Angle, Harold L., & Perry, James L. (1981, March). An empirical assessment of organizational commitment and organizational effectiveness. Administrative Science Quarterly, 26(1), 1-13.
In the literature review, under a section titled "Organizational Commitment and Organizational Effectiveness," we find the following quote:
"Although general organizational theory holds that the structural features of an organization should fit the demands of an environment and technology..., organizational design, alone, will not ensure organizational effectiveness. Even where the structural prerequisites have been met, there remains a cruicial requirement -- that the members of the organization behave in a manner supportive of organizational goals."
I certainly agree with this and even agree wholeheartedly, even as pertains to the Vienna mission. But the thing is that I thought that I was doing everything to meet organizational goals and I thought they decidedly were not acting in a way that would point toward those stated goals. So that, as you can imagine, was very confusing to me.
I was already dedicated, I already understood the perils of the communists (at least I thought I was pretty sure I did, even experientially, as well as having read some first hand accounts of believers at a research center). The fact that they so mistrusted me was insulting and they should have told me that upfront, maybe before I even got there.
Well, the thing was that I agreed with their goals and I was committed to them about as much as anyone could be, but I was told I would be a secretary and I wasn't so committed to that part of it, except to do my best and make a positive contribution to the mission.
But the way the mission treated me at the beginning - which is the fountainhead of when everything else began, so is the most important time, I think - was like it was testing me. And the reason you test someone is because you don't really trust them. If you trusted him/her you wouldn't have to test him/her. So the mission didn't think, evidently, that I had commitment.
Well, the thing was that when they tested me, they were testing me for something other then the goals that are publicly known, so they have other things than the publicly known goals. Are these other things "goals"? I'm not sure, because I never really became an insider to find that out. But they definitely were values and norms.
***
The study itself is not too applicable to my situation, but the discussion makes a broad statement that is interesting:"This pattern suggests that any impact of employee commitment on the organization may indeed depend on the specific kinds of behaviors to which the employees are committed and, of course, the effects of such behaviors on organizational outcomes." (p. 10)
So, for example, allowing me opportunities to actually teach was something that would have motivated me more than being a secretary. Or if there are different tasks of a job that one prefers or dislikes, that kind of thing. For me, there wasn't particularly anything that I disliked about being a secretary, it's just that it's not where my heart lay and that's not what I wanted to do. Not to mention it wasn't challenging to me.
I still have to figure out the reasoning of some of the things. They did start to let me take trips, but then it all fell apart after my parents left and dad attributed it to my being too independent. If so this is what might have happened.
Before I left Seattle for Vienna in 1987 Dad told me I might have to have a debriefing from his work, but that didn't happen for some reason unbeknownst to me. But maybe they (the security gurus, military security, CIA, whoever) decided that I could go but only on a short leash. But my sending mission didn't know that (they were a British mission, so maybe they were out of the loop) when they said they didn't think there should be any problem with me working with Austrians since I'd mostly be working in Austria as a secretary (i.e., not making trips to East Europe). So I arrive in Vienna and they have orders that I am to be on a short leash and they fight against me with all their strength to get me to be reigned in. Probably only the leadership knew about what was going on, but my boss was the assistant director, so I was working among the leadership, so they could make it difficult for me using just the leadership.
But that went (and goes - current) against everything I believe in. My values and my approach to ministry. If that is what happened, my response remains the same except my view of my father is that much horrified, because he knew all along. He must have if his saying that I was "too independent" is accurate, then that means he knew all along. But I need to work that out some more too. So that's not my final theory.
***
That's the end of this article.