A lot of the texts in this file are not marked up, so I'm going to have to read them more carefully to pick out the pertinent sections to focus on. So far all the materials I've been discussing on this blog have been previously marked up.
This next text is the chapter from a book:
U.S. Naval Education and Training Command. (1980). Module I (Human Behavior: Guidelines to Leadership and Management Training Courses. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.
Chapter 2: Influencing Human Behavior
***
This chapter begins with a discussion which is basically introducing Maslow's hierarchy of need, although it isn't exactly labeled as that. Leadership is described within that context, recognizing the influence of various needs on how an underling is functioning and responding appropriately.
Then the chapter addresses issues around the employees "will to work" or motivation and the use of various types of incentives to work.
"If negative incentives are used, as is sometimes necessary, the objective should be to use the smallest force that will ensure the desire outcome." (p. 2-9)
When we return to my chronological recounting of events, which will take us to my arrival in Vienna, it will not take long for you to see that extraordinary use of force/negative incentives was used with me. Several questions in this regard could be raised when we get to that point in my story. Such questions might include:
1) What were the objectives in how I was treated?
2) Why was it deemed necessary to use such means with me?
2a) Was it something about me personally that made it seem necessary?
2b) Was it something connected with my dad that made it seem necessary?
2c) Was it more to do with the mission (their plans, their vulnerabilities, their values...)?
3) Was any other approach possible?
3a) If not, why not?
3b) If so, ...
3bi) what other approach(es)?
3bii) why wasn't it/weren't they used instead?
***
"Of all the functions of the leader, that of generating good performance is perhaps the most important. People can be induced to do good work in a number of different ways, some proper and some improper.
The manipulative approach is improper. The manipulative leader uses understanding of human behavior to achieve an end without any real regard for the rights of others. This type leader goes through the motions of giving recognition and enriching the job but the leader's actions lack conviction; one essential ingredient is missing - sincerity. People who sense that there is no real interest in them as individuals, tend to distrust and question the leader's actions." (p. 2-9)
This was written in 1980 and maybe by 1987 this was already passe in the military, or maybe this was truism only accepted by the navy and not in whatever military branches our 2 chaplains were in.
It should come as no surprise, however, that if I say I felt that how I was treated was indeed manipulative, the leadership would point to saying this or doing that as "evidence" to the contrary. They would say that they did indeed care for me.
To give an example of what I mean, but in a different context, in dealing with my brother evicting me resulting in my move back down here, I told the psychologist (who was initially supposed to be going through behavioral therapy for fibromyalgia management until this other crisis erupted) that my brother said he loved me. He, the counselor, responded by supposing that that must be confusing for me, which I brushed off with "I think he really thinks he loves me, but I think it's a strange kind of love." That's along the lines of what I'd say about the leadership in Vienna too.
And as far as the manipulation part goes, it was all the stuff that felt totalitarian in nature without adequate demonstration that they were worthy of the kind of trust they wanted. I couldn't really see how they had my best interests in mind. Probably I was just supposed to trust that they did, but I didn't see that they could be trusted, especially after was I interpreted to be extraordinary "negative incentives."
It was like saying, "Here, trust me; now let me beat you to a pulp." After being "beaten to a pulp" if anything it would, if anything, be harder to trust the person/entity doing the beating or involved in it. Was it expected that beating me to a pulp (figuratively speaking here) would improve my trust? That seems pretty stupid except that it could have been that the fear factor (of being beaten again or worse) was expected to increase trust.
So we come again back to "Why?" Why would they use such negative incentive, if that is what it was intended to be? (And if that isn't what it was intended to be, then what was it intended to be?). It did indeed scare me shitless (pardon the expression). But it actually drove me away from them internally.
***
Chapter 4 is titled "People Under Stress" and much of the chapter is given to the discussion of different reactions people have to stress or stressful situation. I'll address a few of these that I think a used vis a vis the mission in Vienna. I'm not sure I was conscious of using them at the time, although I was conscious of sort of pulling back (out of horror and fear... you might understand when I get to that part of my story).
Apathy is suggested in this text as one example of an aggression as a response to stress. (Part of the text is cut off so I'm having to sort of guess at some of the words.)
"A person, hemmed in by barriers, confronted with continual failure, may [sustain?] a state of hopelessness and apathy. The [person] gives in, quits trying, convinces himself that he doesn't care..." (p. 4-8)
I think that as my time wore on in Vienna I used more and more of this strategy of coping. I didn't quit trying to do my job well, but I quit even giving the impression I was willing to really sort of succumb to their organizational culture. Socially I didn't pull away; it was they that pulled away from me. I became more convinced that we'd sort of reached an impasse on the "big issues" and I was the odd man out. It might sound blunt and trite to say now, but it really killed me inside. I was devastated.
***
"Compensation
The frustrated person, denied one goal, may cast about for something almost as good." (p. 4-9)
Actually, this may have started very soon after starting, because I did want to do more people ministry, but I did not foresee any conflict with me attending an Austrian church and getting involved there, for example. But this was probably a compensation strategy even from the get-go, and as my situation in Vienna became less and less fulfilling I looked elsewhere for fulfilling things to get involved in. Also, this continued after my leaving Vienna as I tried to regroup and look for something else. I'm not sure how the psychology of these kinds of things work, but I think that eventually I found something and then at some point it wasn't a means of compensation but something of value in its own right apart from Vienna.
My intentions regarding outside ministry in Vienna weren't meant to conflict with what I was doing with the mission I was with, but because of the nature of the organization I think they saw it as hindering my socialization into their group.
***
"Paralysis
If conflict is severe, the individual may simply freeze...
Many cases of so-called laziness are probably explainable as paralytic reactions to conflict...
This sort of conflict often has a lot to do with personal efficiency. Most people work as long as work promises to get them somewhere. They will not work when work promises to bring failure, or only small rewards, or downright punishment." (p. 4-11)
I think I experienced a certain amount of this, but I was of strong enough constitution that I could keep going. But immediately after the hammer really hit and I realized that they were actually going to carry out what they said that I did indeed freeze. I don't want to say any more about this yet though.
***
"Of course, any time the person tries to succeed at something it must be realized that one must 'take the bad with the good,' one must suffer some, one must run some risk of failure. If the suffering and risk seem greater than the rewards of success, however, no effort will be made. If the disagreeable aspects of work are too strong, if it looks to one as if the reward, instead of fitting the effort and performance, is a matter of luck, one's behavior will be continually jittery, inefficient, and full of conflict." (p. 4-12)
There was so much ambiguity in my experience of the Vienna mission, that I think different ones of these probably affected me at one time or another. I never shirked at my work though and the quality of my work was acceptable. But I did feel like I was probably obeying the letter of the law and not the spirit of it, in a sense, in as much as I never really accepted the less literal communications and apparent wishes. I felt like the only thing that would bring me into that sphere was full acceptance of their norms and values, which I couldn't do and which seemed to be, just as it was with SGA, nonnegotiable.
***
That's it for that text.
~ Meg
