Simply put, people will learn desired behaviors due to stimuli from their external environment that recognize and reinforce the behavior in a positive manner. Undesired behaviors can be controlled or eliminated by an absence of attention to or recognition of such.

Behaviorism is comprised of several individual theories that have a common theme functioning within them. This common theme is found in the ways the theorists define what learning is, and how it is accomplished. The common assumptions of these theorists are threefold, as explained by Merriam and Caffarella (1999). The first common assumption is the emphasis on observable behavior rather than internal thought processes create learning. Second, ultimately it is the environment that creates learning and it determines what is learned, not the individual learner. Lastly it is the ability to understand the overall process, and the ability to repeat or reinforce that process that is a common thread (Merriam and Caffarella, 1999). This theory is most commonly seen in adult learning when organizations take repeatable training steps and systematize them into manageable tasks.

The hypothesis behind behavioralist learning theories is that all learning occurs when behavior is influenced and changed by external factors (Merriam & Caffarella, 1999). Behavioralism disregards any notion that there may be an internal component to man’s learning. Grippin and Peters (1984) emphasize that “contiguity…and reinforcement are central to explaining the learning process” (Merriam & Caffarella, 1999, p. 251) in regard to an individual’s subjugation to external stimulus as a determinant of response (i.e., behavior). Contiguity is understood as the timing of events that is necessary to bring about behavioral change, while reinforcement refers to the probability that repeated positive or negative events will produce an anticipated change in behavior (Merriam & Caffarella, 1999).

Behavioral theories have also been studied and applied in organizational leadership. Dating back to the 1940's, studies were conducted at Ohio State University (OSU) and the University of Michigan (UM) (Robbins 1998). What the researchers found in the OSU and UM studies can be classified into two categories: relationships and results. In the OSU studies, researchers compiled behaviors into two dimensions: initiating structure (results) and consideration (relationships). UM researchers compiled their leader behavior under two similar dimensions: employee oriented and production oriented. From this research, Blake and Mouton developed the Managerial Grid, later to be called the Leadership Grid. This grid assists leaders in assessing possible outcomes to their behavior within an organization. Robbins states, "The grid does not show results produced but, rather, the dominating factors in a leader's thinking in regard to getting results" (p. 351). Behavioral leading and learning is based on organizational and cultural conditioning. This can be observed in the tough-handed, "hatchet wielding" approach of Jack Welch and in the benevolent "lend-a-hand" approach of Herb Kelleher. Behavioral theories within leadership have had "modest success in identifying consistent relationships between patterns of leadership behavior and group performance. What seems to be missing is consideration of the situational factors that influence success or failure