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 tension in the boardroom seemed to have dissipated overnight and Ms. Elliott came close to thinking maybe Mr. Douglas was right about the men. But for whatever reason, things went a lot smoother that day and they made excellent progress on planning the evaluation. By the end of the day they had decided on all of the major objectives - the questions the study would attempt to answer, except that the cultural/naturalistic was left more open-ended, although some basic areas of concern had been identified even on that issue. Not only that, but they had begun discussion on what kinds of data would be needed to answer the questions and what types of information might satisfy each party. Ms. Elliott didn't perceive, however, that the Mr. Adams and Mr. Benson were perhaps not being completely straightforward in the discussions about acceptable criteria. By that time she had gotten used to their apparently unhindered cooperation, although she continued her normal alertness to making sure everything seemed to be taken into consideration and made suggestions wherever she saw a gap or potential inadequacy of any kind. While the men were very intelligent and highly educated, she was the specialist in evaluation so she was alert in her usual evaluator way.
During the afternoon break, in which Ms. Elliott excused herself to go outside and go for a walk and get some fresh air, Inga came up from downstairs to request Mr. Adams' presence downstairs to assist with a problem that had come up.
So Mr. Benson, Mr. Douglass, Gail and Heather enjoyed each others' company and polished off the rest of the oatmeal raisin cookies left over from the morning break. After the men finished complaining about the irresistible goodies and blaming the girls for any weight gain during the week, Mr. Douglass turned to Mr. Benson and asked him how he was getting used to having a secretary now (since he hadn't had one until Heather came a few months earlier). Mr. Benson assured Mr. Douglass that although there was a steep learning curve for him in this change of circumstances, he thought he wasn't doing too badly. Then Mr. Benson turned to Heather and asked her how she thought he was doing. Heather, understanding that she needed to answer with a certain amount of diplomacy without really giving away her true opinion, smiled and said she thought he was coming along just fine and given another 4 or 5 months she'd have him eating out of her hand. Everyone caught the joke and Mr. Benson patted his stomach and said he hoped not.
Inside Heather was actually pretty angry at this exchange because she understood it differently than what it seemed on the surface, although she couldn't be sure what anyone else thought, which is part of why she was having problems with the mission. Her interpretation of this exchange went something like this: Mr. Douglass was asking Mr. Benson about working with her in follow up to his earlier conversation with her that morning. Mr. Douglass avoided answering the question by turning it on her and she answered in like kind, which he didn't like and so made it clear to her that he had absolutely no intention of ever eating out of her hands. In this way she knew her place in the scheme of things, but this was only one such incident, so she had been looking for patterns to try to figure the mission out. Mr. Douglass probably even had less of a context than she did for understanding this exchange.
Mr. Benson, who came across rather as an impish boy and a modest man, used these traits expertly to hide other things that he might be thinking. Because of the whole situation with the evaluation he couldn't really take anything for granted, so he wasn't sure what might have provoked Mr. Douglass to ask about his secretary. It's possible that it was a purely innocent question, but it was also possible that it wasn't just that. Then Heather's response about him eating out of her hand was an outrageous disrespect for his authority. Ms. Elliott, if she had known, would have said Mr. Benson saw Heather's words as normatively deviant, that is to say, offensive to the organizational culture. No matter what you call it, however, Mr. Benson realized then that Heather had the potential for being a problem during the evaluation.
Mr. Douglass, on his part, had indeed asked the question intentionally in follow up to what he had known about Heather and the German teacher (and her junior high students) and also the morning's conversation with Heather. He did note that avoidance of really answering his question with any substance and what seemed to be "passing the buck." So he intended to ask Ms. Elliott to pursue this subject more closely, perhaps under the h.r. category of questions.
While Gail watched the volley of words her thoughts pretty much mirrored Mr. Benson's, so she knew she should keep a closer eye on Heather.
Ms. Elliott returned from her walk refreshed and in high spirits followed closely by Inga who came to call Mr. Benson downstairs. Mr. Benson excused himself and followed Inga to the basement. So that left the gals (Heather, Gail, and Ms. Elliott) and Mr. Benson alone upstairs. They could hardly resume the evaluation planning without the other two men so they decided to follow Ms. Elliott's lead and go outside also and enjoy the late summer sun for a few minutes.
***
Downstairs Mr. Benson found Mr. Adams, Mr. Jeffries, and Mr. Lyons, a member of the German team, and Mr. Mann, the board member who represented Member Mission #2. Mr. Mann had come, rather surreptitiously it appeared, to talk with the only person they had on staff, namely, Mr. Lyons, about the evaluation. But he evidently didn't come in surreptitiously enough because Mr. Jeffries, rather startledly noticed him and, recognizing him, stopped him in the hall with a big, warm handshake. Mr. Mann, unfortunately, wasn't particularly in the mood for big, warm handshakes, so he gruffly withdrew his arm and notified Mr. Jeffries that he was there to see Mr. Lyons. He brushed his way past Mr. Jeffries and continued making his way to Mr. Lyons' office.
Mr. Jeffries knew that this was not an acceptable turn of events so had requested his secretary, Inga, run and get Mr. Adams and tell him to come to Mr. Lyons' office immediately. Then Mr. Jeffries headed there himself. He felt immediately unwelcome, as it appeared that Mr. Mann wanted a private conversation alone with Mr. Lyons, who was very much caught in the middle and wasn't quite sure how to act, although he understood this was about the evaluation they'd all been told about by then.
Despite his not being welcome, Mr. Jeffries would not budge; he insisted this was something they all needed to work out together, and it was in everyone's best interests to stick together to make it through this, rather than do things that might only be divisive and make things worse. Mr. Mann, anger unabated (it's not like he came there of his own accord - his mission and their board members were in a tizzy about this and they'd sent him there for an explicit purpose), listened fuming to Mr. Jeffries, but he did see a certain logic in what Mr. Jeffries was saying, although that doesn't mean his mission would agree. He'd hardly had time to think about what to say, however, when in barged Mr. Adams too.
Mr. Adams, who, it must be said, is a very congenial man, approached Mr. Mann with his characteristic wide grin and big, outstretched hand. Mr. Adams' warmness could be very disarming, and he knew how to use that to his advantage, which is what it looked like he was doing right at that moment. Nevertheless, it was effective, and so Mr. Mann calmed down. Mr. Adams suggested they all go to Mr. Jeffries' office and discuss these things calmly. So they all traipsed in there and on the way Mr. Jeffries gave Inga some instructions, including to send for Mr. Benson.
After a while Mr. Jeffries came out of the office and told Inga to tell Gail, that some important business had come up and they were going to have to take an extended break. He suggested having Mr. Nelson, the director of textbook writing and publishing group, take the guests and Gail to see a bit of the town for the rest of the afternoon. He said Mr. Adams and Mr. Benson hoped they could get some work done on the evaluation this evening, and to tell the guests one of the country teams was having a crisis that involved an upcoming teaching trip (which Mr. Lyons was supposed to take leaving Sunday, if his mission let him remain in his current position, although Gail would know not to divulge that much of what was really going on). Heather was to stay and take care of the office in everyone's absence.
***
So that was Thursday, at least most of the day. In any case, Ms. Elliott and Mr. Douglass were a little taken aback by this sudden change of events. Ms. Elliott had to politely, but very firmly, decline the kind offer of a tour of the city because of not being able to socialize with the staff because of the potential of conflict of interest. Gail wasn't quite sure what she should say, but what she did very cheerfully and decisively say was that they would be glad to take her to the hotel then, if that was what she wished, and they could pick her up again in the evening if they were able to continue the talks then. So Ms. Elliott collected all her things and prepared to take them with her to work on at the hotel.
***
I'm returning to the text now, and we're in the sub-section "Investiture vs. Divestiture Socialization Processes."
"An investiture process says to the newcomer, 'We like you just as you are.' Indeed, the organization through the use of this tactic does not wish to change the recruit. Rather, it wishes to take advantage of and build upon the skills, values, and attitudes the recruit is thought to possess." (p. 250)
Needless to say, this wasn't how I was socialized in Vienna. In fact, just the opposite is true and you'll get to see in my journal entries after my working with the mission how devastated I was and how they just absolutely crushed my spirit. So even if there are good times, for a person like me to just come out of it so devastated... Something had to be going on there.
***
"Ordinarily, the degree to which the recruit experiences the socialization process as an ordeal indicates the degree to which divestiture processes are operating. Goffman's (1960) 'total institutions' are commonly thought typical in this regard in the deliberate 'mortifications to self' which entry into them entails. But, even in total institutions, socialization processes will have different meaning to different recruits. Thus, the degree to which the process is one of divestiture or investiture to a recruit is, in part, a function of the recruit's entering characteristics and orientation toward the role. " (p. 251)
I think that as long, or whenever, the mission thought I wasn't submitting adequately (i.e., when I was showing signs of being at all independent) it would pull out the divestiture treatment, which might explain the variability over the months in how I was treated. One exception, though, is around the time my parents came to visit me in Vienna. Then there were signs of increased positive attention, which I'll get to when I reach that point in the chronology, but there were specific positive events that felt to me like they were only happening because of one or both of my parents being there or coming soon.
The fact that socialization impact my vary from individual to individual strikes me as true, and I have discussed in earlier posts how the differences between me and the others at the mission (especially my European Studies background) might be one possible way to explain the differences in outcome, or at least partly explain it.
The first sentence in this quote is also very thought-provoking. It would be interesting to ask those other people who were at the mission the same time I was if they experienced anything like divestiture and get them to explain more about their socialization experience. If they didn't remember it as divestiture then you're back at the question of why I was treated differently then.
***
"Yet the fact remains that many organizations consciously promote ordeals designed to make the recruit whatever the organization deems appropriate, what Schein has described as 'up-ending' experiences (Schein, 1964)... Furthermore, measures are often taken to isolate recruits from former associates who presumably would continue to confirm the recruit's old identity. The process, when voluntarily undergone, serves to commit and bind the person to the organization and is typically premised upon a strong desire on the part of the recruit to become an accepted member of the organization (or an organizational segment). In brief, the recruit's entrance into the role or system is aided by his or her 'awe' of the institution and this 'awe' then sustains the individual's motivation through subsequent ordeals of divestiture." (p. 251)
This text describes pretty well what might have been going on in Vienna. The mission most definitely took steps to try to isolate me from friends especially (but not family). Also, I expect that the 'awe' element could have been there for a lot of recruits, especially because the mission really was pretty unique in what it did and the fact that you could get so many missions to work together like that was amazing enough all by itself. But, while I was greatly looking forward to my work with the mission, I don't think I ever had an awe about it. I guess in general I'm not easily "awed" in general, unless you're talking about a fantastic sunset over the ocean or a spectacular view from the top of a mountain ridge after a long hike. Now that's awe-inspiring. This lack of awe undoubtedly helped allow me to just step back and try to figure things out more matter-of-factly than by anything else, although that doesn't mean I was emotionless, because I most definitely felt the stress of the confluence of how I was being treated, what I believed and what the mission seemed to want from me.
***
"It should be kept in mind, however, that these stern tactics provide an identity-bestowing as well as an identity-destroying process. Coercion is not necessarily a damaging assault on the person. Indeed, it can be a device for stimulating many personal changes that are evaluated positively by the person and others. What is, of course, problematic with coercion is its nonvoluntary aspects and the possibility of misuse in the hands of irresponsible agents." (p. 252)
Well, I disagree with this statement. I don't care if there are sometimes (or even often) changes in a person that might be considered positive, it's not a way for Christians to treat Christians (or anyone else, either, for that matter). How many examples of people using force do you find in the New Testament, where it is a positive example of how to act? Did Jesus use this tactic? How about any of the apostles? I'll repeat it again: The ends does not justify the means.
As for the misuse issue, I felt like the Vienna messed up here too. That is, not ONLY did they use coercion when they shouldn't have, but they ALSO misused it, that is, used it manipulatively. I'd like to hear their biblical explanation for this treatment; or maybe I didn't get far enough in Bible school to understand this kind of thing.
***
I have several more pieces in this section of the text to comment on, but I'm going to break it up. It looks like I'll only have 2 or 3 more posts on these articles before returning (finally) to my chronology.
