***
Returning to the textual discussion...
Next the author goes on to give examples in which failing to perform in one area can disqualify one in another, sort of how if you fail to dress appropriately for a job interview you might not get the position.
"Differently expressed, deviations from the socially approved conduct are penalized (not punished". The step from one to the other, though narrow, is unmistakable. We need to only think of the exclusion from sacramental offices of sinners or of the loss of civil rights threatening political criminals." (p. 268)
It's possible I was penalized for something or the other in Vienna, but it never was clear what my options were or how to get there. At any rate, at a certain level it could certainly look like I was penalized by not being allowed to do the job for which I came there for. That is, a good part of the time I was in the position I wasn't doing much and then a lot of the other time I wasn't even in the position anyway because I was moved around so much.
Since the only thing I really understood was they wanted some kind of unquestioning submission that I couldn't give, I never really knew what giving them that submission would lead to. Here are some examples of what could realistically have happened just by "submitting" (assuming I could figure out the right way to submit):
1. I would get to keep my job
2. I would have the possibility of moving into women's ministry (under the condition I got my Th.M.)
3. I would feel strong-armed into doing something (submitting) against my will
4. The submitting would lead me to do things I would otherwise regret
5. The submitting would lead me into their way of thinking/logic, which I would also otherwise regret
6. I would become comfortable with their way of thinking and doing things and all would be nice and rosy
7. I would submit and have the rug pulled out from under me and be made to go back home because of my dad
8. I would submit and learn to appreciate the priority of protecting my dad over my having a ministry
9. I would submit and develop a healthy fear for my life (because of my dad) and want to go home out of fear
So, you see, not only did I not really know how to submit, but I didn't know what I was submitting to or why. On the surface, of course, I would be submitting to a "Christian mission" and the ostensible reason would be for the mission's "security." How that would pan out for me, though, and what that would mean for my life after submitting, I didn't really know. My selective naivety does have a limit and I'd already experienced enough just by the end of July (what I've already told you about) for my protective shields to go up.
***
Upon reading the text further it appears that the Vienna situation does not fit what this author intends. That is, he is talking about more or less automatic built-in consequences, whereas in Vienna I don't think that was so. That is, there was not natural consequence to, for example, my choosing to attend a German-speaking church. Rather, the administration decided (apparently) that that kind of activity was not suitable for what they wanted me to do. The author is talking about non person-specific consequences of actions. For this to fit in Vienna, for example, it would mean that anyone who attended a German-speaking church would have the same consequences as I might have faced for doing so. When I say "anyone," however, this could be limited to "any secretaries" or "any female staff," etc.
So this article is basically irrelevant, although I wouldn't say useful, because in discussing it I think I've identified some new factors or issues regarding my experiences with the mission.
***
This next article is quite different:
Duncan, Robert B. (1972). Characteristics of organizational environments and perceived environmental uncertainty. Administrative Science Quarterly, 17(3), 313-327.
This is a research article.
***
"In the present analysis of environment is thought of as the totality of physical and social factors that are taken directly into consideration in the decision-making behavior of individuals in the organization.
If the environment is defined in this way, there are then factors within the boundaries of the organization or specific decision making units that must be considered as part of the environment. A differentiation is made, therefore, between the system's internal and external environment." (p. 314).
This study then involved asking 10 decision-making units from 3 companies (businesses) about what internal and external factors they take into account in their decision making. On the basis of the results of their answers the author came up with a list of components of the internal and external environments.
[Sorry it's hard to read.]
***
"The next step was identification of the environment's dimensions in order to make predictions about the kinds of environments in which different levels of perceived uncertainty are expected to exist...
The simple part of the simple-complex dimension deals with the degree to which the factors in the decision unit's environment are few in number and are similar to one another in that they are located in a few components. The complex phase indicates that the factors in the decision unit's environment are large in number." (p. 314-315)
Let's see if I can identify some of the mission-specific environmental factors, using the list in this article (see above). I will be at a disadvantage for not knowing for sure what all of the factors might be, but maybe I know enough to make this a useful exercise. I'll be going down the list, item by item as in the image above.
Internal Environment
(1)
(A) Largely homogeneous in area of expertise & education level
(B) Mostly, I think, limited managerial skill, but not "technical skill", although there were exceptions, such as my secretarial skills (and one other secretary's also).
(C) Involvement and commitment are assumed because of organizational norms and the consequences of deviance
(D) Some differences in style, but nothing of major consequence, I think. Cohesion was so values that this wouldn't be allowed to be an issue.
(E) As far as I knew, this was not an issue, and if it was, I had lots of time on my hands that I could have helped out to fill in some gaps (according to my abilities, of course)
(2)
(A) I don't know that technology was a major issue, at least that I knew about.
(B) Interdependence among units was high, I think, and was complicated by geographical separation (with the publishing office in the US and some textbook translating being done "in-country" (i.e., in Eastern Europe).
(C) Not allowed (see (I) (D) above).
(D) Not allowed (see (I) (D) above).
(3)
(A) Not a problem.
(B) Not a problem (except with me, since I never was fully "integrated")
(C) This was complex because it involved the textbook and teaching components and had to be coordinated, often way in advance.
External environment
(4)
(A) Complex because of the E. Europe context.
(B) Complex because of the E. Europe context and how it affected the "students" and logistics of when and where to meet.
(5)
(A) I don't know about this. It would mainly be handled in the U.S. on the publishing side of operations.
(B) I don't know about this either, although I had delivered a light table to them when I was on the 1983 summer short-term ministry trip.
(C) I don't know about this either, as it would mostly be in the U.S. (other than standard office equipment).
(D) Complex mostly on the teaching end, as often there were guest instructors and sometimes other staff members who weren't on the regular ministry teams went on teaching trips, like my one trip of that nature.
(6)
(A) I don't think this was a problem, but I don't know for sure.
(B) Mostly irrelevant (competitors would be other national seminaries).
(7)
(A) Pertinent regarding the work being in communist countries mainly (i.e., U.S. and Austrian oversight wasn't that relevant other than basic registration and the like).
(B) Relevant in that the office in Vienna was a potential place of interest to communist interests and that the teaching and students were in countries unfriendly towards what we did.
(C) No trade unions - external ties like that would not likely be allowed, and in the context of the mission that would mean professional associations.
(8)
(A) Not that relevant, although the mission stayed pretty current regarding technology.
(B) In the sense that the organization was still writing its course materials (i.e. increasing its repertoire of courses and supporting materials) they did develop new "products" but not because of anything to do with "new technological advances..."
I've put in bold the items that seem to have been relatively complex in the Vienna mission. Looked at in this light, the organization doesn't come out quite as complex as I would initially have thought. What it seems to me, though, is that the mission had such tight control over the things it could control that that compensated for the greater complexity of the Eastern Europe (communist countries) component, which was where the complexity came in. This makes it look like maybe the mission's minimizing complexity where it could made it better able to deal with complexities it couldn't control, or at least couldn't control as much.
***
The next dimension is the "static-dynamic dimension."
"The static-dynamic dimension indicates the degree to which the factors of the decision unit's internal and external environment remain basically the same over time or are in a continual process of change. It is composed of two subdimensions. The first focuses on the degree to which the factors identified by decision unit members in the unit's internal and/or external environment are stable, that is, remain the same over time...
The second subdimension of the static-dynamic dimension focuses on the frequency with which decision unit members take into consideration new and different internal and/or external factors in the decision-making process." (p. 316-317)
The first sub-division looks at change in the environment, whereas the first one is about the staticity of which factors are considered, that is the list of factors changes, not the factors themselves. I'm not going to try even to address the second subdimension, but I'll take a stab at the first. Remember, I'm answering these questions as if it's the 1987-1989 time period I was with the mission. (The participants in this study used a 5 point Likert-style scale, but since I wasn't a decision-maker I'm not going to do that.)
Internal Environment
(1)
(A) Static
(B) Mostly static
(C) Static
(D) Static
(E) Static
(2)
(A) Static
(B) Static
(C) Static
(D) Static
(3)
(A) Static
(B) Moderately static
(C) Mostly static (Changes were additions - new courses - rather than changing anything already existing.)
External environment
(4)
(A) I'm not sure, but I'd put this more in the middle (between static and dynamic)
(B) Fairly static (Student groups changed some but the intent was to train up cohorts; new groups might be added, though.)
(5)
(A) I don't know.
(B) I don't know.
(C) I don't know.
(D) Mostly static
(6)
(A) Static, I think
(B) Static (i.e., no competitors, although there were some other in-country seminaries.)
(7)
(A) Static unless changes in E. Europe end
(B) Static
(C) Static (no such relationships)
(8)
(A) Mostly static
(B) Somewhat static (except for development of new courses)
From this standpoint it looks like there was a lot of stability, which, if I hadn't broken down like this I might not have realized. Of course, these dimensions come from the corporate world and may not match the types of factors the Vienna mission might have considered. Nevertheless, I think it does look like a helpful too in understanding the mission.
At this point I'm thinking that the stability was partly due to the nature of the work (textbook writing, publishing, low turnover because of workers coming from overseas, etc.), but partly also because of the culture of the organization. For example, the culture would influence the level of conflict ((2) (C) and (D)). Another factor might be the complexity of considering the 15 missions and also the in-country students, which would argue against the likelihood of a lot of internal change.
***
"If the view that an organization has no properties aside from the way people perceive it (Hunt, 1968) is given some credence, we need to begin to identify more clearly how individual differences affect perceptions of organizational properties." (p. 325)
This is an interesting concept, and I think there's more to it than readily hits the eye. For example: organizations are groups of people and aside from the people comprising it it does not exist, although I think it is more than just the people themselves, but also their interactions, etc. So the group acts on its members and the members likewise act on the group (i.e., affect each other). But the thing is that the people create the norms and boundaries of the group, and the individuals' perceptions of the group affect that process, and these perceptions also affect the the boundary maintenance process. So could the norms, boundaries, etc. exist apart from individuals' perceptions?
The other thing I thought of in reading this statement is the dilemma about whether a tree falls in the forest if no one hears it fall. But I think this is different because the tree is not a social construct, whereas the group is. So perception is not related to the tree in the same way it would be to the group.
Anyway, the thing is that I was a member of the mission (more or less), so according to this statement, my perceptions might be worth considering. The issue in this statement, specifically, however, is how individual differences affect perceptions of organizational properties. Since I was a member of the mission (more or less) for some 2 years, I could conceivably have affected the "properties" of the organization, at least for the duration of my tenure with it. So we have a couple things going on here:
1) An organization has no properties aside from the way people perceive it.
2) Individual differences might affect perceptions of organizational properties.
Or another way to put it is:
Individual differences => Perceptions of organizational properties => Organizational Properties
Are you ready?
Individual differences: (I've discussed this at some length already, but here are some things that might have been unique about me.) European studies background; idealist philosophy; language skills; pre-existing understanding of the church in Eastern Europe and missions there, etc.
Perceptions of organizational properties: mission 1 is deception/security; no accountability; misuse of Scripture to rationalize whatever they want; unbiblical demands on members (e.g., total submission/no questioning); ministry itself is all right; etc.
Organizational Properties:
[Does this mean that whatever I attribute to the mission is true? This thought is quite liberating, let me tell you. I guess at the very least it could be true in a relative sort of way. But that's part of why I did this research, so that I could try to get past the narrow scope of my single-lens perceptions. So far, the mission still hasn't come out smelling like roses though, at least in my olfactory perception of it.]
Organizational Properties: untrusting, deceitful, unbiblical, worldly (in its methods) ... That's a start anyway.
I guess this makes it fairly clear how I might have left the mission in something less than on ideal terms.
***
That's it for this article. There are a lot more to come, though.
