Since it's been a while since I've written or thought seriously about the meat of this blog I may have to work up to being in full form so I hope you'll bear with me as I get started again. This first chapter is of interest particularly for what comes later on in the chapter, but the first part lays the groundwork.
***
Organ, D.W. (1985). 3. Accounting for OCB. In Organizational Citizenship Behavior: The Good Soldier Syndrome. Lexington, MA : Lexington Books, p. 27ff.
***
"By 1970, there was already a body of empirical literature sufficient to warrant a rather lengthy review by Dennis L. Krebs in Psychological Bulletin... Krebs concluded that the studies that had examined prosocial behavior as a personality trait 'were plagued with difficulties. Because altruism is a positive trait, it is difficult to separate it from other positive characteristics.' (Krebs, 1970, p. 298)... The most that could be concluded was that there is a somewhat greater tendency toward prosocial behavior among those who are socially well adjusted, generally lacking in neurotic symptoms, extroverted, and who have a stronger need for nurturance than for achievement or dominance." (p. 28)
The issue here is organizations wanting members (employees) who will take initiative to do the right/good thing vis a vis the group and other individuals in it. They want to know why and when people act this way so that they can encourage more of it. In the Vienna mission I worked for this was a mandate and anything less than the very most prosocial behavior virtually all the time was, in my experience and observation, asking for some kind of correction, depending on the situation. So the management of the Vienna mission might have been very interested in reading and studying up on this kind of thing discussed in this book.
***
"The strongest evidence that prosocial behavior arises from an internalized norm is the consistent finding that among children the probability of prosocial responses increases with age. Furthermore, some studies show a relationship between level of education and prosocial behavior and a stronger orientation toward certain forms of prosocial behavior among professional and managerial classes as compared to either blue-collar or entrepreneurial classes... But, noted, Krebs (1970), 'the danger with normative analysis is that norms can be invented post hoc to explain almost anything" (p. 295)." (p. 28-29)
It seems to me that this fits pretty well with the pragmatic way of thinking where the ends justifies the means. So that you can justify doing something relatively antisocial because it might be for a prosocial ends. Of course, this is not the same as coming up with an explanation post hoc. That is, the mission didn't lie about what it did (i.e., say it was an international publisher, which was a half truth at best) and later come up with a reason for doing that.
But I do think that, for example, if my assertion that their "tentmaking" was lying and not at all what the Apostle Paul or anyone else in the New Testament would have done were pressed to them they might well have to come up with a post hoc norm to explain better how what they do might really be biblical. (Good luck at that one... I expect they'll have to jump through a few hoops to do that... For those who don't know me yet, I tend to agree with Jacques Ellul's analysis of the Church, so that might give you an idea of where I'm coming from if you are familiar with him.)
***
"Krebs concluded... that positive affect mediated the relationship between the experience of success and altruistic gestures. To the extent that affect - feelings, mood, emotional states - is the underlying determinant, one may wonder just how much deliberation figures in the process by which prosocial behavior occurs." (p. 30)
I think that this probably is true by and large, and it's possible that the leadership in Vienna assumed that it would work with me too. That is, I'd be relatively malleable strictly at the emotional level. As discussed elsewhere here, that was true to a certain extent - that is that they had an emotional affect on me probably in some cases more or less what they were looking for - but I was too cognitively engaged and committed to ministry to that part of the world to be easily manipulated. However, when I first arrived in Vienna I was sort of swept up in this great overwhelming welcoming flurry which could have made me vulnerable to this prosocial process described in this text, but instead it sort of took me aback as it was somewhat more that I'd expected and then the irregularities that I've already described began to take their toll too. So this didn't really work for me in Vienna, and I think it would have had to right at the beginning or not at all.
***
"Conversely, numerous studies show that whatever may be presumed to contribute to unpleasant emotional states typically also acts to retard prosocial behavior. Subjects put under the stress of information overload show a reduced propensity to help others... A thorough review by Cohen... documents the assertion that a reliable aftereffect of stress is a disinclination to help, or even be concerned about, others." (p. 31)
This quote, it seems to me, gives some credence to how it might have been difficult for me to show "organizational citizenship behavior" (OCB) once I'd become the target of major organization discipline. The fact that I did show OCB I think is a wonder at all when looked at in this light. Heck, Organ even says that patron leaving a sad movie leave less in a donation box! I think I went through a bit worse than a sad movie - I was the star in a real life sad drama and I still did a lot by way of organizational citizenship behavior. I'm talking about taking initiation in taking a short-term worker out for her birthday or streamlining the office supply management system. How could I do it? Not because of the emotional state the organization had had a great part in determining, but because of my internal norms, something I'd learned from my family, from church, from school, but not so much from the mission.
***
You see, I try to do my best and do what I think is right, even when I might have to suffer for it, and yes, I have had to suffer a fair amount for what I think is right and I'm not sorry one minute for not giving in because you know what it's like to have a clear conscience? I have enough things on my conscience, anyway, but there are times when I've been able to stand firm for what I believe in and I've had to pay a price for it. I must say that I've only been able to do this when it's been things that I have strong convictions about and I really believe are wrong.
There are a lot of Christians that think I'm wrong and that's why these missions are still operating today.
***
I have to take a break now so I'll continue with this article in my next post.
