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.
***
Ms. Elliott and Mr. Douglass had agreed before coming to Vienna that they wouldn't explain everything they were looking for, because they wanted to make sure to get as accurate data as possible. They discussed at some length how to collect the information they wanted and that would be most useful for their purposes without divulging everything. One of the driving reasons for conducting the evaluation in the first place was that the foundation's board had recently come to a decision to take more of an interest not just in the ministry of the Christian ministries they funded, but also their operation as a whole. They thought that these things should be biblical just as much as the ministry itself, so wanted to start checking on these things, and since the Vienna mission was one of the largest missions it funded, both in terms of the size of the ministry but also the the size of the foundation's support for it.
They were finding through discussions with other funders and by reviewing the professional literature on this subject, that the basic operations of ministries was often neglected in regards to setting biblical standards for that aspect of a ministry's functioning. A couple of other funders in particular were interested in seeing what they came up with in this evaluation of the Vienna mission.
But Ms. Elliott and Mr. Douglass new that if they mentioned all this to the leadership of the Vienna mission the mission could try to somehow skew the evaluation so that the end result of the study would not be a true depiction of the actual state of affairs in the mission. So they were not going to offer this information, for example, to the Vienna leadership. It wasn't that they didn't trust the mission, but as Ms. Elliott had informed Mr. Douglass, you never knew where and how opposition might come up in any evaluation, so no matter what you thought of an organization coming into an evaluation, you did need to have a certain amount of discretion, without being dishonest however, because, besides being wrong anyway, that would undermine the necessary trust relationship to carry out an evaluation. Ultimately they decided that when discussing data analysis criteria with the mission they would respond if the mission suggested the biblical element, but otherwise they would, in the final report include biblical references, which would be fitting anyway in describing a Christian mission. If there were any glaring issues it would be easy to point them out that way.
***
Mr. Douglass re-convened the group thanking the hosts again for being willing thus far to go ahead with the evaluation, and he assured them that only good could come out of it. Then he invited comments and questions from Mr. Adams and Mr. Benson regarding what had been shared thus far.
Mr. Benson thanked Mr. Douglass again for taking such an interest in their work and then asked about what time demands might be made on the busy staff.
Ms. Elliott admitted that there might be some disruption of the work routine, but the intention was to keep that to a minimum and every effort would be taken to assure that was adhered to, which meant she would need help in planning the details of the evaluation in order to better make such accommodations. Plus, she said, for the more ethnographic aspect of the evaluation it was better to not disrupt things so the they would get a better idea of how things really are from day-to-day.
This seemed to satisfy Mr. Benson as being reasonable so he was emboldened to ask another question, about sensitive information and confidentiality.
This time Mr. Douglass spoke up and promised Mr. Benson and Mr. Adams both that there would be security issues and that he and Ms. Elliott had also discussed that at some length.
Then he looked at Ms. Elliott who continued that thought by adding that first of all, she took confidentiality very seriously, even if it's not in a setting working in Communist countries, but just to protect people's privacy and respect their rights in that way. She directed the men to the sheet in their packet of information that described the values and philosophy of her work as well as her ethical guidelines, which, she noted, closely parallels those of the American Evaluation Association. They would work out the details of that concern as well in hashing out the details of the evaluation plans, but if at any time during the evaluation process they had any concerns or questions, including of this nature, she would be glad to sit down and discuss whatever there concerns might be and try to come up with a mutually agreeable solution. She wasn't heartless, she noted, just an evaluator, which led to a few chuckles in the room.
Mr. Adams said that there were a lot of questions, but maybe it would be better to start in on the planning and probably a lot of the questions would get answer during that process.
Since they did have a little time before lunch break, Ms. Elliott took that cue and hung up her pre-prepared poster-size sheets along a wall where everyone could see them. Placed side-by-side they made a long time-line with different kinds of markings for different kinds of events. Then along a shorter wall she hung sheets with the broad issues to be included in the study. In this way the group began to get a sense of the details going to start being filled in.
Ms. Elliott, pointing to the long wall with the time-line, said that that would stay up during their planning and she would use that to prepare printouts for everyone. And she noted that with evaluations, things don't tend to be set in cement, so there could be unexpected changes along the way but that is not unusual. Then she turned to the shorter wall and said that after lunch they were going to start filling in the details as to what specific information they might be looking for. Also, she suggested that the mission begin thinking about what they would like to get out of the evaluation so that together they might see if there was a way to include their unique interests into the evaluation.
***
Before Ms. Elliott had started talking Gail had slipped out to get things set up for the group going out to lunch. It was decided that she would go with the group, but Heather would stay back to take care of any phone calls or the like. But since she was still not very acculturated yet to security concerns, another secretary, Inga Inkeles, from downstairs in the in-country teaching department came upstairs as backup for Heather. Also, this other secretary by this time actually knew more about what was going on that did Heather. The other department heads had been informed.
Mr. Benson excused himself from the group, saying he had a couple things he needed to take care of, but would join them shortly. They had reservations at the Chinese restaurant that the staff frequented from time to time. So Mr. Adams drove his guests and Heather to the restaurant while Mr. Benson stayed back to make a couple phone calls.
***
The first phone call was to the director of the USA office to fill him in on what was happening. Mr. Cummings, the U.S. director, said he was thinking that since the next board meeting was coming up in a month in Vienna that maybe they could use that to help calm the anxious board members. At that time, too, they could present more information about the evaluation. Mr. Benson agreed that that sounded like a very good idea and said he'd pass it along to Mr. Adams as soon as he got a chance to talk with him alone.
Mr. Cummings, who had been fielding phone calls all morning about the evaluation - covering for the two leaders in Vienna who were otherwise preoccupied and not in a very good position to deal with such things, at least while Mr. Douglass was still visiting - then began summing up the morning's phone conversations. He understood, though, that Mr. Benson didn't have time to hear all the details, so he just said that one board member was planning to fly to Vienna next week because of the evaluation, two others were thinking of pulling their workers out of the mission in order to protect them, and several others were very upset but hadn't decided yet how to respond.
It was clear that Mr. Cummings, a confident man, a strong Vietnam Veteran, was a bit harried by this all and that he'd had to deal with some very difficult calls. But under the circumstance, he had to be the one taking the calls, and Mr. Benson thanked him for doing so, although Mr. Cummings didn't need or expect any thanks. He was just doing what he had to do. With that, Mr. Benson promised to keep Mr. Cummings apprised on his end and Mr. Cummings said likewise.
After hanging up, Mr. Benson rushed to the restaurant to join the others, who had ordered his usual favorite for him.
***
The conversation at lunch was a bit more relaxed now that Mr. Adams and Mr. Benson were getting a bit used to the idea of the evaluation, even if they didn't really like it. They all even vowed to go jogging together after work. And Mr. Benson announced that his wife had invited everyone over for dinner, which was also well received by almost everyone: Ms. Elliott reminded everyone that they might as well get used to her as an external evaluator, meaning she needed to limit her social interactions with the group. Mr. Benson started to apologize that he didn't mean... but Ms. Elliott waved him off, saying she was used to people forgetting about this, especially early on in an evaluation.
***
Back at the office nothing very interesting happened, although they did get one call from a board member who evidently either didn't know or had forgotten that Mr. Cummings in the U.S. was taking calls. The board member seemed a bit on edge and wanted to know more about what would be involved in the evaluation. Evidently his board was pressuring him on the issue. Heather took the call at first, but when she didn't understand what the man was talking about she gave the phone to Inga, who directed the man to call Mr. Cummings, which seemed to satisfy the caller as she hung up soon afterwards. Otherwise, the two mostly chatted and ate their lunches from home while the others were away at the restaurant.
***
I'm returning now to the discussion of the text. This time around we're in the sub-section "Formal vs. Informal Socialization Processes."
"...[O]ne can also imagine a very formal socialization program existing for an individual which entails the labeling of the person as a recruit and also specifies quite minutely a series of activities that must be performed as part of the training regime. Would-be partners in law firms are often subject to such socialization tactics whereby they must first handle the 'dirty work' of the firm for some period. Certainly this sort of 'pledge class of one' is not that uncommon in many occupational spheres." (p. 237)
When I first read this passage (I mean right now, not 15 years ago) I thought it was describing divestiture (which is dealt with later in this article). It does seem to be a lot similar to divestiture. I'm not sure how the authors would explain this, but I'm wondering if divestiture involves more of an effort to redefine the individual, whereas maybe what is described here as individual, formal socialization is just meant to humble the new recruit so s/he understand his/her position in the organization, but without any intention of otherwise inducing new values and the like. At any rate, I think this passage could describe what I experienced in Vienna and what was the common socialization process. I like the "pledge class of one" phrase in particular.
***
"The greater the separation of the recruit from the day-to-day reality of the work setting, the less the newcomer will be able to carry over and generalize any abilities or skills learned in the socialization setting. (Bidwell, 1962; Schein and Bennis, 1965). Formal processes concentrate, therefore, more upon attitude than act. Such results may be implicit or unintended, however. Consider, for example, the research which suggests that police recruits, student nurses, and sales trainees commonly denounce their formal training as irrelevant, abstract, and dull. Paradoxically, these newcomers are also expressing in their attitude precisely those components of the valued subcultural ethos that characterizes their particular occupation - autonomy, pragmatism, and the concern for personal style (Van Maanen, 1974; Shafer, 1975; Olesen and Whittaker, 1968)." (p. 237-238)
I wonder what went on behind closed doors in preparing for newcomers to the Vienna mission staff. I think I understood that certain things I was experiencing had a purpose (other than fulfilling mission-critical tasks) and were as such intentional, but I don't know that I would have described it as formal socialization. But it does seem like it fits this text. Maybe, however, the results (outcomes) fit the text but from a somewhat different mechanism than is described here in this text. In any case, my socialization was different at least in its being individual, rather than collective.
***
"It is important to note too that formal periods of socialization not only serve to prepare recruits to assume particular statuses in an organizational world, they also serve to provide an intensive period in which others in the organization can rather closely judge the newcomer's commitment and deference to the critical values of the occupation. Recruits in police academies are, for example, assessed quite thoroughly by staff members as to their loyalty not only to the organization, but to their fellow recruits as well. And, those who do not adhere to particular norms thought crucial to the trade (e.g., the 'no rat rule') are ushered as unceremoniously out of police departments as they were rushed ceremoniously in (Manning and Van Maanen, 1978)." (p. 238)
I was that police recruit being ushered in and out. Does that surprise you? The 'commitment and deference' described here sounds somewhat similar to what was going on in Vienna, but in that context it really involved your whole life, more than in police academies. I saw that because outside relationships were important to the mission, whereas at least the police could have their own friends and the like apart from their work and not be bothered about it.
***
These next texts are from propositions the authors put forward regarding formal and informal socialization.
"1. Formal socialization is most likely to be associated with hierarchical and inclusionary boundary passages wherein a newcomer is expected to assume a new status or rank in the organization (complete with the values, attitudes, and demeanor that go with such new status)." (p. 239)
Again, the outcomes match my experience and what I witnessed in Vienna, but I'm still not sure whether the process was a "formal" one. Perhaps if it was intentionally planned (see above) it might have been one.
***
"2. Formal socialization tactics are most likely to be found where the nature of the work and/or the values surrounding the work to be performed in the target role are seen to involve high levels of risk for the newcomer, colleagues of the newcomer, the organization itself and/or clients of the organization.
...Where the cost of a mistake is relatively low, informal socialization processes are more likely to be found." (p. 239)
In this case "all of the above" would be the answer. That is, it wasn't so much that there was anything unusual about my position (at least nothing that I ever did in 2 years of working for the mission) that would have made me a particularly high risk to anyone. But it was just that I breathed the same air as everyone else or something along those lines. All I know is that how I was treated by the mission could have been explained by some high risk issue. It's just that I don't know how I could have been a risk, I mean other than write a blog about them 20+ years later. I never was sure what they really wanted from me, but that is probably because, as I've said before, I never totally submitted, which would have unlocked the magic door to a world of wonder visible only to insiders.
Another possibility is that my socialization was formal but intentionally made to look informal, sort of like a lot of things in the mission could be taken in different ways, and you needed to understand the culture to know which way they should be understood.
***
That's it for that section, so I'm ending here.
