341. Organizational Behavior, Pt. 65 (Farh, Podsakoff & Organ, pt. 1)

Today's Easter and, of course, it would be hard to not say anything about that.  Last year I was in Seattle for Easter, which came a couple years later in the year.  I didn't go to church, though, because it was the last day my one brother and his kids would be there and they'd be flying home.  (I did go to the Good Friday service, though, which my brothers didn't go to.)

We met in a park and had the first hour or so of fellowship and potluck brunch which was nice to just chat.  I didn't have to feel too badly about being a few minutes late even.  Then we had the service after that and some activities for the children after that.

I sent out Easter cards this year instead of Christmas cards, because I'd actually missed sending out Christmas cards for the last 3 years because of moving or health reasons, and I took a lot of time to write indivividualized letters to everyone, but most of them ended like this:

---

I would really appreciate your prayers about some of the decisions I’m making that I’ve mentioned, about my health, and for my brothers and nephews. 

As we focus on Easter we think of Christ rising from the dead, conquering death and hell, overcoming sin, making all things new. 

When I look behind, when I look at all I just wrote, all I experienced the past few years, what my family has gone through, I think I am ready for something new, I am ready to experience anew the resurrection of Christ.   

God Bless You and Happy Easter! 

Christ IS Risen!

Or, as they say in Russian…

Иисус Воскрес …. Воистину Воскресе!

                                                (Indeed He is Risen!)

And here is another little dose of Easter: a Pysanka(plural Pysanki):  

***

This next text is:

Farh, Jiing-Lih, Poksakoff, Philip, M, & Organ, Dennis W, (1990). Accounting for Organizational Citizenship Behavior: Leader Fairness and Task Scope versus Satisfaction. Journal of Management, 16(4), 705-721.

***

These citations are from the section "Leader fairness and OCB" 

"A person apparently can tolerate some deviation from expected fairness in outcomes if the methods or procedures used to determine the outcomes are reasonable.  A plausible explanation for this finding is that fair procedures provide a basis for trusting that occasional inequities will or can be rectified in the future, that the working contract is self-correcting and still worthy of commitment, and that present unfairness of outcomes is due to unusual circumstances." (p. 707)

The most glaring issues during my time with the Vienna mission are the revolving door job assignments.  I don't see how you can see that there is any way under heaven that reasonable methods or procedures were used to determine my job assignments.  It had absolutely nothing to do with, say, my attitude on the job, my punctuality or my reality, my ability to do the job, or anything like that.  No.  It was either that 1) they didn't really want me there in the first place because of my dad's work (he worked for star wars as a program manager); or 2) I wasn't becoming properly socialized (hadn't sold my soul to them).

How decisions were made was basically a mystery to me except for occasional snippets of access to some such information.  But in the case of how they decided to move me around I really am not sure how they came to these decisions, although a couple instances seem clearer than others.  I mostly have the end results to look at - the fact that I was moved around so much, when others weren't.  But what went on behind the scenes that resulted in my being moved around but not others being moved around, I can't really say.

***

"Rawls (1971) has argued that procedural fairness also procedural fairness also presumes a demonstrated respect for human dignity, for treatment of people in a 'humane' fashion." (p. 707)

I would just comment here that the Vienna mission, it might be noted, had no procedures of any kind, as far as I was aware of  (that would have been taken seriously I mean, so forget the policy manual with its rights to study German and rights to take time off to spend time with visiting surpporters from back home - both of which the mission would not let me keep) that would be considered "procedural fairness" and the mission did not treat me, at any rate, in a way that "demonstrated respect for human dignity."  

The last phrase requires a longer, more complex answer, which I'm not inclined to go into right now.  I have to think of it in terms of myself and specifically in terms of them sending me back to the States and how that absolutely horrified me and I thought they were like the Soviets sending me to be brainwashed (like they did to Christians).  I don't know about you, but my perspective on that is that it isn't exactly very humane.

***

Sorry this is a little late... I fell asleep at the computer last night! By the way, the pysanka (Ukrainian Easter egg, is my work - if you can call it that.  After I worked for the Vienna mission I worked for my undergraduate alma mater and I took a 1-credit art class to learn to make these.  I wouldn't say I'm exactly gifted; there were certainly others in the class who showed much more potential than I did, I think.  But I tried as opportunity allowed to keep up at it.  Unfortunately, opportunity has not allowed for quite a few years now, so I'm pretty rusty.  But I think I picked up fairly quickly so that maybe next year I should be able to do better, especially if I start earlier.  I only did 3, but the first one was really bad, the second one was damp and the wax slid off, so there was only one that was worth keeping.  It reads "Christ is Risen 2012" on the edge in Russian.  It'll be added to my small little collection.  I'm not nearly as good as my great grandma, so I have a lot of practicing to do.  But it's going to have to wait until next year, because I'm paking up my pysanky things because I have a lot of other things to do, like this blog.

339. Organizational Behavior, Pt. 63 (Graham, pt. 9)

My migraine is really bad today and I missed physical therapy today because of it. Tomorrow I get a Botox injection for it though and my rheumatologist assured me that he has several patients that have been helped by it I can't wait!!

Yesterday I said I'd be starting with the conclusions this time, but I found a couple other sections to comment on.

***

This section is in "Environmmental Factors".

"...[C]ultural traditions or popular beliefs concerning human nature may predispose people to form or not to form covenantal relationships." (p. 263)

The author goes on to give her own example, but I'm more interested in what this might have to do with the Vienna mission. Whether or not the Evangelical Protestant missionaries came with strong covenantal bents, the mission soon instilled it in the (or coerced them into it if they were too obdurate).

Within "faith missions" covenantal relationship are common. But back home this is not so; rather, individuals are more independependent.

To me the thing that seems like it might have been a difficult barrier of this nature is the professional license that the theologians might have been used to.  Submitting to a covenantal relationship of the nature of the Vienna mission would mean giving up a good chunk of that professional license.  I wonder if that was something any of them ever grappled with... I don't know the answer to that

***

This next quote is from the section "Organizational Factors."

"Prevailing assumptions about basic human nature may create an atmosphere that is either hospitable or hostile to the formation of covenantal relationships in a workplace... In addition, the trustworthiness of management may affect member-citizens' relation tie to an organization." (p. 263)

I think that the second sentence here might refer to external relations, but I'm going to treat it all as internal. The most obvious possible "prevailing assumption" "human nature" would be some along the lines of Arminianism or Calvinism. But beyond those, I think that the administration basicly didn't trust anyone unless you were one of the socialized "in-group."  However, there were different levels mistrust.  But the thing is that basically, their stance was "You are (to one degree or another) untrustworthy unless proven otherwise."

Looked at in this light, one might think that the mission had a hostile envioronment for the formation of covental relationships. However, the fact that it was a total institution I think allowed it to overcome this apparent dilemma.

As to the trustworthiness of management, I never got any indication that management was questioned at all, and I'm quite sure that that wouldn't have been tolerated.

***

This last section for  this post is "Personal Factors."

"Job satisfaction with supervision and co-workers is plausibly linked with the creation and maintenance of normal Gemeinschaft, but probably not covenantal one unless shared values elevate the values to a higher level.Organizational ...commitment is a more likely predictor of covenantal relations, especially if member-citizens perceive a return commitment from the organization, as shown by job security and trustworthy management." (p. 264)

I most definitively did NOT have job satisfaction with supervision.  There is no way in a million years you could say I did.  That's looking at the broad picture.  Looking at the detailed day to day picture it was a mixed bag.  When I wasn't doing what it seemed was more 'on track' for me especially toward the end, such as being the receptionist, I didn't feel like I was monitored and I was given a loose reign.   (I felt like I was monitored when my computer, for instance, "had a mind of its own," but in a semi-predictable way so that it seemed there was a human behind it.  But it wasn't clear enough to come out and say so because I was sure they'd deny it.

My supervision was manipulative, involved a lot of gamesmanship (as in "Games People Play"), and I never was completely 100% sure what they wanted, so I can only conjecture.  Although I feel pretty confident in what I think they ultimately wanted, at the end of the day it's still just conjecture.  The thing is that I never reached true insider status because I never completely trusted them, which is what I think they wanted - full, unfettered, complete, abandonment.  I couldn't give it to them because I disagreed with them on too many of their modus operandi and relevant values and norms.  They knew I was holding back, but they didn't know why or to what extent.  For all I knew they just thought I was a flighty ditz - a dumb blonde that didn't "get it."  To a certain extent maybe I didn't "get it," but, as I've said before, if they only knew what I was really thinking, the horror I was feeling and the concrete thoughts I was having at the time based on what I knew already about relevant issues, they would have been shocked and responded much more violently, so I laid low, did everything I was asked, and never compleained about anything and even took initiative on some things.  I just didn't open up to them.

What they did do to break me was to try to tear me from all my external ties and that has had long lasting effects to this day because some relationships were difficult to pick up again and were lost forever after they made me cut back my prayer letter list.  Of course, I could still have written people, but the thing is that there wasn't that much time to  write lots of letters so if you couldn't include people on your prayer letter list it would be hard to keep up with them otherwise.

I could go on and on about supervision, but the other thing I could say about my boss, the one I cam to work for in the first place, is that he didn't really supervise me at all.  Actually, his boss' secretary did most of the orientation and my boss admitted up front to never having had a secretary before.  So I sort of got group supervision there, although I think it might better be termed guidance, rather than supervision.

While there were periods and instances in a micro-supervision way that my supervision was okay, looked at in a macro say over the full of my two year term, it was a disaster, and I think supervision might have been lucky to result in Gemeinschaft, let alone covenantal relationship. (I'm sorry, but I don't want to get side-tracked here into these "supervision disasters" but I mention throughout this blog instances where the mission management treat me poorly, and the management would usually include supervision.)

My co-workers could only do so much towards giving me job satisfaction and, ultimately, affecting the type of relationship I might have with the mission.  Since everyone was, in one sense, sort of a puppet of what the top management wanted, they just confirmed whatever my boss and others above me wanted.  It might sound harsh to say they were puppets, but the socialization process involved such a strong identity with the mission and the mission being a total institution that I really think they were to a large extent like puppets while they were in Vienna.  Dissent wasn't allowed, and things like what I went through where I seemed to have my own agenda which was just having an Austrian ministry in my off hours, led to a lot of pressures to change.

This text is right, I think that job satisfaction with typical supervision and co-workers alone couldn't lead to couldn't lead to covenantal relationships unless shared norms indicate otherwise.  In the  Vienna mission work and every day life relationships (24/7) were all bundled up in a total institution normative framework.  This person that was that was your supervisor was also someone you knew socially outside of the office walls and you knew his family,  and you all hobnobbed together to a certain extent also.

 I think that while individuals were made to feel like their part in the picture was important, everyone also felt a keen sense of being on the cutting edge of something.  That is, people in general apart from their own individual job felt like just being part of this ground breaking work was quite significant in itself, apart from the particular job the individual was doing.  That's not to say that individual work wasn't also valued, but the work of the mission was also very cutting edge. and strategic.


I think people come to missions (at least Protestant faith missions) generally expect  - to one extent or another - a coventantal relationship with their colleagues on staff, but in the Vienna mission this was heightened by the security issue.  Since I didn't agree with the extremes they took in the name of security, I also didn't have a basis for  having a stronger covenantal relationship with the mission and it's people.

According to this text, "organizational commitment is  a more likely predictor of covenental relations, especially if member-citizens perceive a return commitment from the organization, as shown by job security and trustworthy management."   I did not have job security and not really any reason to trust management.  Management kept tossing me around like a ball from position to position.  They never really seemed to trust me, and they gave me no reason to trust me.  They lied to me and treated me horribly.  There's no way I could have imagined seeing a "return commitment" from the Vienna mission.  So my "organizational commitment" was inversely related to my perception of lack of both job security and trustworthiness of the management.  However, that is not the only reason for my failing organizational commitment..  I'm not going to go into that here, though.

***

I think this is all I'm going to use in this text, so next time we'll start a new text.


It took longer than usual to write this post because of my schedule and what was going on in my life.  Yesterday I finally got the Botox for my migraine and I learned that it could take up to 3 weeks to have the full effet of it.  Right away in physical therapy we could see in some things that my balance was better that day, though.  I still have a ways to go, but it feels like the edge is off now.  So that's goodl


My second bookcase came back today    So now I have booth of them, so I got them both set up.  I still have to organize m my books by subject, but at least they're not stacked bouble deep now.


Tomorrow I do my taxes.  It's been sort of a headache because he had a problem with one cashed Roth IRA that my tax consultant was saying ont thing and everyone else wasy saying somehing else so then my financial advisor wanted me to see his CPA, but then eventually my consultant got the info she needed and everyone things was okay.  Still, it was a bit of a heacache.


I must admit I am getting a bit concerned about my neurological system.  my legs are taking major exercise efforts to keep them functional, but my midsection is also, and I see the g.i. doctor on the 24th.  I feel like my whole g.i. system is acting up.  So the thing is that in 2008 I had a diskectomy & fusion at T11-L1 and in 2011 I had the same a C4-7 and currently we're looking at virtually my whole lumbar having "mild to moderate stenosis."  I think I had MRIs of my upper spine too recently.  Anyway, this is the pits, let me tell you.  Basically, I'm fighting against becoming paralyzed and I can't afford to slack off.

But that doesn't mean I can't sleep.  And since it's midnight, I thinkg that's just what I'm going to do.

338. Organizational Behavior, Pt. 62 (Graham, pt. 8)

My migraine is bad today.  I can't wait until Tuesday when I get the Botox injection and I hope it works for me.  I feel really crummy.

I finished my first Pysanka (Ukrainian Easter egg), except I have to take the wax off to see the final results.  I don't think it's going to be very good, but I haven't made these in years, so I need to practice.  I'm going to make another of the same pattern again.

***

Returning to the text, this section is "Organizational Participation."

"...[T]he issue facing a member-citizen, regardless of job level, is whether or not to participate as fully as his/her rights will allow." (p. 261)

The thing in my case in Vienna, was that the mission seemed to want full/complete/total/absolute participation, to the point of almost act first, think later (or "Let us do the thinking for you; trust us, we have your best intentions at heart.")  So, sure, I coldn't participate in the same things my boss could, but the point was that I belonged to the mission 24/7.  Also, the mission, being a total institution could make different sorts of demands with different types of clout than could your average corporation back home So here you have:

1. a total institution
2. demand of full participation 
3. demand of participation appropriate to one's position

The thing was that the off hours participation they intended for me was largely with a peer group that I didn't completely identify with and I'd made it clear that I intended to work with Austrians on my off hours anyway.  

I've discussed this in other ways elsewhere, but I did what I was asked regarding befriending my boss' wife and children, doing things with the secretaries and other singles, but some of those things I really didn't want to do that much and wouldn't rather have been doing hands on missionary work with people, with the Austrians.  I thought that it was too bad that my boss' wife was so insecure that she felt she had to know her boss' secretary and be her friend and I I though that if families come with children they need to about how they're going to raise they're children.  Like maybe bring a maid or something.  I know that may sound callous or something but can we get past the stereotypes?   If you asked them to describe a mission secretary during the time I was there they could have done it without thinking - and it have included the inevitable mentoring and babysitting and for their boss' kids.  That's got stereotype written all over it. 

***

"Those having only an instrumental relationship with an organization are likely to be politically apathetic, except about issues having a direct impact on their own welfare (more on this situation follows).  Those having normal Gemeinschaft relations, who identify with an organization and its leaders, are likely to be inactive, although their reason is not apathy but uncritical acceptance of whatever organizational leaders decide." (p. 261)

I wouldn't say I had an instrumental relationship with  mission, but the mission might well have viewed me that me that way.  Rather.  I considered that I had a no-nonsense 2-year commitment to the mission.  I thought that maybe after that something else might be worked out for a different positon, though, but within the mission.  So I don't think it could be said that my attitude was one of a instrumental relationship with the mission.   I wasn't just using them, for example, to get somewhere else.  I didn't have any plans of anywhere else to go.

The second sentence here is odd when considered in light of the Vienna mission, because virtually everyone there identified with  the organization and its leaders.  But I don't remember anyone seeming apathetic.  People were supportive, energetic, etc, but not apathetic.  In any case, we all were mostly the 'yes men' and all we had to do was to go along with whatever decisions the Board had made.  I'm talking about the big decision here.

***"

"Proposition 8: As organizational political rights increase, so does organizational participation.


Proposition 9: The direct relationship between organizational political rights and participation is enhanced if relational ties to the organization are covenantal in character." (p. 261)

I don't think proposition 8 fit the Vienna mission.  The reason is that the only ones who had any political rights to speak of were  at the very pinnacle of the organization, but participation was universal, and, total institution, it could demand universal participation.   (It could do this because its workers were thousands of mil home, etc.) 

Although, among options offered by Graham, the covenantal relationship to an organization is the closest fit, I think for the Vienna mission, in this particular situation.  There should be stronger political rights and participation due  covenantal relationship.   But they are not. So that's when you go back to the drawing board and reconconsider whether or not they really were covenantal in nature.

***

That's  it for now. Next time I'll discuss some of Graham's findings from her study

336. Organizational Behavior, Pt. 60 (Graham, pt. 6)

I think it's been somewhat carthatic writing these Easter letters.  I don't know what the fallout will be, though.  But the prep for the tax things has been sort of stressful, so while the Easter letters has been a positive force of sorts, the tax issue has been a negative one.  We'll see how both end out.  It could end out that the tax issue is fine and the Easter letters get a rabid response from some quarters.

Anyway,  after some things I've written and thought about, I thought it might be appropriate to deal with this one issue very briefly.  In my family, the men, following my father's lead, have all taken the position that public opinion is of paramount importance.  I hope you can tell by now that I'm not so much of that mindset.  As a matter of fact I'm more of the turn-the-tables-of the-money-changers ilk.  That is, let's call a spade a spade and fix the problem rather than continue on playing some charade or other.  In any case, don't count on me to play along, so if you want to play, you'd better keep me at arm's length because I'm not the playing type.

Now my talking like that is not necessarily just all hypothetical, because I have two brothers who seem to enjoy making sure the public have one view of them even while they know  they live differently.  That's why, for example, no one knew that my one brother had a temper - because it was delegated to private family affairs.

But what does the Bible have to say about this kind of thing?

Well, actually, I'm not sure I understand them enough to say for sure.  With dad I think, if I understand him correctly, it was that when mom had her first breakdown she was an embarrassment  to him and so from then on there became a need for there to be a discrepancy between what really went on behind closed doors at home and was the public saw.  If there was a difference like (between public fiew and their familial relatioship) that before her breakdown, I don't know about that.Dad may also have resented her holding him back too, I don't know.  We as children were told not to tell other people about mom's emotional problems.

My brother back home, in his relationship with mom made sure everyone knew how much he was sacrificing and doing for her and how hard she was making it for her.  So then it made it look like she was such a problem and so unthoughtful or something.  Then behind closed doors he would yell at her and criticise her and call her names, basically, emotionally and verbally abuse her.

Luke 12:2
Nothing is covered up that will not be revealed, or hidden that will not be known.

This verse is good for anyone to remember who does things "in secret", including the mission in Vienna and how they treated me.

Ecclesiastes 12:14
For God shall bring every work into judgment, with every secret thing, whether it be good, or whether it be evil.


















This, of course, is true for all of us, every single one of us, believer included, because we're going to be judged to receive crowns and for our positions in heaven.  So if someone is terribly concerned about what others think and has a dual standard regarding what goes on in public and what goes on in private and what should be kept secret, knowing that if secrets were to be "leak out" the Christian world might not approve and you might have some explaining to do or you might have to change some ways.  So you'd rather maintain the status quo and pay the piper later... at the judgement seat.  Well, and you just may have to do that.  So it might be wise to consider whether or not there are any double standards lurking in your families, in your missions.

John 3:19
And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.

Now I'm not saying that any of the people I'm talking about aren't saved, but in their walk, at least in certain spheres, since they have this secret inner world (family, mission) that members have strict instructions as to how they are to talk about to the rest of the world, so they seem in this instance to love darkness rather than light.  They seem to love their world of secrecy and darkness from which the world is cut off - but which, I might mention, God is NOT cut off.   God know all your little secrets and what goes on behind closed doors.

How much better to have a clear conscious and love the light?  That is the one thing I have always, from day one ever since I left Vienna, said, that I left with a clear conscious, which is something I could not have said if I had mired myself in their ways.  So I never regreted that.  Of course, I still went through a lot of agony, which I've discussed elsewhere and I'll get to later on too. But that's a different issue altogether.

So whether you're my family members, the men in my family, or the Vienna mission, you need to know that God knows what you're doing and what you've done, whether or not people know or knew, and one day you're going to face God for how you've acted.  So you may think you can fool people, and you may well be able to, but you can't ever fool God.  Ever.

You still have a choice, however.  Are you going to continue in darkness?  For missions, deception is a sin and lying is something God can't even do.  I don't even want to try to address my brothers.  They're going to have to figure their own way out. 

***

Back to the text...

We're in the section titled "Organizational Obedience" where the author is still creating propositions relevant to organizational citizenship behavior.  In this section she pairs organizational rights and responsibilities to create "organizational obedience".   For example...

"Those with Gesellschaft relational ties are likely to be minimally compliant, because they see rights and responsibilities related only instrumentally.  On the other hand, those with normal or covenantal Gemeinschaft relational ties are likely to obey the spirit as well as the letter of the law, due to their sincere respect for the organizational rationality." (p. 259)

The covenantal Gemeinschaft relational ties are what one would have found in the Vienna mission, and I don't think anyone would really argue with that.  Except I never really reached that level because I could never accept the mission's values and norms en toto, and that was part of my not internalizing their values and norms.  Of course, I did in part, but that was not at all adequate.  They wanted all or nothing, because to have a partial acceptance meant that you were left critiqueing the organization over the part you didn't accept and that was not okay.  Very not okay.  So I was in the doghouse like most of the time I was there, if not the whole time.  (Of course, there may well have been other things going on, so I don't want to make it look like that was the only reason I was singled out, because I doubt it was.)

Okay, so all those others who did have the covenantal Gemeinschaft relational ties with the mission did (once they were socialized) obey the spirit as well as the letter of the law and did, as far as I knew, have a sincere respect for the organizational rationality.

I think this "organizational rationality" thing deserves some discussion.  First of all, I remind you that we're talking mostly (although not entirely) about theologians with Th.M. and some Th.D. degrees.  So these people should have been able to think more or less clearly about "organizational rationality."  Or at least about organizational morality.  The thing is that these new missionaries respected the mission for the following reason, I suspect: 1) for the qualities of missionaries (in their view); 2) for the quality of the mission and/or number of missions comprising the mission - as it was made up of member missions; and 3) conceded to others because of their lack of lack of skill/knowledge regarding work in Eastern Europe/closed countries.     So these things compelled these missioneries to sincerely respect the organization's rationality, which resulted in their obedience.

I, on the other hand, failed to see the organizational rationality.  The thing was that, first of all, I came knowing German and Russian and having spend a couple months a few years prior in Austria, not to mention other German speaking countries and cities.  I had also worked with other missions and had done research with a well known research center and worked in a specialiced library, had traveled on my own and made contacts on my own and learned of various ministries to that part of the world on my own.  And I had written to a whole slew of missions trying to select a mission and had gotten a real eye opener in the answers I received.

So when I came to the Vienna mission and saw what I saw, knowing what I knew from other groups.  I knew that I couldn't accept their rationality and that their rationality wasn't a given just because their missionfield was Communist.  I didn't buy it.  I didn't buy it because I didn't think it was Christian and I didn't buy it because they were using tactics similar to those used by the Communists.  (The Communists did used psychology to reeducate their political activists, I'll remind you.)  So no I didn't enter into the covenantal Gemeinschaft relationship ties, but leaving felt painful like I was leaving a cult under bad conditions.  However, the upbeat letter from the director and assistant director which was so sickening syrupy sweet that I received some six months after I returned home from leaving Vienna made it sound as if everything was just hunky dory. Yeah right.  Barf.

***

I think that's all for now.  I've got to get going.

335. Organizational Behavior, Pt. 59 (Graham, pt. 4)

I just had an e-mail exchange with one of my brothers, the one in New England, and now my brain is sort of side-tracked in thought about him.

I'm having some difficulty with my tax consultant, so I may have to switch consultants... we'll see.

***

I'm skipping sections to "The Geopolitical Environment."

"An important contectual factor when discussing organizational citizenship is that organizations are embedded in geopolitical units (e.g., nation-states) having their own distinctive traditions regarding citizenship (cf. Scott, 1988). This fact sets constraints on what an organization can do.  For example, where slavery is outlawed, organizations cannot legally coerce members to belong.  Further, where employees have the right to quit (a civil guarantee in the example by the state), employers find themselves obliged tooffer acceptable intraorganizational rights (e.g., fair treatment, competitive wages, and a voice in decisions affecting employee interests) in order to induce employees to join and stay in the organization." (P. 257)

So technically, if I had known the Austrian law and it had provided for "the right to quit", then I should have been able to invoke that law when I was offered to return to the USA because I had "culture shock" (!?!).  Of course, that would have been the unusual missionary who would have come to the field equipped with the knowledge of the local employment laws.  I can imagine what kind of a response that would have evoked, since they themselves had little regard for written rules.   So for me to evoke the Austrian law!  I wonder how they would have respnded?  My first guess is that they would have called my sending mission's local office to get me out of there because they would figure I'd be a major threat if I was going to do things like evoke national laws.  Even if it were arguable that the law might not apply in the situation, they might decide it wasn't worth raising a scandal over, so it would be better to just let me go quickly and quietly as I asked.  It's also possible, however, that they might pull some fast ones to try to somehow silence my possible testimony back home, but I couldn't even try to conjecture what they might do.

***

"In addition to protecting civil rights (such as employment-at-will), the state may also guarantee social rights (such as minimum hourly wage rates and pension protection), and political rights (such as union organization and representation). The point of these examples is that rights exist at two levels: the geopolitical environment and the organization.  If an organization violates individual rights guaranteed by the state, organizational members have recourse to the state's legal system, i.e., organizational members have recourse to the state's legal system, i.e., to exercise their societal civil rights to foce the organization to come into compliance." (p. 257)



I don't suppose anyone in the mission would have wanted to organize unions (since they had internalized the organizational/management norms and values so well), but if they has it certainly wouldn't have been well received.  On the other hand, maybe if I had tried to onionize the mission I wold have had more legal rights, although I don't know what kinds of exceptions ther emight have been for nonprofit and church organizations.  Besides, O woudln't have had any money for legal fees so that would have had to come from somewhere.. maybe a nonprofit somewhere that specialized in such things.  This is just speculation, however, and no one would have been interested in joining a union except for possibly newcomers.  So that confirms what I've been saying that they had all internalized the norms and values.  They were so united that there was no one who would critique the organization.  It was a HUGE case of groupthink, if you will.

***

"The fact of organizational embeddedness in larger geopolitical systems not only sets a floor for organizational rights; it also suggests as a variable of interest the degree to which organizational rights exceed those required by the state.  ...


...
Proposition 1. Organizational policies and practices granting more member rights than those required by the geopolitical environment strenghthen the relationshial ties member-citizens have with their organization."  (p. 258)

Hah!  I would be very, very shocked if the Vienna mision knew anything about Austrian employment law.  However, I supposed they had a lawyer, but I'm not sure what issues they used him for.  I suspect they had to know what kinds of visas were needed for missionaries (and coming from the various countries), how money needed to be handled regarding taxes, how much could be brought into the countrey, etc. and those kinds of things.  But I doubt very much they knew anything about the Austrian employment law.  But then the thing is, did it apply to them?  It seems like they couldn't have completely escaped its reach, but I don't know that.  That might be a good thing for a missionary to know, though: whether the employment laws of the country they're going to apply to the mission they'll be working for.  Trust me, you never know if you'll need it and not all missions are as ethical as they seem back home.  Heaven forbid you might need it thhouth, hopefully you won't.

That's it for now.

334. Organizational Behavior, Pt. 58 (Graham, pt. 4)

I didn't get up in time to make it to church, without being late.  So I guess I'd better start setting my alarm for church.  I baked a loaf of whole wheat pumpkin bread (with walnuts and raisins) too.  It was bring a friend Sunday so people were asked to bring something and visitors were going to be given some loaves and others were going to be for the social time.  Rats.

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 employment


2) 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 leadership


2) 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.

333. Organizational Behavior, Pt. 57 (Graham, pt. 3)

My regular physical therapist has been on vacation this week and she left the instructions to focus on strength training for my legs, and boy have they been focusing on strength training of my legs!  The first day the physical therapist said I might ache the next day although I didn't - I must say that it's generally pretty rare for me to ache after exercise.

However, during some of the exercises I thought I was being punished for something it was so bad.  These were exercises that when I was healthy would have have been so hard but for me now they were just horrendously difficult.  One of the worst ones was leaning against the wall squatting with your legs out in front, knees spread apart, so that your legs are bent at about a 90 degree angle and holding it for 1 minute; doing it 3 times.  After about 30 seconds it would start to get bad, by 45 seconds I was ready to throw in the towel and the last 15 seconds I was wimpering like a puppy dog the whole time  just gritting my teeth just barely holding.  Then I'd just collapse on the chair under me.

They did do a pretty good job of improving my walking, although I hate to think I have to do all that to maintain my walking.  Anyway, I still do have trouble walking.

I'm still trying to get the migrain taken care of too.  The migrain has not been well managed/under control for a couple months approximately now, so it's making things a bit rough too.  I have a botox injection scheduled for April 3, but I was hoping to have it done sooner, but at this point it looks like it won't be.

***

The other thing that's happened is regarding taxes.  I saw my tax cnsultant earlier this week and she needs some more documents, but she's also working on some things from her end too.  We're trying to figure out if I owe tax on one big ticket item.  But I also can't find a couple important 1-99 forms.  I feel like I've looked everywhere, or at least everywhere logital.  But then the 2010 tax file was found in completely the wrong drawer.  So I'm really frustrated about this.  The thing is that this is, I think, directly related to the fact that my migrain has not been managed recently, so I've been more prone to making mistakes.  It's very frustrating and it means that I'm spending time on it to the neglect of other things, which is just all the more frustrating and discouraging.

Back to the text....

***

This is the last section under "Part I: The Nature of Citizenship."

"Citizenship Responsibilities...

Obedience...Citizens are responsibile for obeying existing laws...

 Loyalty. The second category of citizen responsibilities concerns the expansion of individual welfare functions to include the interests of others, the state as a whole, and the values it embodies.citizenship behaviors in this category include uncompensated contributions of effort, money, or property; protecting and/or enhancing a state's good reputation in the eyes of outsiders; and cooperating with others to serve the common interest, rather than seeking a free ride." (p. 254)

There is one more responsibility and then Graham takes these and applies them to the workplace, but, since the Vienna mission wasn't your tyical workplace anyway, I'm also going to discuss these "geopolitical arena" versions of citizenship responsibilities.  

"Laws" in the Vienna mission context was an illusive concept, which was very handy because one could never write home and say the rules were very strict, because technically there were practically no rules.  And the ambiguity could be very frustrating until you were socialized, became a trusted member and began to understand how the system worked.  (Remember the policy manual seemed to have no affect as the only 2 teimes I made reference to it at the beginning were quickly snubbed by management).

So the issue of WHAT to obey was something I grappled with my whole time in Vienna and I never could quite figure it out completely although I'm sure it was dependent on my submitting wholeheartedly to them, which I never could do because I didn't trust them.

As far as loyalty goes, missionaries generally are used to putting forth uncompensated effort.  I resented the focus on my boss' family though. I put forth an effort though, but  that felt sexist and stereotypical and also it made me feel like maybe my boss's wife didn't trust me working with her husband or something.  If that were so we just needed to deal with it straight up instead of beating around the bush.  

***

"Participation... [C]itizenship behavior includes devoting time and effort to the responsibilities of governance, keeping well informed, sharing information and ideas with others, engaging in discussions about controversial issues, voting in whatever manner is provided under the law, and encouraging others to do likewise." (p. 254)

In the Vienna mission this assumes that the management liked an involved staff.  First of all, they did NOT like controversies, any voting that might have existed would only have been in the board room, and those in appropriate formal or informal or informal positions to know something would be told - although upon return from an absence they might have to inquire about about missed information.  The point is that, there wasn't a lot of room for anything out of the expected, out of the hierarchy, etc. to happen and if you were in a position to know or do something you'd get the information or have the opportunity to do it (if possible).  This was not a democratic system, which I've mentioned before.  I, for example, didn't have any of these, although for a while when I actually did act as the secretary of the assistant director I might have had  some responsibility for encouraging others (e.g., department directors) to do one or more of these things (but only in the name of my boss; I couldn't have done this on my own).  So I would just have been a conduit for my boss... does that count as participation?

***

"The three categories of citizenship responsibilities described above... can be used in organizational settings...

Organizational Obedience.  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 regulation. Obedientce may be demonstrated by respect for rules and instructions, punctuality in attendance and task completion, and stewardship of organizational resources." (p. 255)

I don't think I ever had a problem with organizational structure and made a lot of sense.  I did and still do have a proble with the lack of grievance procedure, which might be sort of considered part of the organizational structure (i.e., complain up the structure, to my sending mission, etc.).  But since they were all in cahoots, there was no one to complain to.  

I accepted my original job description, but it might have been the case that they wanted someone that would have been a career secretary, I'm not sure.  In any case I was obedient to the other job descriptions I held, but I did not accept them in the same way as I did the original job description because I understood that these moves were some kind of punishment for my not  responding adequately or correctly to their efforts to socialize me.  I put forth my full effort at every job they gave me however, and I did not complain.

***

"Organizational Loyalty.  Identification with and allegiance to organizational leaders and the organization as a whole, transcending the parochial interests of individuals, work groups, and departments. Representative behaviors include defending the organization against threats; contributing to its good reputation; and cooperating with others to serve the interests of the whole." (p. 255)

My organizational loyalty - using this definition - began to be tested very soon after my arrival in Vienna.  But after the 5th month crisis event it took a definity dive forthe worst, and after that my loyalty was on the rocks.  In Vienna no one could recognize this, but the Vienna mission began censoring my prayer letters and I suspect that it knew that not only was my attitude a risk but the very things I was experiencing they didn't want people back home to know about.

So for most of the time I was in Vienna I had negligible allegiance to the organizational leaders and the organizational as a whole.  I never was in one position in a whole to worry about having "parochial interests."  That being said, however, I didn't want the mission to be exposed to threats from the Communist countries and I did support the work of the ministry, the training of church leaders in "closed countries."  But I thought there was too much about how they were doing it what was unscriptural that I thought they should be held accountable to Christians back home.  But most Christians back home wouldn't have cared anyway, or would have been so anti-Communist that they would have thought it was all worth it.  So that's why I lost trust in Christianity.

***

"Organizational Participation. Interest in organizational affairs guided by ideal standards of virtue, validated by keeping informed, and expressed through full and responsible involvement in organizational governance." (p. 255)

I don't have much else to say about this.  Everyone attended the meetings we were supposed to and I can't imagine someone not attending a meeting.  The rank and file workers only knew what pertained to their work and human interest stories and information that we could include in our prayer letters, or certain changes that might be happening in the future, like a ministry trip to China (a new field) or the like.   

***

"Responsible citizenship requires a balance of obedience, loyalty, and participation, rather than focusing on one at the expense of the others. Consider the variety of ways citizens can be irresponsible: (1) One who obeys the letter of the law, but neither feels allegiance to the common good nor participates in governance, is indistinguishable from a resident alien or day laborer. (2) The loyal flag-waver who privately flouts the law for personal gain is a hypocrite, as is the nostalgic patriot who ignores emerging issues and refuses to participate in the political process to address them constructively, thereby allowing threats to the long-term viability of the state or oganization to fester. (3) The political activist who disrespects existing political structures and proceses, or who pursues parochial interests to the detriment of the long-term common good, is an anarchist." (p. 255)

As to (1) the letter of the law (i.e., the policy handbook) appeared to be irrelevant to the mission, as I soon learned, so it was up to me to try to learn by trial and error what the rules of the game were.  I found this to be a moving target, so how could I be expected to obey them?  Did I try?  I think so!  But I also think I it was very tiring and frustrating and I put forth a more than adequate effort in trying to figure them out.  As to governance I was not anywhere near allowed a way in governance, so I couldn't have participated in it had I wanted to.    So number 1 seems irrelevant to me.

As to (2) I didn't flout the law because I wasn't sure what it was.  If I appeared to flout it it was only because I'd given up in frustration trying to figure out what the rules of play were.  It's possible that might have appeared like flouting.  But in any case, I don't think you could say I flouted them for personal gain.  It's possible that they took issue with my working with Austrian, however, but before I left the USA I had told my sending mission about my sending mission about my intention to work with Austrians since I was a secretary and would have time in off hours and they'd told me they though that would be okay.  But I struggled with the Vienna mission over that the whole time I was there and it's possible they took this as something I was flouting the law for personal gain (although I'm not sure which of their laws I'd be flouting here).  However, I think they're just ethnocentric... although selectively so, because some of their members did attend Austrian churches.  

Continuing with (2)... I dn't think I could have recognized an "emerging issue" if it jumped up and bit me in the nose.  Such an issue would have had to have been announced at a large group meeting.   And the thing is that such a mission-critical issue would not have brought to the group to decide or even for their input.  Again, this was not a democracy.

***

"(3) The political activist who disrespects existing political structures and processes, or who pursues parochial interests to the detriment of the long-term common good, is an anarchist." (p. 255)

This can't be me because  I didn't participate in any of aspecte of the governance of the mission.  

That's it for Part I of this article and we'll pick up from here next time.