On my way to the doctor's appointment I thought of some other things I wanted to say on the last post, so I added them just now. I can't tell you how liberating this is for me to go back and begin to under stand really more and more what happened back then. It was so monumental in my life.
***
Extending these finding, Bies, Shapiro, and Cummings (1988) found that perceptions of procedural justice were enhanced only when explanations were believed to be adequately reasoned and sincerely communicated. (p. 412)Continuing the discussion from the last time regarding the use of Jer. 12:5, the journal article, or even the psychological test - given in the context of the stress the mission had intentionally put me under, the mission, in the person of the H.R. director, had me in a difficult corner to get out of. His reasoning sucked, as some would say. But he had a pretty formidable collection of documentation that no one else in any rational context would ever accept. But this wasn't about rational acceptance, I don't think, so much as it was about fear. He had the power, I didn't and this is what he could do with his power if he had to. The mission was like that though, so don't be surprised. How he used it, was definitely not acceptable if it was to use psychology for the mission's ends (socialization). That is unacceptable. (And to remind you, there were 2 other women who had experienced that also.)
That much I got. The other thing was I thought I also had a decision to make about the mission (not just about going to the U.S., and whether I'd agree to it.)
Basically, while he must have thought he had adequately reasoned his explanation for why I should be sent to the U.S., I could argue away most of his documentation and he totally lacked any sincerity as far as I was concerned and I absolutely couldn't stand his ridiculous fatherly pitying demeanor.
That's it in a nutshell. Procedural justice basically didn't exist; that goes for the whole 2 years I was with the mission.
***
Thus, this study supported the idea that high status job titles may function as outcomes in the equity equation. (p. 413)Initially (i.e., in the 1990s when I first copied the article), I had a larger section of text highlighted, but it goes more into things that I don't think are relevant enough to warrant using. The thing is that when I was a secretary of the assistant director technically I did have some status. That doesn't mean that it really was the career I wanted but when I was moved to other positions I didn't even have that status, so I lost the status even. And it's something that people know. It's not a secret, and this even is the kind of thing that might happen at other companies or jobs, so you might know what I mean. You can tell if someone has been demoted and loses status, right? So if I'm going to be a secretary, it might as well be the secretary to someone at the top. But it was my sending mission who offered it to me, suggested the position, it wasn't my idea to ask specifically for that one position.
***
Greenberg (1988a) compared the performance of insurance underwriters who temporarily performed their jobs in either the offices of higher-status, lower-status, or equal-status co-workers. Reasoning that the opportunity to work in a higher status office constituted an increase in work rewards, it was expected that such individuals would report feeling overpaid and would increase their performance. Likewise, reasignment to a lower-status office was expected to be a source of underpayment, leading to a decreased performance. Finally, workers in a control group performed their jobs in the office of another person of equal-status and were expected to experience no change in their perceptions of payment equity and to exhibit no changes in their performance. Very strong support was found for each of these predictions, thereby suggesting that the status-value of offices constitutes a valid source of outcomes in the equity formula. (p. 413)According to this, then, I should have lowered my productivity when the mission transferred me to the lower positions. Rats. I missed out. I rather like the application of this journal article. This should be something that is brought to the attention of all future recruits to the mission - that they come with a full collection of journal articles ready to present their case for whatever it is that they want to suggest or ask of the mission. At any rate the mission does it, so maybe it's worth a try.
***
I'm going to include this next section because I had it so marked up from the original reading (1990s), but I'm knocking my head trying to piece together what was so important about this text. Actually, I'm just glad I haven't had this happen more often. Here goes.
Griffeth et al. (1989) found that a sample of part-time proofreaders were more uncomfortable being overpaid relative to another to whom they were attracted (i.e., someone who was attitudinally similar to themselves) than someone to whom they were not attracted. Greater attempts to reduce the inequity theory's prediction that states of overpayment may be undesirable and motivate efforts at redress. Apparently, this effect is stronger when the overpayment disadvantages a comparison person who is liked than one who is not liked (see also Greenberg, 1978). (p. 414)I'm sort of stumped. The mission didn't pay anyone, so you can't take it literally. As far as favors and rewards, the one thing I can think of is maybe the last year I was with the mission I began to hear about some cases of either jealousy or a couple of people both wanting the same thing - these were women. I stayed out of it, but just heard about it. So if someone succeeded in getting this position or whatever, maybe that would fall into what this verse describes, or something like it.
The thing with me was that I was living on thin ice, remember, so I couldn't risk getting in the middle of anything. (I was keeping my true thoughts and values hidden from the mission, but if they'd know about them all hell would have broken lose, believe me. This was after I'd returned to Vienna from the U.S.)
This was part of the ambiguity of the mission, and I never knew when these things were true. That is I didn't know if the things these women wanted were just fabrications to confuse me or something the mission was really considering to happen in a year or two. And I didn't really know if that particular person was telling the truth that she really wanted that position. But in the end it didn't really matter much anyway because I wasn't going to be there, right? So good luck, have fun, I hope you get the position.
That's an oversimplification, too, though, because I was also doing a few things trying to figure out what I was going to do next. Certainly, by winter before I left I was doing serious thinking about what I was going to do after I left.
***
It was found that when managers attempted to resolve disputes by the use of threats or coercion, the disputing parties judged these actions and the resulting resolution to be unfair. The use of mediation procedures was judged to be procedurally fair, and the compromise solution solutions that typically followed from them were judged to be unfair. The use of mediation procedures was judged to be procedurally fair, and the compromise solutions that typically followed from them were judged to be distributively fair... Specifically, "Third-party roles viewed as procedurally just are those in which a manager acting as a third party tries to mediate a resolution rather than bullying the parties into a resolution by threatening sanctions, promising benefits, or imposing ideas" (Karambayya & Brett, 1989: 703) (p. 415)This is the kind of thing I could have only dreamed of in the Vienna mission. Of course, it would have had to have been me vs. the mission, rather than me vs. John Doe. To me being sent back to the USA was a kind of threat, a wake up call, if you will. It let me know what extent the mission was willing to go to to socialize me. And what if sending me home didn't work? What else could they do to me? I didn't find out, of course. (Thankfully.) The thing was that I hid the fact from them that I hadn't been socialized even after being sent back to the U.S., so that when they they did finally out it was almost time for me to be leaving to be going home anyway.
But what if something had happened and they had found out earlier that I still wasn't socialized? What other tools would there still have been left up their sleeves to use? I don't even want to think about it. That would have been the worse hell I could have imagined. All I know is that I would not be the same person today if they had found out, believe me.
***
Participants in one laboratory experiment (Brockner, Davy, & Carter, 1985) witnessed one of their coworkers get laid off for no justifiable reason and without receiving any compensation for the work performed to that point. Relative to their laid-off colleagues, the survivors were hypothesized to feel overpaid. Consistent with the equity theory predictions, the survivors reported feeling guiltier and worked harder when they witnessed such layoffs than when no layoffs occurred... (p. 416)They may have been afraid that they might have been the next to go too, though, so you can't forget that issue as well! But that aside, I suppose it would be too much to think that anyone at the mission thought I was treated wrongly and felt like these workers felt when I left. The thing was that it seemed like the mission was already formulating a myth or explanation about me and people were staying away from me, so I don't know what they were saying but they were telling people what to think about my departure and maybe about my whole time with the mission even, for all I know, since it was so rocky. I even had a high school friend who had worked with another Eastern European mission and she shunned me after my time with the Vienna mission too - her mission had ties with the Vienna mission too.
So there you have it. Basically, because I refused to back down on my values I was anathema. That's exactly what happened, because that's the whole reason I would not commit to them. And if they think that's crazy, so be it.
(That being said, they did not know upfront that on my end I was holding out because of values.)
It's only my values that I stood up for the whole time, but my knowledge and wisdom made it possible.
(I'm not saying that to brag, but it did take intelligence that I was underestimated for, it was difficult.)
***
And that is the end of the Greenberg article.