Here's another section that I hadn't marked up, but would like to comment on now:
"The Ohio State University and the University of Michigan leadership studies have demonstrated clearly the importance of the supervisor's behavior as affecting the satisfactory adjustment of the individual to organizational demands. ... have stressed supervision as a critical variable that influences all facets of organizational behavior. Essentially,... the consideration (i.e., friendliness, trust, respect, etc.) a supervisor shows for his new subordinates largely determines his ability to influence them." (p. 96)
I must say that my boss (whoever it was in any given position) did seem to be supportive and demonstrated consideration for me. However, if there was a change in the works, it generally came from the H.R. office (one of the two reserve chaplains), but not always. So my boss held out carrots, while H.R. doled out sticks, although this process would be as sugar-coated as possible. Presumably, having a dissatisfied worker could be dangerous for the mission on a variety of fronts, such as the ministry itself or p.r. back home.
[4/7/2011 comments: In looking at this again, I would say that my boss was friendly towards me (and others), but the amount of respect he showed me and trust he had towards me is pretty questionable. If he had respected me I don't think I would have been given the demeaning and often useless work I was given to do and if he had trusted me I would have felt more confident in approaching him with my concerns believing that they would be handled in a manner other than manipulatively.]
The thing for me, though, was that my work didn't seem very meaningful and my encounters with my boss, while pleasant, weren't generally very helpful (they often seemed more like counseling sessions or tete a tete getting to know one another encounters. I felt like there was something below the surface going on and was trying to figure it out while being pleasant and hardworking, which I don't think was what they were looking for. Not that they didn't want that from me, but there was something more.
***
"[T]he degree to which an individual is given a clear picture of his job duties prior to actually performing the task may often determine whether or not the individual will leave or stay with the organization." (p. 96)
In my case, it wasn't the job duties per se, I don't think, that was the main issue. I was told that I would be a secretary and that's indeed what I mainly did or some variation of that. But it was all the other stuff that I didn't know about them and, evidently, what they didn't know about me before I arrived there.
Like I said before all my prior experience before coming there didn't prepare me for what was going on in Vienna - how they operated. And I'm not sure what they thought of me, if they thought I really was just a secretary or what. But beyond that was what they wanted from me that wasn't in the job description, either before I came or while there. Some of these things were, it seemed, intentionally part of the informal structure that was more or less unwritten. I know that there are plenty of dysfunctional organizations in the world, but I don't think that was it either; it felt intentional as part of their protective efforts due to working in Eastern Europe.
Eventually you'll see that I don't respond well to people trying to manipulate me to change, and the Vienna experience was just the first of these situations of import in my life. Depending on who you are, who your affinities are with, and your value system will undoubtedly affect who you side with at various points in my story. I expect this and it won't surprise me. Just as my telling my story might say as much about me as it does about the people and group I discuss, your reaction might tell me as much about indirectly you as it does overtly about your words about me or my story.
***
Continuing on, van Maanen discusses how the nature of the work - the actual tasks - can also "aid or hinder the socialization process." Some jobs, however, are so mundane, like assembly line work, that the organization has to try to supplant this need by some other "organizational reward" (p. 96).
In the Vienna mission, as with probably most religious or nonprofit work, the broader work of the mission provided satisfaction, so that those even on the bottom rungs of the organizational hierarchy shared in the satisfaction of the overall effort. However, that being said, I was a poor fit for my position if they expected me to really consider the other secretaries as my reference group, which they clearly did, in my opinion.
Furthermore, I think I even ....
I just got interrupted by a lengthy phone call and then some other domestic chores, but I tried to jot a helpful reminder note to help me pick up where I left off here. Now we'll find out if that tactic worked... and I was almost done with this post too... oh, well... Here goes.
... I think I even began to be dissatisfied with the work itself. Probably the tactics was the main issue of my concern. But later on I began to see that a lot of Western missions, American especially (and the Vienna mission was mostly made up of Americans), as not just bringing the gospel and Bible teaching, but our culture as well. It's probably impossible to avoid some of that, but this wasn't even a concern, I don't think, for the Vienna mission... nor for a lot of other American church planting efforts I witnessed later when I lived in Siberia.
There are going to be all kinds of reactions to what I just said, so I should probably elaborate a little more. Some people, I know, consider evangelism a form of cultural imperialism, but in my opinion, any cultural impact should be from the gospel and I don't think that America (my native culture, or more specifically middle class white, Protestant America) is necessarily Christian or biblical, but neither is any other earthly culture, at least not as long as (and here comes some theology) Satan is in control of this world (cp. I John 5:18).
Rather, my citizenship is in heaven (this trumps my American citizenship by far... I know, I'm not very patriotic), and if I'm going to be a missionary that would make me an ambassador for Christ (although Christians really all have this calling, whether a formal missionary or not), and not for the USA. And while I'm on this subject, that means the USA (e.g., military chaplains) should not be involved in Christian ministries either.
But now I've gone far afield from this text, so I'll just leave by saying, I eventually became not only dissatisfied with my various jobs, but also disillusioned about the work of the mission as a whole. But I was really crushed because I'd done so much to get that far and my desire for ministry never flagged, eventually I had to come to the realization that what was happening in Vienna was systemic in many ways, systemic to missions to that part of the world, or systemic to American Evangelicalism (and some other countries too). The "systemic" part of that statement, however, took a long time for me to fully accept. I lost a lot of my faith, not only in the Vienna mission, but also in the Church, Evangelical Christianity as in institution, while working in Vienna.
So for me, this statement about becoming dissatisfied with an organization because of the work itself really opens a can of worms for me that goes far beyond the context van Maanen was discussing.
***
With that, I'll say good night...
~ Meg
