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.
***
The next morning Ms. Elliott and Mr. Douglass met downstairs, as had become their habit, in the cafe where breakfast that was included in their hotel package was served, only this time they met a little earlier than they had been to make sure they had enough to talk about things before Mr. Adams or Mr. Benson picked them up to take them to the mission.
Mr. Douglass had not slept well, it turned out, because he had been disturbed at what Ms. Elliott had said about the men. He still didn't believe her premonitions about the men, but after repeatedly going through the events of the past couple of days he could at least see how she might have come to her conclusions, and the fact that there could be even an appearance of evil, so to speak, was enough to keep him awake a big chunk of the night. Once he finally accepted that it could be reasonably argued that there was at least the appearance of evil, then he couldn't help but think about the potential implications, including the impact an appearance alone of this nature might have on the ministry. That is not to say, however, that he took it any farther than that, because he knew the men well enough to be confident that Ms. Elliott was wrong, and the men just didn't realize what kind of an image they might be portraying, which might be something to consider in planning the evaluation.
Trying to be conciliatory, Mr. Douglass told Ms. Elliott that he had done some thinking and could see how she'd come to the conclusions she did about the men, and he encouraged her to pursue this farther, assuming that doing so would come out in the mission's favor. Ms. Elliott brushed him off saying that these things are all apart of the evaluation process, part of trying to figure out what's really going on. At the same time she made a mental note of Mr. Douglass' suggestion, fully intending to follow his advice (which was along the same lines of what she'd been thinking anyway, but if things blew up knowing that she had his support in this might be important).
After eating in silence a few minutes, Ms. Elliott pulled out a notepad, saying she'd jotted a few things down that they might want to at least think about if not discuss before joining the others. The first thing was that she needed to make sure Mr. Elliott understood that in evaluation the politics of a situation can make or break the evaluation. She explained to him how sometimes one had to navigate very carefully through complex situations. She said, for example, that while they did need to get the initial plan decided on, they needed to make sure they would have the cooperation of all parties (or at least key parties) while at the same time trying to push the process forward. In delicate situations one sometimes needed to proceed with care. Mr. Douglass nodded that he understood.
Next she asked him about his plans to extend his time in Vienna. Fortunately, Mr. Douglass had a type of plane ticket that allowed for free changes, so he said he'd forgotten to tell Ms. Elliott that he called his secretary back in the States last night and she'd changed the ticket to next Monday evening. He really couldn't stay any longer than that because he had other commitments back home that he had to keep and couldn't change. This meant that they'd have Friday and Monday to work on the plans, but could also use the weekend for this if it looked like they weren't far enough along by Friday afternoon.
Then they discussed what they hoped they'd be able to accomplish that day, and by that time their ride had come to pick them up. But this time is was someone else from the mission whom they hadn't met. They had moved to the lobby after finishing their breakfasts, which is where they had been waiting the other mornings too. The man came up to them and asked their names to confirm that they were the right people, then introduced himself as Joe Jeffries, the boss of Inga, whom they'd met the day before. He introduced himself like that because they were in a public place, so it wasn't like he was going to announce to the world that he worked for a mission to a Communist country in a certain position. He apologized for not having met the guests before, but he'd been out of town and just came back yesterday. They understood what he meant by being out of town and looked forward to hearing about his ministry trip. They also understood that he was in a leadership position (although below Mr. Adams and Mr. Benson) so he might be a relatively important person for the evaluation too, even if they weren't going to evaluation the ministry aspects per se of the organization. Both Ms. Elliott and Mr. Douglass complimented Inga, who seemed to them like a very affable and capable young lady. Mr. Jeffries agreed that it was a pleasure to work with her and she was a great asset to the department and even, in many ways, to other people outside the department.
The rest of the trip was taken up with discussions about Mr. Jeffries recent trip. Mr. Douglass and Ms. Elliott became so engrossed in his stories that they didn't even think to ask about Mr. Adams and Mr. Benson.
***
While Ms. Elliott and Mr. Douglass were having breakfast and then being brought to the office by Mr. Jeffries, Mr. Adams and Mr. Benson were having discussions of their own in Mr. Adams' office.
They had decided that they needed to let everyone at the mission know about a pending evaluation, because it would be divisive to let anything like that trickle out, and already other people at the mission were getting involved in it, like Inga and Mr. Jeffries. So they had arranged for a meeting with the main leaders, which included the director of h.r., Mr. Jeffries (who had left early to pick up the guests), and the head of textbook writing and preparations. They didn't have a lot of time for this meeting, so Mr. Adams had had his secretary prepare handouts so that everyone would have the details and not have to rely on memory. There was the problem of what to do with Heather, Mr. Benson's secretary, but she was going to have to know eventually too, despite her not having passed the socialization test yet. So she was brought in to help with the meeting and that's how she found what had really been going on the last few days. So, while Gail took minutes, Heather monitored the phones and stood ready to help with anything else.
I won't bore you about all the details of that meeting, but they discussed the evaluation itself, or what they knew of it thus far, they talked about the issue with the board members and how Mr. Cummings had been taking care of that end of things, with occasional input from Mr. Adams and Mr. Benson. They also discussed the possible impact this was going to have on the ministry, meaning the immediate scheduling of ministry trips. Mr. Adams was scheduled to Czechoslovakia in a week, but that would have to be cancelled - someone would have to go in his place. Neither he nor Mr. Benson would be available to go on any trips of any kind during the evaluation. He then encouraged the other leaders to think about how this might affect them and their departments as well. Then a follow-up meeting was set for Saturday morning. It was then that Heather noticed that there wasn't any mention of the board member who was coming next Tuesday to find out more about the evaluation, and she gave her boss a quickly scribbled note to this effect. After a moment when it looked like he was thinking about it, he said that preparations should also be made to host Mr. Knotts from Member Mission #1. Since Lou Lyons, on the East German team, was from that mission he should probably be involved in some way with that.
That was all they had time to discuss and the men from the other departments, except for Mr. Jeffries who was already gone, left to their respective departments, left to their own devices as to how to tell their workers.
***
Mr. Jeffries came bounding up the stairs in his usual energetic way to introduce the arrival of the guests, and Mr. Elliott and Mr. Douglass followed close behind him.
***
At this point Mr. Adams and Mr. Benson, although they hadn't had enough time to discuss this between themselves, there were only a limited number of options open to them. But they'd both been thinking it over and over, as had Mr. Cummings, trying to find a safe escape hatch, but it continued to evade them, despite their relatively high intelligence, both collectively and individually. Cancelling the evaluation would result in having to drastically cut the ministry back and then there would be a lot of questions they'd have to answer and wouldn't be able to; at least not to their liking. Other funders would want to know what happened. So would the workers themselves, many of whom wouldn't be needed any more. If they went ahead with the evaluation, they could fully accept it, let the evaluator have full and unfettered access to whatever and whomever she needed. Or they could try to sabotage the study, which anthropologists deal a lot with - not that Ms. Elliott was an anthropologist, but part of the study would be anthropological in nature. Another possibility might be to rig the reporting so that even if something damaging is found it doesn't reach the wrong eyes or ears. Or they could make it so reporting allowed for them to comment on the findings. This option might actually be the best hope for them, because they were very good at making things seem as if they were other than what they really were. So even if they couldn't convince an evaluator of that, they had a good chance of being able to convince everyone else. This was a skill indeed that might end out working for their advantage.
***
Mr. Adams and Mr. Benson decided they needed a few more minutes to discuss this kind of thing and they called Gail so they cold give her instructions if need be. It was during this meeting that they decided that they were going to try the strategy of re-interpreting the data to their advantage at the end of the study. This would free them up to cooperate fully with the study. They told Gail to call Mr. Cummings (which she understood to mean later in the day, though, because of the time difference). She should also try to keep tabs on what the department heads are doing vis a vis the information they'd just be given. In this way, Gail became a sort of gatekeeper between the top administration and the other leaders, just as Mr. Cummings had become the gatekeeper between the board members and the mission.
***
This little threesome tete-a-tete, however left Ms. Elliott, Mr. Douglass and Heather alone in the conference room (Mr. Jeffries had returned to his department, not realizing Heather would be left alone to entertain the guests). It wasn't long that Heather was alone with the guests, though, maybe 10 or 15 minutes at the most. But it was long enough, evidently.
Mr. Douglass hadn't told anyone yet (that is, anyone but his secretary back home) but one of the main reasons he had chosen this fundee, the mission, to evaluate first, besides them being one of the largest recipients in their portfolio of fundees, is that a month ago he had been at a 50th birthday party for a cousin of his in Omaha and had met a fascinating German teacher there who had actually been in Vienna the summer before with a bunch of her junior high students. She said that she had met Heather a few years prior on a short-term summer ministry trip in Austria and they'd planned for quite some time for the female students to stay with her and that she (Heather) would find a place for the boys. So, not even 2 months after arriving in Vienna Heather had hosted this teacher and her students, with the help of a male colleague at the mission.
It sounded like this German teacher had enjoyed her time and she was very appreciative of Heather's efforts to make their stay comfortable and enjoyable as well as a learning experience. The problem was that a couple of the things she said didn't match up to what he knew of the Vienna mission. This might have been a contributing factor as to why he saw how Ms. Elliott could have interpreted the way she did the course of events so far in Vienna. But he didn't want Ms. Elliott to know about that encounter in Omaha, in order that the evaluation not to be affected by it.
So given this opportunity, Mr. Douglas tried not to seem too pleased to have a chance to chat with Heather, but he did attempt to make small talk with her. He began by asking how long she'd been with the mission and how she liked her work so far. She seemed intelligent and quite observant, but also hesitant to answer his questions other than evasively. So he prodded her more on the subject asking what she did in her position. Her answers were still brief and she didn't offer any more information than just the minimum of what he asked, yet she didn't seem the shy type. She apologized and said she hadn't been with the mission long and so was still learning the ropes, which seemed true enough, having only been there 4 or 5 months, as she said. When asked how she like her work she said she liked it and the people were very nice. Somehow, Mr. Douglas still didn't feel like he knew quite what she did all day, but the others could be heard crossing the corridor towards the boardroom, so Heather excused herself to find out what she should do next, and soon learned that she was to resume her post by the phone. This time Gail had prepared muffins for the morning coffee break, but reservations needed to be made for lunch at the Schnitzel Haus restaurant down the street. Then Gail followed the others into the board room and Heather pulled out the book she was reading and looked up at the phone or her watch every once in a while.
***
I'm returning to the text again. This time we're in the sub-section "Serial vs. Disjunctive Processes."
"Sometimes, what appears to be a serial process is actually disjunctive. In many work organizations, it is the case that if someone is exceptionally good and is promoted to project leader by age 25, that some person must be exceptionally mediocre to be in that same position at age 50 or 55. Because of such circumstances, the age-graded stereotype of the youthful, naive, and passive junior member of the firm being coached wisely by a mature, informed, and active mentor is frequently false. The process may have been designed as a serial one, but, to the recruit, the process may be disjunctive if he or she is unwilling to take the mentor seriously." (p. 248)
Again, there are at least a couple things here that I might comment on vis a vis my Vienna experience. First of all is the issue of management intent and new recruit perspective/interpretation. I don't think that this (the one in the text) is the only situation what such a discrepancy might happen. Sometimes it may be obvious what a certain socialization characteristic in a particular situation is, such as boot camp being collective socialization, for example. But other times it's not so straight forward.
Considering all the texts I've read and been discussing here and also considering my own experiences in the Vienna mission, I think that when the new recruit enters a new organization, and the organization is different enough from prior experiences that there isn't a lot of grounding, then virtually everything is socialization, or at least seems like socialization in as much as everything the newcomer sees, hears, experiences, reads, etc. can contribute in one way or another to his/her adjustment to the new position and organization. On the other hand, the organization may or may not have been so all-inclusive in setting up a socialization program for the person. So first of all the individual would have to decide what is intentional to be able to then try to figure out what kind of a socialization it might be. And I think that, based on what I've been reading and commenting on, understanding what type of process the organization is intentionally giving the new recruit may help him or her understand what the intended message is (the content of the learning - whether skill, attitude or knowledge or a combination). I had a hard time, for the most, part distinguishing what was or wasn't socialization, and often I didn't understand the intent of the mission, or I might have understood (or thought I understood) the immediate intent, but not the ultimate one. For example, if I determined that they wanted me to "just trust" them (i.e., totally submit), then my next question would be, "And then what?" Because, to me at least, totally submitting to something like that doesn't relieve me of any responsibility for what might follow, but it might be harder for me to get out of it once I start conceding. This is something I think I discussed from the espionage file, how spies might first ask you to do some little innocent thing, then they'd ask you to do something somewhat questionable but still not bad... and on and on until before you know it you're a full-fledged card carrying spy, for all practical purposes. That's how I felt about the Soviet guest during the Seattle Goodwill Games when he asked me to help him set up a sister-city association (after asking if my dad paid me!?). I felt like he was going to try to lead me on a path like that that could potentially lead to my dad.
One thing I will say specifically say about this text is that I don't think I was ever "unwilling to take [my] mentor seriously." I think I took her seriously enough and respected her as a probably very good professional secretary. The only thing in that regard that I had problems with was the mission's effort to pigeon-hole me into a secretarial mold that basically defined my whole life, inside and outside the mission both. The secretaries themselves were okay, but I doubt very much that they originated the pigeon-hole view of me. It came from someone(s) higher up.
***
I'm only using one of the propositions from the serial/disjunctive socialization section.
"1. Serial socialization is most likely to be associated with inclusionary boundary passages.
This association results because to become a central member of any organizational segment normally requires that others consider one to be affable, trustworthy, and, of course, central as well. This is unlikely to occur unless these others perceive the newcomer to be, in most respects, similar to themselves. Recruits must at least seem to be taking those with whom they work seriously or risk being labeled deviant in the situation and hence not allowed across inclusionary boundaries." (p. 249)
If I understand the difference between "serial" and "disjunctive" socialization, serial socialization is when information, skills, etc. are passed from one generation of workers to the next in a way that results in great continuity, whereas disjunctive socialization results in more of a break with tradition and the newcomer is not necessarily socialized into the ways "things have always been done". In this way, the Vienna mission would have to have been a serial one. If it is still very serial it might even not have changed all that much from when I was there, except for say the technology and accommodation to working in new cultural contexts.
Because I insisted on the right to be able to think for myself I was "deviant". In some contexts they might say I was a dissident.
In any case being central in the organization - informal power, knowledge, etc. by virtue of being well-connected, trusted, liked, etc. was important in the Vienna mission. I think you probably would have had to have continually proven yourself with different types of issues and the like and that way one could work themselves inward, even if there was precious little opportunity to advance upward.
In just thinking about myself, if I were to given in to the mission, I would have had to change my thinking in ways that would have had major repercussions on my thought processes. In the field of education we speak sometimes of building mental models, reinforcing learning, making connections, and the like. I think in these terms acceding to the mission would have meant a pretty thorough overhaul of my way of seeing things, something akin to a paradigm shift maybe (e.g., the world is not flat). Such a major change would have involved a lot of incongruities (more than I have now, anyway) that would have to be dealt with over time. I'm not sure how the others experienced it though. Maybe for them it wouldn't have involved such a major overhaul. It's hard to imagine my being the only one, though, especially among such intelligent, highly educated people.
***
That's it for this post. Thanks for stopping by.
