***
"Deviant behavior arises when the individual fails to internalize the group norms. He does not believe, for example, that the norms are moral, fair, or just, such as the case of the worker of Protestant, rural background who disapproves of the practice of restriction of output found so generally among urban workers of Catholic religious background (White, 1955; Zaleznik, Christensen, & Roethlisberger, 1958). To uphold his convictions he forgoes group rewards. Or, another way of putting the matter, the guilt he would experience as a result of conformity acts as a cost to offset the rewards from group membership." (p. 594).This clearly describes much of how I felt about the Vienna mission that kept me from conforming at a great cost to myself, which I don't think a lot of people would have been willing to pay. That is, considering the great cost of my nonconformity, there would have to have been a very great conviction to disallow me from relieving myself of that cost and conforming to the groups norms. One issue here is that when I took the stand at the beginning I had no idea, really, what cost I would have to pay for holding my ground. The other is, even if I had given in, there is no guarantee that I would have been rewarded with a career to my liking, because there was still the issue of my dad and how his work might have gotten in the way of me doing what I really wanted to do. If I had given in I might have been rewarded with a life of being a secretary, for example. I don't remember this being of any significance, however, as to whether or not I could go along with the mission and accept its norms and values. That is, even if they could have promised me work roughly fitting what I saw as my interests and gifts, it still wouldn't have been worth giving in to the things I disagreed with.
***
"Deviant behavior also contains its own rewards in the sense that the deviant may experience satisfaction in 'showing up,' or acting superior to, members of a group for whom he feels scorn and disapproval. Group members, on the other hand, seek to exact conformity by imposing punishments for deviant behavior. The effect is to increase the costs of behaving in violation of group norms. The acts of increasing costs explain why Schachter (1953) found in his experimental studies of conformity and deviation that a large proportion of interactions are directed toward the deviant in attempts to 'bring him into line.' But beyond a certain point, the attempts at direct punishment to coerce the deviant become costly to the group members, who may then seek to isolate the deviant or otherwise cast him out of the group." (p. 594).It should be remembered that this text does not seem to be taking into account leadership or management influences and interventions, which might be separate issues to what is described here, but nonetheless there were some official responses to me, such as in moving me around so much.
Regarding the first issue in this text, about the deviant feeling satisfaction, I think early on I felt a certain amount of this, especially on the issue of involvement with Austrians. I thought the mission was too insular and should have been more all-inclusive in its ministry outreach, not limiting itself just to the "official" ministry it had to Eastern Europe. So in this regard, I think I did scorn them and continued to do so as long as I could hold out against them to continue my own efforts. It didn't take too long, however, to realize that this insularity was probably intentional as a security precaution; but, again, I didn't agree with them that they needed to be as insular as they were. I thought of this as a case of throwing the baby out with the bath water in rejecting virtually all types of Austrian ministry for security's sake. However, I did understand that having any such ministry would have been difficult for those, for example, who traveled to Eastern Europe a lot, just because of time constraints and the need to also spend time with family.
The rest of the text does describe pretty well, I think how the mission related to me, ending up by trying to isolate me and otherwise encourage my departure at the end of my two-year commitment. They started this process in earnest after my parents left, but after dad left but mom stayed on to teach health at the new English language Christian school they were already beginning to treat me this way.
***
The text goes on to describe "the superior-subordinate relationship," which would, in my case, be my relationship with my boss who I was secretary for (at least who I was supposed to be secretary for and was so maybe 2/5 of the time I was with the mission.
"The superordinate exercises control through the rewards he is able to provide in his behavior. He may secure reward-providing tasks for the subordinate as a result of his position in the larger social structure. He may teach the subordinate and in the process help the subordinate to enhance his competence and ultimate achievement. The superordinate may also act in ways that protect or buffer the subordinate from undue risks and too early exposure to tasks beyond the subordinate's level of experience and competence. Another way of describing the protective behavior is to point to the costs of exercising responsibility and to suggest that at times the superordinate seeks to limit these costs for his subordinates. The superordinate also provides rewards through seeking advancement for his subordinates. The subordinate, insofar as he experiences these and other rewards, reciprocates through task accomplishment, respect, and esteem for the supervisor." (p. 594-595)I might as well be describing the moon here because this absolutely does most emphatically NOT describe my relationship with my boss! I don't remember him ever teaching me anything and he never, as far as I know, ever did anything to protect me or seek my advancement. In fact I'm not sure what he might have done at all in relation to me except give me letters to type. It was through my mentor-secretary (the director's secretary) - not through my boss - that I learned I should befriend his family and wife. The only things that could at all have been considered rewards were taking part in the English teaching in Bratislava and the one women's ministry trip. I'm not sure how those opportunities came about though, or whether my boss payed any roll in those things or not. In any case, at the time I didn't think about him as having any part in it.
On my part, I didn't really have that much esteem for my boss, although I don't think I ever disrespected him or that anyone else would have thought that I didn't particularly esteem him. Maybe the buggy eyes and crotch scratching made him lose esteem in my eyes.
***
"A successful superior-subordinate relationship results from an optimization of profit for each individual through the relationship. When one individual's rewards result from costs experienced by the other, the relationship is ripe for conflict.There was no way the relationship between my boss and I, as it was set up, could have resulted in "optimization of profit for each individual through the relationship." That is, if the position had to involve spending inordinate attention on his wife and family and required me to leave off Austrian ministry while at the same time not replacing it with other people-contact ministry, then I could not have been satisfied with it no matter how good my relationship with my boss could have been. Since I wasn't committed to being a secretary and I was ambivalent about my boss it probably could not have been optimally profitable for my boss either.
Conflict in the relationship also results from inappropriate behavior." (p. 595)
Remember that conflict in the mission was virtually unpermissable, so any conflict would have been stifled, which isn't the same as saying there wasn't any conflict. It would likely have been more difficult to identify, however. That being said, I think there was conflict between my boss and I, but I can't speak with any certainty from his side of things. From my end, though, his behavior in our one-on-one meetings in his office (see above) turned me off and although he didn't appear to be involved in how the mission treated me I couldn't help but expect that he was nonetheless party to the decisions as to how the mission should deal with me. So after the mission sent me home during my 5th month with it there was little chance that I could have been realistically reunited with my boss, although it appears that the two wives that apparently got similar treatment managed to return to Vienna having succumbed and they probably accepted full blame for having been sent home, which meant that they made the requisite change to suit the mission. I, on the other hand, didn't see the problem so much in me as in the mission and I never could change my view on this. I saw the mission as having single-handedly pushed me past my limits, and saw them as being wrong in how they treated me. And if there is any doubt about this, I now have 30+ years after my Vienna years to prove that nothing else has ever led me to that point.
***
That's all for this subject and next time we'll move on to another section of this book chapter.
