Among the population of people with developmental disabilities, few empirical studies have examined ways in which to maximize work performance in naturalistic settings. The current study was conducted to compare work productivity levels under two schedules of reinforcement, and to assess relative preference for the work schedules. In Experiment 1, participants completed two assembly-type tasks, and tokens were delivered either according to a fixed ratio-1 (FR-1) or a fixed interval-9 min (FI-9)schedule of reinforcement. Results of Experiment 1 showed that all participants exhibited higher engagement levels and completed more work products correctly under the FR-1 reinforcement schedule. In Experiment 2, a modified concurrent-chains procedure was used to determine which reinforcement schedule was more preferred. Results indicated that two of the three participants preferred the schedule on which they were most productive during Experiment 1 (i.e., the FR-1 schedule), whereas the third participant demonstrated a preference for the FI-9 reinforcement schedule. Collectively, these findings suggest that although ratio schedules generate more consistent work performance than do interval schedules, conflicts may emerge between maximizing productivity and honoring client preferences.