I'm going to go straight to the socialization discussion this time, and the next article up for discussion is:
Feldman, Daniel Charles. (1981). The multiple socialization of organization members. Acadamy of Management Review, 6(2), 309-318.
***
The abstract gives a succinct summary and should allow me to pick specific points in the article knowing that you have an idea of the general context:
"An integrated model is presented of three relatively distinct views of organizational socialization: the development of work skills and abilities; the acquisition of a set of appropriate role behaviors; and the adjustment to the work group's norms and values. A theoretical rationale is developed to explain the contingencies on which progress through the different socialization processes depend. Three attitudinal variables (general satisfaction, internal work motivation, job development) and three behavioral variables (carrying out role assignments dependably, remaining with the organization, innovation/spontaneous cooperation) are suggested as criteria for measuring progress in socialization." (p. 309)
***
The process variables are broken down according to the three phases of socialization, which previous works have also described. Here the phases are called "the anticipatory socialization phase," "the encounter phase" and "the change and acquisition phase." Four process variables are suggested for the anticipatory phase, two of which I want to comment on:
"1. Realism about the organization: A full and accurate picture of what the goals and climate of the organizational are really like. ...
4. Congruence of needs and values: Sharing the values of the new organization and having personal needs that can be met by the organization." (p. 310)
We've also already seen that my understanding of the mission was inaccurate, but here the author breaks it down into "goals and climate", which is a new twist. I would say that the goals of the mission were adequately stated in their public presentation, and that part of my understanding was accurate. Rather, it was the "climate" part of this equation that I was sorely mistaken in.
The fourth variable is something new altogether, I think, from what I've looked at already. What needs did I bring to the table? I think one of my main needs was to feel fulfilled and useful, which would entail a reasonable match between my skills and knowledge and the work I was given. As we have seen, for the most part, this didn't happen. I think it could also be said that I had a need also to have a reasonable means of recourse in the event there was a problem between me and the mission. The mission would say that this did exist, but I didn't trust them and I didn't think that my concerns would be listened to with other than an eye to finding a hook to draw me in. For example, could you imagine me being open about the things I've been discussing here? There's no way that could have happened, at least not without somehow having the wool pulled over my eyes leading to me wondering why I was ever even concerned about any of this.
As to congruence of values, I've already discussed this at some length elsewhere, so we already know that I eventually accepted that this was lacking.
During the process phase of socialization, there are, likewise several more process variables, although I'm just going to deal with 2 of them here:
"1. Management of outside conflicts: Progress in dealing with conflicts between personal life and work life (e.g., scheduling, demands on employees' family, amount of preoccupation with work)...
3. Role definition: Clarification of one's own role within the immediate work group, deciding on job duties, priorities, and time allocation for tasks." (p. 310)
The mission and I seemed to have quite different ideas of how I should management possible outside conflicts. On their side, they seemed to think that I didn't particularly need any outside activities, thus eliminating the possibility of any conflicts. On my side of the equation, I understood that I was a secretary for the mission and, while I understood that there could be after hours responsibilities connected with that position, for the most part I would be free to run my after hours life as I saw fit (as long as I didn't do anything immoral or the like). Thus, taking a language class, attending a German-speaking church, and the like were within the realm of what I thought would be permissible according to the mission, right? It seemed pretty reasonable to me to think along these lines, but I eventually saw that I was exhibiting to much independence or evading their efforts to socialize me by not being completely helpless in this foreign land. So, as it turned out, the very fact that I had an independent outside life at all was a conflict, and the only acceptable way to manage my outside life was to put it (along with everything else) under the control of the mission, or at least in their purview so that they could keep an eye on me and could also better influence my development. (It wasn't just me that was singled out, but their general practice, especially with newcomers. In some cases more seasoned members were given more latitude.). So this was a pretty big conflict, I think, especially when you consider that I didn't really see myself as a secretary and what they were asking would sort of force me into that all-defining mold. So then, going back to the congruence of needs I just discussed that is of concern in the anticipatory phase of socialization, my need for fulfillment would be crushed by this demand on them to so limit my outside activities, which could have served to help fill the fulfillment gap between the secretarial position and how I saw myself.
Regarding role definition, the big problem there was that the mission kept moving me around. In such cases it's hard to really "own" a position and you end out filing it like a temp worker, which I was for all intents and purposes. In this case, whatever fulfillment I might have gotten out of a longer term secretarial position was greatly diminished and (maybe you can see that) I was on a disaster course as far as meeting my need for job fulfillment.
***
Now I'm going to skip over the rest of the introductory material and move on to the section titled "Proposed Model." Here he flushes out some of the earlier issues and further relates them to one another.
In discussing the "management of outside-life conflicts" variable he says, in part:
"Employees with realistic expectations about the organization are more likely to choose an organization where at least the major potential conflicts between personal life and work life can be avoided." (p. 313)
Since it is clear that I didn't have realistic expectations about the mission, it's not too difficult to see how I could have inadvertently chosen a mission whose expectations conflicted with mine vis a vis my personal life.
***
This next quote comes in the section titled "socialization as the development of work skills and abilities."
"A major factor that increases the likelihood of high skill congruence is a realistic job preview. If individuals do not portray themselves correctly to the organization, or if the organization does not portray the job correctly, the chances are increased that persons (1) will be hired for jobs that they are not well suited for; (2) will not receive the type or amount of training needed; (3) will exhibit more anxiety about job performance...; (4) will be less likely to survive the first year...; and (5) will be less satisfied with the new job..." (p. 313; I omitted the references)
IF I had stayed at the job I was brought to Vienna for I think my expectations of it were a pretty close fit (although I can't be sure how the position might have evolved), but that's ignoring the seemingly needless tasks given at first - that didn't fit my expectations - and assumes something that didn't happen. I did not predict being shuffled around like a hockey puck.
According to the text there are two possible sources for a poor job match, and that is misrepresentation either by the potential employee or the potential employer. Where, in my case, did the fault lie? I'm not sure, but I don't think I presented myself to them as a secretary. They knew about my schooling, mission work to date, etc. Maybe they looked at my skills and what their needs were and decided that since I could do secretarial work that I was a good fit. It hardly seems reasonable, at least from my perspective, however, to expect that someone with 6 years of higher education to be content being a secretary, especially if all other means of self-fulfillment were going to be cut off and the primary reference group was to be the other secretaries (who were professional secretaries). So I'm afraid that I can't take the blame here, as I didn't hide anything.
But does that mean that the mission misrepresented the position? Well, not exactly. Rather all the other baggage that came with the position was omitted. So maybe, in this case, it was a sin by omission, if you will.
Okay, so now that blame is more or less squarely identified, let's move on to the potential consequences for incorrect representation by either the individual or organization. The first is that the mismatched person could be hired. Since the kind of things that comprised the mismatch involved (I believe) security controls, it would probably have to be the mission in Vienna that would have to have been the one to catch a mismatch. But they only knew me, presumably, by paperwork that preceded me.
Let me backtrack a bit here. When I applied to my sending mission I had to wait for my application to be approved by that mission, and by that mission's Eastern European committee, and then finally by the mission in Vienna, that was comprised of my sending mission and 14 others. So the mission I applied to knew me not just on paper but had interacted with me some in person as well, but the mission in Vienna new the most about their basic functioning, including socialization processes. Probably the only way the Vienna mission could have caught a potential problem during the application process, is if someone who knew me from the mission I had worked with before were at that board meeting when my application was approved. That other mission was a member organization of the composite Vienna mission. Otherwise they might well not have known that I wouldn't be content "just" being a secretary with no other possible means of feeling professionally fulfilled.
The next risk, is that training received for the position won't be appropriate. In my case this was pretty much irrelevant, although if they had known me better they might have build in ways I could have been more fulfilled and not needed or wanted to look elsewhere for this.
The third possible result is pretty irrelevant in my case. Regarding the job itself, it was very easy, really too easy for me, and I was not at all anxious about my ability to do it well. If they really did underestimate my abilities, they might not have foreseen this and might have thought any anxiety in this regard could have helped them socialize me easier.
I was less likely to survive the first year because the job was too easy, but also because of all the other stuff going on and how they treated me. And because of the mismatch I definitely was less satisfied with the job.
***
The next section has a lot of things to comment on, so I'm going to quit for now.
