I'm still working on the family cookbook, but it's hard to work straight on that, so I can switch off, or at least try to fit in working on this blog as I can. Working on the files will obviously be more difficult then doing the addresses, so I may not be able to do as many posts. We'll see. All I can say is I'll do my best.
***
The first article is from this journal article:
Arvey, Richard D. & Ivancevich, John M. (1980). Punishment in organizations: a review, propositions, and research suggestions. Academy of Management Review, 5(1), 123-132.
***
Although there are differences among psychologists concerning a definition of punishment, we will adopt Kazdin's concise definition, which captures the concept effectively: "Punishment is the presentation of an aversive event or the removal of a positive event following a response which decreases the frequency of that response" [1975, pp. 33-34]. There is a key point embedded within this definition. A relationship or contingency exists between some defined response and some aversive consequences or stimuli (e.g., a leader's sarcastic remarks for poor performance, or an organizational fine for tardiness). That is, the random or noncontingent administration of adversive stimuli on behavior does not represent punishment." (p. 123)I found it rather difficult to completely understand Kazdin's definition. What is the final "that response"? I want to believe that it means something like it decreases the frequency of the individual's errancy and therefore need for punishment, but I'm not sure that's what it says.
But continuing farther along in the paragraph, where I feel more sure of the understanding, the point is clear that if you're going to be punished it should be clear what it's for, the timing should be reasonably aligned, etc.
Then you turn to my case in Vienna where I experienced all these negative things from the mission, but most of them the mission would deny being responsible for in the first place, which is quite convenient. but if they were to be held responsible they would fail this punishment test terribly.
There might be a couple things I'd know I was straying on, like going to the Austrian church or wanting to live by myself, but these things I had agreed to before I left the USA.
Let's go on.
***
A second punishment circumstance involves the removal of positive outcomes or reinforcers after a response has been made. For example, punishment may take the form of the withdrawal of privileges, being ignored, or not being considered for promotions. (p. 124)I've said before here that the first month or two I was in Vienna I was fawned over and it was so much it seemed suspicious to me. I did not play up to it but just was myself and carried on with the things they had me do, getting established, etc. I didn't get a big head from their fawning, at any rate.
But later on after I was moved around and things were unsure (to me) there was talk of me being involved in work in Russia that maybe was a lead on.
I felt like privileges were taken away from me fairly early. This is because I was put in a stupid position doing the stupidist work possible in that position and they never gave any indication that they would recognize my gifts or had any real intention of using them or of taking me serious. So from the very get-go of my time with the Vienna mission I experienced these "withdrawal of privileges."
***
This next section of the article is called "Beliefs about the Effects of Punishment"In general, punishment has not been viewed favorably by organizational psychologists for several reasons. First, it is thought that the use of punishment by an employer will result in undesirable emotional side effects (e.g., anxiety, aggressive acts or feelings toward the punishing agent, or passivity or withdrawal). In addition, employees, might attempt to escape or avoid (e.g., turnover, absenteeism) or show aggression toward (e.g. sabotage) the punishing agent.
The empirical evidence concerning these presumed effects is particularly weak. (p. 125)The thing with applying these to the Vienna mission is, first of all, it was a closed system. That is, if a newcomer had a hard time adjusting to the new ways and the discipline s/he might encounter if s/he was slow to socialize, for example. Then the mentor would be right there to help her/him through all the bumps and bruises, but it would be very difficult to run away or something. And it's difficult to explain to others what you're experiencing, especially while you're right in the throes of it. So the Vienna mission is a special case that would end out dealing with all these things internally. Of course, if anything is going on that shouldn't be, then there's no room for organizational accountability, but that's a different issue.
***
Same section:Second, the use of punishment is thought to be unethical and nonhumanitarian... This thinking confuses the notion of punishing to achieve justice ("paying back") in contrast to punishing to change or modify behavior. The first perspective views punishment as "past oriented" whereas the second perspective views punishment as having "future oriented" effects." (p. 125)I couldn't possibly have experienced the "past oriented" type of punishment at the hands of the mission, so we can forget that right away. It still remains unclear whether I had done anything against their norms or not and if so against which ones.
If they developed this punishment plan for me, that seemed to me to be inadvertently planned and carried out, then they have to believe that everything that I couldn't figure out, when I wasn't really sure what they wanted of me, that they had clear ideas of what they wanted and against these standards they were able to decide when and how to punish me.
But, to be honest, I can't see any delineation of that kind of thing happening, when punishment was being turned on or off. And it's supposed to be reasonably close to the transgression so that the transgressor knows to amend his/her ways, and I can't say I ever got that. Most of the time, it was just a way of living, like being transferred from one position to another.
And as to the "paying back" some might say that I'm doing that now, I suppose. The mission doesn't know how they ruined my life, but the thing is that even after I lived in Russia and I saw the churches there and the Western missionaries coming in that didn't know any Russian. So I'm fed up and I'd like to reveal some of these things so that they can clean up their act.
I'm just one person, but I'll do what I can, as little as it might be.
***
As Skinner argues in Beyond Freedom and Dignity [1971], the environment plays an important role in controlling behavior. Therefore, it makes sense for us to understand and change environmental circumstances to achieve some kind of managed systematic control. (p. 126)
Since the Vienna mission was a closed system, as I said earlier, they had mastered this pretty well, and they'd paid attention to the details, as I've discussed in other posts, so I won't belabor it here.
***
Taking the opposite view, Park [1972] has called attention to the notion that high-intensity punishment may create a level of anxiety and impose a situation where adaptive learning (e.g., learning to discriminate between a correct and incorrect response) will not occur. (p. 126-127)The whole situation in Vienna was complex, and the various negative signals and stimuli I was receiving as directed at me personally as well as just a part of the mission, and there certainly could be what some might consider "high-intensity punishment [which created] a level of anxiety]"
One situation, early on, for example, is when the mission sent me back to the USA. Now this would be heinous, of course, if this is punishment, but I think we really must consider the possibility.
The mission would have had to have seen me with my friend who came over with her junior high students not long after I arrived in Vienna, then I was attending the Austrian church, and basically I was not focusing on being 100% with the mission and I wasn't breaking down doing a little homesick thing or the like. And I was quietely doing their stupid work reading the software manual to learn the computer software and not complaning. So they couldn't get my goat. So nothing could get to me. So I was just there doing their stupid work and they probably were giving me the stupid work to get me to crack. But it didn't work. Well, the stress of all the things at the office did take a toll so I was having to take measures to deal with stress, and that didn't include talking to anyone about what was on my mind. Well, I had had a lot of stress the few years before that, and I didn't have the greatest personal strategies for dealing with stress. I've since grown a lot in that area.
So they couldn't say that I had stress from the mission, so they said I had "culture shock." Well, things would have been a lot easier for me if I had just given in and done what my 6th sense thought they wanted me to do from the very beginning, but then I wouldnt have been true to myself. And the promises that were made me before I left the States (they were made by my sending mission, but the housing one was discussed with the Vienna mission). So, in all reality, there is no way I could have lived like they wanted me to.
And then, of course, their looms the HUGE issue, which I've discussed before, and that is the issue of putting anyone before God. I really felt like they wanted you to trust them before God. So when I first got there and I'm having all these problems and no one's saying anything, I'm not going to just come out and trust them because then it's a relationship by force, right? What's the big deal? Why does force have to be involved? Why can't we just sit down and talk like two rational people? Why are you giving me this stupid work to do? It's a waste of my supporters' money? I trust God, but I'm not just going to come out and trust you after you've pulled that kind of bull crap. What is this?
So that kind of thing isn't punishment, because I hadn't done anything yet to deserve it, right? So that is socialization. So then I bomb socialization and go right into punishment and there I stay, I guess the rest of the time I'm with the mission. I don't know, that's one possibility.
***
In addition, while aversive stimuli of high intensity levels may be the most effective in suppressing undesirable behavior, these aversive stimuli may also have the effective of suppressing other desireable responses. The available research appears to suggest that perhaps moderate intensity levels may be the most functional in organizational settings. (p. 127)In my case the "high intensivy levels" drove me away or closed me up to the mission, so that for the large part of the time I was with the mission I was living a double life - what I was really thinking and how I acted, because I learned during my time in the US to do that.
I'm not exactly sure what they should have done differently but they definitely should not have started me out with such stupid work, because that just put me on alert to try to figure out what they were up to (I think they underrated my intelligence), and they should not have sent me back to the U.S. I'm assuming they really wanted me to work with them, of course. If they didn't because of my dad, then that's a totally different story and we have to change everything here.
***
Hamner and Organ [1978] suggest that punishment might be most effective when it is dispensed in an impersonal manner where the focus is on the act and not the person. (p. 127)It wasn't like in the military where a person is belittled as a person, but even when a situation was direct (e.g., a change of position) it was presented sort of dog-eared, usually by the head of human resources, who was reassuring to me as a person. But it was rediculous, each of these moves and so many of the other things, they all added up that it was degrading in the end so that the year after I left Vienna I was such a broken person it was horrible. It was just the whole composite of everything, and after all that I'd prepared to make that my career and everything, it was just humiliating. I was just like that proverbial worm by the end.
And the h.r. director was so hypocritical, I could see right through him. That expression and all was so phony, really, so degrading.
***
Proposition 5: Punishment is more effective when clear reasons are communicated to employees concerning why the punishment occurred, what the contingency is, and what the consequences of the behavior are in the future.This certainly seems reasonable and logical enough and most people, I think, would probably agree with it. The problem for me regarding my situation in Vienna was that it was hard to distinguish what might be punishment and only after you identified punishment could you try to deal with the other stuff.
But even if I were to take a stab at trying to identify what might have been punishment during my time in the Vienna mission, I'm not sure the Vienna mission leadership would agree. They might say they didn't punish me, or not those punishments. There are a couple issues here though. First, they might not want to admit if something was a punishment or had punishment elements to it and, second, the items they might admit to. That is, they might not agree with what I thought were punishments, but instead present completely different punishments they had for me.
After I left Vienna I got a very kind post card from my boss and his boss, the director of the mission. Would they do that if they thought very badly of me?
***
It appears that the effect of punishment is greatly enhanced if subjects have an alternative desirable response available. Moreover, if employees receive positive reinforcement for performing this alternative response, punishment is even more effective.There were some cases that I did have clear "alternative desirable responses" but they went against what I'd agreed before I arrived in Vienna and against my values (to fit into the local culture). So the alternative desirable responses I think that might have relieved some of the pressure (which perhaps could be seen as a kind of punishment, but only tangentially; it could also be looked at as social/crowd control) are: live with the other secretary from Alaska and go to the English-speaking church. I didn't see how either of these was a security breach and I refused to give in. Well, I gave in regarding the church the last few month, but I didn't like it, despite being involved in it.
Otherwise, I didn't have a clue and it was very difficult. It was hard to figure out sometimes what that "alternative desirable response" might be. I think sometimes I just ignored the signal because I didn't know what to do with it. Like I knew when I was being moved to lesser positions. I didn't really know what exactly I'd done to get there, although I always had a nebulous feeling that you had to completely trust them and give them your soul, which I couldn't do, so I couldn't go to the leadership to really find out what was going on, from their end, I mean. By that time it was way late in the game and I wasn't interested in sticking around so I didn't care too much about what their thoughts were, although now it might be interesting, if they'd be really truthful. But in that world where they lie through their teeth to get around in those Communist countries (that was back in the days of Communist East Europe remember). These guys had a whole image of themself that was made of half truths, so that's the kind of thing you'd expect from them if you were to ask them about how they treated me. So it's probably best to save your breathe for something else.
***
Managers have control over numerous potential punishing stimuli that range from overt and formal actions such as discharge and financial penalties to less overt behavior such as assighment of employees to underable tasks, subtle verbal statements, and ridicule.
Organizational psychologists have developed a reasonably well-defined taxonomic system of positive reinforcers that are available and used in organizational systems (e.g. recognition, praise, bonuses). What is needed is the development of a taxonomy of aversive stimuli in organizational settings. That is, what supervisory actions result in aversive situations for employees? one strategy for developing a taxonomy is to ask employees to relate situations where they felt punished in organizational settings and indicate the role their supervisors or managers played in the situation. (p. 130)
Regarding the first paragraph, I've talked about that kind of things at length in various places in this blog. Some of the things, though they set up before my arrival to be socialization, not punishment. But the thing is, and I've said this so many times here that I'm beginning to feel like a robot or something, but I was not going to just be taken by ambush to be part of them, because it's a whole-person identity and faith thing, and I don't let them just take me over like that, as if they're God. So I never did totally give in. I was treated so horribly that I didn't want any more of it and as much as I wanted ministry there was absolutly no way I could trust them after how they'd treated me. You'd think they might try being nice. Maybe they could have lured me in. Well, they were nice at the very beginning, but it was overkill, so that seemed strange.
My whole time with the mission was a virtual lesson in catastrophe: How not to do things. At least how not to do things in dealing with me. Maybe it works with other people, I don't know, but it was the worst nightmare I could ever imagine.
***
That's it for this article. We'll see if anything else in this file is informative next time.
