Well, I worked on things at home. I finished all the non-U.S. Easter letters and also finished the medical binders, except I should make some kind of external title on them so they'd be easier to identify. The older ones all have that.
I'm sort of waiting to hear if I need to use all my tax deductions before I start in on totalling them. Hopefully I'll know by the end of tomorrow. Otherwise, I'll just have to start working on totalling all my medical receipts and figuring out all the mileage deductions.
Returning to the text...
***
Right now I'm just going to discuss Table II "Summary of Citizenship Concepts as Applied to Organizations". This table has three columns:"1) Status of belonging (ordered by strength of relational ties)
2) Typologies of organizatioinal rights and
3) Typology of organizational responsibilities
1) Coercion, e.g., slaves
2) None
3) Avoid punishment " (p. 256, continues below, numbers are added)
In a lot of ways I felt like the slave except I technically could leave at any time, except that it would be very difficult for me to leave before my two year commitment were up. But I felt like I had no rights at all and in the end I was caving in to their pressure, presumably to lessen the stress I was experiencing.
***
"1) Gesellschaft relations e.g., casual labor having no affective ties to the organization, but who work entirely for the instrumental rewards to be earned from employment2) organizational civil rights, e.g., fair treatment in routine personnel matters such as hiring, job assignments, transfers, promotions, and layoffs, due process in disciplinary and discharge proceedings, grievance filings and complaint investigation
3) Organization obedience, i.e., an orientation toward organizational structure, job descriptions, and personnel policies that recognizes and accepts the necessity and desirability of a rational structure of rules and regulations" (p. 256, continues below, numbers are added)
Well, we clearly weren't "casual labor having no affective ties to the organization..." so that part doesn't fit. And I can't speak for other people, but as for myself, I did NOT get fair treatment in "routine personnel matters" "such as... job assignments". So much for organizational civil rights. I only wish there had been a "due process" and a way to file a grievance and file a complaint. But there wasn't a way to do any of those, I mean not a way to do it that would have gotten serious attention, other than a boot out the door. The third part, organization obedience, doesn't fit because it assumes too much rationality on the part of the organization. What I mean is that this assumes there is a neat and clear cut job description, personnel policies, rules and regulations that are all spelled out in black and white. That is about as far as you can get from the truth of the Vienna mission. That is just not how they operated.
***
"1) Gemeinschaft relations, e.g., longer-term employees who are part of friendship networks in the organization, and have come to identify with it as a whole, including its products and its leadership2) Organizational social rights, e.g., claims to economic resources in the form of wage and salary income, bonuses, current fringe benefits, and pension contributions; social status symbols, such as office size and locations, private dining facilities, etc.
3) Organizational loyalty, i.e., identification with and allegiance to organizational leaders and the organization as a whole, transcending the parochial interests of individuals, work groups, and departments" (p. 256, continues below, numbers are added)
Gemeinschaft definitely describes more like what the relationships were like in the Vienna mission. The identification factor was very strong. Because the mission was not a for-profit business the resources listed are not very relevant for the most part. However, the department heads did have bigger and nicer offices, and they were more likely to have secretaries and they might have had a larger home also. So there were some benefits. I'm not sure exactly how those got figured out, but somehow they did. One thing was that all the missionaries came from different missions and so there was a range of "salaries" depending on your sending mission. It never bothered me any, but I think it may have bothered others at times. I think it was one of those issues you just tried not to accidently aggrevate.
As to organizational loyalty, the mission demanded it. This was part of the trust issue that was tested during the initial socialization.
***
"1) Covenantal relations, a special form of Gemeinschaft that includes transcendent principles of goodness (e.g., equal rights for all persons) that inspire and support the parties to the relationship, and to which they are held accountable
2) Organizational political rights, e.g., ability to influence, participate in, or make decisions concerning organizational policies and practices ranging from the details of doing one task to the mission of the organization of the organization as a whole, from issues of finance to personnel, operations to marketing
3) Organizational participation, i.e., interest in organizational affairs guided by ideal standards of virtue validated by keeping informed, and espressed through full and responsible involvement in organizational governance" (p. 256, numbers are added)
The only thing, in my mind that the members in the Vienna mission held each other accountable for (or at least the main thing) was security related, and I don't think that's what #1 here is talking about. Security is not some "transcendant principle of goodness". The closest that the mission came to that was their ends justifies the means - which I've referred to several times here on this blog - , if you want to count that as a "principle of goodness."
Organizational political rights??!! No, no, no, no, no.... ! Whooo boy I think I landed in the wrong book or something. Unless you were the director, assistant director or the North American director you had zilch organizational political rights. That being said, department heads had limited say within their area of expertise, but that's it. Just to set that record strait, the mission was not a democracy and there was no power sharing. There... I got it off my chest; can I got on now?
This is the other side of the coin. I would very greatly have liked to have had more serious involvement in the Vienna mission, but maybe not the mission as it was. If it had been anything like what I had expected it to be I would most certainly have maintained a keen interest in organizational affairs and would have been open to involement in whatever leadership oppurtunities might have come my way. But being that the mission was the way it was in fact and I wasn't wanted for any leadership position and I didn't really want any leadership position there either because I couldn't espouse their valuesso pass them on to someone else, then as far as me and the mission were concerned we were a non issue. In general, governance is just something the board of directors do, which includes the director, assistant director and North American director. No one else needed worry their pretty little head too much about organizational governance.
I think that's it for tonight. Good night.
