"At high levels of commitment, it appears that the costs of commitment outweigh the advantages. Individuals may advance more rapidly in their careers, and the organization's production demands may be met with greater ease. However, individuals also may suffer an array of personal, family, social, and work-related problems. In such circumstances, the requirements of organizational life may no longer be satisfactory to its members (Scott & Hart, 1981). Further, the firm may lose flexibility and find itself burdened with overzealous employees, and it may become vulnerable to a variety of unethical and illegal behavior." (p. 467)
In the world of the Vienna mission career advancement was a non issue because there was hardly any room for advancement, although the mission has grown considerably now since I was with it so if missionaries stuck with it all that time from then to now they maybe there would have been some leadership opportunities (regional leadership, etc.). But you can imagine how much more efficiently everything would run with everyone on overdrive high commitment to the mission. But then you have situations like what I experienced so much of the time where efficiency was all but nil. So was the statement really true that the "organization's production demands may be met with greater ease" in the case of the Vienna mission? I thought so, but what wasn't my personal experience, so I can't be really sure about that either. Maybe efficiency wasn't a very high priority, or relatively as high as some other values, like security. So, in my case, since I wasn't totally socialized, security was still an issue and so security was more of an issue with me than was efficiency. I'm not sure about this.
So the thing is tha this author is saying that the advantages as to why you might want high levels of commitment are for personal career advantage and/or for organizational efficiency's sake (for work/production). If neither of these are actually benefits then there must be some other benefit if the organization (in this case the Vienna mission) wants the high levels of commitment. So what would be the benefit?
The thing is that it really seemed to demand that high level of commitment and I recognized this while I was there; it wasn't something that I pieced to gether afterwards to figure out. So they must have had some reason for wanting it if not what the author suggests as the usual reasons. I submit that the reason(s was/were that they wanted it because 1) they thought they needed it for security (presumably because some of the missions they worked with required certain things that demanded it) and/or 2) there were some things they were up to that might have been distasteful to some of their supporters such as some U.S. government connections (like the U.S. military reserve chaplains or the member mission that took money from the CIA for their short-wave radio work into the USSR (this was the late 1980's but the CIA money I only knew for certain was a few years earlier).
As far as losing flexibility, the mission had all the flexibility it needed, I think because the members had internalized all the values and norms. So if, for example there was a major security breech, they would all have pretty much known what to do. They all had superiors o guide them I guess. They didn't need flexibility for the market, like a for-profit corporation would. Otherwise, they would need flexibitlity in-country (in East Bloc countries, where they taught classes) to deal with crises there, but they knew what to do had the skills to get out of scrapes of various kinds. I think I did just fine security-wise with only moderate (or less) commitment and I did not cause any security breaches. But that wasn't good enough for them; they still wanted the high level of commitment.
***
These next quotes come from the sub-section "Implications for Research""Herbert Simon was one of the first to suggest that commitment to the organization as a whole is distinguishable from commitment to specific values, policies, or goals.... Gouldner.. later demonstrated empirically that commitment to specific values was independent of commitment to the organization as a whole and that commitment to one value was independent of commitment to another." (p. 467)
The Vienna mission didn't see it that way, because it was an all or nothing mission. You had to take the whole thing. That's part of why I compared it to the Soviet Union, which demanded that its citizens (especially pre Gorbachev) believe in the party line and it did everything it could to get them to believe it, including through the schools, Young Pioneers (children's clubs), all the media, at work, etc., etc. Basically, et was everywhere. In 1977 the new constitution gave a nod to religious rights by allowing freedom of religion and freedom of atheistic propaganda. That is believers didn't have the right to propagate their faith, but they could quietly practice their faith within their 4 walls (if they could get past a bunch of other obstacles and problems).
So whether or not the Vienna mission would say I had my right to my own ideas and opinions, the thing was that they wanted a high level of commitment where they had the right to mess with my values so that they could implact their warped onesl So in their case commitment to the organization was NOT distinguishable to commitment to specific values, policies or goals. You could NOT pick and choose. I mean, I in fact did that, but that is not what they wanted. And the scary thing is that you have to accept it all, but you don't see it all. So it's like an iceberg, where you see maybe the top 1/3, if that, and the bottom 2/3 or more is under the water, but you have to make a determination based on that 1/3, not knowing what the other 2/3 is. So you take the leap of faith that the mission requires and except everything, not just the 1/3, but all of it, including the unseen 2/3, and at that point you're stuck. And if the mission tests you, like makes you help socialize someone - pass on the thing that you just became a part of - then you're already vested in it and the more you're in the harder it is to get out. Plus, the mission uses psychology, that would make it hard to get out as well, if my experience is at all meaninful for others in this manner.
***
That's it for this article. I can't believe it's so late already.