337. Organizational Behavior, Pt. 61 (Graham, pt. 7)

My migraine has been rather bad the past couple days, but I'll comment on the text and hopefully it'll come sense...

This section is "Organizational Loyalty" and it refers to the same figure discussed in the text I used last time.

"In Fig. 2b, organizational social rights are shown paired with organizational loyalty.  The logic underlying this proposition is that for whom an organization guarantees greater socioeconomic benefits are most likely to return the favor, that is to engage in behavior that protects the organization, enhances its reputation, and serves the whole rather than the parochial interests specific parts."(p. 260)

So basically this is saying that organizational loyalty on the part of the employee is formally recognized by the employer organization and the employee's social rights correspond to his/her level of organizational loyalty.  To refresh our memories, referring back to earlier portions of this text, "organizational social rights" include things like "claims to economic resources in the form of wage and salary income, bonuses, current fringe benefits, and pension contributions; social status symbols, such as office size and location, private dining facilities, etc." (p. 256)

Economic resources, for the most part wouldn't particularly be fitting in a faith mission setting, but certainly there were status symbols, as I mentioned earlier when I discussed this text.  But the thing here is, did organizational loyalty seem to correspond to organizational social rights in the Vienna mission?

I would say that at the beginning this is definitely so.  That is, you had to pass the socialization test to meet the minimum entry level of organizational loyalty to have any organizational social rights at all.  Even once you were hired, you didn't have any organizational social rights until you passed that hudle.  Or if you had any such rights, it was only on the assumption that you would pass that test, so you might have been given those rights  as an advance payment on that assumption.  That's what I think, based on my experience of the mission and what I observed.there.

The thing was though that the organization was limited how much benefit it could bestow on those who grew exceedingly in organizationaly loyalty.  This was begause it wasn't a regular employer nor a corporation.  I think there probably was a cap on loyalty, so that a boss could not be superceded, for example.  I'm not sure how this would have been handled though.  But I have a hard time imagining any of the department heads having a junior member that surpassed them in organizational loyalty (and I'm thinking of specific people).

The one area that may have allowed for this, however, is the information organization, but I doubt it, because this is too serious of an issue to relagate to the information organization.  This  is the kind of thing that could make individuals strong enough in the organization with no official power, so they could end out being an alternate voice, which is most adamately NOT something the mission would have tolerated.

***

"Proposition 5: As organizational social rights increase, so does organizational loyalty." (p. 261)

It's too bad this proposition doesn't say anything about what happens when social rights decrease, as they seemed to do with my case, although at times they seemed to increase a bit.  Here's my hypothesis, if you don't mind humoring me a bit:  As organizational social rights decrease, so does organizational loyalty.  There is a direct one to one negative relationship, or at least there should be.  If there are any social scientists out there who would like to test this hypothesis out, I'd be more than curious to find out the results.  I suspect, however, you'll have to work with a small sample, so it'll end out being a qualitative study.  You can prove me wrong there, however.

In my case, I was very loyal to ministry in Eastern Europe, and I started out very excited about the work of the Vienna mission (although not about the secretarial position).   Then they proceeded to show me the underbelly of the beast, if you will, and I continued to be loyal to ministry in Eastern Europe (which is why I ended out there again in the 1990s), but I was in shock, I guess, among other emotions and lost my loyalty, but felt loyalty to a faith mission system, wherein one goes around to all these churches and raises funds to go to the mission field for a certain length of time.  So I felt strapped to the Vienna mission, I think by that, and just being in shock and refusing to thinking that things were as bad as they really  were and that all these intelligent people really were caught up in this thing.  So I wasn't loyal as the mission would have wanted me to be, but there was some kind of loyalty that kept me there.  There was confusion, too.  Since I was an outsider and they didn't have written rules really, I didn't always really understand what was going on, especially towards the end, when it got worse.  I think they did it on purpose so I wouldn't be able to tell others about what it was like there. Like what I'm doing on this blog.

***

"Proposition 7. Strong relational ties to the organization are associated with an increase in interpersonal helping behavior directed at others in the organization." (p. 261)

 I can't see any reason to question that this was was clearly and very predominantly a part of the Vienna mission psyche and mutual internal relations.

I do have a question, however regarding the phrase "are associated with an increase in interpersonal helping behavior...".   Does this mean that the author is hypothesizing a correlation between the helping behavior and the strong relational ties?  It doesn't seem that the wording indicates that she is hypothesizing a cause-effect relationship.  It could be that she is using the "helping behavior" as the behavior to be measured, relagating "strong relational ties" to the "otherwise directly unmeasurable" pile.  But it seems that there have been other such concepts in this article, so, I find this theory untenable. 

It seems to me that the author (probably out of uncertainty regarding the relationship between the issues in question) used the phrase "associated with" to indicate correlation.  In this case, There is some kind of relationship between the two items, but just not cause-effect (probably).

This is all nice and good, but what does it have to do with the Vienna mission?  Everyone in the mission was expected to have strong relational ties to the organization.  Of course, the higher you got up the mission the more ties you might have, but even at the lowest levels members had, I think, pretty much just as strong ties, just not as many ties and ties on their level of the mission (i.e., lower down).  And everyone was involved in helping behavior, except that the more you moved up the socializational ladder (and it was a short ladder), the more kinds of helping behavior you could do, because you'd have access to more ways to help.  So helping could even be viewed as a privilige to be earned or, conversely, you could be disallowed from helping if you were in the outs somehow.  In that case taking the privilege away was a sort of punishment.

I'm speaking from my experience and how I viewed the mission during my stay there.  Others might have viewed things differently.

***

I'm going to end here, because I need to get on with my day.  Next time we'll continue with "Organizational Participation."

336. Organizational Behavior, Pt. 60 (Graham, pt. 6)

I think it's been somewhat carthatic writing these Easter letters.  I don't know what the fallout will be, though.  But the prep for the tax things has been sort of stressful, so while the Easter letters has been a positive force of sorts, the tax issue has been a negative one.  We'll see how both end out.  It could end out that the tax issue is fine and the Easter letters get a rabid response from some quarters.

Anyway,  after some things I've written and thought about, I thought it might be appropriate to deal with this one issue very briefly.  In my family, the men, following my father's lead, have all taken the position that public opinion is of paramount importance.  I hope you can tell by now that I'm not so much of that mindset.  As a matter of fact I'm more of the turn-the-tables-of the-money-changers ilk.  That is, let's call a spade a spade and fix the problem rather than continue on playing some charade or other.  In any case, don't count on me to play along, so if you want to play, you'd better keep me at arm's length because I'm not the playing type.

Now my talking like that is not necessarily just all hypothetical, because I have two brothers who seem to enjoy making sure the public have one view of them even while they know  they live differently.  That's why, for example, no one knew that my one brother had a temper - because it was delegated to private family affairs.

But what does the Bible have to say about this kind of thing?

Well, actually, I'm not sure I understand them enough to say for sure.  With dad I think, if I understand him correctly, it was that when mom had her first breakdown she was an embarrassment  to him and so from then on there became a need for there to be a discrepancy between what really went on behind closed doors at home and was the public saw.  If there was a difference like (between public fiew and their familial relatioship) that before her breakdown, I don't know about that.Dad may also have resented her holding him back too, I don't know.  We as children were told not to tell other people about mom's emotional problems.

My brother back home, in his relationship with mom made sure everyone knew how much he was sacrificing and doing for her and how hard she was making it for her.  So then it made it look like she was such a problem and so unthoughtful or something.  Then behind closed doors he would yell at her and criticise her and call her names, basically, emotionally and verbally abuse her.

Luke 12:2
Nothing is covered up that will not be revealed, or hidden that will not be known.

This verse is good for anyone to remember who does things "in secret", including the mission in Vienna and how they treated me.

Ecclesiastes 12:14
For God shall bring every work into judgment, with every secret thing, whether it be good, or whether it be evil.


















This, of course, is true for all of us, every single one of us, believer included, because we're going to be judged to receive crowns and for our positions in heaven.  So if someone is terribly concerned about what others think and has a dual standard regarding what goes on in public and what goes on in private and what should be kept secret, knowing that if secrets were to be "leak out" the Christian world might not approve and you might have some explaining to do or you might have to change some ways.  So you'd rather maintain the status quo and pay the piper later... at the judgement seat.  Well, and you just may have to do that.  So it might be wise to consider whether or not there are any double standards lurking in your families, in your missions.

John 3:19
And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.

Now I'm not saying that any of the people I'm talking about aren't saved, but in their walk, at least in certain spheres, since they have this secret inner world (family, mission) that members have strict instructions as to how they are to talk about to the rest of the world, so they seem in this instance to love darkness rather than light.  They seem to love their world of secrecy and darkness from which the world is cut off - but which, I might mention, God is NOT cut off.   God know all your little secrets and what goes on behind closed doors.

How much better to have a clear conscious and love the light?  That is the one thing I have always, from day one ever since I left Vienna, said, that I left with a clear conscious, which is something I could not have said if I had mired myself in their ways.  So I never regreted that.  Of course, I still went through a lot of agony, which I've discussed elsewhere and I'll get to later on too. But that's a different issue altogether.

So whether you're my family members, the men in my family, or the Vienna mission, you need to know that God knows what you're doing and what you've done, whether or not people know or knew, and one day you're going to face God for how you've acted.  So you may think you can fool people, and you may well be able to, but you can't ever fool God.  Ever.

You still have a choice, however.  Are you going to continue in darkness?  For missions, deception is a sin and lying is something God can't even do.  I don't even want to try to address my brothers.  They're going to have to figure their own way out. 

***

Back to the text...

We're in the section titled "Organizational Obedience" where the author is still creating propositions relevant to organizational citizenship behavior.  In this section she pairs organizational rights and responsibilities to create "organizational obedience".   For example...

"Those with Gesellschaft relational ties are likely to be minimally compliant, because they see rights and responsibilities related only instrumentally.  On the other hand, those with normal or covenantal Gemeinschaft relational ties are likely to obey the spirit as well as the letter of the law, due to their sincere respect for the organizational rationality." (p. 259)

The covenantal Gemeinschaft relational ties are what one would have found in the Vienna mission, and I don't think anyone would really argue with that.  Except I never really reached that level because I could never accept the mission's values and norms en toto, and that was part of my not internalizing their values and norms.  Of course, I did in part, but that was not at all adequate.  They wanted all or nothing, because to have a partial acceptance meant that you were left critiqueing the organization over the part you didn't accept and that was not okay.  Very not okay.  So I was in the doghouse like most of the time I was there, if not the whole time.  (Of course, there may well have been other things going on, so I don't want to make it look like that was the only reason I was singled out, because I doubt it was.)

Okay, so all those others who did have the covenantal Gemeinschaft relational ties with the mission did (once they were socialized) obey the spirit as well as the letter of the law and did, as far as I knew, have a sincere respect for the organizational rationality.

I think this "organizational rationality" thing deserves some discussion.  First of all, I remind you that we're talking mostly (although not entirely) about theologians with Th.M. and some Th.D. degrees.  So these people should have been able to think more or less clearly about "organizational rationality."  Or at least about organizational morality.  The thing is that these new missionaries respected the mission for the following reason, I suspect: 1) for the qualities of missionaries (in their view); 2) for the quality of the mission and/or number of missions comprising the mission - as it was made up of member missions; and 3) conceded to others because of their lack of lack of skill/knowledge regarding work in Eastern Europe/closed countries.     So these things compelled these missioneries to sincerely respect the organization's rationality, which resulted in their obedience.

I, on the other hand, failed to see the organizational rationality.  The thing was that, first of all, I came knowing German and Russian and having spend a couple months a few years prior in Austria, not to mention other German speaking countries and cities.  I had also worked with other missions and had done research with a well known research center and worked in a specialiced library, had traveled on my own and made contacts on my own and learned of various ministries to that part of the world on my own.  And I had written to a whole slew of missions trying to select a mission and had gotten a real eye opener in the answers I received.

So when I came to the Vienna mission and saw what I saw, knowing what I knew from other groups.  I knew that I couldn't accept their rationality and that their rationality wasn't a given just because their missionfield was Communist.  I didn't buy it.  I didn't buy it because I didn't think it was Christian and I didn't buy it because they were using tactics similar to those used by the Communists.  (The Communists did used psychology to reeducate their political activists, I'll remind you.)  So no I didn't enter into the covenantal Gemeinschaft relationship ties, but leaving felt painful like I was leaving a cult under bad conditions.  However, the upbeat letter from the director and assistant director which was so sickening syrupy sweet that I received some six months after I returned home from leaving Vienna made it sound as if everything was just hunky dory. Yeah right.  Barf.

***

I think that's all for now.  I've got to get going.

335. Organizational Behavior, Pt. 59 (Graham, pt. 4)

I just had an e-mail exchange with one of my brothers, the one in New England, and now my brain is sort of side-tracked in thought about him.

I'm having some difficulty with my tax consultant, so I may have to switch consultants... we'll see.

***

I'm skipping sections to "The Geopolitical Environment."

"An important contectual factor when discussing organizational citizenship is that organizations are embedded in geopolitical units (e.g., nation-states) having their own distinctive traditions regarding citizenship (cf. Scott, 1988). This fact sets constraints on what an organization can do.  For example, where slavery is outlawed, organizations cannot legally coerce members to belong.  Further, where employees have the right to quit (a civil guarantee in the example by the state), employers find themselves obliged tooffer acceptable intraorganizational rights (e.g., fair treatment, competitive wages, and a voice in decisions affecting employee interests) in order to induce employees to join and stay in the organization." (P. 257)

So technically, if I had known the Austrian law and it had provided for "the right to quit", then I should have been able to invoke that law when I was offered to return to the USA because I had "culture shock" (!?!).  Of course, that would have been the unusual missionary who would have come to the field equipped with the knowledge of the local employment laws.  I can imagine what kind of a response that would have evoked, since they themselves had little regard for written rules.   So for me to evoke the Austrian law!  I wonder how they would have respnded?  My first guess is that they would have called my sending mission's local office to get me out of there because they would figure I'd be a major threat if I was going to do things like evoke national laws.  Even if it were arguable that the law might not apply in the situation, they might decide it wasn't worth raising a scandal over, so it would be better to just let me go quickly and quietly as I asked.  It's also possible, however, that they might pull some fast ones to try to somehow silence my possible testimony back home, but I couldn't even try to conjecture what they might do.

***

"In addition to protecting civil rights (such as employment-at-will), the state may also guarantee social rights (such as minimum hourly wage rates and pension protection), and political rights (such as union organization and representation). The point of these examples is that rights exist at two levels: the geopolitical environment and the organization.  If an organization violates individual rights guaranteed by the state, organizational members have recourse to the state's legal system, i.e., organizational members have recourse to the state's legal system, i.e., to exercise their societal civil rights to foce the organization to come into compliance." (p. 257)



I don't suppose anyone in the mission would have wanted to organize unions (since they had internalized the organizational/management norms and values so well), but if they has it certainly wouldn't have been well received.  On the other hand, maybe if I had tried to onionize the mission I wold have had more legal rights, although I don't know what kinds of exceptions ther emight have been for nonprofit and church organizations.  Besides, O woudln't have had any money for legal fees so that would have had to come from somewhere.. maybe a nonprofit somewhere that specialized in such things.  This is just speculation, however, and no one would have been interested in joining a union except for possibly newcomers.  So that confirms what I've been saying that they had all internalized the norms and values.  They were so united that there was no one who would critique the organization.  It was a HUGE case of groupthink, if you will.

***

"The fact of organizational embeddedness in larger geopolitical systems not only sets a floor for organizational rights; it also suggests as a variable of interest the degree to which organizational rights exceed those required by the state.  ...


...
Proposition 1. Organizational policies and practices granting more member rights than those required by the geopolitical environment strenghthen the relationshial ties member-citizens have with their organization."  (p. 258)

Hah!  I would be very, very shocked if the Vienna mision knew anything about Austrian employment law.  However, I supposed they had a lawyer, but I'm not sure what issues they used him for.  I suspect they had to know what kinds of visas were needed for missionaries (and coming from the various countries), how money needed to be handled regarding taxes, how much could be brought into the countrey, etc. and those kinds of things.  But I doubt very much they knew anything about the Austrian employment law.  But then the thing is, did it apply to them?  It seems like they couldn't have completely escaped its reach, but I don't know that.  That might be a good thing for a missionary to know, though: whether the employment laws of the country they're going to apply to the mission they'll be working for.  Trust me, you never know if you'll need it and not all missions are as ethical as they seem back home.  Heaven forbid you might need it thhouth, hopefully you won't.

That's it for now.

334. Organizational Behavior, Pt. 58 (Graham, pt. 4)

I didn't get up in time to make it to church, without being late.  So I guess I'd better start setting my alarm for church.  I baked a loaf of whole wheat pumpkin bread (with walnuts and raisins) too.  It was bring a friend Sunday so people were asked to bring something and visitors were going to be given some loaves and others were going to be for the social time.  Rats.

Well, I worked on things at home.  I finished all the non-U.S. Easter letters and also finished the medical binders, except I should make some kind of external title on them so they'd be easier to identify.  The older ones all have that.

I'm sort of waiting to hear if I need to use all my tax deductions before I start in on totalling them.  Hopefully I'll know by the end of tomorrow.    Otherwise, I'll just have to start working on totalling all my medical receipts and figuring out all the mileage deductions.

Returning to the text...

***

Right now I'm just going to discuss Table II "Summary of Citizenship Concepts as Applied to Organizations".  This table has three columns:
"1) Status of belonging (ordered by strength of relational ties) 
2) Typologies of organizatioinal rights and 
3) Typology of organizational responsibilities


1) Coercion, e.g., slaves
2) None
3) Avoid punishment " (p. 256, continues below, numbers are added)

In a lot of ways I felt like the slave except I technically could leave at any time, except that it would be very difficult for me to leave before my two year commitment were up.  But I felt like I had no rights at all and in the end I was caving in to their pressure, presumably to lessen the stress I was experiencing.

***

"1) Gesellschaft relations e.g., casual labor having no affective ties to the organization, but who work entirely for the instrumental rewards to be earned from employment


2) organizational civil rights, e.g., fair treatment in routine personnel matters such as hiring, job assignments, transfers, promotions, and layoffs, due process in disciplinary and discharge proceedings, grievance filings and complaint investigation


3) Organization obedience, i.e., an orientation toward organizational structure, job descriptions, and personnel policies that recognizes and accepts the necessity and desirability of a rational structure of rules and regulations"  (p. 256, continues below, numbers are added)

Well, we clearly weren't "casual labor having no affective ties to the organization..." so that part doesn't fit.   And I can't speak for other people, but as for myself, I did NOT get fair treatment in "routine personnel matters" "such as... job assignments".  So much for organizational civil rights. I only wish there had been a "due process" and a way to file a grievance and file a complaint.  But there wasn't a way to do any of those, I mean not a way to do it that would have gotten serious attention, other than a boot out the door.  The third part, organization obedience, doesn't fit because it assumes too much rationality on the part of the organization. What I mean is that this assumes  there is a neat and clear cut job description, personnel policies, rules and regulations that are all spelled out in black and white.  That is about as far as you can get from the truth of the Vienna mission.  That is just not how they operated.

***

"1) Gemeinschaft relations, e.g., longer-term employees who are part of friendship networks in the organization, and have come to identify with it as a whole, including its products and its leadership


2) Organizational social rights, e.g., claims to economic resources in the form of wage and salary income, bonuses, current fringe benefits, and pension contributions; social status symbols, such as office size and locations, private dining facilities, etc.


3) Organizational loyalty, i.e., identification with and allegiance to organizational leaders and the organization as a whole, transcending the parochial interests of individuals, work groups, and departments" (p. 256, continues below, numbers are added)

 Gemeinschaft definitely describes more like what the relationships were like in the Vienna mission.  The identification factor was very strong. Because the mission was not a for-profit business the resources listed are not very relevant for the most part.  However, the department heads did have bigger and nicer offices, and they were more likely to have secretaries and they might have had a larger home also.  So there were some benefits.  I'm not sure exactly how those got figured out, but somehow they did.  One thing was that all the missionaries came from different missions and so there was a range of "salaries" depending on your sending mission.  It never bothered me any, but I think it may have bothered others at times.  I think it was one of those issues you just tried not to accidently aggrevate.

As to organizational loyalty, the mission demanded it.  This was part of the trust issue that was tested during the initial socialization.

***

"1) Covenantal relations, a special form of Gemeinschaft that includes transcendent principles of goodness (e.g., equal rights for all persons) that inspire and support the parties to the relationship, and to which they are held accountable


2) Organizational political rights, e.g., ability to influence, participate in, or make decisions concerning organizational policies and practices ranging from the details of doing one task to the mission of the organization of the organization as a whole, from issues of finance to personnel, operations to marketing


3) Organizational participation, i.e., interest in organizational affairs guided by ideal standards of virtue validated by keeping informed, and espressed through full and responsible involvement in organizational governance" (p. 256, numbers are added)

The only thing, in my mind that the members in the Vienna mission held each other accountable for (or at least the main thing) was security related, and I don't think that's what #1 here is talking about.  Security is not some "transcendant principle of goodness".  The closest that the mission came to that was their ends justifies the means - which I've referred to several times here on this blog - , if you want to count that as a "principle of goodness." 

Organizational political rights??!! No, no, no, no, no.... !    Whooo boy I think I landed in the wrong book or something.  Unless you were the director, assistant director or the North American director you had zilch organizational political rights.  That being said, department heads had limited say within their area of expertise, but that's it.  Just to set that record strait, the mission was not a democracy and there was no power sharing.  There... I got it off my chest; can I got on now?

This is the other side of the coin.  I would very greatly have liked to have had more serious involvement in the Vienna mission, but maybe not the mission as it was.  If it had been anything like what I had expected it to be I would most certainly have maintained a keen interest in organizational affairs and would have been open to involement in whatever leadership oppurtunities might have come my way.  But being that the mission was the way it was in fact and I wasn't wanted for any leadership position and I didn't really want any leadership position there either because I couldn't espouse their valuesso pass them on to someone else, then as far as me and the mission were concerned we were a non issue.  In general, governance is just something the board of directors do, which includes the director, assistant director and North American director.  No one else needed worry their pretty little head too much about organizational governance.

 I think that's it for tonight.  Good night.

333. Organizational Behavior, Pt. 57 (Graham, pt. 3)

My regular physical therapist has been on vacation this week and she left the instructions to focus on strength training for my legs, and boy have they been focusing on strength training of my legs!  The first day the physical therapist said I might ache the next day although I didn't - I must say that it's generally pretty rare for me to ache after exercise.

However, during some of the exercises I thought I was being punished for something it was so bad.  These were exercises that when I was healthy would have have been so hard but for me now they were just horrendously difficult.  One of the worst ones was leaning against the wall squatting with your legs out in front, knees spread apart, so that your legs are bent at about a 90 degree angle and holding it for 1 minute; doing it 3 times.  After about 30 seconds it would start to get bad, by 45 seconds I was ready to throw in the towel and the last 15 seconds I was wimpering like a puppy dog the whole time  just gritting my teeth just barely holding.  Then I'd just collapse on the chair under me.

They did do a pretty good job of improving my walking, although I hate to think I have to do all that to maintain my walking.  Anyway, I still do have trouble walking.

I'm still trying to get the migrain taken care of too.  The migrain has not been well managed/under control for a couple months approximately now, so it's making things a bit rough too.  I have a botox injection scheduled for April 3, but I was hoping to have it done sooner, but at this point it looks like it won't be.

***

The other thing that's happened is regarding taxes.  I saw my tax cnsultant earlier this week and she needs some more documents, but she's also working on some things from her end too.  We're trying to figure out if I owe tax on one big ticket item.  But I also can't find a couple important 1-99 forms.  I feel like I've looked everywhere, or at least everywhere logital.  But then the 2010 tax file was found in completely the wrong drawer.  So I'm really frustrated about this.  The thing is that this is, I think, directly related to the fact that my migrain has not been managed recently, so I've been more prone to making mistakes.  It's very frustrating and it means that I'm spending time on it to the neglect of other things, which is just all the more frustrating and discouraging.

Back to the text....

***

This is the last section under "Part I: The Nature of Citizenship."

"Citizenship Responsibilities...

Obedience...Citizens are responsibile for obeying existing laws...

 Loyalty. The second category of citizen responsibilities concerns the expansion of individual welfare functions to include the interests of others, the state as a whole, and the values it embodies.citizenship behaviors in this category include uncompensated contributions of effort, money, or property; protecting and/or enhancing a state's good reputation in the eyes of outsiders; and cooperating with others to serve the common interest, rather than seeking a free ride." (p. 254)

There is one more responsibility and then Graham takes these and applies them to the workplace, but, since the Vienna mission wasn't your tyical workplace anyway, I'm also going to discuss these "geopolitical arena" versions of citizenship responsibilities.  

"Laws" in the Vienna mission context was an illusive concept, which was very handy because one could never write home and say the rules were very strict, because technically there were practically no rules.  And the ambiguity could be very frustrating until you were socialized, became a trusted member and began to understand how the system worked.  (Remember the policy manual seemed to have no affect as the only 2 teimes I made reference to it at the beginning were quickly snubbed by management).

So the issue of WHAT to obey was something I grappled with my whole time in Vienna and I never could quite figure it out completely although I'm sure it was dependent on my submitting wholeheartedly to them, which I never could do because I didn't trust them.

As far as loyalty goes, missionaries generally are used to putting forth uncompensated effort.  I resented the focus on my boss' family though. I put forth an effort though, but  that felt sexist and stereotypical and also it made me feel like maybe my boss's wife didn't trust me working with her husband or something.  If that were so we just needed to deal with it straight up instead of beating around the bush.  

***

"Participation... [C]itizenship behavior includes devoting time and effort to the responsibilities of governance, keeping well informed, sharing information and ideas with others, engaging in discussions about controversial issues, voting in whatever manner is provided under the law, and encouraging others to do likewise." (p. 254)

In the Vienna mission this assumes that the management liked an involved staff.  First of all, they did NOT like controversies, any voting that might have existed would only have been in the board room, and those in appropriate formal or informal or informal positions to know something would be told - although upon return from an absence they might have to inquire about about missed information.  The point is that, there wasn't a lot of room for anything out of the expected, out of the hierarchy, etc. to happen and if you were in a position to know or do something you'd get the information or have the opportunity to do it (if possible).  This was not a democratic system, which I've mentioned before.  I, for example, didn't have any of these, although for a while when I actually did act as the secretary of the assistant director I might have had  some responsibility for encouraging others (e.g., department directors) to do one or more of these things (but only in the name of my boss; I couldn't have done this on my own).  So I would just have been a conduit for my boss... does that count as participation?

***

"The three categories of citizenship responsibilities described above... can be used in organizational settings...

Organizational Obedience.  An orientation toward organizational structure, job descriptions, and personnel policies that recognizes and accepts the necessity and desirability of a rational structure of rules and regulation. Obedientce may be demonstrated by respect for rules and instructions, punctuality in attendance and task completion, and stewardship of organizational resources." (p. 255)

I don't think I ever had a problem with organizational structure and made a lot of sense.  I did and still do have a proble with the lack of grievance procedure, which might be sort of considered part of the organizational structure (i.e., complain up the structure, to my sending mission, etc.).  But since they were all in cahoots, there was no one to complain to.  

I accepted my original job description, but it might have been the case that they wanted someone that would have been a career secretary, I'm not sure.  In any case I was obedient to the other job descriptions I held, but I did not accept them in the same way as I did the original job description because I understood that these moves were some kind of punishment for my not  responding adequately or correctly to their efforts to socialize me.  I put forth my full effort at every job they gave me however, and I did not complain.

***

"Organizational Loyalty.  Identification with and allegiance to organizational leaders and the organization as a whole, transcending the parochial interests of individuals, work groups, and departments. Representative behaviors include defending the organization against threats; contributing to its good reputation; and cooperating with others to serve the interests of the whole." (p. 255)

My organizational loyalty - using this definition - began to be tested very soon after my arrival in Vienna.  But after the 5th month crisis event it took a definity dive forthe worst, and after that my loyalty was on the rocks.  In Vienna no one could recognize this, but the Vienna mission began censoring my prayer letters and I suspect that it knew that not only was my attitude a risk but the very things I was experiencing they didn't want people back home to know about.

So for most of the time I was in Vienna I had negligible allegiance to the organizational leaders and the organizational as a whole.  I never was in one position in a whole to worry about having "parochial interests."  That being said, however, I didn't want the mission to be exposed to threats from the Communist countries and I did support the work of the ministry, the training of church leaders in "closed countries."  But I thought there was too much about how they were doing it what was unscriptural that I thought they should be held accountable to Christians back home.  But most Christians back home wouldn't have cared anyway, or would have been so anti-Communist that they would have thought it was all worth it.  So that's why I lost trust in Christianity.

***

"Organizational Participation. Interest in organizational affairs guided by ideal standards of virtue, validated by keeping informed, and expressed through full and responsible involvement in organizational governance." (p. 255)

I don't have much else to say about this.  Everyone attended the meetings we were supposed to and I can't imagine someone not attending a meeting.  The rank and file workers only knew what pertained to their work and human interest stories and information that we could include in our prayer letters, or certain changes that might be happening in the future, like a ministry trip to China (a new field) or the like.   

***

"Responsible citizenship requires a balance of obedience, loyalty, and participation, rather than focusing on one at the expense of the others. Consider the variety of ways citizens can be irresponsible: (1) One who obeys the letter of the law, but neither feels allegiance to the common good nor participates in governance, is indistinguishable from a resident alien or day laborer. (2) The loyal flag-waver who privately flouts the law for personal gain is a hypocrite, as is the nostalgic patriot who ignores emerging issues and refuses to participate in the political process to address them constructively, thereby allowing threats to the long-term viability of the state or oganization to fester. (3) The political activist who disrespects existing political structures and proceses, or who pursues parochial interests to the detriment of the long-term common good, is an anarchist." (p. 255)

As to (1) the letter of the law (i.e., the policy handbook) appeared to be irrelevant to the mission, as I soon learned, so it was up to me to try to learn by trial and error what the rules of the game were.  I found this to be a moving target, so how could I be expected to obey them?  Did I try?  I think so!  But I also think I it was very tiring and frustrating and I put forth a more than adequate effort in trying to figure them out.  As to governance I was not anywhere near allowed a way in governance, so I couldn't have participated in it had I wanted to.    So number 1 seems irrelevant to me.

As to (2) I didn't flout the law because I wasn't sure what it was.  If I appeared to flout it it was only because I'd given up in frustration trying to figure out what the rules of play were.  It's possible that might have appeared like flouting.  But in any case, I don't think you could say I flouted them for personal gain.  It's possible that they took issue with my working with Austrian, however, but before I left the USA I had told my sending mission about my sending mission about my intention to work with Austrians since I was a secretary and would have time in off hours and they'd told me they though that would be okay.  But I struggled with the Vienna mission over that the whole time I was there and it's possible they took this as something I was flouting the law for personal gain (although I'm not sure which of their laws I'd be flouting here).  However, I think they're just ethnocentric... although selectively so, because some of their members did attend Austrian churches.  

Continuing with (2)... I dn't think I could have recognized an "emerging issue" if it jumped up and bit me in the nose.  Such an issue would have had to have been announced at a large group meeting.   And the thing is that such a mission-critical issue would not have brought to the group to decide or even for their input.  Again, this was not a democracy.

***

"(3) The political activist who disrespects existing political structures and processes, or who pursues parochial interests to the detriment of the long-term common good, is an anarchist." (p. 255)

This can't be me because  I didn't participate in any of aspecte of the governance of the mission.  

That's it for Part I of this article and we'll pick up from here next time. 

332. Organizational Behavior, Pt. 56 (Graham, pt. 2)

Today's sermon was about the temple moneychangers (it was in sequence in the teachings of Jesus).  This is an area I'm not the strongest in, but I've been grappling for months now as to what to do about my benefactors and recently I've been moving more and more in the direction of "nonprofits."  That is pretty broad, though and needs to be narrowed down.  Also, if I end out with next to nothing for a benefactor to inherit, what good is that?  So I've been thinking along those lines.

But back to the text...

***

We're still in "Part I: The Nature of Political Citizenship," but now we're looking at the citizenship rights aspect of it.

Citizenship Rights

"Citizens have rights that are not available to noncitizens.  The substance of these rights varies with time and place, and may also vary across groups of citizens.  That is, some citizens may have more rights than other citizens at any point in time, and these differences may affect the nature of the ties that bind citizens to one another." (p. 253)

At this point the author does not attempt to make a carry over to the business/employment world, but I will do so vis a vis my understanding of the Vienna mission (in the late 1980s).  "Noncitizens" would have been those not working with the mission.  Even family members were non really citizens and volunteers and temporary workers would be like "green card holders" in the USA.  These people had limited access and rights on their own to the mission.

Some noncitizens were accepted as friendly but everyone else was deemed potentially unfriently/an enemy (Communist or cooperating with Communists).  Friendly noncitizens were mostly local Christians or neighbors or local businesses they'd relations with for years.  But I'm getting off the subject here.

Certainly citizens within the mission could have more or less rights than each other, such as my boss having more rights than me or my mentor (my boss' boss' secretary) having more rights than me.  But sometimes it wasn't just a matter of having more or less rights but of having different rights  For example, the layout editor would have different rights than would the secretary of the "seminar" director [that's how I have his title on papers I wrote as I left Vienna that my brother just sent me from Seattle - 'Seminar' is German for seminary]. These differences can be explained because everyone was on a "need to know" basis and had access to different information and the like.

So in the Vienna mission you had differentiation externally, internally (both vertically and horizontally).  However, since I have also discussed informal organization here on this blog, it might be worth noting that I expect that it also made a difference.

As to whether or not these differences of rights affects the ties that bound the missionaries to each other, I can't particularly say that they did.  I think, rather, that one's position in the informal organization was more likely to play a role.  That is, if one was doing very well, no matter what one's actual job, and if one had managed to internalize the mission's values and norms and pass with flying colors and continue to pass each test flung one's way so that one progressed along the informal organization (since there wasn't much room for growth in the formal organization), then I think maybe one could have felt the ties strengthened with the other members as one received social reaffirmation for doing well and passing these tests.  I think spouses went through something like this too, but adapted to them.

***

"T.H. Marshall (1965), in reviewing three centuries of English history to explain the extension of citizens' rights to an ever broader share of the population, identified three categories of rights: civil (legal protection of life, liberty, and property), political (participation in decision-making), and social (adequate level of socioeconomic benefits)." (p. 253)

Since I've already started applying these quoted to the Vienna mission, I might as well not stop now, right?  Hah!  Hah-hah-hah!

What the English built over the course of three centuries, the Vienna mission managed to tear down in zero seconds.  Actually, they didn't have to tear it down, because they didn't have it to begin with.  That's despite the fact that my sending mission was out of England.

 Just  in case you think I'm being a little harsh, let's go through them one by one.

1. Civil rights.  Liberty was the main issue here, as I was brought there to be a secretary and I was beforehand it would be okay if I had an Austrian ministry.  Nevertheless, I felt a lot of pressure to conform including not spending so much time with Austrian activities (and being so independent - which is virtually a synonym of liberty).  Also, I was pressured to have a roommate, which I didn't want.

2.  Political.  This is meant in a democratic way and this is completely obsurd in the Vienna mission context.  As far as I was/am concerned it was an oligarchy.  Maybe not unlike the Supreme Soviet of the USSR.  Maybe it was just me and because I was always such an outsider, but that's how I saw it.  You'd have to prove it to me that it was otherwise.  The department heads might have served as some advisory roles as appropriated, but it was the board (which included the representatives from member mission, the mission director, assistant director and North American director) that really made the decisions.

3. Social. In the Vienna mission these were NOT rights, but privileges, and they could be given or taken away according to one's standing with the mission.  In other words, this was used as a behavioristic reward or punishment.   I experienced this in the extreme at the tail end of my time in Vienna, but I think others got it to a lesser extent, just engh to make them sweat a little maybe.   Certainly, though, I was overwhelmed with the attention when I first arrived and I thought it was an inordinate amount of attention so it threw me back and I didn't know what to make of it.

So you can see that these citizenship rights theories might as well be wadded up and thrown in the trash as far as relates to the Vienna mission.

***

Here Grahham does apply Marshall's rights to organizations...

"Organizational civil rights would include fair treatment in routine personnel matters (hiring, assignment, evaluation, etc.), and also guarantees of due process when problems arise (e.g., grievance investigation and disciplinary proceedings). Political rights would include the ability to participate in decision making both about current operational matters, and about broader organizational policies, objectives, and spending plans. Social rights would include economic benefits (regular salary/wages, bonuses, insurance, pensions, etc.), social status symbols, and training/educational opportunities.


... Given the hierarchical structure typical of most organizations, however, unequal rights within organizations are not only possible but likely." (p. 253-254)

Nothing could be fair with the mission because even the few written rules I knew of the mission didn't keep with any predictability, and I've discussed that several times already.  So how could there be any fairness?  The mission leadership had their own criteria for judging and it wasn't based on known rules.  Presumably once you became an insider and internalized the values and norms you began to undersand the logic, but I can't be sure of that and it was a risk one took to begin down that road.  Was the mission fair?  As far as I knew it wasn't.  If it was fair it was based on some unwritten insider logic.

I was tossed around from assignment to assignment, and it wasn't based on my doing a sub-quality performance on my job, nor having a poor attitude on the job because I always had a good attitude and did what I was told without complaining and even suggested new ways to go about things if I thought it might be an improvement and these were always appreciated.  So the issue was never my work per se, so it never seemed fair to me.

There wasn't any due process.  I could go to my sending mission, but that was no help because the local office of my sending mission was directed by the person who was on the board of directors for the mission I was working at, so I wasn't really going to get anywhere there.

I already described how we really didn't have any real opportunity to participate in decision making.

The social rights Graham lists here aren't very applicable to a faith mission context.  However, the mission could have provided training/education opportunities, especially since we were a seminary, so having an "in-service" day or something along those lines might have been reasonable.  But for me they denied me the right to study German which was a right written in the employee handbook (1 month for each pledged year of service).  I got by without it, but their excuse was a bunch of b.s.: that there was too much work for me to do, when in fact I spent the next two months studying the software manual, when I had offered to take a software class before I left the States if they would have told me which software they used (this was the 1980s, remember).

This is the end of this citizenship rights section, but I hope you see how shipwrecked the mission was in this regard.

331. Organizational Behavior, Pt. 55 (Graham, pt. 1)

Being sick is for the birds.  Anyone who's had the flu can attest for that, but imagine being sick for years on end.  And then there's the people who say they get this or that malady that me also have, like migrains, for example.  But usually you don't have the chance to really take them up on their comparison (them against me).  They often want to insinuate that I'm lazy and I should be working.  But, given enough time, this is the kind of comparison I would like to make.

1.  Comparison of number of times spent in medical appointments of various kinds in the past month.
2.  Comparison of number of prescriptions medicines each of us takes on a routine basis.
3.  How much time otherwise is spent daily on health maintenance (including such things as my twice daily 45 minute e-stimulator session, and weekly portioning out of medicines and inventory management of medicines and supplements.)
4. Total disposal income spend on health maintenance on a routine basis every month.

You see, in this world, you're lazy until proven otherwise, and it's the ill person's responsibility to prove themselves ill to the rest of the world.  That means the ill person better be equipped with some pretty good proving skills or s/he is going to have to put up with some prejudice.

***

Sometimes when I read mom's journals it starts me thinking in different directions.  Talking to family members (via phone - none of them are nearby) can do that too.  I keep trying to figure things out about this family.  Unfortunately I was a child when some of the things probably started and even when I was a teenager I was off in my world and oblivious to things about dad's work and even about mom and dad.

I mentioned to someone not long ago about mom's giving me money when I lived in Chicago to get my hair cut and it made me mad because I was hungry and all she cared about was my hair looking nice.  I think she wanted me to get an Mrs. degree, which we used to joke about some girls going to Bible school just to get married.  But I wasn't one of them.  That is, I wasn't opposed to it, but I was really focused on the mission field and it was going to have to be someone else who was also focused on the same thing and we were going the same direction if I was going to get married, because I was serious about what I was preparing for (which, if you can imagine, made it all the more devastating what happened in Vienna).

The thing is though, that since mom's death I've thought even more about mom and trying to understand her.  I couldn't have changed what I did, but I wanted to understand her more.  I think there were several signs that she was grasping at keeping me closer to her.  When I was in college, as an undergraguate, I went to school there in my hometown and I could live with my parents to save money which, since the school was a private school and since we were middle class but not really well off, was a way to save money, was okay with me.  But the thing was that mom kept coming down stairs (my bedroom was alone in the basement) to talk with me, making it hard to study.  I kept trying to tell her I was trying to study, but when my Grandmother was in Florida 6 months of the year I took the opportunity to stay in her house so I could study better.  When I talked with mom about that later she said I should have told her, but I did and she wouldn't stop, and I don't think she could have.  I think she was just needy that way.  However, I don't think it was too hard on her having me gone when I left Seattle.

So I got my European Studies degree and then I moved to the midwest to attend Bible school, and mom sends money to get my hair cut, presumably to make me a better catch to get married.

And then when she visits me in Vienna she wants to help and I am able to arrange for her to teach health (she was a nurse) at a new English speaking Christian school there (that some of the Vienna missionaries are key in helping start).  My mom was, in fact treated more respectfully than I ever was by the Vienna mission.  And in Russia all we do by way of ministry is sing "How Great Thou Art" in English", but the thing is that I never was invited to have any public ministry like that at the church that I was a member of there.  That was a Russian Pentecostal church (that didn't have any obvious sign gifts).

So my mom pushed my to marry a good chunk of my life and then given a chance outshined me at work.  She couldn't outshine me at teaching English as a Second Language, interestingly enough, however, because I doubt that there would have been opportunity for that in Russia.

Remember that dad had said he would help with my student loan if I went into missions, so he was reasonably supportive of me in that.  But mom evidently wasn't quit so supportive or at least wanted me to be married in any event.  I never got any indication that this was an issue with dad.

Anyway, my mind just goes off in these various directions until it hits a snag or something in real life interrupts my train of thought.   And then the fact that something happened is quite a different thing than attributing this or that potential meaning to it.

But to our new text...

***

This text is on a somewhat different subject.

Graham, Jill W. (1991) An essay on organizational citizenship behavior. Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal, 4(4), 249-270.

I'll summarize the introduction to say that the author attempts in this article to present a paradigm of employee citizenship behavior that builds on what had preceded it and appeared to be lacking and draws on the political model of citizenship.

***

"Part I: The Nature of Political Citizenship"

"In ordinary usage, citizenship describes the status of belonging somewhere, and it implies both rights and responsibilities.  These three concepts are closely connected." (p. 251)

I won't comment on this yet... it's just by way of introduction.

***

"Relational Ties"


"An interdisciplinary review offers organizational scholars numerous typologies for the purpose of characterizing the relational ties between individual members and their collectivities.  For example, in her classic study of commitment and community, Kantner (1972, p. 148) discusses 'two strains in social life': 

...Gemeinschaft and Gesellschaft. Gemeinscheft relations include nonrational, affective, emotional, traditional, and expressive components of social action, as in a family; Gesellschaft relations comprise the rational, contractual, instrumental, and task-oriented actions, as in a business corporation.

...While coercive relationships exemplify a diminished form of Gesellschaft relations, covenantal relationships are an enhanced form of Gemeinshaft relations.  Shared moral commitments strengthen  the ties that bind people together.  Kelman's distinction between identification and internalizationas bases for psychological attachment captures the differences between normal and covenantal Gemeinschaft relations.


...Covenantal relationships tolerate risk and forgive errors...


While the parties to a covenantal relationship can forgive one another should disappointing performance occasionally occur, a contractual relationship (Gesellschaft) is either terminated or penalties are assessed on the erring performer... As noted by Daniel Elazar (1980, p. 10) 'The partners [in a covenantal relationship] do not automatically live happily ever after, but they are bound by covenant toward such an end.'


The emphasis on struggle is important.  Covenantal relationships are not conflict-free... Instead, the mutual trust typical of covenant ties allows members sufficient confidence in their status as permanent partners to release the energy needed for experimentation and progress during difficult times, with space for disagreement,  mistakes, forgiveness, and mutual learning." (p.251-253)

This is a lot, but I didn't want to break it up.  At first glance, the Vienna mission seems to have elements of both Gemeinschaft and Gesellschaft:  It had a family type atmosphere but it was also a workplace.  I've also discusses elsewhere in this blog internalization and identification of mission norms and values, and how the mission expected its members to internalize them.  So in that respect, the mission would have been more like covenantal Gemeinschaft relations.

The mission did not tolerate risk and may only have forgiven the occassional error, especially inconsequential onces or ones committed while learning something new.  These are because of the security issue and potential for damage to its ministry and harm to to those it worked with, both the students and other missions.  

I think the rest of the discussion about forgiveness and struggle is importent and interesting.  I'm not aware of anyone, other than new recruits perhaps as they learn the ropes, making mistakes.  So I am not aware of how mistakes would actually have been handled.  This in itself might be telling, I supposed.  Did mistakes just not exist?  Were they hidden from view so no one knew about them except those closest to the source? 

In any case, I have a hard time envision the likes of "conflict" "disagreement" forgiveness" "mutual learning" etc. occurring in any real way (i.e., not stilted).  If there was going to be any learning it was going to be on the part of the erring one, and it was not going to be particularly mutual.  Conflict would not end happily, unless departure of the errant one be considered happy.    In other words, the mission held the upper hand and so the relationship was very lopsided. 

It's ironic that I, as I have said here numerous times, reciprocal trust was very important in the mission, but that trust was not for the purpose of experiementation and it was not the kind of trust that made one feel comfortable to experiment necessarily.  Within strict bounds there was some professional leeway, but they were pretty strict bounds.  For example, if you were going to be teaching on an upcoming ministry trip you had some latitude, within the syllabus, as to some of the content you used or teaching methods.

But really, compared to other professional jobs I've had ( ESL instructor, librarian) there was little creative latitude at the Vienna mission.  And when I compare it to the level of trust expected between members at the mission and at other places I've worked it's completely opposite.  So the other places I've worked didn't require anything like that kind of trust, but allowed a lot more professional leeway than the Vienna mission, which is opposite of what the text seems to be saying.

***

I'm going to end here because it's late.  I wanted to get farther, but we'll pick up here next time.

330. Organizational Behavior, Pt. 54 (Smircich, pt. 7)

Yesterday on my way down the hall of the hospital where I have physical therapy two nurses stopped me and asked if I was all right and walked me to the physical therapy center.  I didn't realize I looked like I felt as bad as I felt.  After a while you sort of just get used to feeling bad.  And I had just realized too that I had forgotten to pick up the new script for physical therapy, so it was a double whammy I didn't need.  Once I got to the Rehab center (another name for the physical therapy center) and had time to sit and wait for my session, since I was about 15 minutes early, I figured out it was probably mainly the migraine that was the culprit this time, although my g.i. maladies and my poorly functioning legs didn't help matters either.  But if my migraine was really that bad, that meant it was time to seriously consider the Botox option.  It's hard for me to keep track of all this and I really need to see my primary care doctor.  I'd really like to just fall in her lap and say, "I'm all yours, do your magic."  Maybe that's putting a little too much pressure on her though.  I'd really like to do that though.  I'm pretty frazzled, although I really do do my best.  I'm sorry, but I know my health issue affect my blog.

Speaking of which... I've been working on Easter cards.  I've been experiencing crises the last 3 Christmases (don't tell me you're surprised! c'mon!  it's my life!  what did you expect?  get real!) So I finally decided it looked like maybe I might be able to take a shot at getting out Easter cards.  I think I didn't order enough so I might have to either pare down my list or go out and buy more cards.  The thing is, though, that it's hard to find Christian Easter cards and I ordered these through a mail order company.  So I probably would jusr order another box of cards.

Right now I'm writing to one of my Russian friends who hasn't heard from me in eons and if you think my migraine affects my English you should see my Russian!  Oh, man, I just can't hardly write Russian letters - that's bukvi - as in alphabet letters.  Uzhas! Kashmar!  Katastroph! Okay, maybe I'm overdoing it just a bit, but it's pretty hard to deal with.  I'm at least able to think in Russian reasonably well.  It's just that I can't get my words down on paper.  So it might be easier to record an audio message and send it along with the card thereby sidestepping the writing problem altogether, except for signing the card and addressing the envelope, of course.  But no, I have to do things the hard way.  I wonder if she has a computer.... She most likely does at work if nothing else.

But back to the text...

***

The next and last perspectives we're going to look at are "Structural and Psychodynamic Perspectives."

"Culture may also be regarded as the expression of unconscuous psychological processes.  This view of culture forms the foundation of the structural anthropology of Levi-Strauss.  It is also present in the work of organization theorists who are developing psychodynamic approaches to organizational analysis... From this point of view, organizational forms and practices are understood as projections of unconscious processes and are analyzed with referece to the dynamic interplay between out-of-awareness processes and their conscious manifestation." (p. 351)

This is just an introduction so I'm not going to say much here, but first of all remember that we're discussing "root metaphors," so here the root metaphor for organizational culture is that it is psychodymanic or that it is an expression of unconscious psychological processes.

I think that the Vienna mission would, to a great extent have liked this definition because it might not have liked people to think too much about it's culture and be overly conscious of the nuances of it as I was prone to be, or they might find issues that might not sit too well with them.  They were theologians, after all, and if they really knew and understood what was going on or they decided that the reasoning behind something was less than sufficient, then they could become dissatisfied or even, heaven forbid, start digging even further for answers to questions they might have.

So I can see that the Vienna mission top leadership might well have liked this perspective - keeping everything tucked nice and neatly in the unconscious realm.   But let's move on and see what else we can learn about this perspective.

***

"According to Levi-Strauss, the 'structures' [as in 'structural anthropology' - my note] solve problems, problems with symbols, ideas or categories, problems with the application of these symbols, ideas and categories in the social world, and problems with the applications of the applications...

If this approach to culture were applied to the study of organizations we could ask, What problems are solved by such persistent patterns in organizational arrangements as hierarchy.?...

From this perspective most organizational analysis would be criticized for being too limited in scope." (p. 352)

This is disappointing.  It looks like this perspective has practically nothing to do with the individual (except as a part of the whole), but looks mainly at the whole, the organization en toto.  So it looks at how the organization as a whole, addresses symbols and the like.

Let's move on and see if there's any potential for recovery of this perspective for helpfulness to me.

***

"The organization theorists working from the psychodynamic perspective and contributing to the development of a transformational organization theory share a concern for reconstituting social science inquiry so that it embraces a more complex vision of human nature, one that integrates unconscious processes with the more obvious concious processes.  Basic to this work is the belief in 'the existence of a deep underlying structure built into the ordering capacities of the mind, and  (the suggestion) that it is these capacities in which the 'psychic unity of mankind' consists." (p. 353).

So, if the structural anthropology perspective isn't a very good fit or very helpful in explaining my Vienna experiences, maybe the psychodyamic perspective is somehowat more helpful.

So let's dissect this a bit.  The basic activity here (besides sharing a concern "for reconstituting....") is the development of transformational organizational theory.   So theorists want their theory to influence the broader transformation organizational theory.  That is they want  "deep underling structure to build into the ordering capacities of the mind... intregrated with the more obvious conscious processes to be part of the transformational organizational theory.

Now, I think that this is something the Vienna mission administration could have lived with.  Based on my interactions with the top management (both in the USA and in Vienna, including the H.R. director), I think they would not be completely inept at using this method. 

I hope you get the picture here.  In addition to organizational change you also have routine personnel, management, and socialization processes.  In any case, the organization consisted of individuals with unconscious processes and "the more obvious conscious processes."  These needed to be integrated with each other... and integrated with the group... and it was management's responsibility to see that they were integrated.  In the case of the Vienna mission, which was a total institution, pretty much 100% conformity was expected.

For those who passed socialization and were fully accepted into the group, these then socialized others, etc., they internalized the group values and norms (which doesn't necessarily happen in all regular jobs).  But in the Vienna mission case, the individuals in the mission came to embody the "psychic unity," if you will, (along with requisite norms and values) that bound them to the mission.

Can you see how the Vienna mission might have been interested in this and may have used and / or even misused it?  Since they had virtually no oversight (I've addressed that issue more than once - see keyword accountability), it would have been very easy for them to abuse this.  And if you think all those seminarians on staff would have held them accountable, you are very, very naive, indeed.  (See keywoord accountability.)

***

That's all I'm going to discuss in this article.  All that's left of it is the conclusion, but there's nothing new there, so we'll start a new article next time.

329. Organizational Behavior, Pt. 53 (Smircich, pt. 6)

I have to go to physical therapy in a bit, so I'll see how much I can write now before I leave.

I messed up my finances this month, so I'm going to have to be more careful.  I really am gradually reigning things in, but the thing is that I'm trying to repurchase the things that were stolen from me, so that's messing things up.  I feel like the robbers are winning by ending out with the upper hand and me the loser.  That might be a stupid way of thinking, but that's the way I feel.  But then I bought some other things too.  For example, I bought a little folding seat that I can keep in the car and when I'm going to have to sit in line long I can put in in my purse and set it up and sit on it, which is very practical with my legs the way they are, so that really isn't a splurge, but something very necessary for my health.  And then I got a couple bonnets that you can put on and massage your head to use to "wash" your hair which should be very handy in the event I have another operation, which is very likely knowing me and it's been very difficult to wash my own hair and I never have anyone to help me do that, so I really need these.

Still, there werer some things that I didn't need as much as these...

Anyway,  I'd better get to the text.

***

The next section is titled "A Symbolic Perspective."

I think  anthropologists would really have had their work cut out for them at the Vienna mission on this one and I realy, really, REALLY would like to read a anthropologist's report from the symbolic perspective. 

"Anthropologists such as Hallowell... and Geertz... treat societies, or cultures, as systems of shared symbols and meanings. They see the anthropologist's task as interpreting the 'themes' of culture - those postulates or understandings, declared or implicit, tacitly approved or openly prompted, that orient and stimulate social activity..." (p. 350)

The keys to unlocking the understanding - my understanding, for example, of what was going on, was those pesky shared symbols and meanings.  And what's with the "themes" of culture anyway? How on earth was I supposed to figure that one out without understanding the shared symbols and meanings?  The declared and openly prompted symbols and meanings I could handle, but that's like saying I graduated from kindergarten, I think.  Whoopee!

 So I desserved a gold star and a nice little pat on the head, but that's about it and then I'd be puzzled about everything else and pretty much out of step with the other things, or hit and miss, guessing right simetimes.  Or I just gave up and marched to a different drummer disagreeing with their basic premises anyway in many cases.  And since I wasn't going to give them them them the total submission they seemed to want from their members, we were at a stalemate anyway.


In this case, I might have appreciated the insights of a symbolic anthropologist, but the mission would have liked the insights of an interrogator who could get tinto my head to let them know what I was really thinking.  They would  have like that, I'm sure.

[For those of you new to this blog some of this might not make a lot of sense, because it refers to some things I've already written about in several posts.  Sorry...]

***

"When this symbolic perspective is applied to organizational analysis, an organization, like a culture, is conceived as a pattern of symbolic discourse.  It thus needs interpreting... "reading" ... or "deciphering"..., in order to be understood.  To interpret an organization, a researcher focuses first on the way experience becomes meaningful for those in a setting. This is done by regard for the figure-ground relationships they maintain through their processes of attention, naming, and other patterns of action." (p. 350)

In a way, that is informally, I was doing this kind of thing when I realized the mission wasn't what I expected it to be.  When I said I did as I was told and  didn't complain but sort of just observed and tried to make out what was going on, this is the kind of thing I  mean.  I was drawing on my European Studies background but also my understanding of East European missions, which, although it wasn't as great as I thought it was, was substantial.

I didn't know all these anthropological terms when I was in Vienna though, although I've learned a bit about them since returning from Russia and my interest in qualitative research methods. 

***

Smircich describes  a few studies that use this approach, but these is one in particular that seems relevant:

"Van Maanen was concerned with how people decipher organizations so that they can behave appropriately.  This interest led him to focus on the process through which neophytes, in this case, police academy graduates, learned the meaning system maintained by their occupational group.


The focus of this form of organizational analysis is on how individuals interpret and understand their experience and how these interpretations and understandings related to actions. With this orientation, the very concept of organization is problematic, for the researcher seeks to examine the basic processes by which groups of people come to share interpetations and meanings for experience that allow the possibility of organized activity. The research agenda here is to document the creation and maintenance through symbolic action." (p. 351)

So I'm the police academy graduate.  So the big question is, how did I learn the meaning system of the Vienna mission?  If you've read this blog very long you probably know that I decided not too far into my tenure with the mission that I didn't agree with certain fairly key aspects of their "meaning" (i.e., values, etc.), so I didn't really "learn" them (as in "accept").

Moving right along, then, it might help to try to understand how I interpreted and understood my experience with the mission and how these interpretations and understandings related to actions.  I'm not sure if interpret and understood are two different concepts, but I'm going to just treat them as one to avid belaboring the point.  I think I understood the mission on different levels and different faces too and you had to know which one you were dealing with at any given moment.  Often it was clear by the context or the people involved, though.  But not always.  And then I didn't really undersand all the rules so I got things mixed up too.  There was the mission family face.  There was the external church face.  There was the external supporter face.  There was the external East Europe face.  There was the external East Eurupe teaching face.  There was the security threat face.  etc.  The thing was that each of these had protocols because they were potential security threats (as was anything, really).  So being socialized was like walking a field of landmines. 

So then what happens to those who don't come to share interpretations and meanings for experience that allow the possibility of organized activity? I guess presumably organized activity would be thwarted or at the very least be made difficult.  In the case of the Viennna mission it was impossible really because if I didn't share virtually ALL of their values (which I already said I didn't) I was a security threat in their system and the fact that they werer a total system to boot was an added problem.

***

That's it for the symbolic perspective.  we'll look at another perspective next time.

328. Organizational Behavior, Pt. 52 (Smircich, pt. 4)

I had a moderately eventful morning centered around medical activities, but nothing earth-shattering.  I'm going to have to hurry after I'm finished with my late-ish lunch to go to Quest to have some bloodwork done, though.  I hope there's not a long line.  I've never been to this one, but my insurance likes Quest, so I guess I might be going to them sometimes now.

But back to the text...

***

The major article heading for this section is "Culture as a Root Metaphor for Conceptualizing Organization".

"The previous two ways the terms culture and organization are linked in the literature with the image of an organization are consistent with the image of an organization as an organism.  There are, of course, many other ways of conceiving of organizations, for example, as theaters..., texts..., and psychic prisons..." (p. 374)

So viewing organizations naturally within a cultural environment makes the organization out to be a kind of organism in a natural environment or culture or alternately it views the organism (aka organization) itself as cultural.  Very much a systems viewpoint.

The other methaphors are more interesting, I think.  It would be interesting to look at the literature and see how they describe each of these metaphoric perspectives, and maybe eventually I'll do that, but since I don't have easy access to an academic library right now I'm going to take the easy way out and make a point that that might be something to consider looking up in the future if I want to build on this point.

The the organization were viewed as a theater, would the management be the audience?  or would they be the playrights and/or stage managers?  How far can you take this metaphor anyway?  (Sometimes there's a limit as to how far a metaphor can be applied, how many details fit.)  Who are the players in the theater?  Is it everyone in the organization?  Does it include the management?  Does it include the formal and informal organization?  I'm not sure. And I'm not sure what implications I can draw for the mission in Vienna, so I'm going to move on.

The author deals with each of these later on, but doesn't seem to label them as such.  The organization as text probably is not too much of an issue, and if it is I'll deal with it later in the text, but the "psychic prisons" one is definitely a problem.  I read ahead and it is pretty much what I think it is, although he uses a bit different wording later on.  The Vienna mission definitely used this and I am most definitely against it (in case you didn't know by now).  It's the surreptitious changing of individuals' values and norms to fit the mission's ends that may or may not be agreeable to the individual if stated plately and upfront without any messing around, just telling it like it is, just the facts, man, just the facts.

***

Before moving on to the next section the author spends some time discussing how some theorists "advance the view that organizations be understood as culture." (p. 347) Meaning that culture is the very nature or essence of organizations.  But the author notes 3 branches of anthropology that all take different approaches to culture and hence different approaches to the study of organizations, and it's these three approaches that form the next sections of the article.

***

This first article sub-section is "A Cognitive Perspective."

"The task of the anthropologist who follows this perspective is to determine what the rules are, to find out how the members of a culture see and describe their world." (p. 348)

I'm afraid the anthropologist would have had a dickens of a time in the Vienna mission.  First of all, just getting through the strict security system would have been a daunting task.  Then secondly, once in avoiding getting kicked out by the security system would have been the next daunting task.  Seriously, any anthropologist worth their weight in gold would have arranged in advanced to be there and would have arrived to see a lily white organization sanitized just for them.  Of course, their keen anthropologist eyes and ears would have sensed something amiss, but they might not have guesses what it was.   The other option would have been if they were fortunate enough to have a close friend of relative, or better yet someone they supported, in the mission that they could visit for a while and offer to help and thus become a participant observer.  Very clever that one.  Yes, it might work.  Of course if anyone finds out his/her profession that could be a problem. 

Outside of the minor problem of how to actually get the opportunity of getting close enough to the mission to get the requisite information needed to answer these questions, I think their answers would be very interesting indeed.  This is what my impression was of how the mission members viewed the world. I think this means the world within the mission.  They would probably say they were like a big family, because they were in a lot of ways, spending so much time together, helping each other out.  And the socialization process was so gruelling that you ended out feeling like they knew pretty much everything about you and then you trusted each other and it really could be very nice, I think... As long as you were on the good side of the mission, of course.

Although this is a long section, there is really nothing in it that fits my situation, so I'm goint to end here for now and next time we'll pick up with the next approach.

327. Organizational Behavior, Pt. 51 (Smircich, pt. 4)

I've been working pretty intensely on getting Easter cards out.  I missed sending out Christmas cards (not the first time) and it looked like maybe things were doing to be conducive for sending out Easter cards so I thought I'd give that a try, so I'm really pushing to get these done.  I'm personalizing the letters to a very great extent, so it's pretty time consuming and I've only got 10 done so far.

But I decided to try to squeeze in another post here.

***

This next section is sort of a general introduction to the rather broad category of culture as variable, in which the author identifies two broad types of culture of variable:

"In the first case, 'culture' is part of the environment and is seen as a determining or inprinting force.  In the second case, organizational culture is seen as a result of human enactment.  In both approaches organizations and cultures are to be known through the study of patterns of relationships across and within boundaries.  The desired outcomes of research into these patterns are statements of contingent relationships that will have applicability for those trying to manage organizations.  Underlying the interests in comparative management and comp corporate culture is the search for predictable means for organizational control and improved means for organization management.  Because both of these research approaches have these basic purposes, the issue of causality is of critical importance." (p. 347)

So basically, the take away here is that these two research methods - one focused on the organization as part of the external cultural envionrment, and the other as a unique cultural entity itself - is that the culture is meant to be studied so that it can be tamed and conquered (by management).  This is a somewhat different approach and one that I highly doubt that the Vienna mission ever used.  It certainly NEVER used with these me (!!!)

This would have been the kind of thinking if it had applied this kind of thinking to me (upon arrival in Vienna - or possibly even earlier, but we'll just say upon my arrival in Vienna). First, of all, cultural issues would have to involve things like what affect I had on the mission's culture; 2), whether I had the potential to instill cultural traits the mission wanted (or didn't want); 3) whether I represented a part of the broader culture they wanted or not, etc.

I don't think they really cared at all about these things because they were just going to impose their own culture anyway and as far as external culture they mostly cared about having people come from churches they had relations from so they could more easily control their image and the like with them - which is why they didn't send me back to the States to my hometown, but whee they would have had little control, but to a city where they would have had more control.  So mostly what they cared about was being able to control the organizational culture and all these other things were of little import.   Control, control, control... that was a major part of their  culture.

***

I'm sorry this is such a short post, but the next section, where we really go into more detail to these two approaches to culture, is quite long, although it's hard to say how much of it I'll end out using.

I have an appointment with the pain doctor, who works with the neuro surgeon, this morning because my lower g.i. system has all but stopped functioning for over a week now, which the doctors attribute to the lumbar stenoses and my legs aren't that great either.  Then I have physical therapy later too.  So we'll see what happens.

Meanwhile, I've got to get going to get cleaned up, etc.

326. Organizational Behavior, Pt. 50 (Smircich, pt. 3)

I'm sorry I was away a few days, but I had a few things I needed to do... nothing extraordinary though.

I'm just 52 but because of my health I have limitations more like someone in their 70s or even older.  It's difficult to realize you can't do things you used to do.  Sunday I led the prayer and praise time at church and because of my compromised cognitive faculties it was difficult for me.  I used to teach and so thinking on my feet was an every day thing, but I just couldn't get beyond thinking in pretty concrete terms and I think I rambled too.  So I think I better stick with things I can plan ahead for and not have surprises and have to deal with ad hoc things.

This is a combination of the fibromyalgia and the migraine, I think, that are having this affect, and this has been tested as a fibromyalgia symptom of mine.

***

The other news is some correspondence I've had with a cousin.  My family - my two brothers and I -  are just falling apart.  I think my brothers will sort of stick together and I'll end out alone.  However, my brothers won't like me being alone because they need me as bait to help them look attractive to other women.  They want other women to see how they are with women, and I'd be the exemplar.  Only I don't want to be that exemplar because I don't like their attitude towards and treatment of women (only I can't tell them that because then we'd get in a huge argument where they'd end out looking lily white through some magic slight of hand or the other, and I'd end out looking some sort of bad (i.e., bad, crazy, deceitful, etc.).

It really hurts to see my brothers the way I understand they are, but I can't do anything but pray for them.

The one brother who was the caretaker of mom, being geographically close to her (my other brother and I were thousands of miles away), is so angry but hides it except to those he feels closest too - so most people don't know about it.  And he's manipulative as all get out.  He knows where he has an advantage in the family and he works it for all it's worth to get what he wants.  And he withholds things too to make sure it's clear who is the boss and who has the power.  He's wicked.  I told him, for example, that I want the steak knives that go with mom's sharp knives since I let him have the good china and the silver both.  He knows I want those and we're not talking real expensive items either, but something that might have meaning.  But he's withholding them, why?  At the time he said that I "Already got too much."  It's just a game as far as I'm concerned.  And I'm putting together a family heritage cookbook and he won't even help me with it by 1) identifying some names on recent recipe cards 2) letting me add recipes from the slowcooker cookbooks that he wanted and 3) letting me see if there are any quotes I could use from mom's Bible that he has.  This heirloom cookbook is for everyone and it's ridiculous to not be willing to work with me on this, but then they don't really want me to do a good job on it anyway - they would really like it to be a half-baked job so that they could make a mockery of it.  In which case, why bother?  That brother is the one whose anger was abusive to  my mother, basically driving her to suicide.

The other brother is stuck in a small town that is his ex-wife's territory and where he'll always be a foreigner, so I don't envy him there, but he's stuck there while his kids are underage and he's tied to his business.  That brother is very controlling, and he has a history of physical abuse of his children, also, including the one with muscular dystrophy.

My brothers will probably visit each other, but if the one brother shows his anger much, I'm now sure how well that's going to go over with the other brother, because he's going to want to protect his sons.  His anger isn't anything compared to our other brother.  They could get in their mind they want to come down to see me, but I'm not going to allow that.  And the thing is that there's a guard station here at the condo complex so I could always disallow them to come in anyway.  The guard would call me and say that they were at the gate and should they be allowed in and I'd say "No" and the guard would send them away.

If I went to my hometown I might let my brother there know at some point and agree to meet with him there, maybe for lunch or something.  I woudn't stay with him though.

***

The other health thing is that my g.i. system is not working at all.  So I had to use my electrolyte refill prescription - that's the stuff you drink before a colonoscopy.  Pretty drastic stuff!  The last few days I've used heat, massage, enema every known trick under the sun besides everything and all the meds and supplements I already use... and nothing is working.  So I need to make an appointment with the g.i. doctor.  The thing is that whenever he does tests he never finds anything and it always ends out being neurological - from the spinal stenosis.  This, of course, is not a good thing, but I need to verify it with the g.i. doctor.  

You know what though?  It's because of all these health issues that I don't work and I was having so many problems with jobs here in the USA... (and I was concerned about poor career advancement possibilities in Russia! HAH! At least I had steady work in my field!)... So now I'm freed up to write my autobiography instead! Wheee! : Feel crummy > No work > Write autobiography

***

The next program of research in the text is:

"Corporate Culture: Culture as an Internal Variable"

"A second major way that culture and organization are linked is that used by researchers who recognize that organizations are themselves culture-producing phenomena... Organizatinos are seen as social instruments that produce goods and services, and, as a by-product, they also produce distinctive cultural artifacts such as rituals, legends, and ceremonies." (p. 344)

This really doesn't add much to what I've said elsewhere.  The idea of organizational culture being a by-product is interesting, however, and could reasonably fit the Vienna mission.  That's not to say that the culture as it was was a given, but that given the particular leadership and the particular make-up of the board and the member missions dictated the nature of the beast.

***

"Research with this conception of culture is generally based on a systems theory framework.  As such, it is concerned with articulating patterns of contingent relationships among collections of variables that appear to figure in organizational survival. Heretofore, typical variables considered in this research tradition were structure, size, technology, and leadership patterns." (p. 344)

I think systems theory is fascinating, although I don't know as much about it as I'd like.  It can be very useful in program evaluation.  But here we have researchers trying to understand organizations using a systems approach to try to pick up nuances of culture.  Doing it that way you'd pick up culture with a small "c" and I'm not sure how well systems theory is at picking up some of the nontangible aspects of culture, like attitudes and beliefs, so it would have its limits

As to the "organizational survival" issue, I thinjk I can say a few words about that too.  If you think about it, there are a bunch of nondenominational missions, more or less like that one in Vienna that have been around a long time.  Have they thought in terms or "organizational survival"?  Do they plan and make desicions based on organizational survival?  Is that a biblical mandate?  Is that something they should be striving for?  What if God doesn't really particularly want a bunch of stuffy old missions hanging around for decade upon decade?

In any case, it is certain that since the Vienna mission had taken mega big-time security precautions it seems pausible that there maybe have been some concern for "organizational survival," although there were other concerns as well resulting in the security precautions.

***

"Culture is usually defined as social or normative glue that holds an organization together... It expresses the values or social ideals and the beliefs that organization members come to share... These values or patterns of belief are manifested by symbolic devices such as myths... rituals stories..., and specialized language..." (p. 344)

This does make sense, and if it is true, then it's fairly easy to see why I couldn't have lasted with the mission - because I didn't have the "glue" that would hold me to the group.  That is, I didn't share significant aspects of the values and beliefs of the group.   And if it's true that these types of values, ideals, beliefs, etc. generally become manifested by symbolic devices as described in the text, then it's no wonder that I was confused so much of the time about what was going on!

***

"Culture, conceived as shared key values and beliefs, fulfills several functions.  First, it conveys a sense identity for organization members... Second, it facilitates the generation of commitment to something larger than the self... Third, culture enhances social system stability... And fourth, culture serves as a sense-making device that can guide and shape behavior." (p. 345-346)

This really sums up a lot and from this perspective it looks so easy.  I think I realized that by rejecting part of the value system I couldn't identify with the other members.  I might not have been able to say it in so many words, and I did still socialize with them.  But there was a growing wall between us.

I think for those who did come to share the values and beliefs of the mission their focus generally grew to be more on how to please the mission.

The culture would have played an important role in "social system stability", which would have been crucial for security concerns, especially.  And every time a new worker would come they'd have to go through the on-the-job training experience again, so they'd need the system to be as stable as possible.

The fourth function irks me.  I rather rebel against that kind of thing.  I'm not that crazy about anyone "guiding and shaping my behavior.  If I get a whiff of someone trying to to "guide and shape my behavior," especially surreptitiously, I want to know what's going on.  I think that generally I'm pretty amenable to reasonable requests (and even demands), but if there is something potentially unreasonable they want from me  I don't want someone uning underhanded ways to trying to go about getting it out of me.  And if they think I'm going to be an easy study, they might want to think again.  My kind unassuming exterior belies my intelligent and strong interior.  Try me.

***

 "Overall, the research agenda arising from the view that culture is an organizational variable is how to mold and shape internal culture in particular and how to change culture, consistent with managerial purposes.." (p. 346)

This was published in 1983, a few short years before I was in Vienna and before I faced the U.S. military chaplian/Vienna mission H.R. director that fateful day that ended out sending me back to the States for a few months just 5 months after I'd arrived in Vienna.    To refresh your memory about that meeting I must give you some background:

1.  I spent 4 months in Europe in 1981-2 including some time on my own as well as serving as a citizen delegate on a sister-city exchange, and on a study abroad program.

2. I spend 6 months in Europe in 1983 including: on a summer ministry, spending a week visiting a ministry I was interested in, studying Germin in Berlin (and volunteering several times a week at the Betheldiakonewerke, and visiting and making friends several times at a Lutheran seminary in East Berlin, etc.), and volunteering 6 weeks at the Society for the Study of Religion under Communism (aka Keston College) in England.

3.  I was attending an Austrian church in Vienna and doing just fine at the church

4.  I was not given any serious work to do at the mission, but the first couple months I was given software manuals to read when before I had come to Vienna I had offered to take a computer course if they'd tell me what software I would be using and they refused to tell me saying I could learn when I arrived.

5.  Contrary to the policy manual they wouldn't let me take my allotted months (1 month per pledged year of service) German upon arrival, saying there was too much work to do (!!).

There's a lot more I'm not telling you here but the gist of the matter is that I was facing a lot of stress, but it was not from being in Vienna, but it was from the mission.  I got along just fine in Vienna, to church, shopping, even signing up for classes by myself at the volkshochschule (a kind of adult school) and ordering a desk from Ikea when someone told me where it was.  Austria was not the problem the mission was.

So enter the H.R. director, and he has this handy dandy article with charts and everything showing how one has culture shock at certain months and so he diagnosed me right then and there with culture shock.  But if I had culture shock it was culture shock of the mission's culture not of Austria's culture.

But what does this have to do with the text?  I need to get back to the text.

The thing is that it seems as if the mission leadership might have all been reading this text, this paragraph with great eagerness and just waiting with baited breath for the research to come out that might help guide them in creating the most effective culture for their needs, because they somehow saw how culture was vital for their work, for their purposes.  So it's very possible that my boss and his boss and some of the board of director read some of these articles...

... except, it would seem, the H. R. director.  I say that because If he had read these he would have known that it was not the Austrian culture that was the problem but the mission!  But he didn't know!  So somehow he didn't have the same awareness of organizational culture as the others in the administration and he thought the problems I was facing was culture shock as in the usual adaptation in a move to a new country.

However, it does seem a little strange that an H.R. director wouldn't know about organizational culture, but you have to remember that at the mission we didn't have the usual orientation process that you might think an H.R. department would organization, and which would include elements of organizational culture.

***

 I'm sorry this took so long to get out.  I actually wrote it over several days.  I've had a lot going on and a few health issues as well as some things  sort of bringing up family things again.   Overall my lumbar stenosis (basically the whole lumbar is one big mild to moderate stenosis), is getting worse.

My cousin told me more details about my brother's anger but she thinks we should all (me and my brothers) be all re-united sometime - even though she think they have such low view of women.  I don'd want to be re-united with them and have them think that I condone that and have them care for me in my old age.  But I don't have anyone.  I need to find someone to be my 1) living will designee, 2) executor, and 3) benefactor (for various things).

It just kills me to think mom put up with my brother's abuse and she would have received a lot more respect from me but everone was afraid that I'd take all her money, which makes me mad and I want to just let them all go their own way if that's what they think of me.  My cousing made a jab sort of along those lines too when I showed her my calender in case my brothers are saying I'm just going to the beach all day (which mom said once and I think she was just parroting them) and she responded that it was fortunate that I had enough money to affort such good care (my cousing said that).  So I corrected her that since I'm on disability (SSDI) I have medicare (a medicare advantage plan) and medicaid (for being "medically needy" - i.e., being on SSDI), so I don't have to pay that much, but I do have to shop around to find providers that take my insurance.

With friends like that who needs enemies?  Well, the thing is that dad is the one who defined who I was for the family from the time I went to Vienna, and ultimately I think that came from him.  At any rate, it didn't from that cousin.  I suspect she heart it from my brother there - the one that was abusive to my mom.