I woke up with a cold this morning... as if I needed another ailment!
Even so, the show must go on, as they say...
***
This next chapter section is titled "Task Factors" and discusses socialization as pertains to tasks on the job.
"Schein... suggests that one of the primary reasons for a new member's organizational disillusionment (and perhaps his subsequent withdrawal) is receiving, upon encounter, an assignment which is either too easy or too difficult. Both types of assignments upset and disconfirm some of the major assumptions a new person holds about himself or herself. If a person's motivation to belong is not sufficiently strong to induce the personal changes that allow the individual to adjust to the situation, if able, he or she will leave the organization." (p. 98)
I've discussed something similar to this elsewhere about how some organizations might give quite intentionally give them something way to easy or demeaning to do in order to humble or break the person, and that the Vienna mission took this tactic with me. But this text sheds even more light on this treatment I received, indicating that such treatment could backfire (my interpretation of this text) and actually serve to alienate the individual because it "disconfirms" what s/he think of him/herself and or his/her view of the organization in selecting it (agreeing to the job offer).
In my case, I never really identified myself as a secretary, but I agreed to take the position, thinking of it as just an entry point or stepping stone. It's possible, however, that the mission thought of me pure and simple as a secretary like all the other secretaries. The mission I'd worked with prior (part-time, short-term) would have known otherwise, however, and they were part of the 15-mission make-up of the Vienna mission, but whether or not they divulged any of my skills to the others I don't know.
But the real clincher was the initial task they gave me, which I think I discussed before and I'll get into in the chronology, which could have been completely avoided. That is, during deputation I'd offered to take a computer class if I knew which software they used, but they wouldn't tell me and said that was necessary (for me to take the class). So immediately (that is, upon beginning work ca. 3 days after arrival) upon arrival I'm shown a stack software manuals!
This seemed clear idiocy to me, a waste of time and very much intentional. But, as was my way the whole time I was with them, I did not grumble but chearfully took up the task set before me. If I ever grumbled at all about anything during my time it wasn't much, and they probably wanted me to grumble more so that I'd show a weak side and could be put back together again how they wanted me. In other words, to break me in.
This did nothing, as you might be able to imagine, to strengthen my ties to the mission. Au contraire - I looked outside of it for the ministry I really desired, although I don't think I ever said that, which would be tantamount to complaining about the work I was given with the mission. I was conscious of doing this at the time, but learning things like what this current text says helps me understand even more what I was doing and what the mission might have been doing.
***
That being said, however, the next paragraph describes, in short, how the level of control one has over tasks set before him/her can also affect one's attitudinal orientation towards the organization. More control leads to more satisfaction by the individual. What this translates to in terms of my Vienna experience is that although I was given this task that seemed to me to be idiotic, unnecessary and manipulative, I could tackle it basically however I wanted and I wasn't even pressured time-wise to get it done. So this much I must say, that the mission didn't breathe down my neck (I don't know about you, but I can't stand bosses like that) in performing my tasks. I guess they trusted me at least to do what I was supposed to and do it quality-wise within acceptable perimeters. I think that was the way things operated in general at the mission, and wasn't specific to me. Whenever I took initiative in doing something to improve how my position was carried out that was generally appreciated (like how I organized aspects of a reception position I was in at the end). So this much I must say: despite all the awful stuff I encountered with the mission, they at least let me make the best of unfulfilling, crappy and sometimes needless jobs I was given. But it also could be that they gave me that latitude to watch and see how I'd take it, which could either mean seeing if I could work unattended or testing me. If they'd provided a lot of guidance it might not have been much of a test. If this latter was the motivation (or a major motivation among others), I was probably tested pretty much the whole time I was there.
***
I'm summarizing some of these texts, because it seems the best way to approach them for my purposes.
The next paragraph explains how it has been shown that either too many "continual changes" can lead to frustration or "settings which leave a new member with the same task" can result in restlessness and boredom. (p. 99)
In my case I faced mostly the "continual changes", and, I think, each change made it harder for me to connect with the mission and think they were serious about wanting to work with me. But these changes were also confusing, which quite possibly could also have been intentional. After all, they had all this secrecy about details of their work in "closed" countries, and if they didn't feel they could trust me (because they couldn't get me to break and take on their norms), they may have felt they had to keep me on guard. If they were sincere in wanting me to work with them, it's possible that they were torn somewhat between whether to hold out carrots (e.g., meaningful work, actual or promised) or lambaste me with sticks (trivial & degrading work, actual).
***
"Some systemic evidence has been compiled by Hackman and his associates which indicates that five so-called "core" dimensions of work tasks are critical vis-a-vis one's satisfaction and performance in the organization... The dimensions include: skill variety (the degree to which the job requires one to use different skills or perform different activities); task identity (the degree to which the job requires the individual to complete an entire process); task significance (the degree to which the job has a perceivable impact on others, either inside or outside the organization); feedback (the degree to which the individual receives information from significant others as to the effectiveness of his work); and autonomy (the degree to which the job provides one with freedom, independence and discretion in scheduling and carrying out work assignments)." (p. 99)
I'll address these dimensions one by one.
Regarding skill variety, I wasn't given much variety, and what I was given seemed mostly menial (especially considering the frequent job changes). It was difficult for me to see myself as performing a role that was at all integral to the functioning of the organization. After all, with so much moving around I never got a chance to fully develop any one position so I was always pretty much at stage one and if I'm so apparently expendable in so many positions, how valuable could I be to the organization, anyway? Also, even the range of skills required between the various positions wasn't a lot; that is, they required very similar basic skills. There were a couple exceptions, in that I found working in-country, when I took ministry trips there, to be fulfilling, but I wasn't a central person in that work either.
As to task identity, I already explained (when I discussed reference groups) that I didn't see myself as a secretary; that wasn't who I was, but just a position I held as a stepping stone to using my "real" professional skills.
My feeling about most of what I did was that it wasn't very significant, or even not significant at all except as a tool to socialize me. The leadership would vehemently and profusely deny this, however, with all kinds of wonderful commendations and flattery about importance of the position(s) and also how well I fulfilled them. I thought this was a bunch of bunk, even then, and a few months after I left the mission I got a post card thanking me, yadda yadda. That post card disgusted me even then.
I did get feedback and it was always positive and encouraging (flattery?). But it apparently didn't matter how well I did my job, as to how much responsibility they were going to give me. If anything, my positions became more menial as time went on (except for a few ministry trips). So it didn't really seem like the quality of my work was what they really wanted, although I suppose if I hadn't performed well there might have been even more negative repercussions.
I already discussed autonomy in this same post, and I don't think I have anything more to add to that right now.
Taking these 5 dimensions all together, there wasn't much to endear the mission to me task-wise. On the contrary, tasks were undoubtedly one of the alienating driving forces from my side of the equation (i.e., my attitude towards the mission). And we've already discussed how important attitude was to the mission, so I guess it was a cyclical downward spiral, where the mission and I were feeding each other reasons to be alienated from each other, or at the very least, mixed messages that inhibited our relationship from maturing.
***
That's all for now and I need to get going to get some things done.
~ Meg
