This article was downloaded by: [Clemson University]On: 25 September 2013, At: 20:51Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Journal of Organizational BehaviorManagementPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/worg20

Psychological Approaches to Valuesin Organizations and OrganizationalBehavior ManagementScott A. Herbst a & Ramona Houmanfar aa University of Nevada, Reno, Reno, Nevada, USAPublished online: 06 Feb 2009.

To cite this article: Scott A. Herbst & Ramona Houmanfar (2009) Psychological Approaches to Valuesin Organizations and Organizational Behavior Management, Journal of Organizational BehaviorManagement, 29:1, 47-68, DOI: 10.1080/01608060802714210

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01608060802714210

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever orhowsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arisingout of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

47

Journal of Organizational Behavior Management, 29:47–68, 2009Copyright © Taylor & Francis Group, LLC ISSN: 0160-8061 print/1540-8604 onlineDOI: 10.1080/01608060802714210

WORG0160-80611540-8604Journal of Organizational Behavior Management, Vol. 29, No. 1, Jan 2009: pp. 0–0Journal of Organizational Behavior Management

Psychological Approaches to Values in Organizations and Organizational

Behavior Management

Values in OrganizationS. A. Herbst and R. Houmanfar

SCOTT A. HERBST and RAMONA HOUMANFARUniversity of Nevada, Reno, Reno, Nevada, USA

Researchers studying individual and organizational value con-gruence are concerned with the degree to which the values of theemployee and the organization for which he or she works agreeand the affective outcomes that more or less agreement might pre-dict. While a robust area of research, the applications followingfrom it are somewhat limited. This paper reviews the concepts andresearch findings concerning value congruence, discusses variousbehavioral interpretations of the values construct, applies thoseinterpretations to the organizational level, and offers recommen-dations for how these interpretations might point to more success-ful organizational change initiatives.

KEYWORDS values, organizational values, person-organizationcongruence, value alignment, radical behavioral view, RelationalFrame Theory

In recent years, Industrial/Organizational psychologists have shown agrowing interest in individual and organizational values and how the twomight be measured to predict behavioral measures of an individual in theorganization (see Hoffman & Woehr, 2006; Kristoff, 1996 for recentreviews). Despite the predictive utility of the theory (e.g., Chatman, 1989)and the research program it has given rise to, the contributions of behav-ior analysis to the study of values have been very limited. While behavioranalysts have provided various analyses of values and what people meanwhen they use the term “values” (e.g., Barnes-Holmes et al., 2001; Hayes,Strosahl, & Wilson, 1999; Skinner, 1990), there is a substantial gap

Address correspondence to Scott A. Herbst, Department of Psychology, Mail Stop 296,University of Nevada, Reno, Reno, NV 89557. E-mail: scottaherbst@yahoo.com

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Cle

mso

n U

nive

rsity

] at

20:

51 2

5 Se

ptem

ber

2013

48 S. A. Herbst and R. Houmanfar

between values concepts and empirical research from a behavior-analyticperspective.

Given recent concerns about the impact of behavior analysis rela-tive to other psychological perspectives in organizational settings (seeCrowell & Anderson, 2004; Geller, 2002; Hayes, 2004) and the signifi-cance of values in the design of business strategy (Denison, 1990;Harshman & Harshman, 1999; Ulrich & LaFasto, 1995), a behavior-analytic interpretation of the concept and the function it may serve inorganizational settings seem warranted. Although a discussion of“values” may lack appeal for a group of scientists as theoretically andmethodologically systematic as behavior analysts, in conductingapplied work, an understanding of what is meant when one says “val-ues” is important. Not only will such an understanding allow for moreeffective communication between practitioner and client, but it willalso allow for the design of organizations that demonstrate values-based practices at all levels: from the consumer, to the environment,and to the employee.

The purpose of this paper is to distinguish different psychologicalaccounts of the concept of values and to discuss how those conceptsmight be used to suggest and shape organizational interventions. We willbegin by reviewing the available literature on individual and organiza-tional values. Following this review, we will move into a review of theresearch findings concerning organizational and individual value congru-ence and the implications of those findings. Next, we will summarizebehavior-analytic understandings of values at the individual level and dis-cuss how these interpretations might be extended to an understanding ofvalues at the organizational level. Further, within the framework of theradical behaviorist’s goals of prediction and influence, we will offer a prag-matic interpretation of value congruence that point to interventions thatmight increase congruence. Finally, we will discuss current approaches toorganizational change that are consistent with our interpretation of valuecongruence.

NON-BEHAVIOR-ANALYTIC VIEWS OF VALUES

As psychological subject-matter, values have been discussed andresearched extensively in psychological domains outside of behavioranalysis. In this literature, whether treating values at the individual ororganizational level, they are typically viewed either as processes thatdetermine the form that behavior will take or as external objects orevents toward which the individual is motivated. Our analysis willstart with a review of these views of values as they pertain to theindividual.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Cle

mso

n U

nive

rsity

] at

20:

51 2

5 Se

ptem

ber

2013

Values in Organization 49

Individual Values

In the literature, there are two ways in which values are broadly conceived.The first of these is to view values as objects in the world that people workfor or desire (Locke, 1976). As such, they are consequences for behavior.

A much more common way of understanding values is to considerthem as psychological events, usually described in terms of cognition.Rokeach (1979) viewed individual values as deriving from socially sharedconceptions of the desirable and, as such, serve as standards that peoplelearn to employ across situations in order to guide action. From this per-spective, individual values determine the stance that people will take onsocial issues, they serve as a guide to self-presentation, and allow one tocompare him or herself with others (Rokeach, 1979; Williams, 1979). Inessence, values are cognitive representations of personal needs and theappropriate means for satisfying them; they are central to and in the back-ground of all human behavior (Rokeach, 1979; Schwartz, 1990; Schwartz &Bilsky, 1987). As they represent basic needs that are common to all people, itis often assumed that there is an exhaustible, identifiable set of core valuescommon across cultures (Rokeach, 1979; Schwartz, 1990) and distinguishedat the individual level through the use of surveys (Rokeach, 1967).

In discussing how values influence behavior, there is general agree-ment that the effect of values is to influence the perceptions of events andreactions to them (Chatman, 1989; Jehn, Chadwick, & Thatcher, 1997). Fur-ther, values are considered to be relatively stable over time (Chatman, 1989)although some researchers have distinguished between core values, whichare stable over time and peripheral values, which vary situationally (Per-rewe & Hochwater, 2001). Further, values relate to self-control, as they ori-ent action to long-term consequences of behavior as opposed to what mightbe more immediately gratifying (Meglino & Ravlin, 1998). What is importantto note from this perspective is that because values are representative ofbasic needs, ultimately they are considered to be the cause of behavior.Table 1 summarizes individual accounts of values reviewed in this article.

TABLE 1 Reviewed Approaches to Individual Values

Orientation Definition of values Key sources

I/O Objects in the environment that people work for or desire

Locke, 1976

I/O Cognitions representing personal needs and the means for fulfilling them.

Chatman, 1989; Rokeach, 1979; Schwarts & Bilsky, 1987

Behavioral(Skinnerian)

Behaving with respect to contingenciesarranged by another person orinstitution (i.e., for the good of others)

Baum, 1994; Skinner, 1953

Behavioral (RFT)

Verbally construed, global, desired life-consequences

Hayes, Strohsal, & Wilson, 1998

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Cle

mso

n U

nive

rsity

] at

20:

51 2

5 Se

ptem

ber

2013

50 S. A. Herbst and R. Houmanfar

Organizational Values

According to Rokeach (1979), organizations and institutions form aroundclusters of values and become the mechanisms through which values aretransmitted and inculcated in society. The fact that different organizationsform around different sets of values accounts for variability across individualswith respect to the values to which they ascribe. The amount of involve-ment a person has with an institution, their perceptions of that institution,and the degree to which the institution accepts an individual will influencethe degree to which the person expresses the values around which the insti-tution is centered. Within this framework, changes in organizations overtime can be understood as a reflection in changes in the underlying valuesystems (Rokeach, 1979). Like individual values, organizational values areoften conceived of as stable over time; they are ways of relating and respond-ing to environmental events and are historically determined rather than aresponse to immediate environmental pressures (Collins & Porras, 1996).

Voss, Cable, and Voss (2000) discussed the effects of organizationalvalues on decision making as paralleling the effects of individual valuesdiscussed above (Chatman, 1989; Jehn et al, 1997). From their perspective,organizational values determine responses to markets, attitudes towardconsumers, and through these processes determine strategic direction.Schein (1985, pp. 16–25) supported this assertion in arguing that organiza-tional values influence responses to market events and that values that aresuccessful for the organization will be adopted by individuals therein.

Weiner (1988) took the approach that an organizational values systemis constituted of the values of its members. According to this perspective,the organization’s values are reflective of values that are shared acrossmembers and may include a more restrictive range of values than are seenin any of its individual members. Further, while some values may be articu-lated by leaders (which he terms charismatic values), those that are likely tobe adopted by the group members and internalized are those that havebeen expressed in the company’s practices over time (traditional values).Similarly, Williams (2002) defined organizational values as “collective beliefsabout what the entire enterprise stands for, takes pride in, and holds ofintrinsic worth” (p. 212). Consequently, values have not been recognized asrelating to material worth although they do direct and determine the activitiesthat will ultimately produce it. Table 2 summarizes different accounts oforganizational values reviewed in this article.

Organization/Individual Value Congruence

If the goal of a science of behavior is ultimately to predict and influencebehavior, distinguishing the term “values” is of little use if it cannot be usedtoward that end. This section of the paper will review research that has

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Cle

mso

n U

nive

rsity

] at

20:

51 2

5 Se

ptem

ber

2013

Values in Organization 51

been conducted in the area of values as it relates to organizations. Most ofthis research has focused on the degree to which a person’s and an organi-zation’s values agree (value congruence) and the various outcomes that canbe anticipated when there is more or less congruence between the two.

One important distinction in this research differentiates between sub-jective and objective measures of person/organization value congruence(Verqueer, Beehrs, & Wagner, 2003). Subjective measures of value congru-ence involve asking the employee how closely his or her values match theorganization’s while objective measures involve assessing the values of theemployee and the values of his or her supervisors or coworkers as a measureof organizational values.

Measured objectively, greater degrees of congruence have been shownto correlate with job satisfaction (Meglino, Ravlin, & Adkins, 1989; Posner,1992; Verplanken, 2004), reduced turnover (O’Reilly, Chatman, & Caldwell,1991), supervisor evaluation of work performance (Adkins, Ravlin, & Meglino,1996). Additionally, Jehn et al. (1997) found that when work groups werecomposed of people with similar values there was less conflict comparedwith groups composed of individuals with dissimilar values. Chatman andBarsade (1995) found that graduate students who tested high for collectivistvalues tended to cooperate more than individualistic counterparts whenplaced in a cooperative organization.

Subjective measures of congruence, where an employee rates the degreeto which he or she feels his or her values correspond to those of the organi-zation have yielded similar correlations. Again, greater degrees of congruencehave been correlated with job satisfaction (Box, Odom, & Dunn, 1991;Koberg & Chusmir, 1987), organizational commitment (Harris & Mossholder,1996), and lower levels of turnover intention (O’Reilly & Chatman, 1986).

APPLYING THE FINDINGS OF VALUE CONGRUENCE RESEARCH

While the values construct and the assessments that have been derived fromit have shown some predictive utility, in applying these findings to mean-ingfully impact organizations, the abovementioned researchers have not

TABLE 2 Reviewed Approaches to Organizational Values

Orientation Definition of values Key sources

I/O Processes and policies that determine organizational response to market pressures.

Schein, 1985; Voss, Cable, & Voss, 2000

I/O The collective beliefs of the organization’s members.

Weiner, 1988; Williams, 2002

Behavioral The things an organization must to in order to survive and thrive.

Tosti, 2005

Behavioral A statement or rule that prescribes the form of personal interaction preferred by a culture

McSween, 1995

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Cle

mso

n U

nive

rsity

] at

20:

51 2

5 Se

ptem

ber

2013

52 S. A. Herbst and R. Houmanfar

gone further than to make recommendations as to how this construct mightbe applied. Researchers have suggested that employees with similar values tothe organizations may show greater flexibility across jobs (Bowen, Ledford, &Nathan, 1991; Kristoff, 1996) and mesh better with the organization (Bowenet al., 1991). Further, employers may wish to recruit employees who valueloyalty (Weiner, 1988), as these employees may be likely to produce resultsregardless of how their values fit with the organization’s.

Criticisms

One immediate criticism of these constructs and research is that in treatingvalues as the causes of behavior, the effects of environment and history areignored. In behavior analysis all causes must ultimately be outside thebehavioral system being analyzed (Hayes & Brownstein, 1986) and much ofthe above research puts the cause of affective outcomes inside the organism.In explaining values as a cause of behavior without appeal to the historicaland environmental context, one must first change a person’s values beforechanging behavior. This is problematic in that, as mentioned above, valuesare conceptualized to be relatively stable over time. From the behavioralperspective cognitions, though difficult to study, are behaviors as well andtherefore part of the science’s subject-matter. As such, they are to beexplained rather than pointed to as an explanation.

Leaving the behavioral approach, another immediate criticism is thatvalues, as conceptualized in the above literature review, are clearly not aneasily defined thing. Researchers have noted that they are sometimes under-stood as attitudes, the objects of motivation, measurable quantities, customs,traditions, and symbols (Connor & Becker, 1979). Indeed, critical examina-tion of the abovementioned literature reveals that values are sometimesconceived of as a representation of some idea that is internal to the individ-ual or collectivity (e.g., Rokeach, 1979; Williams, 1979), and at other timesviewed as objects in the environment (e.g., Locke, 1976; Williams, 1979).Periodically, they are characterized both as cognitions and objects in theenvironment by the same author (e.g., Williams, 1979).

Roe and Ester (1999) observed that research in value systems tends tofocus more on the values themselves as opposed to values and their rolewith respect to behavior theory. As such, what has come out of thisresearch—rather than being a coherent, unified way of understandingvalues and their relationship to behavior—is a miscellaneous collection oftaxonomical systems.

Finally, the practical implication of these approaches to values is limited.Even if we accept that the subject matter of psychology is behavior-behaviorrelations (which we do not), research correlating value statements with otheraffective outcomes leaves very little room for the development of effectivetechnologies that can influence people’s productivity, commitment, and

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Cle

mso

n U

nive

rsity

] at

20:

51 2

5 Se

ptem

ber

2013

Values in Organization 53

satisfaction. As the applications recommended above indicate, people wishingto apply these findings are left with modifying their hiring practices as the onlycourse for intervention. Given these criticisms, it may be useful to consider val-ues from a perspective that has not only prediction, but also control as a goal.

BEHAVIOR-ANALYTIC APPROACHES TO VALUES

In the field of behavior analysis, the subject of values has received scantattention. This section of the paper will review behavioral understandings ofvalues and valuing, with an emphasis on why values have received so littleattention from behavior analysts.

Skinnerian Views of Values

In discussing values, Skinner (1953, pp. 428–436; 1990, pp. 96–120) madeclear that the term “value” is not a technical term and any useful under-standing of what it means to “value” something is to be found in an appealto the underlying psychological processes. In other words, values or valuingis not a process, but a word we use to describe particular manifestations ofprocesses, and an understanding of values entails an understanding of thecircumstances in which the word is used.

Skinner (1990, p. 98–100) began his analysis of values with the obser-vation that, often when people talk of values they are making reference toway that people “feel” about things. In that regard, things are called good orbad relative to their reinforcing properties. Therefore, “to make a valuejudgment by calling something good or bad is to classify it in terms of itsreinforcing effects” (Skinner, 1990, p. 99).

Skinner acknowledged however, that when people refer to values theyare not usually referring simply to the reinforcing or punishing properties ofa stimulus. In other words, people are more regularly making value judg-ments when they use the terms “ought” or “should” (Skinner, 1953, p. 429;1990, p. 97). He argued that, while in lay language these typically implysome sort of valued outcome, they are easily understood in terms of thecontingencies of reinforcement. To say that one ought to do something issimply to say that there is a high probability of reinforcement for thatbehavior. Although the consequences for a statement such as “you ought totake your umbrella,” are much more readily identifiable than for the moreremote consequences inherent in what are typically considered value state-ments (e.g., “you ought to love your neighbor), Skinner (1953, p. 435)argued that we can extrapolate laboratory findings to enhance our under-standing of such usages.

Taking his analysis even further, Skinner asserted that we say a person“has values” when he or she is behaving for the good of others (Skinner,

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Cle

mso

n U

nive

rsity

] at

20:

51 2

5 Se

ptem

ber

2013

54 S. A. Herbst and R. Houmanfar

1990, p. 112). In using the phrase “for the good of others” he is not using“good” in the evaluative sense of the word. Instead, for Skinner, when oneis behaving for the good of others, he or she is behaving with respect tocontingencies arranged by others. Skinner stated that, in this case, the otherhas arranged contingencies so that the behavior of the individual behavingwith respect to those contingencies reinforces the contingency-arrangingbehavior of the individual or individuals (i.e., an institution or organization).From this point forward, when we use the phrase “for the good of others”this will be the sense in which we are using it as opposed the more tradi-tional, evaluative meaning one is likely to construe.

Baum (1994, p. 204) supported this conceptualization and extends onSkinner’s analysis. Baum pointed out that values are greater than a questionof what is reinforcing or punishing and more a question of social control.He used the example of sugar (Baum, 1994, p. 204). If we simply define avalue as a reinforcer, then sugar would be a human value. However,humans have identified variables that predict long-term survival and identi-fied practices to promote it. In any choice situation where one action willincrease the probability of long-term survival, the consequences (as theyrelate to survival) for that behavior may be remote. As such, the mainte-nance of survival-promoting behaviors requires some measure of socialcontrol and when behavior is maintained as such, the individual is said tobe demonstrating values or engaging in values-based behavior. The pointbeing made is that value-based behavior demonstrates some measure ofcontrol by social contingencies.

It is this use of the term “values” that we shall return to in our discussionof organizational values from a behavioral perspective. In the mean time, itshould be reiterated that, from Skinner’s perspective, the term “values” is anon-technical term, the use of which obscures an analysis of the actual con-trolling variables of behavior, namely, an individual’s history with respect tothe contingencies of reinforcement.

Relational Accounts of Values

A Relational Frame Theory (RFT) approach to verbal control leads to a verydifferent interpretation of values. While Skinner recognized (at least in oneof his definitions) values as social phenomena requiring the support of averbal community, his approach relied on a direct contingency analysis. Inhis analysis, terms such as “good” and “bad” are directly paired with reinforc-ing and punishing events by the verbal community which in turns arrangescontingencies for the control of behavior (Skinner, 1990, pp. 107–112). Assuch, “having values” involves verbal behavior as values-based behavior isreinforced through the mediation of other persons (Skinner, 1992, p. 14).

From an RFT perspective, values are also seen as involving verbal behav-ior (Barnes-Holmes, et al, 2001), but verbal behavior itself is understood

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Cle

mso

n U

nive

rsity

] at

20:

51 2

5 Se

ptem

ber

2013

Values in Organization 55

much differently. From an RFT perspective, verbal behavior involves arbi-trarily applicable relational responding (AARR) which is characterized bythree features: mutual entailment, combinatorial entailment, and transforma-tion of stimulus functions (Hayes, Bunting, Herbst, Bond, & Barnes-Holmes,2006). Mutual entailment simply means that if A is related with B in a particularway then B will be related with A with no additional training. For example,if one is trained that A is greater than B, mutual entailment is demonstratedwhen the relation B is less than A is made without further training.

A second feature of AARR is combinatorial entailment, which meansthat (in a given context) if a relation between A and B is trained and a rela-tion between B and C is trained, a relationship between A and C will bederived without additional training. Therefore, if in a particular context I amtrained that A is greater than B, and B is greater than C, combinatorialentailment is demonstrated when I derive that A is greater than C and C isless than A.

The third distinguishing feature of AARR is transformation of function,which means that the psychological functions of related stimuli will changein accordance with these relations. Therefore, if the relations A > B, and B > Care directly trained, and then C is paired as a conditioned stimulus (CS) withan electric shock, when A is presented an individual should show a strongerconditioned reaction than that elicited by the C stimulus, with no directtraining.

In this analysis, relational frames are specific classes of AARR (e.g.,greater than/less than, same, opposite) that show the properties of mutualand combinatorial entailment and the transformation of stimulus functions.Additionally, they are not due solely to formal properties or to direct train-ing with the stimuli involved, but to a history of such relational respondingand the presence of contextual cues that evokes this pattern of responding.There is empirical evidence to suggest that such responding forms thebasis of language (e.g., O’Hora, Barnes-Holmes, & Roche, 2004). Saidmore concretely, words (arbitrary stimuli) may enter into relations withnon-arbitrary features of the environment and, through these processes,elicit responses based on these relationships. Further, depending on thecontext in which they are used, words might function differently. Forexample, the sound “lemon” might function very differently when used inthe presence of hard-candy than when used in the presence of automobiles.Such forms of responding allow for pragmatic analyses of the environ-ment. When relational frames are applied to non-arbitrary features of theenvironment, “patterns of verbal behavior are sequenced to produce ver-bally conceived consequences” (Hayes, Gifford, & Townsend, 2001, p. 89).In other words, such responding allows for the verbal construction (i.e.,imagination) of a future under circumstances where one has no directlytrained history of responding. Further, by virtue of the transformation ofstimulus functions, construction of such consequences will alter the stimulus

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Cle

mso

n U

nive

rsity

] at

20:

51 2

5 Se

ptem

ber

2013

56 S. A. Herbst and R. Houmanfar

functions of objects and events in the present, thus influencing tendencies torespond (Barnes-Holmes et al., 2001).

Values, from this perspective, are verbal behavior. They are a particularway of responding to the present that transforms the psychological func-tions of objects and events. Based on a history of responding, an individualconstructs statements about the likely future consequences of behaviorbased on action in the present. These statements then transform the func-tion of stimuli in the present. As an example, one might value “peace” andimagine a future in which people are more helpful and less hurtful towardsone another. Then, having ascribed to this value, the probabilities of certainbehavior may be increased or decreased. For example, one might forgofood or refuse to retaliate when injured in the service of this value.

Further, values are distinguished from goals in that they have no end-point. While a goal might be to be to finish a project or get a promotion, acoordinate value might be stated as “achievement.” While one may finishthe project or get the promotion, one is never finished achieving. As such,values can be understood as “verbally construed, global, desired life-consequences” (Hayes, et al, 1999, p. 206). In this sense, values can beconsidered a type of rule-governed behavior that specify remote consequencesand the general behaviors that ultimately (the individual presumes) result incontact with those consequences. As such, they are contingency-specifyingstimuli. At one level, this analysis is no different than other analyses of rule-governed behavior that have been offered (e.g., Malott, 1992). What differ-entiates this analysis is that it illustrates the basic processes that account for“specification.”

Behavior Analysis and Organizational Values

While some OBM practitioners have discussed organizational values (Gilbert,1996, pp. 111–121; McSween, 1995, pp. 44–45; Tosti, 2003, 2004, 2005), thediscussion of what constitutes a value or valued direction is often very limited.Tosti (2005) simply stated that values describe the things an organizationmust “demonstrate as a company in order to survive and thrive (p. 6).”While this is consistent with Skinner’s discussion of values as reinforcers,ultimately this is a very small part of Skinner’s analysis and not what he con-cluded values to be.

McSween (1995) provided a slightly more detailed definition of a valuein labeling it as, “a statement or a rule that prescribes the form of personalinteraction preferred by a culture” (pp. 44–45). What distinguishes valuesfrom simple rules in this case is that they may denote abstractions such asbeing open and honest, personally responsible, or cooperative (McSween,1995, p. 45). The power of explicit value statements derive from their abilityto guide behavior in the absence of immediate reinforcement or competingcontingencies (i.e., an ethical dilemma; McSween, 1995, p. 46).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Cle

mso

n U

nive

rsity

] at

20:

51 2

5 Se

ptem

ber

2013

Values in Organization 57

Few other OBM researchers, however, have addressed the issue of valuesin organizations. For this reason, we will now look to detailed accountsoffered at the individual level to inform our discussion of organizational values.

Skinnerian values and organizational values. Skinner’s view of valuesis perhaps most in line with that offered by Locke (1976). At the mostprimary level, values for Skinner involve positive or negative reinforcement.This conceptualization of values is discussed in the behavioral literature interms of increasing quality and decreasing costs. In doing so, the reinforcingvalue of the product is increased and, as such, relates more to value realizedby the consumer as opposed to the employee (Tosti, 2004). It has nothingto say about organization/employee value congruence.

Considering Skinner’s analysis of values in terms of behaving for thegood of others, there is no parallel between his interpretation and thatoffered in the I/O literature reviewed here. This does not mean, however,that an interpretation of organizational values from a radical behaviorist’sperspective is not possible. If one considers that behaving with values isacting for the good of others with respect to contingencies arranged by theother, then an employee would demonstrate work values when he or shebehaves in such a way as to reinforce the behavior of the person or personsarranging the organizational contingencies.

Extending this to the level of the organization, one could say that anorganization demonstrates values when individuals are able to arrange con-tingencies such that they are rewarded for their behavior by the organization,likely through an incentive program. That is, when an individual is able tomanipulate the work environment and work processes such that the organi-zation reinforces that behavior, an organization could be said to have values.Granted, organizations, being composed of people, do not behave. How-ever, if they are designed such that employees’ behaviors associated witharranging processes in response to environmental events are reinforced,from a radical behaviorist perspective, they would be designed to demonstratevalues. The practical implications of this will be discussed in the followingsection.

RFT and organizational values. Considering values as a “verbally con-strued, global, desired life-consequences,” (Hayes, et al, 1999 p. 206) at onelevel there is no difference from an RFT account of values and thosereviewed in the I/O literature earlier in this paper. That is, whether oneascribes to the RFT or the I/O account of values, saying that one values “hon-esty” serves the same function in both interpretations. At another level,however, the RFT account of values specifies the processes that give rise tovalues, specifies how the environment interacts with these processes, and assuch points to possible interventions.

From an RFT perspective, the jump from considering values at the indi-vidual level to organizational level is a short one. From this perspective wewill conceptualize organizational values as principled statements formulated

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Cle

mso

n U

nive

rsity

] at

20:

51 2

5 Se

ptem

ber

2013

58 S. A. Herbst and R. Houmanfar

by organizational leaders that direct the formation of organizationalprocesses and the responses to environmental events. Functionally, this is nodifferent than many of the definitions of organizational values mentionedabove (Collins & Porras, 1996; Rokeach, 1979; Schein, 1985, p. 19; Voss,Cable, & Voss, 2000). While our understanding is not necessarily inconsis-tent with the view of organizational values as a collection of its members’values (e.g., Weiner, 1988) and does not comment on the specific functionsof organizations (e.g., Chatman, 1989; Kraimer, 1991), such a view can beuseful in developing organizational strategies and in directing the behaviorsof its members.

In summary, it should be noted that an understanding of organiza-tional values from an RFT perspective, at the level of definition, does notadd much to what has already been written. At the same time, this analy-sis does provide an understanding of how values function at a basic-process level. This is important because, in literature outside of behavioranalysis, the variables that influence valuing are not specified and, assuch, cannot be manipulated. As noted above, this limits the applicabilityof research findings in this area. Describing values in terms of the historyand situational variables that influence them should bring about the possi-bility for the development of interventions that could influence value con-gruence or point the way to realize outcomes typically associated withcongruence when congruence is low. This point will be taken up againbelow.

A further point to be made here is that, if valuing is to be understood interms of psychological processes, organizations do not have values per se.Rather, organizational values are statements developed by organizationalleaders. Ultimately, the purpose of these statements should be to alter thefunctions of and influence responses to events at all levels of the organiza-tion. At the leadership levels of the organization, they should influencestrategic decision making, and at the lower levels, they should inform workprocesses.

Structuring Organizational Interventions Through Behavioral Approaches to Values

As noted above, from a behavior-analytic perspective, one thing that theoryand research concerning organizational/individual value congruence leavesto be desired is applicability. While the research does have some things tosay about hiring practices, and as such has predictive utility, it does notpoint to manipulable environmental events that might allow one to increasevalue congruence or work more effectively in its absence. Prediction, forthe behavior analyst, is not enough. We desire influence, and much of theresearch concerning value congruence does not point to viable ways suchinfluence may be exerted. Given our behavior-analytic interpretations of

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Cle

mso

n U

nive

rsity

] at

20:

51 2

5 Se

ptem

ber

2013

Values in Organization 59

values, we will now move into a discussion of how these conceptualizationsmight be applied to align employee and organizational value systems, orwork within existing values structures to influence worker productivity andsatisfaction. Again, as an RFT conception of values is more closely aligned withthe I/O understanding of values discussed above, our analysis will start there.

APPLICATIONS OF RFT TO VALUES

From an RFT perspective, there may not be much that can be done to alignindividual values with organizational values. Although understood as verbalbehavior and therefore a product of environmental contingencies, by thetime an individual enters an organization as an employee, he or she likelyhas a well-developed value system that, if it is in conflict with organizationalvalues, may be unlikely or impractical to change. Therefore, other interven-tions targeting the processes underlying values formation may have moreutility than trying to change values per se.

One implication of RFT is that aversive experiences may be brought tobear in the absence of the stimuli that originally occasioned them (Hayes etal., 2006). Thoughts about an aversive event may trigger some of the sameresponses as the actual event and, given that such responding is arbitrarilyapplied, arbitrary features of the present environment may occasion suchresponding. As an example, take someone whose first boss used a lot ofaversive control. The word “boss” may then enter into a frame of coordination(i.e., equal to) with all sorts of aversive psychological functions. Anemployee who has learned to respond in such a way who then moves to anew manager who uses primarily positive reinforcement may bring this historyto bear on the current environment. If these functions maintain, thisemployee may relate to his or her employer’s actions as “manipulative” or“phony” and these relational responses may have implications for otherwork-related behaviors. The employee may avoid his or her boss and thepsychological functions of work-assignments may transform in accordancewith these relations, leading to a variety of avoidance behaviors.

From an RFT perspective, derived relational responding can often leadto psychological rigidity, or insensitivity to the contingencies of reinforce-ment prevailing in the natural environment. Acceptance and CommitmentTherapy (ACT – said as the word act) targets several key processes, the goalof which is psychological flexibility (Bond, Hayes, & Barnes-Holmes, 2006).Psychological flexibility is defined as contacting the present moment as aconscious human being, and, based on what that situation affords; acting inaccordance with one’s chosen values (Bond et al., 2006). One of these keyprocesses is values clarification, in which an individual identifies his or hercore values, which ultimately function as a gauge by which to measurebehavioral action (Stewart, Barnes-Holmes, Barnes-Holmes, Bond, & Hayes,2006). Through such processes, functions of the work environment may

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Cle

mso

n U

nive

rsity

] at

20:

51 2

5 Se

ptem

ber

2013

60 S. A. Herbst and R. Houmanfar

transform such that the employee, in engaging in work tasks, is in greatertouch with how those tasks are related with his or her values.

Although little research in organizational settings has been published,initial findings indicate ACT interventions are effective. Hayes et al. (2004)found an ACT intervention reduced burnout in substance abuse therapistsrelative to a control and multi-cultural training intervention group. Oneaspect of the ACT intervention was the use of a values-declaration exercise.Presumably, identifying ones values might alter the functions of job condi-tions or demands that an employee might experience as aversive. There arelimitations to these findings, however. To date, the effects of values clarifi-cation has not been studied in isolation and, therefore, it is impossible tosay to what degree such exercises influence results. Further, given the lackof published research in work environments, it is impossible to speculate asto the benefits an organization might realize from such interventions. Onepossible outcome of employees contacting their values is that they willdiscover their values do not align with the organizations. Given researchsuggesting that perceived congruence predicts job choice (Judge & Cable,1997), defection is a distinct possibility.

Additionally, given that from an RFT perspective it is not values, per se,that influence behavior but the processes that give rise to behavioral pat-terns we colloquially call values, other interventions become possible. Forexample, Clayton (1995) conducted an experiment that was designed tomodify employees’ beliefs about their work environment. RFT would predictthat extending already existing relational networks would be more effectivethan establishing competing networks. This is because, once established,verbal relations have shown resistance to extinction and durability over time(Wilson & Hayes, 1996). Therefore, establishing a competing network willnot necessarily reduce the transformative effect of verbal relations alreadyestablished in another. In fact, if the competing network (e.g., desiredattitudes) is being established by employers about whom the employeealready has a network of verbal relations, those established relations arelikely to transform the functions of those competing statements. Extendingdesired verbal relations into established ones therefore are predicted toincrease the likelihood of adoption.

To test this, two groups were targets and were both given an inspira-tional speech. In one case, only beliefs desired by management wereincluded in the speech (e.g., “It is important we pull together as a team”).In a second, desired beliefs were linked with existing undesirable beliefs(e.g., “We know things have been chaotic around here, but it is importantwe pull together . . .”). Testing indicated that attitudes of workers in the sec-ond group shifted more towards the attitudes desired by management thanthose in the first group (Clayton, 1995). Given these findings, one possibleapplication is to create alignment by identifying individual and organiza-tional values and training relations between those existing verbal networks.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Cle

mso

n U

nive

rsity

] at

20:

51 2

5 Se

ptem

ber

2013

Values in Organization 61

One other strategy that has been used by behavior analysts that is consis-tent with an RFT interpretation of values is the formulation of value statements.Making values statements explicit may alter the functions of work tasks andprocesses and therefore make certain behaviors more or less likely. Tosti(2003, 2005) wrote of the importance of specifying operational values andthen aligning them with all aspects of the organization: the company, thecustomer, and the employee. McSeween (1995, pp, 46–47) pointed out thatspecifying and discussing values with employees increases the likelihoodthey will act in accordance with them across situations and also serve as aguide for designing organizational safety processes. Again, while not dealingwith value congruence per se, the recommendation is that organizationalvalues should be used for the enhancement of employees’ performance andmeasures ought to be specified to ensure that this objective is being met.Gilbert (1996, pp. 111–121) made a similar recommendation in asserting thatcompetent performance outcomes begin with the philosophical foundationsof the organization (of which values are a part) and the associated values arealigned at the levels of policy, strategy, tactic, and so on.

One limitation of the above approaches, however, is that while they doaddress values, they do not address values at the individual level. Althoughthey attempt to identify how the work-outcomes of individual positionsrelate to the attainment of organizational values, the values of individualemployees are never taken into account. For example, Tosti’s (2003, 2005)approach does not account for how an aligned work environment willallow the individual to attain his or her values or bring those values intocloser congruence with the organization’s. Instead, he advocates for specifyinghow organizational values will be maintained through all organizationalprocesses.

APPLICATIONS OF VALUES FROM A SKINNERIAN PERSPECTIVE

As stated above, one might say that an organization demonstrates valueswhen the employee is able to arrange contingencies such that the organizationprovides reinforcement for the individual’s behavior within that organization.From Skinner’s view, under such an arrangement, the organization is thenworking for the good of the individual. It is important to note that the term“good” is not being used here in the evaluative sense but rather to describea situation in which a person arranges contingencies so that the behavior ofothers reinforces that behavior.

Thinking at the level of the macrosystem and the things that influenceorganizational success (costs of materials, consumer trends, etc.) it is hard toimagine how the average person could manipulate contingencies such thatthe organization worked for the good of him or her. Certainly this would bepossible for a few very powerful people; however, it is doubtful that anorganization that worked only for the good of a few very powerful people

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Cle

mso

n U

nive

rsity

] at

20:

51 2

5 Se

ptem

ber

2013

62 S. A. Herbst and R. Houmanfar

(e.g., Enron) would earn the tag “values based.” Instead, what it would takefor an organization to be considered to have values from a Skinnerianperspective, would be for the organization to be designed such that theindividual employee is given a high degree of control over how his or herjob is performed (and it should be noted, this control should be given at thelevel of how processes are designed, not what outcomes are expected), andthat manipulating the environment or job processes in such a way as toincrease organizational profitability resulted in higher pay for the employee.Abernathy (1996, pp. 25–37) asserted that most organizations are not struc-tured this way. More specifically, a majority of organizations pay theiremployees according to time worked rather than production outcomes. Insuch a system, while it may be within the employee’s capability to arrange amore efficient environment, without strategic design of incentives for doingso, the employee is less likely to arrange the system in ways that are beneficialto both the organization and the employee.

In answer to this problem, Abernathy (1996, 2000) has developed asystem which he refers to as profit-indexed performance pay (Abernathy,2000, pp. 38–39). In this system, the systems manager begins by specifyingmeasurable organizational outcomes at the highest level of the organization.From there, he or she works through the organizational chart and deter-mines measurable ways in which each position impacts those outcomes.For each measure, bases and goals are created and a relative weight isassigned to each measure. Compensation (typically in the form of bonuses)is awarded based on two things: scorecard performance and organizationalnet profit. Employees receive a portion of net profit based on their score-card performance. Therefore, there is incentive for the employee to takeactions that will increase net profit. Additionally, the employees are giventhe freedom to rework processes if it better serves the outcome, essentiallymanipulating organizational contingencies.

Such a system is consistent with Skinner’s notion of what it means tohave values. Within this system, organizational strategists arrange positivereinforcement contingencies that are likely to maintain employee behaviorfor the good of the organization and also allow the employee flexibility andcontrol over the work environment. Further, pay is not the only variablethat can be subject to manipulation. As pay is focused on results producedrather than time worked, employees may have the opportunity to work lesswhile earning more. Accordingly, there is no concern for whether the indi-vidual’s values are congruent with the organizational values in the sensethat each member would make similar statements about desired futurestates. However, it does create an environment in which the employee hasgreater freedom to pursue values that may not be related with their work-life. The opportunity to earn more money or maintain a more flexibleschedule may provide one with the time or resources to pursue other areasof interest. As such, the focus is more on what George and Jones (1996,

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Cle

mso

n U

nive

rsity

] at

20:

51 2

5 Se

ptem

ber

2013

Values in Organization 63

1997) term value attainment as apposed to value congruence. In that regard,what we are left with is an environment in which the collective called theorganization is free to respond to market pressures while its individualmembers behave for the good of it and the individual members are free todo their part to build an organization that works for the good of them. Inessence, the perspective promotes the establishment of an organizationwhere job satisfaction is a possible outcome for any worker, regardless ofthe historical influences he or she brings to bear.

One caveat of this approach is that it does not address the possibilitythat the values of the individual and organization (as conceptualized as rule-statements) will necessarily be in alignment. For example, someone whovalues environmental protection may end up working for an organizationthat is harmful to the environment. The interventions discussed here do notaddress instances where this may be the case.

CONCLUSION: RECONCILING SKINNERIAN AND RFT APPROACHES TO VALUES

What were offered in the previous sections were two behavioral interpretationsof values and their implications when carried to organizations. While neitherholds the term “values” to be a technical term, there are key differences.For Skinner, the term has social connotations and, from this perspective, wewould not say one demonstrated values independently of other individualsand the social institutions they have constructed. More importantly, valuesare ultimately understood in terms of directly trained operant conditioning.In a relational account, values entail particular types of relational responding,namely, responding with respect to temporal frames. Further, once this sortof responding has been established, it requires no socially arranged contin-gencies as is the case with Skinner’s definition. Theoretically, one could actin accordance with his or her values while stranded on a desert island.

At the level of application, however, the perspectives of Skinner andRFT can be seen as complementary. In adopting either application by itself,problems may arise. From an RFT perspective, relating is an operant thathas implications for the individual with respect to contacting direct-actingcontingencies in the environment. While value clarification may be an effectivemeans of bringing the individual into contact with these contingencies, thefact remains that relational processes are ultimately under environmentalcontrol and, while the verbal functions of environmental stimuli may betransformed by such interventions, the benefits of value clarification interven-tions conducted in an environment that does not support value attainment arenot likely to maintain.

As an example of the aforementioned point, one of the problemsAbernathy (1996, pp. 66–84) notes with conventional pay-for-time systems

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Cle

mso

n U

nive

rsity

] at

20:

51 2

5 Se

ptem

ber

2013

64 S. A. Herbst and R. Houmanfar

is that they promote management by exception. To clarify, when employeesare paid for time, they come to work prepared to do the minimal amount ofwork that will allow them to maintain the opportunity to provide their time.As this arrangement may not be in alignment with the survival needs of theorganization, managers are needed to make sure that the employees areengaged in tasks that will ensure organizational survival. Consequences arethen administered when employees are not meeting those expectations and,typically, they are punitive in nature. Under these contingencies, one wouldpredict the effects of values clarification would be short-lived, as the naturalenvironment is directly training the employee to relate management withpunishment, and it is highly likely the employee would extend this relationto other aspects of the organization. As such, it is important, when doinginterventions targeting verbal processes, that other environmental contin-gencies that will interact with such processes be considered as well.

On the other hand, designing an organization that encourages itsemployees to innovate is unlikely to reach its full potential if employees lackthe psychological flexibility to contact those contingencies. Given the pre-dominance of pay-for-time in American industry, it is likely that anyemployee entering into a pay-for-performance system has a long history withrespect to pay-for-time, and already has some firmly entrenched relationalnetworks established with respect to the work environment generally. As inthe example given above, under pay-for-time arrangements employees arelikely to relate to “management” as being in opposition to their own interestsand the stimulus functions of other work tasks are likely to transform basedon how the individual relates “management” with those tasks. Changing theenvironment to pay-for-performance may not have the desired effect if anindividual with such a history continues to respond in accordance with suchframes. As such, they may interfere with the ability of the individual torespond flexibly and efficiently to the contingencies operating in a pay-for-performance system. Interventions targeting verbal responding in the RFTsense may serve to attenuate the effects of such responding and leave theindividual free to contact the contingencies. Simply stated, given that we aredealing with verbal organisms, it is important to consider verbal processes,even when interventions are not targeting verbal processes per se.

In conclusion, values in organizations are an area of organizationalpsychology to which behavior analysts have a great deal to contribute.While typical I/O models of value congruence have demonstratedpredictive utility, applications developed from those models are limited inthat they assume values to operate independently of the immediate envi-ronment. As such, the only intervention available to the practitioner is toidentify individual and organizational values and place people accordinglybased on how well those values match. Although the literature suggestssuch a strategy would be effective, it may become problematic given anapplicant pool where very few people share the organization’s values.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Cle

mso

n U

nive

rsity

] at

20:

51 2

5 Se

ptem

ber

2013

Values in Organization 65

What we have offered are two alternative approaches to values based onthe behavioral tradition. Each approach suggests interventions that go beyondfront-end values assessment and job-placement. A Skinnerian account pointstowards pay-for-performance systems in which the employee is given thefreedom to structure his or her environment to maximize reward. A relationalaccount suggests a variety of interventions that might be adapted to organiza-tions from behavioral therapies such as ACT. Both focus on applying princi-ples such that any employee is able to be productive and fulfilled in theirwork experience. However, as noted above, each is not without its limita-tions. Therefore, it is our final recommendation that organizational behavioranalysts working in the field, when designing applications, note the limita-tions of each and intervene accordingly. Doing so requires that the direct con-tingencies of the workplace be managed such that employees are reinforcedfor behavior beneficial to the organization and that verbal processes that mayinterfere with the ability to experience these contingencies be considered andaddressed as well. A model of consultation that effectively addresses both willensure that employees are productive in their jobs and have the experience ofrealizing their personal and professional values.

REFERENCES

Abernathy, W. B. (1996). The sin of wages: Where the conventional pay system hasled us astray. Memphis, TN: Perfsys Press.

Abernathy, W. B. (2000). Managing without supervising: Creating an organization-wide performance system. Memphis, TN: PerfSys Press.

Adkins, C. L., Ravlin, E. C., & Meglino, B. M. (1996). Value congruence betweenco-workers and its relationship to work outcomes. Group and OrganizationManagement, 21, 439–460.

Barnes-Holmes, D., O’Hora, D., Roche, B., Hayes, S. C., Bissett, R. T., & Lyddy, F.(2001). Understanding and verbal regulation. In S. C. Hayes, D. Barnes-Holmes,& B. Roche (Eds.), Relational frame theory: A post-Skinnerian account ofhuman language and cognition (pp. 103–117). New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers.

Baum, W. M. (1994). Understanding behaviorism: Science, behavior, and culture.New York: Harper Collins College Publishers.

Bond, F. W., Hayes, S. C., & Barnes-Holmes, D. (2006). Psychological flexibility, ACT,and organizational behavior. Journal of Organizational Behavior Management,26(1–2), 25–54.

Bowen, D. E., Ledford, G. E., & Nathan, B. R. (1991). Hiring for the organization,not the job. Academy of Management Executive, 5(4), 35–51.

Box, W. R., Odom, R.Y., & Dunn, M. G. (1991). Organizational values and valuecongruency and their impact on satisfaction, commitment, and cohesion: Anempirical examination within the public sector. Public Personnel Management,20, 195–205.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Cle

mso

n U

nive

rsity

] at

20:

51 2

5 Se

ptem

ber

2013

66 S. A. Herbst and R. Houmanfar

Chatman, J. A. (1989). Improving interactional organizational research: A model ofperon-organization fit. Academy of Management Review, 14, 333–349.

Chatman, J. A., & Barsade, S. G. (1995). Personality, organizational culture, andcooperation: Evidence from a business simulation. Administrative ScienceQuarterly, 40, 423–443.

Clayton, T. M. (1995). Changing organizational culture through relational framing.Unpublished master’s thesis, University of Nevada, Reno.

Collins, J. C., & Porras, J. I. (1996). Building your company’s vision. Harvard BusinessReview, 74(5), 65–77.

Connor, P. E., & Becker, B. W. (1979). Values and the organization: Suggestionsfor research. In M. Rokeach (Ed.), Understanding human values (pp. 71–81).New York: The Free Press.

Crowell, C. R., & Anderson, D. C. (2004). On reinventing OBM: Comments regardingGeller’s proposals for change. Journal of Organizational Behavior Management,24(1–2), 27–53.

Denison, D. R. (1990). Corporate culture and organizational effectiveness. New York:Wiley.

Geller, E. S. (2002). Should organizational behavior management expand its content?Journal of Organizational Behavior Management, 22(2), 13–30.

George, J. M., & Jones, G. R. (1996) The experience of work and turnover intentions:Interactive effects of value attainment, job satisfaction and positive mood. Journalof Applied Psychology, 81, 318–325.

George, J. M., & Jones, G. R. (1997). Experiencing work: Values, attitudes, andmoods. Human Relations, 50, 393–416.

Gilbert, T. F. (1996). Human competence: Engineering worthy performance. SilverSpring, MD: The International Society for Performance Improvement.

Harris, S. G., & Mossholder, K. W. (1996). The affective implications of perceivedcongruence with cultural dimensions during organizational transformation.Journal of Management, 22, 527–547.

Harshman, E. F., & Harshman, C. L. (1999). Communicating with employees: Buildingon an ethical foundation. Journal of Business Ethics, 91(1), 3–19.

Hayes, S. C. (2004). Fleeing from the elephant: Language, cognition, and post-Skinnerian behavior analytic science. Journal of Organizational BehaviorManagement, 24(1–2), 155–173.

Hayes, S. C., Bissett, R., Roget, N., Padilla, M., Kohlenberg, B. S., Fisher, G.,Masuda, A., Pistorello, J., Rye, A. K., Berry, K., & Niccolls, R. (2004). Theimpact of acceptance and commitment training and multicultural training on thestigmatizing attitudes and professional burnout of substance abuse counselors.Behavior Therapy, 35, 821–835.

Hayes, S. C., & Brownstein, A. J. (1986). Mentalism, behavior-behavior relations and abehavior analytic view of the purposes of science. The Behavior Analyst, 9, 175–190.

Hayes, S. C., Bunting, K., Herbst, S., Bond, F. W., & Barnes-Holmes, D. (2006).Expanding the scope of organizational behavior management: Relational frametheory and the experimental analysis of complex human behavior. Journal ofOrganizational Behavior Management, 26(1–2), 1–23.

Hayes, S. C., Gifford, E. V., & Townsend, R. C. (2001). Thinking, problem-solving,and pragmatic verbal analysis. In S. C. Hayes, D. Barnes-Holmes, & B. Roche

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Cle

mso

n U

nive

rsity

] at

20:

51 2

5 Se

ptem

ber

2013

Values in Organization 67

(Eds.), Relational frame theory: A post-Skinnerian account of human languageand cognition (pp. 103–117). New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers.

Hayes, S. C., Strosahl, K. D., & Wilson, K. G. (1999). Acceptance and commitmenttherapy: An experiential approach to behavior change. New York: The GuilfordPress.

Hoffman, B. J., & Woehr, D. J. (2006). A quantitative review of the relationshipbetween person-organization fit and behavioral outcomes. Journal of VocationalBehavior, 68, 389–399.

Jehn, K. A., Chadwick, C., & Thatcher, S. M. B. (1997). To agree or not to agree: Theeffects of value congruence, individual demographic dissimilarity, and conflicton workgroup outcomes. International Journal of Conflict Management, 8,287–305.

Judge, D. M., & Cable, T. A. (1997). Applicant personality, organizational culture,and organization attraction. Personnel Psychology, 50, 359–394.

Koberg, C. S., & Chusmir, L. H. (1987). Organizational culture relationships withcreativity and other job-related variables. Journal of Business Research, 15,397–409.

Kraimer, M. L. (1991). Organizational goals and values: A socialization model.Human Resource Management Review, 7, 425–447.

Kristoff, A. L. (1996). Person-organization fit: An integrated review of its conceptualiza-tions, measurements, and implications. Journal of Personnel Psychology, 49, 1–50.

Locke, E. A. (1976). The nature and causes of job satisfaction. In M. D. Dunnette(Ed.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (pp1297–1349).Chicago: Rand McNally College Publishing Company.

Malott, R. W. (1992). Rule-governed behavior and organizational behavior manage-ment: The theory. Journal of Organizational Behavior Management, 12 (2),45–65.

McSween, T. E. (1995). The values-based safety process. New York: Van NostromReinhold.

Meglino, B. M., & Ravlin, E. C. (1998). Individual values in organizations: Concepts,controversies and research. Journal of Management, 24, 351–389.

Meglino, B. M., Ravlin, E. C., & Adkins, C. L. (1989). A work values approach tocorporate culture: A field test of the value congruence process and its relation-ship to individual outcomes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74, 424–432.

O’Hora, D., Barnes-Holmes, D., & Roche, B. (2004). Derived relational networksand control by novel instructions: A possible model of generative verbalresponding. Psychological Record, 54, 437–460.

O’Reilly, C. A., & Chatman, J. (1986). Organizational commitment and psychologicalattachment: The effects of compliance, identification, and internalization onprosocial behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71, 492–499.

O’Reilly, C. A., Chatman, J., & Caldwell, D. F. (1991). People and organizationalculture: A profile comparison approach to assessing person-organization fit.Academy of Management Journal, 34, 487–516.

Perrewe P. L., & Hochwater, W. A. (2001). Can we really have it all? The attainment ofwork and family values. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 10(1), 29–33.

Posner, B. Z. (1992). Person-organization values congruence: No support for individualdifferences as a moderating influence. Human Relations, 45, 351–361.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Cle

mso

n U

nive

rsity

] at

20:

51 2

5 Se

ptem

ber

2013

68 S. A. Herbst and R. Houmanfar

Roe, R. A., & Ester, P. (1999). Values and work: Empirical findings and theoreticalperspective. Applied psychology: An international review, 48, 1–21.

Rokeach, M. (1967). Value survey. Sunnyvale, CA: Halgren Tests.Rokeach, M. (1979). From individual to institutional values: With special reference

to the values of science. In M. Rokeach (Ed.), Understanding human values(pp. 47–70). New York: The Free Press.

Schein, E. H. (1985). Organizational culture and leadership: A dynamic view.San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass.

Schwartz, S. H. (1990). Universals in the content and structure of values: theoreticaladvances and empirical tests in 20 countries. Advances in Experimental SocialPsychology, 25, 1–65.

Schwartz, S. H., & Bilsky, W. (1987) Toward a universal psychological structure ofhuman values. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53, 550–562.

Skinner, B. F. (1953). Science and human behavior. New York: The Free Press.Skinner, B. F. (1990). Beyond freedom and dignity. New York: Bantam Books.

(Original work published 1971).Skinner, B. F. (1992). Verbal behavior. Cambridge, MA: B. F. Skinner Foundation.

(Original work published 1957).Stewart, I., Barnes-Holmes, D., Barnes-Holmes, Y., Bond, F. W., & Hayes, S. C.

(2006).Relational frame theory and industrial/organizational psychology. Journalof Organizational Behavior Management, 26(1–2), 55–90.

Tosti, D. T. (2003). Organizational alignment. (Available from Vanguard consulting:FirstInChange@aol.com).

Tosti, D. (2004). Creating value in organizations. (Available from Vanguard consulting:FirstInChange@aol.com).

Tosti, D. (2005). How to be a successful change consultant. (Available from Vanguardconsulting: FirstInChange@aol.com).

Ulrich, D. O. & F,, LaFasto. (1995). Organizational culture and human resourcemanagement. In G. R. Ferris, S. D. Rosen, & D. T Barnum (Eds.) Handbook ofhuman resource management (pp. 317–336). Oxford: Blackwell.

Verplanken, B. (2004). Value congruence and job satisfaction among nurses: A humanrelations perspective. International Journal of Nursing Studies, 41, 500–605.

Verqueer, M. L., Beehr, T. A., & Wagner, S. H. (2003). A meta-analysis of the relationsbetween person-organization fit and work attitudes. Journal of VocationalBehavior, 63, 473–489.

Voss, G. B., Cable, D. M., & Voss, Z. G. (2000). Linking organizational values to rela-tionships with external constituents: A study of non-profit professional theatres.Organizational Science, 11, 330–347.

Weiner, Y. (1988). Forms of value systems: A focus on organizational effectiveness andcultural change and maintenance. Academy of Management Review, 13, 534–545.

Williams, R. M. (1979). Change and stability in values and value systems: A sociologicalperspective. In M. Rokeach (Ed.), Understanding human values (pp. 15–46).New York: The Free Press.

Williams, S. L. (2002). Strategic planning and organizational values: Links to alignment.Human Resource Development International, 5, 217–233.

Wilson, K. G., & Hayes, S. C. (1996). Resurgence of derived stimulus relations. Journalof the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 66, 267–281.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Cle

mso

n U

nive

rsity

] at

20:

51 2

5 Se

ptem

ber

2013