2

Behavioral
Systems Analysis
JON E. KRAPFL

and

GLORIA GASPAROTTO

West Virginia University

This chapter is designed to explicate the general viewpoint from which

the Handbook of Organizational Behavior Management was written. The
overall purpose of this book is to bring the theory and perspective of
behavioral psychology to bear on the problems of managing behavior in
organizations. Before analyzing the various topics covered in this text
from a behavioral viewpoint, the viewpoint will be discussed in sufficient
detail to bring some continuity to chapters that follow.
Why should a behavioral point of vi ew be adopted for a volume of this
sort? One advantage is that this book seeks to be practical, objective, and
results oriented rather than abstract, conceptual, or concerned with ivory-
tower issues. Behavioral theory too is practical, objective, and results
oriented. It is not characterized by a great deal of abstract reasoning nor
by elaborate conceptual or theoretical structures. The behavioral per­
spective is an outgrowth of pragmatic philosophy, a decidedly American
philosophy that was as important to the development of American busi­
ness organization and productive capacity as to the development of a
theory of behavior associated with a rigorous experimental method and
careful scientific measurement and observation. As is the case with all
pragmatic points of view, behavior theory changes with the times. The
viewpoint is easily modified as data and scientific facts demand. More
hypothetical theories tend to be more complex and are not so easily mod­
ified.
21
 Behavioral Systems Analysis
22

Second, the viewpoint of this book is scientific, and behavior analysis

is a scientific theory. The principal feature of a scientific perspective is
that it demands more than folklore or commonly accepted beliefs as the
basic datum for the development of its position. Further, scientific view­
points may be counter-intuitive. That is to say, scientific viewpoints may
go beyond common sense in some specific and practical way. The theory
of behavior analysis is consistent with this scientific point of view. Be­
havior theory has come out of a natural science tradition and helped to
establish psychology as a scientific discipline.
Finally, the focus of this book is on people. Specifically, we are inter­
ested in the behavior of people in the organizational environment. Social
organizations do not exist in the natural environment; they are a product
of people's behavior. Whatever is done to develop, dissolve, or in any
way change an organization is always done by people. It is the behavior
of people that makes organizations change. Therefore, a theory of b ehavior
is an appropriate perspective from which we can analyze organizations.

WHAT IS BEHAVIORAL SYSTEMS ANALYSIS?

The topic of this chapter, behavioral systems analysis, is a perspective
shared by most of those contributing to this book. Behavioral systems
analysis comes from a synthesis of the fields of behavior analysis and
systems analysis. Certain features of each of these approaches have been
incorporated into the behavioral systems analysis perspective. Although
we will provide a more detailed and sophisticated definition of behavioral
systems analysis later, the reader might find it useful to have a working
definition while reading through the chapter. For now, we can define
behavioral systems analysis as the analysis of behavior that occurs in
complex and organized social environments. Certain characteristic fea­
tures of behavioral systems analysis constitute a common perspective
shared throughout the book. Among those features are the following.
First, there is a focal interest in behavior. As has been discussed pre­
viously, it is behavior that creates organizations, develops them, and changes
them. When we look at behavior we are looking at the force that moves
the organizational environment. Here, when we talk about behavior we
are talking about any activity of th e person. Ordinary common sense views
of b ehavior usually include such activities as talking, running, eating, and

111/1! a bebavio''al ™odel the focus is on behavior and not on phenomena

reactions ih.i per,„rInanc,

 What is Behavioral Systems Analysis 23

think good performance might be or on opinions about what might con­

stitute good performance. The behaviorist would argue that it is often
useful to collect such data, but that reports of attitudes should be analyzed
as behavior, themselves. Given the lack of d irect evidence to support the
existence of internal cognitive phenomena, the behaviorist's point of view
is that directly observable verbal responses are subject to control by the
external environment in the same manner as are overt nonverbal re­
sponses. Thus overt behavior is the focus of a behavioral systems per­
spective.
The second focus of be havioral systems analysts is on the environment.
Traditional concepts of e nvironment most often include the physical en­
vironment and little else. The behavioral systems analyst's definition of
environment is considerably more broad. To the behavioral systems an­
alyst, the environment includes any thing or event with which the be­
havior might come in contact. For the behaviorist, the term "environment"
includes not only such things as rocks, chairs, and buildings, temperature
and weather conditions, but also the genetic environment that may define
certain biological characteristics and capacities of the person, and influ­
ence the nature of i ts interaction with the external environment. Perhaps
more important, the term environment includes the social environment,
that is, the environment that consists of t he behavior of a ll other people
with whom an individual may come into contact. People, if not inherently
social, are certainly heavily influenced by the behavior of other people.
In fact the environment most often found to be of in terest and importance
in analyzing organizational performance is the environment that consists
of social relations.
The third principal interest of the behavioral systems analyst is in
functional analysis. Functional analysis means simply that we analyze a
behavioral phenomenon in terms of its function in influencing the envi­
ronment and in being influenced by that environment rather than in terms
of its structure. When we analyze structure we measure things in terms
of their physical characteristics, their height, their weight, their depth,
temperature, or velocity. When we analyze phenomena functionally, we
analyze them in terms of th eir effect or in terms of th eir relations to other
phenomena. In a sense, this can be considered the analysis of purpose.
Because we conduct analyses that are functional rather than structural,
we must look at phenomena as they interact with one another. We cannot
study phenomena in a static state or in a vacuum. For the behavioral
systems analyst, behavior cannot be studied independently of its con­
trolling environment. No assessment of e nvironment is possible without
a corresponding analysis of the behavior affected. When we conduct a
functional analysis, we look at the ongoing flow of behavior as it occurs
across time, and analyze it in terms of i ts relation to a changing environ­
ment. The effect that behavior has on the environment is to change it.
Furthermore, the effect that the environment has on behavior is to change
it. Behavior and environment are both phenomena in a continuous state
of change. As behavior and environment change, they interact. The lm-
 Behavioral Systems Analysis
24

portance of their interaction is that they affect one another. In a functional

analysis what we seek to understand is the relationship between changing
behavior and changing environments.
What a system perspective adds to a behavioral point of view is basically
an analysis of more complex behavior-environment relations. Behavioral
systems analysis is a blend of behavior analysis and systems analysis
perspectives in that the environment of interest for the behavioral systems
analyst is generally a complex environment. In this book the organiza­
tional environment is of principal concern, and the behavior of interest
is that which is controlled by that organizational environment. Further,
it is not one or two kinds of behavior in the organizational environment
that are of interest, but the behavior of many persons across relatively
long periods of time in that environment. The behavior of one person in
an organization serves as the controlling environment for the behavior of
another person in the organization. For example, the behavior of a su­
pervisor serves as part of the controlling environment for the behavior of
an employee, and vice versa. Thus, in the behavioral systems analysis
context, we study the behavior of many persons in a complex environment
and analyze how combinations of behavior interact to make an organi­
zation function, develop, or change.
Finally, we should say what behavioral systems analysis is not. It is
not behavior modification as applied to the individual case. Rather it is
an extension of that technology to modify the maintaining environment.
It is not thought control or mind control. It is not the study of the mind
or the self. It is not the study of attitude or opinion. It is the application
of a philosophical, theoretical, and technical body of knowledge to sys­
tems and organizational problems. Before further articulating this point
of view, it will be useful to review the fields of systems analysis and
behavior analysis in order to see what perspectives were merged into a
behavioral systems viewpoint.

BEHAVIOR ANALYSIS

The term "behavior analysis" refers to analytic and technological practii

based upon the psychological theory of behaviorism. Behaviorism is
natural scientific theory of behavior. Scientific approaches to other di
ciplines (e.g., physics, chemistry, and biology) have proved fruitful
understanding those subject matters. Behavioral theorists, most notab
B.F Skinner (1953), contend that studying human behavior within a m
ilar to ('IT ° /T™ W,1| pr0vide Us with levels of understanding sir
Bar to those of other natural sciences. Within this framework the behavi
organisms is seen as a subject matter amenable to empirical (scientifi

—-J.scxva.'siis;
k
 Behavioral Analysis 25

ioral theory. In addition, and of m ost relevance to this book, many of t he

principles derived from such basic research have been applied to every­
day, nonlaboratory settings, where they have been determined to hold
true.
The most general tenet of be havior analytic theory is that the frequency
of occurrence of behavior is a function of: (1) the consequences of past
occurrences of similar behavior, and (2) t he similarity of the prevailing
environment to that which exists when certain kinds of behavior were
followed by particular consequences. Thus each individual's current be­
havior patterns are a result of his or her unique history, in combination
with currently existing environmental conditions. In this way we are all
unique, as we have all experienced a lifetime of unique interactions with
our environment.
Certainly these propositions may seem to some as mere simplistic com­
mon sense. Behavior analysts, however, distinguish themselves from those
of other psychological persuasions in that they attempt to use the basic
tenet of behaviorism to analyze and extrapolate upon a far wider range
of psychological phenomena than would those others. For example, the
phenomena that cognitive psychologists call "thinking," "remembering,"
"attitude formation," or "feeling" are viewed by many behaviorists as
complex forms of behavior, the most important aspect of which are as
observable as any other type of behavior (see Skinner, 1969, for a detailed
analysis of these points).
Behavior analysts have found a certain model useful in depicting the
basic unit of a nalysis from a behavioral perspective. Figure 2-1 illustrates
the basic model.
The three-term contingency relationship illustrated in the model in­
cludes a response, or unit of behavior, with certain defined characteristics.
The nature of e vents immediately preceding and immmediately following
behavior (i.e., stimuli and consequences) determine whether there is a
high or low probability that behavior of t he same class will again occur.
In the presence of a particular set of environmental stimulus conditions-
antecedent stimuli—a response of certain topographical characteristics

(1) History

Stimulus (or Response Consequence

antecedent (or behavior) (or consequent
stimulus) stimulus)

(2) Current
environment
FIGURE 2-1. Essential components of the most basic unit of analysis-the contingency
relationship—from a behavioral perspective. ® is the response under analysis for purposes
of this illustration.
26 Behavioral Systems Analysis

may occur with increasing frequency over previous rates. We may then
say that the past consequences of an occurrence of that response when
stimulus conditions were present have been reinforcing consequences.
In contrast, if be havior occurs with decreasing frequencies in the presence
of a particular stimulus condition, we may say that past consequences
under similar conditions have been punishing consequences. It is im­
portant to note that we may not define a consequent stimulus condition
as a reinforcing or punishing one except in retrospect. It is also important,
for the sake of precise analysis, to understand that neither antecedent nor
consequent stimuli are static conditions but stimulus changes (Michael,
1975). For example, a certain consequent stimulus may on one occasion
contribute to future occurrence of the immediately preceding behavior
(i.e., a reinforcing consequence) and on another occasion result in fewer
occurrences of that behavior (i.e., a punishing consequence). What is es­
sential to know is the nature of historical conditions existing prior to the
consequent stimulus. For instance, a certain frequency of praise for an
accomplishment is likely to be reinforcing for staff performance if it rep­
resents an increasing frequency over past levels of praise. On the other
hand, the same frequency may be punishing if it represents a decrease
over past levels of praise. The precision with which a response is defined
should depend upon the precision of the analysis required. A fine-grained
breakdown of th e response class—a specified category of behaviors which
are topographically similar—contributes to a more precise identification
of the numerous controlling variables (i.e., stimuli and consequences)
involved. The various aspects of th e environment, or the controlling vari­
ables, which influence the response class of "managing" may best be
understood if managin g is broken down into its component response classes
(e.g., specifying staff performance, praising accomplishments).
For example, in any given organizational setting, the administration
may direct middle managers to specify staff performance as part of their
management duties. This direction, generally a verbal instruction, may
be considered an antecedent stimulus for the response class of s pecifying
staff performance Any type of ap proval by the administration for having
nlTf performa"ce'then- might be considered a consequent stim­
ulus lor that response class.
On the other hand, the stimuli and consequences for the manager's
praising of staff accomplishments may be very different from those that
are associated with specifying staff performance. For example the ante
cedent stimulus most frequently preceding the praising of staff accom­
plishments might come from the staff members themsplvpe Tk t «

iw-ss-*,he s,atf
b«r might ask "How did I doon the (TZS™Foir'- "T?"

attomplishmmls.'SC coZIm™ 1""""f'8 pmis"

soparato response classes (I.e., specify™ staff nerf aM'ySes tor lhe tw°

< nmplishmcnts) are dlusfra.ed Flgurel2. 7^

 Behavioral Analysis 27

(1) Specifying Staff Performance

S R C

Administrator issues Manager Administrator approves

directive to manager to formulates job d escription
formulate job descriptions job
descriptions

(2) Praising Staff Accomplishments

S R C

Staff Member: Manager: Staff Member:

"How did I d o "You did excellent "Thank you."
on this job work."
yesterday?

FIGURE 2 -2. Contingency analyses for two types of m anagerial behavior.

ysis of the variables controlling managing or any other grossly specified

response class are to be identified, that response class must be broken
down into finer-grained components if it is suspected that different stimuli
and consequences have been associated with different components of that
larger class of behavior.
To the extent that a class of b ehavior occurs in the presence of o ne set
of st imulus conditions and not in the presence of another set of di ssimilar
stimulus conditions, we may say that the process of stimulus discrimi­
nation has occurred. For example, an employee may be more diligent at
work in the presence of one manager than in the presence of another.
When a class of behavior occurs in the presence of s timulus conditions
under which that class of behavior has not previously been followed by
reinforcing consequences, we say that stimulus generalization has oc­
curred. For example, an employee may work diligently in the presence
of a new supervisor, even though the employee has had no previous
interactions with that supervisor. Generalization, therefore, is a lack of
discrimination. We might say that the employee assumes that he or she
will be treated in a similar way by both supervisors, even though the
employee has had no history of reinforcement in the presence of t he new
supervisor. The degree of discrimination or generalization of a class of
behavior has been shown to be dependent upon the similarity of o ne set
of antecedent stimulus conditions to those conditions existing when be­
havior has been followed by reinforcing consequences. In the above ex­
ample, generalization may have occurred because the employee has been
reinforced in the past for diligent work in the presence of those individuals
introduced as supervisors. The same relationships hold for punishing
consequences. That is, the greater the similarity of current antecedent
stimulus conditions to those under which a particular behavior was pre-
 28 Behavioral Systems Analysis

viously punished, the less likely that behavior will occur under present
conditions. The following is a list of definitions for some of the basic
concepts of behavior analysis:

Term Definition

Response (or behavior) Any action of any living organism.

Antecedent stimulus
(or stimulus)
Consequent stimulus
(or consequence)
Reinforcing consequences
Punishing consequence
Stimulus discrimination
(or d iscrimination)
Stimulus generalization
(or generalization)
Any set of changes in the environment (in­
ternal or external to the organism) that im­
mediately precedes a given response.
Any set of changes in the environment (in­
ternal or external to the organism) that im­
mediately follow a given response.
Any consequent stimulus that increases
the future probability of occurrence of a
response that it has immediately followed.
Any consequent stimulus that decreases
the future probability of occurrence of a
response which it has immediately fol­
lowed.
The phenomenon of a class of responses
occurring in the presence of one set of
stimuli and not in the presence of another
set of dissimilar stimuli.
The phenomenon of a class of responses
occurring in the presence of a set of stimuli
under which that class of responses has
not previously been reinforced.

The basic unit of analysis—the contingency relationship—illustrates

the functional nature of a behavioral analysis. That is, behavior is dis­
cussed not only in terms of its topographical features (its physical struc­
ture) but also in terms of its history, i.e., its relationship to past and present
antecedent and consequent stimulus conditions associated with behavior.
All events can be defined in terms of their structure and function. For
example, a truck can be described structurally as a vehicle with four or
more wheels, a steering wheel, motor, and bed for putting things in Func-
another. " ' " " VehiC'e """""S f

Behavior is defined topographically in terms of what it looks like in<u

Livt rt„~VeTudefitr,' ,rtor -

— *-
s d
ne

1
 Systems Analysis 29

particular behavior developed, insofar as we must define a behavior ac­

cording to its structure before we are able to determine specific conditions
under which responses of that structure occur. In a functional analysis,
the important question is not what behavior occurs at any given moment,
but how it came to occur. If the eventual objective of a psychological
analysis is to modify behavior, we must understand something about how
that behavior came about in the first place. The importance of a functional
analysis is that the relationship between a class of behavior and its an­
tecedent and consequent stimulus conditions, or controlling variables,
may then be modified in order to produce desirable changes in the fre­
quency of behavior.

SYSTEMS ANALYSIS
Systems analysis is a term that has frequently been identified with military
and industrial operations research, which used such language to describe
their applied technology. The creation of RAND and similar nonprofit
corporations that study strategies and tactical problems of the military
was a result of the merger between computer technology and systems
theory. In his book The Systems Approach, Churchman (1968) pointed
out how scientists began to use something called a systems approach as
their perspective was forced to become more broad. Early attempts at
systems analysis were designed to allow for the most logical and coherent
decision making as it affected a wider and wider group. In time the military
began to see the advantages of the approach, and it was originally adopted
by the Department of Defense and later on by other departments of gov­
ernment and industry as well. The systems approach that was being adopted
was simply a way of t hinking about problems in terms of th e interdepen-
dency of parts and how they worked in concert to achieve an objective.
Although its origins were in biology, systems analysis has received most
of its emphasis from the field of engineering. The systems approach has
been extensively used to provide a way of t hinking about hardware sys­
tems such as missile systems, ship building, computer systems, and so
forth. Much less attention has been focused on the human components
of systems. More recently, organizations have become explicitly con­
cerned with the role of t he manager and executive in relation to the total
organizational structure and function. One consequence o t is greater
concern has been the overuse of the language and methods of hardware
systems in dealing with social problems. The use of traditional systems
terms in conceptualizing organizational problems involving human be­
havior helps perpetuate the belief that concepts from engineering wil
prove to be beneficial when applied to situations far beyon t eir origina
intended usage. To the behaviorist, systems language seems needlessly
obscure. Nevertheless, many of the concepts of systems have proven useful
in the development of behavioral systems analysis.
 30 Behavioral Systems Analysis

While the study of systems and the process of systems analysis make
important contributions to behavioral systems analysis, the systems ana -
ysis model is not altogether synchronous with a behavioral systems view­
point. Systems analysis will be reviewed here in order to illustrate the
similarity between systems analysis and behavior analysis and, further,
to reveal those features of systems analysis that have been incorporated
into a behavioral systems viewpoint.
To begin, two definitions are necessary. Separate definitions are re­
quired for "system" and for "systems analysis. System is a term with
a very broad definition. Webster (1977) defines it as "a regularly interacting
or interdependent group of items forming a unified whole. This broad
definition is then followed by specific definitions for a variety of systems.
For example, gravitational systems are defined as interacting bodies in­
fluenced by related forces and thermodynamic systems as assemblages of
substances that tend toward equilibrium. Perhaps the most important
definition offered for our purposes is that which defines systems as an
organization that forms a network to serve a common purpose.
"Systems analysis" is defined as the act, process, or profession of study­
ing an activity in order to define its goals and purposes and to discover
operations and procedures for accomplishing them most efficiently. The
critical terms are "network" and "purpose." If a social system consists of
a network or requires that something be organized, it clearly implies that
more than one person is involved. Thus a clear feature of systems analysis
is that it is an analysis that involves the behavior of more than one person.
Second, the notion of c ommon purpose or common objective means that
all persons involved in a network are to some extent under the control of
the same reinforcers, or put another way, after the same effects. An overly
simplified analysis could be troublesome here, and more on the issue of
common purpose will be discussed in the following section on behavioral
systems analysis.
There are additional concepts in systems thinking that will assist in
the understanding of a general systems perspective and in knowing how
systems function. A subunit within a system that has all the characteristics
of a system itself and could be analyzed as a system is called a subsystem.
Whether a unit is analyzed as a system or a subsystem depends on the
question raised. For example, if the purpose of our analysis is to determine
the efficiency of the operation of a manufacturing firm, a manufacturing
facility within the firm becomes a subsystem. However, if our focus is on
the improvement of the efficiency of a single manufacturing facility, that
plant would now be called a system. It can be seen, therefore, that defi­
nitions in systems are functional as they were in the earlier section on

1
 Systems Analysis 31

A related concept in systems analysis is the concept of the boundary.

A boundary is that specification of systems that distinguishes it from other
systems. When one crosses a boundary, one leaves the system in question
and enters another system. Sometimes the boundaries can be physically
defined. However, sometimes they defy physical definition, as would be
the case in the law enforcement system, e.g., a conglomerate of many
governmental agencies. A boundary is nothing more than a specification
of what constitutes a system and what does not constitute a system. The
boundary of a system is a matter of convenience. It is a specification that
defines the scope of an analysis.
Input is an additional concept to be considered in any systems analysis.
The inputs are all those factors that enter a system, such as dollars, people,
clients, and so on. The input consists of the resources that are somehow
acted upon or transformed into the output of a system.
Process is that element in a system that is responsible for changing
resources into output. For example, in a manufacturing system budget,
raw materials are converted into finished products.
The o u t p u t in a system is what the system produces. When the basic
resources entering a system in the form of input are processed or trans­
formed by the system, what emerges is output. In a manufacturing op­
eration. employees and machinery, facilities, and operating capital work
on raw material and transform it into widgets. The widgets are the systems
output.
Inputs and outputs always cross systems boundaries. The resources
used by the system, whether it be raw material in a manufacturing plant
or clients in a service oriented operation, cross the system's boundary and
enter as input into the system. Similarly, when the system processes a
client or transforms the raw material, the changed client or changed raw
material is sent out of the system into another system as output.
If we used only the concepts we have discussed so far in defining
systems operations, we would end up with static systems. But most sys
terns are not static systems; rather they are dynamic systems. Dynamic
systems are systems that operate on themselves to correct errors or o
increase efficiency. This self-corrective feature o systems is nown as
feedback. Feedback consists of information that indicates how well the
system or some specific subsystem is working. The feedback can come
from several sources. Feedback from the processing su sys em wi e
you something about the efficiency or perhaps even the cost efficiency o
the processing or transformation subsystem. Feedback from the output
subsystem provides information on the quality o t e ou pu or °
extent or quality of the objectives achieved by the system. If the feedba
indicates that the system or subsystem is perfo,nning .^propriatoty. it «
termed positive feedback. If the feedback indicates that the system is
error or that some change is necessary, it is calle nega lve ^
Feedback in turn is directed to the processing component and input
that necessary changes may be made to produce accep a e ou pu
 Behavioral Systems Analysis
32

Boundary

input »- Process Output

Feedback •

FIGURE 2-3. Basic systems model.

Figure 2-3 illustrates the basic systems model. The concepts of s ystems
boundaries, input, output, process, and feedback are incorporated, and
function as described above.
Another important feature of systems is permeability. Systems are often
described as open or closed systems. When we speak of a system as open
or closed, we are generally speaking of the ease with which the system
boundary can be crossed or the extent to which stimuli external to the
system, as defined by our boundary, control what is going on in a system.
A corporation that is part of a larger conglomerate is likely to be more
permeable in the sense that the conglomerate can control policies of the
corporation.

BEHAVIOR S YSTEMS ANALYSIS

Historically, behavior analysts have focused most of their research and
applications in a limited number of areas for some very practical reasons.
Basic research in the analysis of behavior has relied heavily on the avail­
ability of well-controlled laboratory settings. Nonhuman organisms have
been employed in order to limit the extent of control over behavior of
antecedent and consequent stimulus conditions other than those under
investigation. Behavior having topographically simple characteristics have
been the focus of a ttention (e.g., the keypeck of a pigeon or the level pull
of a human). Consequently, the generality of the effects of certain contin­
gency relationship—relationships between the individual and environ-
ment-to situations involving more complex responses would be uncer-
ta.n without explicit testing. The area of applied behavior analysis developed
m response to this need. cvciupeu
AppUed behavior analysis refers to the use of basic principles arising
earh wo l" ."h" ^ S°'Ve imPortant societal problems. While
to h i 3rCa Up°n Problems that would lend themselves
 Behavior Systems Analysis 33

principles are often combined to produce a "package" of procedures aimed

at solving the problem of concern. Referenced literature consists most
often of o ther applied behavior analytic research, rather than literature in
the experimental analysis of behavior. Thus the generality of principles
defined in the laboratory has already been shown in many applied settings.
Generality across different applied settings, determined by the importance
of a problem, is currently the main focus of applied behavior analysis.
There is an increasing rate of s hift from the laboratory to more complex
settings. In addition to generality being demonstrated, these settings are
also developing new and interesting technologies appropriate to the set­
ting under investigation.
An important advantage of the aforementioned shift in the field of
behavior analysis is that the demands for demonstrations of the utility of
basic principles are satisfied to a greater extent than before. The danger
of such an approach is that it is more difficult to retain a precise behavioral
perspective when dealing with complex contingency relationships. It is
easy for the behavior analyst in such a situation to be influenced by
nonbehavioral concepts that have developed from nonbehavioral ap­
proaches to the problems under investigation. For example, the terms
"prompt" and "feedback" to describe complex sets of antecedent and
consequent stimulus conditions may lead the behavior analyst to forego
a thorough analysis of the nature of those conditions. A prompt or feedback
in one setting may be distinctly dissimilar in terms of its functional re­
lationship with certain behavior from a prompt or feedback in other set­
tings. Developing a set of principles based upon the effect of prompts or
feedbacks, then, is likely to be a futile attempt. Rather an attempt to clearly
describe the functional components—antecedent and consequent stim­
uli—involved in prompts and feedback in each setting is required.
As the generality of a n umber of basic principles has been shown across
a great number of human settings, behavior analysts have come to involve
themselves in settings of greater social complexity. The solutions to prob­
lems in these settings require analyses of large numbers of contingency
relationships, as the behavioral units to be modified are numerous. In
complex organizational systems, the danger of shifting away from a be­
havioral approach is greater than in more well-controlled settings. Never­
theless, the importance of the problems to be solved merits attention by
behavior analysts.
The term "behavioral systems analysis" has come to refer to the practice
of i dentifying relationships among complex sets of s ocial contingencies.
The traditional systems approach has been directed toward this very task.
The uniqueness of a behavioral systems approach, however, lies in the
emphasis upon an analysis of individuals in identifying variables that
control organizational behavior. A behavioral systems analysis perspec­
tive focuses upon an analysis of how the behavior of individuals combines
to form a social organization. A melding of the two approaches is the
objective in behavioral systems analysis.
 Behavioral Systems Analysis
34

Process Output
Input >
A. Systems model cc
<
a
z
D
o
Feedback-

B. Behavior analysis -*• Output-

model (1) product of
(R2) a r esponse
*
i
i
i
(Sj)

FIGURE 2-4. One interpretation of the correspondence between the systems model and
the basic model of behavior analysis. The basic behavior analytic model has been supple­
mented to better illustrate its relationship to a systems model.

Figure 2-4 illustrates the correspondence between the behavior analysis

and systems models for the purpose of i llustrating the functional nature
of both approaches. By functional, again we mean the viewpoint that
neither systems processing nor the behavior of an individual may be
thoroughly studied without considering the relationships to those events
by wh ich they are affected.
In this comparison, antecedent stimulus condition may be compared
with the inputs of a sys tem. The processing of inputs may best be related
to those responses of an individual that are followed by a change in
antecedent conditions from prevailing conditions. The consequences of
behavior may be related to feedback in a systems model.
u"u' 0U*PU' 'n a systems model can be compared with the prod­

uct o e avior, or the changes in the environment that occur when some
e avior is acted out. While the product of behavior is not included as a
separate component of t he behavior analysis model, it is implied in the
cotnnnnpiit"Sf f ertam consequences may be seen as an important

follow thp pm' •

3 UnC f10na analysis to the extent that they consistently
if a Dartimlarr 81011 ° 3 response' ^ a Particular consequence occurs only
tingent uDon t hpT°nSe 1S we saY that the consequence is con-

not in response to bpha °k .

10n 3 r esponse - Contingent consequences occur
that occur when hph V1 °'
r Ut m response to the environmental changes
occur when behavior is acted out. We might say therefore that con-
 Behavior Systems Analysis 35

tingent consequences are those that occur only when a certain response
occurs.
There are two main differences between a systems model and the model
of behavior analysis currently in use, i.e., S *R > C. First, the
behavior analytic model does not include a loop to illustrate the point
that consequent stimuli themselves serve as antecedent stimuli for future
behavior. The consequences of on e response may be considered as inputs
for a second response. This loop is included in Figure 2-4 to indicate the
point at which it would occur if made explicit by the model. This function
is considered implicit by most behavior analysts, and is a minor difference
between the two models.
A second and very important difference between models is illustrated
by the fact that a direct link between feedback and input included in the
systems model is absent in the behavior analytic model. From a behavioral
standpoint, this aspect of th e systems model is inappropriate for an anal­
ysis of individual behavior. No change in input as a function of fe edback
may exist without an additional response on the part of an individual.
For example, changes in raw material to be processed must be made only
by a response on the part of a supervisor. Thus an additional behavioral
contingency analysis would be required to determine why the supervisor
alters the systems input. As can be seen, the behavior analysis model is
a more refined model, which specifies what must be done with people to
change the system. In this sense the system model and the behavior anal­
ysis model may be viewed as dealing with different dimensions of o rga­
nizational functioning. While the systems model deals with an analysis
of t he overall functioning of an organization, the behavior analysis model
focuses on the behavior of individuals within each component of the
systems model. Many individual contingencies (the components of a be­
havior analysis model) may exist within each component of the systems
model. A behavioral systems perspective holds that both levels of analysis
are necessary, and in fact complementary.
In a behavioral systems analysis, the response class of co ncern is com­
plex and involves the behavior of more than one individual. While each
component behavior of the response class may be independently analyzed,
it is often functional to take a more molar view at first. For example, the
analyst might first ask whether there exists any reinforcing consequences
for good managerial behavior in general, before engaging in an ana ysis
of fi ne-grained components of managerial behavior. In order to determine
which individual behaviors to facilitate, the analyst must determine whether
conditions in the larger social system will maintain such behavior. For
example, it is probably useless to train managers to identify poor staff
performance if administrators will refuse to support managers in reme­
dying that performance (e.g., reprimanding a poor performer).
From a behavioral systems perspective, it is critical to identify the
general objective toward which all members of a social system are likely
 Behavioral Systems Analysis
36

to be working. That is. the common reinforcers or common purpose must

be determined. If a n organizational environment can be structured
to increase the personal benefits to each organizational member for work­
ing toward the common purpose of the organization, then that organization
will be a stable, self-corrective one. Certainly the common purpose itse
may be modifiable if more individual reinforcers are available under the
new system than were available under the old system. A profit-sharing
program, for example, may bring in line some of the personal goals o
each worker (i.e., to earn a living) with the formal objective of the orga­
nization (i.e., to make money by producing a product).
Some traditional analytic concepts of social interaction (e.g., cooper­
ation and competition) may be useful in developing the behavioral systems
analysis perspective if viewed from a behavior analytic rather than cog­
nitive framework. We might view cooperative behavior, for example, as
behavior that must be explicitly reinforced rather than behavior occuring
as a result of "attitude" changes or innate tendencies alone. Likewise
some traditional practices in the area of organizational management may
be useful if analyzed from a behavioral and functional approach (e.g.,
planning, decision making, development of information systems, policy
making). Planning may be analyzed in a manner similar to a behavior
analytic view of self-control. According to this analysis, planning involves
structuring the current environment so that certain responses to future
situations will likely occur. In planning, certain objectives are specified
so that future behavior will be emitted in response to those objectives
rather than only to stimulus conditions that would provoke actions having
more short-term reinforcing consequences. A behavioral perspective then
implies that much control over organizational behavior is in the hands of
the manager and administrator. Successful systems intervention may thus
be achieved in areas in which other analytic approaches have not been
so successful.
Conclusion
This chapter is an attempt to illustrate the benefits of an integration of a
traditional behavior analysis perspective with a traditional systems anal­
ysis approach. It is hoped that both those with backgrounds in behavior
analysis and systems analysis will benefit from exposure to additional,
not alternative, viewpoints. For the behavior analyst, it is hoped that the
main benefit will be a concern with analyses of t hose environments main­
taining behavioral changes that are a product of direct intervention. Unless
the larger system is considered, those changes may be short-lived, and
the benefits of a behavioral approach will not be seen. For the systems
analyst, the adoption of an empirical and functional approach to analyzing
human porformance may lead to more productive techniques at the sys
ems level. The behavior analytic point of view certainly conflicts with
long held assumptions regarding the nature of human behavior in that it
emphasizes the role of an individual's history of interaction with Ae
 References 37

environment. Given the past successes of this perspective, however, it

seems worthwhile to consider its application to problems of complex
human interaction.

SUMMARY
The present chapter suggests that a behavioral systems analysis perspec­
tive is appropriate for analyzing and modifying organizational manage­
ment practices. As behavioral systems analysis is an integration of be­
havioral theory and systems theory, the main concepts of each of these
theories first is described. Second, those concepts borrowed from each
theory to comprise a behavioral systems analysis perspective are identi-

^In behavioral theory, a focus on the observable behavior of i ndividuals

is emphasized, in contrast to a focus on attitudes and feelings and other
unobservable states of mind as the important topics of analysis. With a
focus on observable behavior, the effects of i ntervention techniques may
be assessed within a scientific framework. Manipulate events (the an­
tecedents and consequences of behavior) are seen as the most importan
variables affecting the occurrence of b ehavior in various situations. T us
behavioral theory is a theory about the individual.
Systems theory is based on the proposition that no system or organi­
zation can be successfully analyzed without also analyzing the in enaction
of it s subsystems. The way in which an input su sys em ® ,
cessing subsystem is an example of such an analysis. Systems theory then
is a theory about organizations. tlioir
The functional nature of both behavioral and systems theories is th
most common element. A functional approac is one m w . .
havior of individuals or the processing system WLtl'inorgaization
analyzed in terms of its relationship to other events with which behavior
or processing systems come into contact. iTiHiwiHnal
Behavioral systems analysis borrows the emphasis orhe
from behavioral theory, and the emphasis on organiza .
theory. The setting in which a behavioral systems P*""
priate is in organizations that are complex because many indvrduals are
involved, rather than one in which primari y me analyzed
involved. Social or behavioral 3 ™3.3lLions of ind ividuals affect
pt
without considering the manner in which collections or
and are affected by other individuals within an organizatmncThn beta
of interest is observable, and so
havior within social systems are borrowed from behavioral theory.

REFERENCES

CJ-d—. c. wen. rh, .yst.™ Ssr«;

38 Behavioral Systems Analysis

Skinner, B.F. About behaviorism. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1974. Webster's new collegiate
dictionary. Spring/ield, MA; G. tr C. Merriam Co., 1977.
Skinner, B.F. Contingencies of reinforcement: A theoretical analysis. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Prentice-Hall, 1969.
Skinner, B.F. Science and human behavior. New York: Macmillan, 1953.
Skinner, B.F. V erbal behavior. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1957.