Internal consequences

Shkolnikov, Vladimir D., Scientific Bodies in Motion The Domestic and International Consequences of the Current and Emergent Brain Drain from the Former USSR, Santa Monica, Calif RAND Corporation, MR-433-EAC/FF/NA, 1994. 

Given the level of public concern about nuclear power issues, it is inevitable that any significant incident at any nuclear station, especially one which involves offsite effects, will have some international consequences, if news of its occurrence reaches the public domain. Comparisons will be made with similar or different systems operating in other countries and attempts will be made to draw lessons from the incident. 

If, as in the Chernobyl case, the incident has effects which reach out across international frontiers, then the international consequences will be considerably greater. Prior to the 26 April 1986 event in the Soviet Union, transboundary environmental effects were already a subject high on the European agenda and Chernobyl provided new impetus to those who were seeking to raise public awareness of, and political responses to, international environmental impacts. 

Since the 26 April 1986 Soviet accident much has been made of the international consequences, with assertions on the lines that an accident anywhere is an accident everywhere and that policies on nuclear power adopted in individual countries are diluted or invalidated by differing policies adopted in other countries (e.g. by Sir Eldon Griffiths, MP, during the parliamentary debate on the Sizewell PWR reactor, 23 February 1987). 

In 1987, 27 countries signed the Montreal Protocol, which recognized the international consequences of ozone depletion and committed the signators to limit production of ozone-depleting substances. Today, more than 180 nations have signed the Protocol, which now calls for the elimination of ozone-depleting chemicals. 

Now we are talking about a person s interpretation of the situation, which I refer to as "internal" consequences in the next section. First, let us understand a very important point reflected in Figure 11.5. Whenever there is an observable intrinsic consequence to a task, the instructor, supervisor, or safety coach needs to help the performer see that consequence and realize its importance. In other words, we need to help people perceive the intrinsic consequences of their performance and show appreciation and pride in that outcome. This helps to make the intrinsic consequence rewarding to the performer, thereby facilitating ongoing motivation (Horcones, 1992). So, if the teacher in Figure 11.5 displayed genuine... 

Behavioral scientists, however, do not deny the existence of internal factors that motivate action. There is no doubt that we talk to ourselves before and after our behaviors, and this self-talk influences our performance. We often give ourselves internal verbal instructions, called intentions, before performing certain behaviors. After our activities, we often evaluate our performance with internal consequences. In the process, we might motivate ourselves to press on (with self-commendation) or to stop (with self-condemnation). 

When it comes to safety and health, internal consequences to support the right behavior are terribly important. Remember, external and intrinsic (natural) consequences for safe behaviors are not readily available, and we cannot expect to receive sufficient support (extra consequences) from others to sustain our proactive, safe, and healthy choices. So we need to talk to ourselves with sincere conviction to boost our intentions. We also need to give ourselves genuine self-reinforcement after we do the right thing to keep ourselves going. When we receive special external consequences from others for our efforts, we need to savor these and use them later to bolster our self-reinforcement. 

Relative to the person performing the task, consequences can be considered external or internal. External consequences are observable by others and, thus, can be studied objectively. Internal consequences are subjective and biased by the performer s perceptions. It is difficult to know objectively the exact nature of the internal consequences influencing an individual s performance. However, we know from personal experience that internal consequences and evaluations accompany performance and dramatically influence motivation and subsequent performance. 

For example, if you play a musical instrument, complete a crossword puzzle (see Figure 11.7), plant a garden, or participate in recreational sports, natural and external consequences are immediately available. You have performed well, done a good job, or maybe you are not pleased with the results. Add to this the fact that you might compare your results to past results or the accomplishments of others. This is adding a personal evaluation bias to the natural feedback—internalizing the external consequences. Now you have created internal consequences to accompany your activity. 

We cannot expect external rewards and recognition for mosf of the important management-related behaviors we need to do. In other words, we cannot measure everything for which we need to be accountable and feel responsible (Geller, 1998). We need to start with the right vision, theory, and principles, and hold ourselves accountable with internal consequences. 

It is possible the natural external consequences supporting ongoing at-risk behavior cannot be overcome with extra external consequences. In this case, long-term behavior change requires the modification of the natural consequences or the application of techniques discussed in Chapter 16 to alter internal consequences. Throughout this text, I have downplayed the use of negative consequences and the reasons are reflected in the next principle. 

Acts of intemati(Hial terrorism, whether in the form of violent or non violent acts have clear and immediate international consequences. They are numerous in nature and warrant a separate study. However, in effect they obtain for the miscreant the same result of creating disharmony and disruption in society. The concept has grown in recent times to portend more serious problems to the international conununity. Those problems are worthy of comment. 

The Third Restatement constitutes a comprehensive revision of the earlier (1965) Restatement, covering many more subjects, and reflecting important developments in the intervening decades. This Restatement consists of international law as it applies to the United States, and domestic law that has substantial impact on the foreign relations of the United States or has other important international consequences. 

---