Becker, Thomas E., & Billings, Robert S. (1993). Profiles of commitment. an empirical test. Journal of Organizational Behavior. 14, 177-190.
***
"...O'Reilly and Chatman (1986) used Kelman's (1958, 1961) research to argue that commitment may be based on compliance, identification, and internalization. According to Kelman, compliance occurs when attitudes and behaviors are adopted in order to obtain certain specific rewards or to avoid certain specific punishments. Identification occurs when attitudes and behaviors are adopted in order to be associated with a satisfying self-defying relationship with another person or group. Finally, internalization occurs when attitudes and behaviors are adopted because the content of the attitude or behavior is congruent with the individual's value system." (p. 177-178)
When researchers write their articles they don't think of the repercussions it might have on people like me that might be using their articles as springboards for commenting on! This is so dense! I could break it down, but that would be going sentence by sentence. Well, they have their space limitations, and they have to prove the need for the research they did (that's what they do in the introduction). So here goes.
In the Vienna mission internalization was huge and it was mandatory, as I've said a million times (maybe not quite that many, but it feel like it) here on this blog. That's not to say, however, that compliance and identification were not important, because I think they most definitely were. It's just that the internalization assured (or I think that was the intention) the compliance necessarily to be reliable and 100% trustworthy, or 110% trustworthy even, if you know what I mean, like over the top trustworthy, without a shadow of a doubt trustworthy. I think the mission, actually, might have been a little looser, however, on the identification factor, depending on the individual. That is, the mission could understand if some members just intended to serve out their 2 year term. So their identification with the mission might not be the same as for someone who had been with the mission 10 years already (the mission was about that old at that time).
As for me, I complied with everything I could, which is to say I complied with everything I thought was reasonable and that my conscience would allow me to comply with. This means, I did not comply with their games, as I saw them, where they weren't being straight with me and where things seemed to have double meanings.The longer I was there, the more there was of this, it seemed, but it fluctuated.
I did not identify with them, that strongly however, and my identification with them was pretty well wiped out as soon as they sent me back to the US five months into my tenure with them. What did they expect? I was terrified of them after that. I couldn't imagine what else they might do to me if they'd go that far! How could I identify with someone like that? Of course, captive prisoners identify with their hostage takers all the time and they calle this the Stockholm syndrome, right? After I left Vienna for good I wondered if there wasn't a bit of this in me, because I was so devastated and muddled in my thinking (although I got up on my feet in a year's time). Nevertheless, I don't really think that fit me. I didn't really identify with the mission that well, for the most part.
As far as internalization, I think that really has to be the whole kit'n kaboodle sort of thing, which is certainly what the Vienna mission would have wanted, and I didn't have it and I didn't want it because of my disagreements with them. Most of what I had internalized, I think, was how things were done and more of the lesser values. As for the other things, I learned some of them in my trying to figure them out, but that's not to say I internalized them, because I had absolutely no intention of obeying them or making them mine. These were things I found repulsive for the most part. But the thing is that the mission wasn't meant to be understood mentally, cognitively, but more by living it and then maybe asking questions. So it was harder my way, but I had to try to survive in the mission while I was there still and understanding it could give me more resilience. Well, and I guess it's what helps me be able to write this blog.
Kelman has a point and that's one way to reach commitment. In the Vienna mission it was making it through socialization, and I think it was pretty individualistic. I would modify Kelman's hypothesis to fit what I knew about the Vienna mission, which is mainly the secretaries, and that is that when a (fairly) new secretary met up with a punishment response and (maybe built in to the mission's operations somehow) and she came in tears to her boss about it he would encourage her and help her overcome the problem behavior. It's possible that others did figure out through trial and error what was the right way on their own, but my experience was that these counseling type sessions were pretty important. It might have been different for the other department or workers though.
***
That's all for now. I'll pick up next time discussing the results of the study.
