Industrial/Organizational Psychology Journal Article

When trying to change, change is not something that comes easy for anyone, not even for the company, but every employee working in that company. Every company has to have the change for employees to improve and advance in the company. There are many employees that will be resistant to change, and will affect the work environment with their negativity and refusal to the change. It is of great importance that a company has the right tools to introduce change, for the company to have a minimum of resistant is to change.

Learning Theories

Companies have the battle to face when it comes to implementing changes. Some employees may be resistant to changes preferring to do things they’ve always done and some may not be motivated to change. To assist a company making the change, the company needs to motivate their employees to become change agents. According to Courts (n.d.), change agents are individuals who act as promoters for change by leading the charge for change.  Change agents can prompt growth in a company, leading the charge for change, and opening change to happen much quicker. These employees rely heavily on the contribution of others in the company to help with change through delivering a clear vision to change, being patient yet persistent with the change, asking tough questions to help employees think, and being knowledgeable about the changes as well as leading by example (Couros, n.d.).  

A company needs more than just individuals willing to lead the change; they need tools and methods that help motivate individuals to change.  This is where the theory of operant conditioning can help the organization in change.  In operant conditioning learning is reinforced in a person through systems of rewards and consequences, an individuals’ behavior can be modified through the use of rewards and consequences (Schuck, 2012). Operant conditioning would be easy to implement into any environment as it looks reinforcement that increases the behavior that is desired or punishment that decreases the behaviors.

In reinforcement, there is positive or negative which both increase the behavior but in different ways.  According to McLeod (2007), positive reinforcement is the presentation of a favorable event or outcome after the behavior has been displayed.  Positive reinforcement could be anything really from an awarded certificate for an employee completing training on the changes or a free soda or food item if the employee can help others with questions on the changes.  The benefit of this method is that a company just needs little imagination to motivate individuals to change as well as get the individuals to help each other in the change. In negative reinforcement according to McLeod (2007), this is the removal of something unfavorable after the display of behavior. If a manager is constantly walking the floor during training, this may be unfavorable to individuals so by removing the manager and only having them walk the floor occasionally it would strengthen the desire to get the changes down.

Punishment is different than reinforcement as it looks to decrease a behavior.  Individuals not open to change may have punishment used to increase the individual wanting to change and decrease the resistance to the change. Punishment also deals with positive and negative punishment with positive punishment being the presentation of an unfavorable thing and negative being the removal of a favorable thing (McLeod, 2007).  Punishment would be opposite of what we see for reinforcement as a person or group of persons display unwanted behaviors the rewards that the got like the certificates and the sodas would be removed, negative punishment. When the manager was removed it was reinforcement for doing the right behavior, however, the wrong behavior could result in more scrutiny as the manager is placed back or more managers are placed on the floor.

Employee Resistance

Despite preparing employees for change within the company through informing them and trying to motivate them to change there can still be resistance felt when it comes to change. According to Scott (2007), in general, employees tend to resist change because of a lack of knowledge about what will happen or due to the manner in which the change was communicated. Employees may feel that they are unable to adapt to the new changes, or there may have been a lack of communication about the changes that has caused confusion for the individuals. If employees are expected to change sufficiently, the employees need to be fully prepared on changes and informed of how and when things will happen. Managers should be up front with these employees prepared to answer their questions and assist with any reservations the employees might have about the changes. Managers also need to be trustworthy to their employees so that they can effectively manage resistance to changes. If the employees do not trust the manager then no matter how much the manager reassures them and answers their questions the employees will not trust the information. Another reason for employees to be resistant to change is that they believe that more work will be required of them for the same pay, or they will have fewer tools to accomplish their work. This is again where communication is key as communication can ease this fear.  Additionally, training on the changes can show employees the benefits to the changes, so employees can see that the opposite is true, and they are not being required to do more with less.

External Resistance

External resistance is also a problem. Forces such as laws and regulations, technology, and labor markets can also have an impact on a company being able to change (Scott, 2007). These external forces may provide resistance to change that the company did not take into account.  Laws and regulations, for instance, are put in place by governments on how a company should conduct business practices (Scott, 2007).  If these regulations are not in line with the changes the company wants to implement or they are telling the company what changes the company needs to make then resistance can be seen on both sides.  The company may feel resistance trying to go against the regulations to implement changes, or they may feel resistant being told what needs to change.  Technology is another factor that may provide resistance for a company looking to make changes. Technology can impact change for a company by advancing more quickly than the company can implement changes, employees may not feel comfortable with newer technology, or the company may need something that technology has not advanced at this point in time (Scott, 2007).  

Conclusion

Change is something that can be difficult for anyone, not just a business but for every individual within that business.  Change is something that naturally must occur though for individuals to progress through their lived and for businesses to adapt to offer tools and services for the ever-changing world. Organizations have the battle to face when it comes to implementing changes. Some individuals may be resistant to changes preferring to do things they've always done, and some may not be motivated to change. In operant conditioning learning is reinforced in a person through systems of rewards and consequences, an individuals' behavior can be modified through the use of rewards and consequences (Schuck, 2012). Operant conditioning would be easy to implement into any environment as it looks reinforcement that increases the behavior that is desired or punishment that decreases the behaviors.  According to Scott (2007), in general, employees tend to resist change because of a lack of knowledge about what will happen or due to the manner in which the change was communicated. Employees may feel that they are unable to adapt to the new changes, or there may have been a lack of communication about the changes that has caused confusion for the individuals. Forces such as laws and regulations, technology, and labor markets can also have an impact on a company being able to change (Scott, 2007). These external forces may provide resistance to change that the company did not take into account.

References

Couros, G. (n.d.). 5 Characteristics of a change agent. Retrieved from http://georgecouros.ca/blog/archives/3615

McLeod, S. A. (2007). Skinner - Operant Conditioning. Retrieved from http://www.simplypsychology.org/operant-conditioning.html

Schunk, D. H. (2012). Learning theories: An educational perspective (6th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson Education

Scott, T. (2007). Resistance to change. Retrieved from http://tscott.typeperformanceappraisaid.com/tsp/2007/04/resistance_to_c.html

Ethics in Conditioning Research

Pavlov’s experiments on conditioning brought a lot of knowledge and understanding into a process that was once mysterious.  Through Pavlov’s experiments with his dogs, knowledge about unconditioned responses through unconditioned stimulus was brought to light.  Pavlov showed that the dogs who do not learn to salivate to the presence of food could learn to salivate at something neutral, the sound of a bell. This brought a wealth of information about learning and conditioning, to which Pavlov wanted to branch over and apply to humans. Pavlov set up experiments with children in which he would present the children with food.  One child was strapped to a chair and force fed cookies, while another was surgically implanted with a device to collect his saliva. The experiments if done today would violate ethical standards.  This paper is going to review the experiment done on children, cover what violation of ethical standards would have occurred, and provide an alternative method to avoid the ethical violation.

Overview of Experiment

Pavlov’s idea of conditioned reflex came from his experiment with his dogs in which some dogs did not learn. Pavlov observed that children did not salivate whenever they saw food. This was extremely difficult for him to understand because this reflex was hard wired into children. Pavlov provided the child with a bowl of food and then measured the child’s salivary secretions (McLeod, 2007). From this point forward Pavlov discovered that an object or event in which a child learned to associate food would trigger the same response. Pavlov later learned that the children associated food with his lab assistant which was a learned behavior (McLeod, 2007). This was measured by the children at the beginning of the experiment not knowing the lab assistant would bring food, and at one point they began associating the assistant with food after repetition. With this being said, their behavior changed significantly which is a result of learning. 

Ethical Violation

            Pavlov's experiment on conditioning children was a way to show that not just dogs could have conditioned reflexes. During these experiments some children had been operated on to place a device in their cheek to collect their saliva as they ate. In another experiment a child was strapped into a contraption that restricted his movement that only allowed him to move his mouth. These experiments have the same ethical issue that today would prohibit these experiments which is principle E of the ethical code of psychologists (2015). This states that any psychiatrist or psychologist conducting research should respect the person's dignity and privacy (Ethical principles of psychologist and code of conduct, 2015). Pavlov's experiment did not comply with is principle in either experiment, because the children were faced with undignified testing procedures. The fact that one child had a contraption surgically implanted on the side of his face was completely degrading. While the other child was forced to eat cookies while strapped onto a table and while another machine squeezed his hand. This would not be tolerated in research today as a result of the code of conduct that the American Psychological Association has put in place.

Alternative Approach

            When dealing with ethical concerns, one must think of the person’s dignity and privacy.  In this case not respecting the dignity and privacy of the participant is a violation in which one must find an alternative way to meet the ethical code of conduct in today’s standards.  It may have been best if Pavlov just stuck with experiments on animals rather than human subjects at the time.  Pavlov did his best when it came down to the ethical concerns and approaches of dealing with his experiments.  In today’s world however, there are ethical ways in which could become an alternative approach to Pavlov’s experiment.  One alternative could have been that Pavlov uses other means of understanding classical conditioning through the use of models, rats, mice, or other easily available organisms rather than continuing on to the use of humans.   Another alternative is the approach of not altering through surgical or physical means the participant or organism to which would cause physical altercations, thus allowing him to perhaps examine and research without the need to surgery or force.  Pavlov seemed to use ethical standards that would meet current standards in the well-being and aspect of pain and suffering of the animals.  In present-day research attention is brought to mind alternative methods on animal research, thus Russell et al. (1959) describes when possible, living animals are replaced by nonsentient material such as tissue cultures and computer models; mammals are replaced by animals of less well-developed nervous systems; whole animals by decerebrate ones, or by isolated organ systems (Kopaladze, 2000).

Conclusion

            Through experiments done on children in which Pavlov attempted to measure the children’s salivation when presented with food in the same manner that he worked with his dogs. In the experiments done on children ethical violations occurred such as conducting research that did not respect the person's dignity and privacy.  Pavlov could have avoided the ethical violations by conducting experiments on non-humans through using standards that would meet current standards in the well-being and aspect of pain and suffering of the animals.  Additionally Pavlov could have done another alternative approach of not altering through surgical or physical means the participant or organism to which would cause physical altercations, thus allowing him to perhaps examine and research without the need to surgery or force.

References

Ethical principles of psychologists and code of conduct. (2015). Retrieved from http://www.apa.org/ethics/code/index.aspx#

Kopaladze, R. A. (2000). Ivan P. Pavlov's view on vivisection. Integrative Physiological and Behavioral Science, 35(4), 266. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/201312993?accountid=35812

McLeod, S. A. (2007). Pavlov's Dogs. Retrieved from http://www.simplypsychology.org/pavlov.html