O'Reilly, III, Charles A., Chatman, Jennifer, Caldwell, David F. (1991). People and organizational culture: a profile comparison approach to assessing person-organization fit. Academy of Management Journal, 34 (3), 487-516.
***
"Results of a series of studies have shown that person-job fit predicts performance, satisfaction, and turnover across a variety of jobs." (p. 491)I think it's safe to say that there was poor "person-job fit" between me and the job most of the time I was in Vienna (or the States, when they sent me back for a few months). Let me explain. For a good chunk of the time I was a secretary I was doing stuff that was very unchallenging, like being on a short term temp job as a clerk or something, not even a secretary. And some temp clerk positions were more involved and challenging than what I was doing even.
I was given some in-country trips, mostly teaching ESL with the other secretaries, but also one women's ministry trip (conveniently just before my parent's came and I was always suspicious about things that occurred in and around my parent's visits and the like - which you'll maybe understand later.)
So, basically, for the most part, the person-job fit for me at the Vienna mission was pretty attrocious; and according to this text, that means that my performance, satisfaction and turnover should all be affected. Well, I don't think my performance was affected and I never got any indication that there was any problem with my performance - except the 100%, total, no bars held submission, of course, which I've already discussed in great details all over the place in this blog. (For new readers, the mission was a total instution and there were things I didn't know about before coming that I could not completely agree with, so I could not give that total submission, which also entailed faith in the mission because the security issues meant that you were on a need to know basis.)
My satisfaction leval was in the gutter almost the whole time I was with the mission. The reasons I stayed were because 1) I couldn't believe that the mission was really as bad as it seemed they were and in the end we were going to have a chance to talk theings out (that was delusional thinking) ; 2) what was I going to do if I left the mission? I'd written like 30 or so letters to missions that work in that part of the world and about half had responded accusing me of being a spy trying to find out about their work and only two missions had seemed at all interesting and the other worked with children and I'd given that a whirl in the States and decided against it, although they wanted me. 3) my commitment was for 2 years and if I went home earlier I'd have some explaining to do to my supporters, although to stay was really almost a waste of their money.
When my two years were up I left with no fanfare and really as an outcast. I doubt there was any possibility of salvaging my missions career, because it probably was lost from the beginning because of my relationship to my dad. If I had tried to prolong it to extend to another year I would just have been in for more of the problems I experienced the first year because all they wanted was to get rid of me and it was the two military chaplain H.R. directors who were orchestrating that.
***
"Typically, researchers have agreed that culture can be through of as a set of cognitions shared by members of a social unit." (p. 491)
The Vienna mission shared enough of the home country (ies) Evangelical Christian culture to easily fit in back home, but unique aspects of working in "closed countries" that kept them more or less at arms length from others made them particularly close knit. Also, their security issues the work and life in Eastern Europe all became particularly strong parts of those shared cognitions.
***
"Schneider (1987) proposed that individuals may be attracted to organizations they perceive as having values similar to their own. In addition, organizations attempt to select recruits who are likely to share their values. New entrants are then further socialized and assimilated, and those who don't fit leave... Just as research has shown that similar backgrounds, attitudes, and experience can increase liking between individuals..., it may be that organizations that manifest and reward characteristic outcomes and behaviors will be more or less attractive processes of selection and socialization acting as complementary means to insure person-organization fit (chatman, 1988). Thus, congruency between an individual's values and those of an organization may be at the crux of person-culture fit." (p. 492)I certainly was attracted to the Vienna mission at least in part by their values, although primarily by the very mission itself - that is, the task it had set for itself, to educated church leaders in Eastern Europe. Of course, I wouldn't have been interested in it if it had had a theology that was to much at variance with mine, but it was the task, the mission, that drew me to it. I assume the mission was doing the same when it selected me. I don't know what it did with my critique of SGA (that I shared with my sending mission), or if they ever heard about that critique, which they might not have.
But then the mission and I have to get to know each other further and that happens through socialization. I don't think I got any clue during candidates' course with my sending mission of what might happen during socialization with the Vienna mission, although socialization could be highly individualized too. How could I know that almost immediately they'd be lying to me, things my sending mission had assured me of were not so, and I would so quickly no trust them? These aren't the kinds of things I want an explanation for; they lied and that's all. They lied, period. There's nothing really to explain. So then I felt like I just felt like I had to watch as to why they might be doing it or how ingrained that kind of thing might be, etc. Sadly, it seemed to be very ingrained.
I'm very glad to tell you that I didn't succumb to the culture of deception, which isn't to say that I'm perfect, because I'm not. It's just that I didn't become a part of that way of life. It seems that for security they think it's necessary. This seems like a good place to refer to Scripture...
Ephesians 4:25
King James Version (KJV)
25Wherefore putting away lying, speak every man truth with his neighbour: for we are members one of another.
Since I'm not exactly sure what went on behind the scenes in my application process I'm not sure who dropped the ball, but it seems to me like someone did.
***
This is from the results of the study."[I]ndividuals with high needs for achievement show a significant preference for aggressive, outcome-oriented cultures. Respondents with high needs for autonomy show a preference for innovative cultures and negativity toward those characterized by an emphasis on supportiveness and teamwork." (p. 502)
I'm going to go through the table through each of the "Organizational Culture Profile Factors." This is from a questionnaire result (N= 395) of M.B.A. students & new accountants. I'm only listing items with statistically significant results.
The underlined terms are from a list of terms that the subjects were to put in value order as related to their workplace. That is from most important to least important. So that means, this list includes things that might be undesirable.
The items behind the letters and the left perenthesis (e.g. "a)" ) are qualities the subjects had to rank as pertains to themselves. Again, these might include undesirable as well as desirable qualities.
For those of you who are unfamiliar with statistics (and I'm more of a qualitative person myself, actually, but at least I can more or less handle this much anyway), the p<.01 and p<.05 refer to how statistically significant the finding is, or how certain one can be that the finding probably is not just a fluke or chance role of the dice or something. p.<.01 is a stronger statiscal finding than is p<.05. The smaller the number the greater the likelihood it's not a chance finding.
Also the (neg.) indicates a negative relationship. For example:
Innovation correlates with aggression.
Innovation correlates negatively with abasement.
Individual Organizational Characteristics
Characteristics
1. Abasement. a) (neg) innovation (p<.01); b) (neg) aggressiveness (p<.01)
Since abasement wasn't in my nature (except perhaps instilled in my by the mission so by the time I left maybe it was a part of me), it shouldn't be of that much interest what kinds of organizations fit or didn't fit that kind of personality. However, since by the time I left the mission seemed to have turned me more or less into this kind of personality, maybe it is useful to know that organizations that are innovation-oriented or prefer aggressiveness are contrary to abasement personalities. However, amazingly enough, I think the Vienna mission was innovative, since it was on the cutting edge and unique in the kind of mission it was doing, being a conglomerate of 15 missions working in closed countries and out of one building. That was unheard of outside of the Vienna mission. I can't say the mission was aggressive, though, at least not how I understand the word. It's not like they were cutthroat salesmen or something.
2. Achievement. a) (neg.) outcome orientation (p<.01); b) aggressiveness (p<.01)
I do to a certain extent appreciate achievement, but not necessarily in the usual way. That is, I'm not necessarily a ladder climber, for example. I'm not opposed to getting ahead, but that's not really what I'm all about. I'm curious, and I want to do my best, and I have values, and I'm concerned about issues. So all these things take focus and lead to different types of achievement.
I can see how outcome orientation is a negative correlation to achievement personality. Have you ever heard of teaching to the test? This might be a U.S. phenomenon. It's when a teacher has to give a test (some authority above the teacher forces it on the teacher) and the test has certain other repercussions. So the teacher teaches content that will specifically help the students do well on the test. It might not otherwise be what the students need to succeed in the world or succeed in their next class, but it's what they need to do well on the test. Well, outcome orientation is like that: you work specifically just to receive specific outcomes, nothing less, nothing more. Of course, sometimes you can get in a little extra, but that's a bonus. But you really HAVE to get in the expected outcomes or you're in deep doo-doo. People with an achievement orientation would feel very stymied by this type of culture, and I'm not sure I'd like it for long. Maybe to start out with, as a training wheels situation, but that's it. Then I'd be moving on pretty quickly, or as soon as I could find a place more challenging to me.
People with an achievement personality were a good match when the organizations culture was aggressive. I'm not that achievement-oriented, because I don't like aggressiveness. So maybe it's more accurate to say that I'm somewhat achievement oriented.
3. Affiliation. a) emphasis on rewards (p<.05); b) (neg.) team orientation (p<.01); c) (p<.01)
I don't think I'm that affiliation-oriented. Maybe that's why the intense greeting when I first arrived bowled me over and seemed overblown. At the meetings everything was all hype and success stories and commendations and all upbeat. It was rare that there was anything negative. The only thing I can think of was maybe finances at one point having to watch our budgets or the like. You'd think you were at one of those pyramid scheme meetings for all the hype and positive thinking though. Norman Vincent Peale would've been proud had he been there.
I'm not sure why team orientation correlated negatively, and strongly so. Maybe because the affiliation was with the whole group/company and teams disrupted that or something. But that's beside the point, because I'm not so strong on affiliation.
I'd like to stop and make a note on this though before continueing on. The way my life has gone has made me disentangle myself from groups more then associate with groups, so I've ended out appearing like affiliation is not strong. But in fact, I really do think that since other things like my values that have caused me to step away from groups, have taken precedence maybe in fact affiliation is not such a strong character trait in me. There have been a few groups though that I've left just because I've moved away that I would otherwise preferred to have stayed with.
4. Aggression. a) innovation (p<.01); b) (neg.) supportiveness (p<.01)
I'm not aggressive, and I don't really care to discuss this one.
5. Autonomy. a) innovation (p<.01); (neg.) supportiveness (p<.05); c) team orientation (p<.05)
I do like autonomy, but not exclusively. It's not surprising that organizations that are charactarized by innovation correlate highly with individuals who like autonomy. On the other hand supportiveness does not correlate well; maybe it stifles autonomy. And team orientation correlates moderately; maybe you could still have more autonomy in a team than with a boss breathing down your kneck.
The problem for me is that I think that most people in the mission got to experience this kind of thing, but I didn't much at all, if at all. Once people were oriented and had internalized the organizational norms and values and had gotten the swing of their position, then they could do some of these things and act as the professional that they were, within reason and within the scope of the security guidelines. But I was just shuffled around everywhere, hither and yon, and never had a chance.
6. Change. 1) innovation (p<.01); b) (neg.) supportiveness (p<.05)
Change wasn't anything I particularly valued, although once I entered in the mission I sure as all get out saw a few (!) changes I wouldn't have minded seeing happen. If they are reading my blog this is the first they are learning of them, however.
7. Creativity. a) (-neg.) aggressiveness (p<.05); b) supportiveness
I don't think of myself as a creative person in the formal sense of the word (i.e., artistic), and I think that's what they mean here, but they just use a broad word to include more facets of creativity.
8. Deference. a) (neg) innovation (p<.01); b) supportiveness (p<.05)
I did not think of my self in deference terms, and even when I left the mission they didn't get me that far down. They got me to abasement, but not to deference. For example, here an atmosphere of innovation is contrary to deference, but in my last position I created a new system to organize the ordering of office supplies for the whole organization and also the supply cabinet.
9. Dominance. a) innovation (p<.01); b) outcome orientation (p<.05); c) aggressiveness (p<.01); (neg.) supportiveness (p<.05)
I'm not domineering and I don't value dominance. I'm more egalitarian, although when I have been in leadership positions I recognize that for some things a person needs to have leadership, but I prefer more egalitarianism. Even, for example, in my last library job when we had to schedule the lunch breaks and I was the one in charge we did it fairly together taking into account everyone's needs, not just me sitting at my desk assigning everyone as I liked or something. It was a little thing, but I think everyone appreciated it and felt like it was a fair way to do it.
10. Endurance. a) outcome orientation (p<.05)
If outcome orientation is the only thing to correlate with endurance then my tendency is to shy away from it. However, that being said, I did stick it out with the mission the full 2 years of my commitment even though my time with them was mostly pretty horrible. And outcome orientation has zilch to do with my staying. Still, maybe I should give a second look at endurance and consider that maybe that was a value after all.
11) Exhibition. a) innovation (p<.05); b) (neg.) supportiveness (p<.05)
I'm not necessarily big on exhibition. I'm the kind of person who's not ashamed to speak her mind (except in Vienna!!). So if you have a small group discussion on a topic I'm interested in you might want me in it to liven things up. But half the time I'm so unassuming people underestimate me and who I am, what I'm capable of or what I might know. So I'm definitely not what you'd call an exhibitionist.
12) Nurturance. a) (neg.) innovation (p<.05); b) emphasis on rewards (p<.01); c) (neg.) team orientation (p<.01); d) decisiveness (p<.05)
I wouldn't say that nurturance is particularly a word I'd use to describe myself.
13) Self-confidence. a) aggressiveness (p<.05)
Although I entered the mission with strong self-confidence, aggressiveness would not have been qualities I appreciated. I think of aggressiveness not as self-confidence but as something else all its own.
14) Succorance. a) (neg) innovation (p<.05); b) (neg.) aggressiveness (p<.05).
I had to look this one up: it means something like dependence on or seeking nurturant care. This definitely is not me and was never me.
There are several things that could possibly be gotten from this exercise.
1. First of all, which of these descriptors fit me best and did the mission fit the complementary organizational descriptors.
2. Secondly, what might have I been like at the end of my time with the mission
3. Third, which combination of organizational descriptors best fit the mission.
I. Which Best Fit Me
2. Achievement. Because of the terms connected with Achievement I have to say that I'm a moderate here (because I'm not aggressive). But achievement is more or less like competition, in my mind, and I'm not really competitive, except to do my best and maybe do better than I did last time. So maybe putting me in a moderate position is accurate.
5. Autonomy. The autonomy issue is really a tough one vis a vis the Vienna mission because I was treated differently from others in how I was moved around all over the place. So maybe no one really got to work by themselves autonomously, but they did get to work in teams, which I got precious little of. About the closest thing to team work I got was the ESL team to Czechoslovakia (remember that was the late 1980s). That was pretty short lived too.
However, individuals did need to know how to work autonomously, but generally in teams, most commonly in pairs, according to what I knew. So in this the mission did foster a team spirit (whether departmentally, organization-wide, or for any particular team on a ministry trip), and did foster a spirit of problem solving and team effort. This could be seen, in a very localized way, as innovation, and it was encouraged by the mission, and one had to always be on one's toes for potential security problems while one was behind the Iron Curtain.
13. Self-confidence. I don't like how self-confidence is paired with aggressiveness. (How come all my qualities are matched with aggressiveness!?), but be that as it may, just consider that I have self confidence that is somewhat shy of aggressiveness. In any case the mission did not value aggressiveness, that's for sure. I think the mission valued self-confidence, as long as the person was in full submission to the mission, if the person wasn't, like me, the mission would bring him/her down a notch... or two... or three... or.... etc. which is what it felt like is what they did to me. If I had stayed longer they would have kept going I guess until I was just a blubbering idiot or something.
II. Which Best Fit Me At the End Of My Vienna Years
1. Abasement. This definitely fit me at the end of my years with the Vienna mission. They really put me through the wringer and kept sort of ever tightening the noose around the kneck - or that's how it felt to me. I've talked a lot about how this happened in various places in this blog. I think that's the main change, at least from these qualities, that happened during my stay in Vienna.
III. The Descriptor Combinations That Best Fit the Mission
In this exercise I'm not going to be looking so much at the first word, which refers to the individual, but the following descriptor(s), irregardless of what the personal descriptor is.
12. This one is a pretty good fit, although the negative for team orientation is problematic. But other than that it's certainly the best fit of any of these here. The mission valued innovation for problem solving, not to mention materials writing and lesson planning. The emphasis on rewards was in keeping with the focus on sort of positive thinking and team spirit. I think the idea was to bolster morale, but there was also security concerns, so it was important to keep everyone upbeat for those reasons as well. I already mentioned the team orientation issue; it was valued in the Vienna mission, so it doesn't fit the statement here, which holds the opposite. Decisiveness was valued out in the field mostly, but could also be valued at times in the mission itself also. For those in positions where decisions would most likely be made on a day to day basis decisiveness was important because their position as authorities needed to be maintained.
***
I spend a lot of time on that article, on the chart in particular, but that's it for the article now. It's after 11 p.m. now and I spent a good chunk of my day on this post, so I'm finally going to post it.