privacy Public No differences Private Public & private

(80%)

Participants Individual Group (48%) Individual Group (71%)

Group (71%)
Content Individual Individual & Individual Group & stnd.
performance standard Individual & group (75%)
individual (100%) standard Individual. &
individual stnd. indiv. (75%)

Medium Graph Graph (54%) Written Written & graph

(86%)

Daily (71%)
Frequency Daily (42%) Monthly (80%)
Daily Weekly (41%) Weekly Daily & weekly
(80%)
24 JOURNAL OF ORGANIZATIONAL BEHAVIOR MANAGEMENT

most consistently effective. It is important to note, again, that caution

should be taken when analyzing this latter finding due to the low
number of applications (four) that implemented a combination of
feedback and antecedents. Although this feedback combination was
associated with the highest levels of consistency effects, the low num-
ber of applications makes it difficult to draw any firm conclusions.
The reviews also agreed that feedback is more consistently effective
when delivered at the group level than when delivered at the individu-
al level. In terms of feedback characteristics, the two reviews are in
agreement that feedback is most often presented alone (i.e., without
other programmed stimuli), delivered by supervisors, to individuals,
depicting individual-level performance. The fact that we only found
general agreement between the reviews, especially in terms of
feedback effectiveness, suggests that the characteristics of feedback
may not be as critical as the way in which it is implemented. As
Balcazar et al. (1985) stated, ‘‘If the effects of most feedback character-
istics are derived from their relationship with functional, differential
consequences, little useful knowledge is likely to result from experi-
mentally exploring the relative effectiveness of the different character-
istics’’ (p. 85). More useful and practical information would come
from assessing the functional mechanisms of feedback.
Some have argued that feedback may serve multiple functions (e.g.,
discriminative, reinforcing, punishing, conditioned establishing opera-
tion) depending on the context in which it is implemented (Duncan &
Breweheide, 1985; Prue & Fairbank, 1981). Although this conclusion
is intuitive, we were unable to locate any data confirming this belief in
the course of our review.
One goal of organizational behavior management (OBM) and ap-
plied behavior analysis is to effectively change behavior (in socially
important ways). If we are to do this in the most efficient way pos-
sible, we require a thorough understanding of behavioral techniques,
such as feedback. That is, to most effectively utilize techniques such
as feedback, we must understand why the techniques change behavior.
Experimentation and demonstration of the possible functions of feed-
back will help us to be better practitioners of OBM. Suggestions have
been made to scientifically research the behavioral functions of feed-
back (e.g., Prue & Fairbank, 1981), and we have made similar argu-
ments elsewhere (Austin, Carr, & Agnew, 1999; Normand, Bucklin, &
Austin, 1999; Poling, Dickinson, Austin, & Normand, 2000). As Dun-
 Review and Discussion Article 25

can and Brewelheide (1985) suggested, ‘‘. . . a functional organization

of feedback, based on behavioral mechanism, may allow feedback to
be better tailored to the specific performance situation’’ (p. 92).
Practitioners of OBM have applied performance feedback for nearly
30 years now, and yet, little is known about the reasons for its effec-
tiveness. A first step in this search for knowledge might be to conduct
studies that demonstrate how to make feedback more effective. Next,
researchers might demonstrate how feedback could serve a particular
behavioral (i.e., reinforcing, discriminative, establishing operation)
function. Such a line of research studies may help us to develop a
functional organization of feedback (as suggested by Duncan and
Brewelheide, 1985), contribute to a more widely agreed upon defini-
tion for the term, and to use this knowledge to more effectively prac-
tice organizational behavior management.

NOTE

1. Whereas Balcazar et al. (1985) used the term ‘‘mechanism’’ to refer to the man-
ner in which the feedback was presented, we use the term to refer to an understanding
of the underlying behavioral principles (e.g., Normand, Bucklin, & Austin, 1999).
Therefore, throughout the manuscript we substituted the term ‘‘medium’’ for ‘‘mech-
anism.’’

REFERENCES
Agnew, J. L. (1998). The establishing operation in organizational behavior manage-
ment. Journal of Organizational Behavior Management, 18, 7-19.
Agnew, J. L., & Redmon, W. K. (1992). Contingency specifying stimuli: The role of
‘‘rules’’ in organizational behavior management. Journal of Organizational Be-
havior Management, 12, 67-76.
Alavosius, M. P., & Sulzer-Azaroff, B. (1986). The effects of performance feedback
on the safety of client lifting and transfer. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis,
19, 261-267.
Allison, D. B., Silverstein, J. M., & Galante, V. (1992). Relative effectiveness and
cost-effectiveness of cooperative, competitive, and independent monetary incen-
tive systems. Journal of Organizational Behavior Management, 13, 85-112.
Anderson, D. C., Crowell, C. R., Domen, M., & Howard, G. S. (1988). Performance
posting, goal setting and activity-contingent praise as applied to a university
hockey team. Journal of Applied Psychology, 73, 87-95.
Anderson, D. C., Crowell, C. R., Hantula, D. A., & Siroky, L. M. (1988). Task
clarification, and individual performance posting for improving cleaning in a
26 JOURNAL OF ORGANIZATIONAL BEHAVIOR MANAGEMENT

student-managed university bar. Journal of Organizational Behavior Manage-

ment, 9, 73-90.
Arco, L. (1997). Improving program outcome with process-based performance feed-
back. Journal of Organizational Behavior Management, 17, 37-64.
Austin, J., Carr, J., & Agnew, J. L. (1999). Need for assessing maintaining variables
in OBM. Journal of Organizational Behavior Management,19, 59-87.
Austin, J., Kessler, M. L., Riccobono, J. E., & Bailey, J. S. (1996). Using feedback
and reinforcement to improve the performance and safety of a roofing crew.
Journal of Organizational Behavior Management, 16, 49-75.
Babcock, R. A., Sulzer-Azaroff, B., Sanderson, M., & Scibak, J. (1992). Increasing
nurses’ use of feedback to promote infection-control practices in a head-injury
treatment center. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 25, 621-627.
Balcazar, F., Hopkins, B. L., & Suarez, Y. (1985). A critical, objective review of
performance feedback. Journal of Organizational Behavior Management, 7, 65-89.
Balcazar, F. E., Shupert, M. K., Daniels, A. C., Mawhinney, T. C., & Hopkins, B. O.
(1989). An objective review and analysis of ten years of publication in the Journal
of Organizational Behavior Management, 10, 7-38.
Baron, R. A. (1990). Countering the effects of destructive criticism: The relative
efficacy of four interventions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75, 235-245.
Brown, C. S., & Sulzer-Azaroff, B. (1994). An assessment of the relationship be-
tween customer satisfaction and service friendliness. Journal of Organizational
Behavior Management, 14, 55-75.
Buller, P. F., & Bell, Jr. C. H. (1986). Effects of team building and goal setting on
productivity: A field experiment. Academy of Management Journal, 29, 305-328.
Calpin, J. P., Edelstein, B., & Redmon, W. K. (1988). Performance feedback and goal
setting to improve mental health center staff productivity. Journal of Organiza-
tional Behavior Management, 9, 35-58.
Crowell, C. R., Anderson, D. C., Abel, D. M., & Sergio, J. P. (1988). Task clarifica-
tion, performance feedback and social praise: Procedures for improving the cus-
tomer service of bank tellers. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 21, 65-71.
Daniels, A. C. (1994). Bringing out the best in people. New York: McGraw-Hill.
DeVries, J. E., Burnette, M., & Redmon, W. K. (1991). AIDS prevention: Improving
nurses’ compliance with glove wearing through performance feedback. Journal of
Applied Behavior Analysis, 24, 705-711.
Doerr, K. H., Mitchell, T. R., Klastorin, T. D., & Brown, K. A. (1996). Impact of
material flow policies and goals on job outcomes. Journal of Applied Psychology,
81, 142-152.
Duncan, P. K., & Bruweldeide, L. R. (1985). Feedback: Use and possible behavioral
functions. Journal of Organizational Behavior Management, 7, 91-113.
Ford, J. E. (1980). A classification system for feedback procedures. Journal of
Organizational Behavior Management, 2, 183-191.
Fox, C. J., & Sulzer-Azaroff, B. (1989). The effectiveness of two different sources of
feedback on staff teaching of fire evacuation skills. Journal of Organizational
Behavior Management, 10, 19-35.
 Review and Discussion Article 27

Gaetani, J. J., Hoxeng, D. D., & Austin, J. T. (1985). Engineering compensation

systems: Effects of commissioned versus wage payment. Journal of Organiza-
tional Behavior Management, 7, 51-63.
Godbey, C. L., & White, A. G. (1992). Increasing the accuracy of computerized
summaries of court case activity. Journal of Organizational Behavior Manage-
ment, 13, 113-127.
Goltz, S. M., Citera, M., Jensen, M., Favero, J., & Komaki, J. L. (1989). Individual
feedback: Does it enhance effects of group feedback. Journal of Organizational
Behavior Management, 10, 77-92.
Hawkins, A. M., Burgio, L. D., Lanford, A., & Engel, B. T. (1992). The effects of
verbal and written supervisory feedback on staff compliance with assigned
prompted voiding in a nursing home. Journal of Organizational Behavior Man-
agement, 13, 137-150.
Henry, G. O., & Redmon, W. K. (1990). The effects of performance feedback on the
implementation of a statistical process (SPC) program. Journal of Organizational
Behavior Management, 11, 23-46.
Houmanfour, R., & Hayes, L. J. (1998). Effects of feedback on task completion, time
distribution, and time allocation of graduate students. Journal of Organizational
Behavior Management, 18, 69-91.
Johnson, C. M. (1985). Customer feedback to the main office: Selling newspapers
plot, stock, and bare shelf. Journal of Organizational Behavior Management, 7,
37-49.
Johnson, C. M., & Masotti, R. M. (1990). Suggestive selling by wait staff in family-
style restaurants: An experiment and multisetting observations. Journal of Orga-
nizational Behavior Management, 11, 35-54.
Jones, H. H., Morris, E. K., & Barnard, J. D. (1985). Increasing staff completion of
civil commitment forms through instructions and graphed performance feedback.
Journal of Organizational Behavior Management, 7, 29-43.
Karan, B. S., & Kopelman, R. E. (1986). The effects of objective feedback on
vehicular and industrial accidents: A field experiment using outcome feedback.
Journal of Organizational Behavior Management, 8, 45-56.
Komaki, J., Barwick, D., & Scott, L. R. (1978). A behavioral approach to occupa-
tional safety: Pinpointing and reinforcing sale performance in a food manufactur-
ing plant. Journal of Applied Psychology, 4, 434-445.
Kortick, S. A., & O’Brien, R. M. (1996). The world series of quality control: A case
study in the package delivery industry. Journal of Organizational Behavior Man-
agement, 16, 77-93.
LaFleur, T., & Hyten, C. (1995). Improving the quality of hotel banquet staff perfor-
mance. Journal of Organizational Behavior Management, 15, 69-93.
LaMere, J. M., Dickinson, A. M., Henry, M., Henry, G., & Poling, A. (1996). Effects
of a multi-component monetary incentive program on the performance of truck
drivers: A longitudinal study. Behavior Modification, 20, 385-406.
Langeland, K. L., Johnson, M. C., & Mawhinney, T. C. (1998). Improving staff
performance in a community mental health setting: Job analysis, training. Journal
of Organizational Behavior Management, 18, 21-43.
28 JOURNAL OF ORGANIZATIONAL BEHAVIOR MANAGEMENT

Meyer, J. P., & Gellatly, I. R. (1988). Perceived performance norm as a mediator in

the effect of assigned goal on personal goal and task performance. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 73, 410-420.
Nolan, T., Jarema, K., & Austin, J. (1999). An objective review of Journal of Organi-
zational Behavior Management: 1986-1997. Journal of Organizational Behavior
Management, 19, 83-114.
Nordstrom, R., Hall, R. V., Lorenzi, P., & Delquadri, J. (1988). Organizational behav-
ior modification in the public sector: Three field experiments. Journal of Organi-
zational Behavior Management, 9, 91-112.
Normand, M., Bucklin, B. R., & Austin, J. (1999). Analysis of behavioral mecha-
nisms in JOBM. Journal of Organizational Behavior Management, 19, 45-56.
Parsons, M. B., & Reid, D. H. (1995). Training residential supervisors to provide
feedback for maintaining staff teaching skills with people who have severe dis-
abilities. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 28, 317-322.
Parsons, M. B., Schepis, M. M., Reid, D. H., Mcann, J. E., & Green, C. W. (1987).
Expanding the impact of behavioral staff management: A large scale, long-term
application in schools serving handicapped students. Journal of Applied Behavior
Analysis, 20, 139-150.
Peterson, N. (1982). Feedback is not a new principle of behavior. The Behavior
Analyst, 5, 101-102.
Petty, M. M., Singleton, B., & Connell, D. W. (1992). An experimental evaluation of
an organization incentive plan in the electric utility industry. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 77, 427-436.
Poling, A., Dickinson, A. M., Austin, J., & Normand, M. (2000). Basic behavioral
research and organizational behavior management. In J. Austin & J. E. Carr
(Eds.), Handbook of applied behavior analysis (pp. 295-320). Reno: Context
Press.
Porterfield, J., Evans, G., & Blunden, R. (1985). Involving families and staff in
service improvement. Journal of Organizational Behavior Management, 7, 117-
133.
Pritchard, R. D., Jones, S. D., Roth, P. L., Stuebing, K. K., & Ekeberg, S. E. (1988).
Effects of group feedback, goal setting and incentives on organizational produc-
tivity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 73, 337-358.
Prue, D. M., & Fairbank, J. A. (1981). Performance feedback in organizational
behavior management: A review. Journal of Organizational Behavior Manage-
ment, 3, 1-16.
Ralis, M. T., & O’Brien, R. M. (1986). Prompts, goal setting, and feedback to increase
suggestive selling. Journal of Organizational Behavior Management, 8, 5-18.
Richman, G. S., Riordan, M. R., Reiss, M. L., Pyles, D. A., & Bailey, J. S. (1988).
The effects of self-monitoring and supervisor feedback on staff performance in a
residential setting. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 21, 401-409.
Rummler, G. A., & Brache, A. P. (1995). Improving performance: Managing the
white space on the organizational chart. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Siero, S., Boon M., Kok, G., & Siero, F. (1989). Modification of driving behavior in
a large transport organization: A field experiment. Journal of Applied Psychology,
74, 417-423.
 Review and Discussion Article 29

Sulzer-Azaroff, B. (1978). Behavioral ecology and accident prevention. Journal of

Organizational Behavior Management, 2, 11-44.
Sulzer-Azaroff, B., Loafman, B., Merante, R. J., & Hlavacek, A. C. (1990). Improv-
ing occupational safety in a large industrial plant: A systematic replication. Jour-
nal of Organizational Behavior Management, 11, 99-120.
Sulzer-Azaroff, B., & Mayer, G. R. (1991). Behavior analysis for lasting change.
Fort Worth, TX: Harcout Brace College.
Welsh, D. H., Luthans, F., & Sommer, S. M. (1993a). Organizational behavior modi-
fication goes to Russia: Replicating an experimental analysis across cultures and
tasks. Journal of Organizational Behavior Management, 13, 15-35.
Welsh, D. H., Luthans, F., & Sommer, S. M. (1993b). Managing Russian factory
workers: The impact of U.S. based behavioral and participative techniques. Acad-
emy of Management Journal, 36, 58-79.
Wilk, L. A., & Redmon, W. K. (1990). A daily-adjusted goal-setting and feedback
procedure for improving productivity in a university admissions department.
Journal of Organizational Behavior Management, 11, 55-75.
Wilk, L. A., & Redmon, W. K. (1998). The effects of feedback and goal setting on
productivity and satisfaction of university admissions staff. Journal of Organiza-
tional Behavior Management, 18, 45-68.
Wilson, C., Boni, N., & Hogg, A. (1997). The effectiveness of task clarification,
positive reinforcement, and corrective feedback in changing courtesy among
police staff. Journal of Organizational Behavior Management, 17, 65-99.
Wittkopp, C. J., Rowan, J. F., & Poling, A. (1990). Use of a feedback package to
reduce machine set-up time in a manufacturing setting. Journal of Organizational
Behavior Management, 11, 7-22.