For those of you who are new to my blog, it's often quite difficult to pick things up mid-stream. Right now I'm writing a fictional story about a hypothetical evaluation, based on real people at the mission I worked at, the culture of the mission and otherwise what I knew of the mission.
Then the next section of the blog (after I stop the evaluation story part) is an ongoing effort to try to make sense of my experiences with the mission, and I'm using journal articles and the like as spring boards. I worked in a mission that worked in Eastern Europe (but was located in Vienna, Austria) in the late 1980s before the fall of Communism in that part of the world.
***
While those mission members in the know about what had transpired the previous day slept fitfully, little did they realize - or maybe they just didn't want to consider it - but they had set in place a snowball effect that was felt around the globe.
You see, these board members were also leaders in their own respective missions, and so they had to now consider the potential consequences of this very real and pending evaluation by the unsuspecting foundation and their hiree, the evaluator. A few of the missions also received funding from the same foundation. Others were afraid for their own work in Eastern Europe. Some of the biggest organization that worked in mission fields all over the world were afraid what might happen if anything untoward were to come to light during the course of the evaluation that might affect their reputation. So all of these members of the Vienna mission board were in turn calling their own board members, some of whom were board members of other member missions, which in a sense revealed a bit of an incestuous relationship between some of the missions. But every single one of these board members and the board members of their own boards were all making very, very certain that no leak of this came out to the public or even to their secretaries, at least if they had a secretary at all like the troublesome unsubmitting new one Mr. Benson (the assistant director of the Vienna mission) had. Now, I don't claim to be an expert on this kind of thing, but I am familiar with the children's game of "telephone" in which some initial piece of information ends out very warped by the time it reaches the other end of the line. There was a possibility that some of this might have been going on at the same time, but it was too early to tell yet. The only thing for certain thus far was that a lot of people were very concerned about this pending evaluation.
***
The next morning Mr. Adams and Mr. Benson picked up Mr. Douglas and Ms. Elliott at their hotel again and took them back to the mission. Initially the hosts were thinking they'd probably be spending this day taking their guests around to the usual tourist spots, because it hadn't been clear what to expect other during Mr. Douglas' visit. They had asked him if he wanted to be part of a ministry trip, but he'd declined that. But now they understood that probably the rest of the day and maybe the next too would be spent in discussions regarding the evaluation.
Mr. Adams' secretary, Gail Gunderson, had been alerted to the situation and she'd arrived early to set up the room and make arrangements for refreshments and lunch. It had been decided that Gail should sit in on the discussions to take notes and otherwise help as needed, but someone still needed to be available to answer the phone. Since the options were limited, it was decided that Mr. Bensen's secretary, Heather Hymie, should take all calls for both Mr. Adams and Mr. Benson, but, since Heather was not all that reliable yet (security-wise, I mean), if any urgent or non-routine calls came in she should get Gail to take care of all such calls. Heather wasn't informed of the evaluation, and was just left with the impression that they were discussing something about the funding, which is true, because it was something that could have a bearing on funding. In addition, Heather was to be on call in case Gail needed help with anything, including setting up for refreshments and lunch.
***
After the group, Mr. Adams, Mr. Benson, Mr. Douglass, Ms. Elliott and Ms. Gunderson, got settled in the room and arranged all their materials arranged so as to be conveniently accessible, Mr. Elliott spoke first thanking Mr. Adams, Mr. Benson and Ms. Gunderson, for all they'd done so far to make their visit so comfortable, which the hosts modestly shrugged off as not really being anything out of the ordinary. Then Mr. Adams, in turn, expressed his delight at the interest Mr. Douglass had taken by way of both supporting their work and also arranging to make a special trip to come all the way to Vienna to visit them. Not until after they'd gone through all the usual pleasantries of this nature did Mr. Douglass turn to Ms. Elliott and ask her to continue with her presentation of the proposed evaluation. Mr. Douglass also noted that there would be time to ask questions after the presentation and noted that the men, Mr. Adams and Mr. Benson would both have copies have the PowerPoint slide presentation as well as some other materials, which would allow them to follow along easily, although they might want to take notes and jot down any questions they think of in the space provided. While he was saying all this Ms. Elliott got up and gave the two men their copies of these materials, and Mr. Douglass pulled out his copy as well. Then Ms. Elliott sat down again and flashed the PowerPoint presentation on so that all could see it.
Sometimes, Ms. Elliott began, trying to pull together her most diplomatic presence, Christians organizations become so caught up in what they do because they see the urgency of it and want intensely to do the best they can that they forget to pay enough attention to the more mundane aspects of their work and how they get things done and how they treat their own people. In their focus on the ministry itself they miss these other things. This is what we want to help you with and we want to work together with you on this. Mr. Douglass has been very firm on this issue from the day I first met him. So I hope you will look at this as a chance for self-reflection and improvement. As I explained yesterday, this is going to be a formative evaluation, and as such, we are expecting the ministry to continue and just improve, if need be.
I need to be frank about my role in this process from the start, so I'm going to lay that out before addressing the evaluation itself. I am an external evaluator and as such, I will need to keep a certain amount of distance from the organization in order to maintain objectivity. But at the same time, I will need access to people, events and information in order to adequately perform my job. This means I intend to have a friendly but professional relationship with the mission and the people that work in it. Mr. Douglass and I have discussed this and he agrees that this is how it should be done. Also, while I will be here in Vienna and accessible if you have any questions or concerns or if you need to change something for whatever reason, but if anything comes up that you would prefer to talk with Mr. Douglass about, he will also be prepared to take your calls.
Now on to the evaluation itself. As I've indicated before, Mr. Douglass and I are particularly concerned with processes here in Vienna, but not necessarily directly related to the ministry itself. So these are the broad areas we will be wanting to study:
1. Human resource issues, such as selection, socialization, discipline and grievance procedures in the mission.
2. Outside influences on the mission, such as funding sources.
3. Values and norms of the organization....
***
At this point Heather poked her nose in the door and motioned for Gail to come out of the room. Gail quickly got up excused herself and left the room.
Once the door was closed Heather pointed to the phone and told her one of the board members was on the line and he sounded upset about something. Heather then left Gail to talk in privacy with the agitated board member. As soon as she picked up the phone he demanded to speak with Mr. Adams right away. Gail tried to calm him down by explaining that in about half an hour the men (Mr. Adams and Mr. Benson) would have a break and he could talk with Mr. Adams then. She took down his name and phone number, but he declined to tell her what he was calling about.
Gail returned to the conference room and handed the slip with the information about the phone call to Mr. Adams, who quickly glanced at it and then tucked into his shirt pocket.
***
Meanwhile, Ms. Elliott had gone on to explain that the evaluation would include an overall impressionistic aspect of it as well as a detailed focused on more specific questions. She said she and Mr. Douglass had agreed that using a process evaluation would most effectively answer their questions, but they wanted to also get a broad picture of the organization in order to contextualize the process evaluation data and thereby more accurately interpret it. Hence, there would also be a more naturalistic/qualitative/anthropological element to the study. She ended by suggesting that they would need to work out the specific questions, how the data would be collected and analyzed and the timeline and reporting aspects of it, and the remainder of the day would be spent on trying to make headway on those issues. There was time for a couple questions, but the intent was to open it up for more interactive discussion after the break.
***
After Gail had returned to the board room to join the others again, Heather set about preparing the refreshments, while also trying to remain within earshot of the telephone. Another secretary got the coffee ready and brought it up so that Heather could stay near the phone. This time they were having homemade banana bread that Heather had put together with things she had on hand after learning the evening before that they would be having more meetings the next day.
While everyone tried to have small talk and stay away from the subject of the evaluation, Mr. Adams quietly dismissed himself to go into his office and return the call to the board member who'd called a while before. The board member must have been sitting right by the phone because the phone had hardly rung when Mr. Adams heard him come on the line. The board member was very angry, although he didn't use language ill-befitting a missionary. He said that he could not risk his ministry and intended to pull out of the group unless the evaluation was called off. The mission this board member didn't have anybody actually working on staff, but they did pay their part for the functioning of the mission and they also played a key role in the delivery of the textbooks to the study sites in-country (that is, in Eastern European Communist countries). His threat was real, and Mr. Adams knew it. But Mr. Adams was a resourceful man and he had faced difficult situations before so he didn't flinch this time either. In his most matter of fact, but unassuming voice (and he wasn't necessarily what you'd call unassuming, at least not like Mr. Benson was), he tried to calm the board member down, telling him that there was no indication his ministry was going to be at risk because the evaluation was all going to be in Vienna, which he hadn't known the night before. This did seem to strike the board member as a reasonable line of thought, so he agreed to hold off on any hasty moves like pulling out. They agreed to keep in touch though regarding what has happening in regards to the evaluation. As he hung up the phone, Mr. Adams thought to himself that this was only the first fire of many that lie ahead of him to put out before this thing (the evaluation) was all over with. Then Mr. Adams hurried off to join the others and just managed to pour himself a cup of coffee and then they all returned to the board room to start the real discussion about the proposed evaluation.
***
Now I'm returning to the discussion of the text, and the new major section title is: "People Processing - The Tactical Dimensions of Organizational Socialization and their Effects."
The authors use the same framework I discussed from other articles early on from this Socialization file, and a few pages into the section starts the sub-section "Collective vs. Individual Socialization Processes," which is where I'll jump in.
***
"Individual strategies [in comparison with collective strategies] also induce personal change. But the views adopted by people processed individually are likely to be far less homogeneous than the views of those processed collectively... Of course, such socialization can result in deep individual changes - what Burke (1950) refers to as 'secular conversion' - but they are lonely changes and are dependent solely upon the particular relationship which exists between agent and recruit." (p. 234)
This is a new twist from what I've dealt with before. That is, I've already discussed how the socialization process in Vienna pretty much had to be individual because newcomers straggled in individually from time to time and it would have been very difficult for that reason alone to practice collective socialization strategies, but the 'secular conversion' element is new. I think 'secular conversion' could fit the Vienna socialization experience though; although I didn't reach that point. But what doesn't fit here in this text is that in Vienna I don't think there was so much that one-on-one dependence because there were other people around that could participate in the socialization of an individual, and that participation could be intentional (a role that experienced member was supposed to play in the socialization process) or incidental, as in another person explaining something about the organization maybe in passing or the like. So in that way, even if there was one or maybe 2 key people leading the socialization of an individual, it would really be a whole group effort to a certain extent.
But the other thing is, though, that I think the fact that you are being socialized individually, most likely under circumstances not necessarily exactly like anyone else, you could feel somewhat isolated, especially as you learned the security-related rules, which included knowing what to talk about (or not talk about) with whom and when. And the segmentation of knowledge in the organization meant that you might know some things that could be significant but you might not have anyone you could talk with about it if you wanted to. So that part perhaps could make a person feel isolated. It's possible, though, that missionaries would somehow get used to it or somehow develop coping skills so that that didn't bother them so much.
***
"Apprenticeship modes of work socialization are sometimes quite similar to the therapist-patient relationship. If the responsibility for transforming an individual to a given status within the organization is delegated to only one person, an intense, value-oriented process is most likely to follow. This practice is common whenever a role incumbent is by others in the organization as being the only member capable of shaping the recruit... Outcomes in these one-on-one efforts are dependent primarily upon the affective relationships which may or may not develop between the apprentice and master. In cases of high affect, the new member is liable to quickly and fully appreciate and accept the skills, beliefs, and values of his or her mentor and the process works relatively well. However, when there are few affective bonds, the socialization process may break down and the hoped-for transition will not take place.
From this standpoint, individual socialization processes are most likely to be associated with complex roles." (p. 234)
I think the "therapist-patient" comparison is apt to how these socialization relationships were meant to work in the Vienna mission. And I've discussed before how I found it hard to related to the other secretaries as a major reference group because I didn't see myself as a professional secretary. I didn't dislike any of the secretaries, but I wasn't particularly drawn to imitating them either. My boss's boss's secretary, as I've said before, was my lead socializer, apart from my boss's role in that process. She was very helpful at explaining things and was very adept at what she did and also seemed to have assimilated very well. I think she and her boss worked well together and their personalities, as well as their work styles, seemed to fit together well. But my socialization was hampered by the lack of the development of a strong affective bond with either her or my boss.
***
I'm going to end there as that's the end of the section and there's too much in the next one to start on it.
