Becker, Thomas E. & Billings, Robert S. (1993). Profiles of commitment: an empirical test. Journal of Organizational Behavior. 14, 177-190.
From the introduction:
"Reilly and Chatman (1986) used Kelman's (1958, 1961) research to argue that commitment may be based on compliance, identification and internalization. According to Kelman, compliance occurs when attitudes and behaviors are adopted in order to obtain certain specific rewards or to avoid certain specific punishments. Identification occurs when attitudes and behaviors are adopted in order to be associated with a satisfying self-defining relationship with another person or group. Finally, internalization occurs when attitudes and behaviors because the content of the attitude or behavior is congruent with the individual's value system." (p. 177-178)
So, basically, there are three bases for commitment presented here. Which fit my commitment (such as it was) to the Vienna mission? I think that the closer to the end of my time with the mission it got the more of my commitment (what was left of it) was of the compliance variety. I was more or less in survival mode and there wasn't much of anything positive going on for me. I was going to the English language church, teaching children's Sunday school (when I really wanted to work with older people; I was just reverting to what I'd done in high school at church); and I was working as the receptionist.
When I arrived in Vienna I think I came with an identification attitude. I think that was actually very slow at eroding because I did believe in what they were doing, and also I held out this hope - probably an irrational hope - that they would turn out to actually be something different than I understood them to be and would come talk to me about real work opportunities and issues. But I was not going to come to break down and come to them, so if they wanted me they were going to have to come to me, because I didn't play games, and I saw this testing of workers leading to breaking down as gamesmanship, so I wasn't going to do it. I never did that with my boss either. I'm not sure exactly when identification ended altogether, but it must at least have been by the time I was moved to be a receptionist and finally gave in to go to the English speaking church.
I never really reached the internalization stage of commitment, although I dhd internalize the inocuous norms and values (that I understood - as some were confusing, being not entirely socialized).
***
"...Neuman et al (1989)... found that membership in teams was related to higher overall satisfaction and more favorable attitudes toward self, others, the job, commitment to both local and global foci, including top management, the organization, the supervisor, and the work group." (p. 184)
I rather doubt that this is the logic that the Vienna mission leadership used when they matched me up with the other secretaries. That match (not made in heaven, in my opinion), was rather to serve as a socialization basis and to be my cohort in the mission, sort of like how the country teams and layout/art team were a group, only we were scattered around the building. It's possible the mission leadership did think of these things listed in this text. Security might also have been on their mind, sort of like a buddy system, too.
My main mentor did help me a lot with tips on how things are done and another secretary also helped out that way too, and so that certainly raised my satisfaction (such as it was), because without that it would have been even worse. The moral/ethical issues I was having a problem with weren't their fault, although at some point when people participate in a situation they become part of it. There may be times when that was so, even shunning me - why were they shunning me? What had I done to deserve that? They were part of that at the end when everybody shunned me! Why?
***
That's it for that article. Not the most helpful one I've had to date, but not too bad.
