I went out and did a little shopping this afternoon. My legs aren't very good. I wanted to look in a new store, but decided I'd done enough walking.
I'm trying my sublingual Vitamin B-12 to see if it will help with the fatigue. So far it does seem to be helping.
***
Van Maanen starts out this section by dividing three "conceptually distinct problems" the individual deals with in the socialization process. These are first of all selection of the organization and anticipatory socialization, the second problem is the actual entry into the organization and the structural aspects of that, and the third problem "deals with the extent of personal change necessary for continuance in the organization and is called metamorphosis." (p. 80)
The author further describes these problems as being interdependent and often entail causal ordering.
The rest of what I'm going to cover now is about the first problem.
"For the purpose of this analysis, the concept, anticipatory socialization, will refer to the degree to which an individual is prepared - prior to entry - to occupy organizational positions." (p. 81)
I thought that I was well-prepared for my work in the Vienna mission. The one area I felt weakest in was my secretarial skills, but I thought I had enough temp work under my belt and other skills that that wouldn't be a problem. In hindsight I still think that that was a good assumption... except I didn't have a correct understanding of the organization itself and how it functioned. That is, I understood the explicit aspects of the work, the broad pen functions and what the public (supporters, etc.) was told. But the implicit aspects of the work were quite contrary to my expectations.
Ultimately, to succeed in the Vienna mission I think that the implicit aspects trumped the explicit in as much as falling in lockstep with those things would be more likely to result in a productive (and possibly fulfilling) role in the organization. That's my opinion. So the things I was most prepared for weren't as important as the things I wasn't prepared for.
In citing a study about the socialization of army soldiers in which it was found that "those persons who accepted the official values of the army hierarchy were much more likely to be promoted." (p. 81)
I think that this could be safely said for the Vienna mission too.
***
Next van Maanen discusses how individuals with certain value orientation are selected to work with an organization, these individuals are called "identifier types." The example given in the text is how the Forest Service looked for employees with "a strong public service orientation." (p. 81)
"...[T]he Forest Service was able to successfully screen and select recruits with this personal characteristic. Hence, the socialization process carried on by the organization assumed that the recruits supported and were committed to the service ideology and that this orientation had been implanted through socialization mechanisms." (p. 81-82)
I went to Vienna thinking that I was an "identifier type" for the mission, that I was very committed to ministry in that part of the world and work this group did. This much I did have.
But in reality, and here I'm surmising based on my experience and what I saw while with the mission, they probably wanted someone who was willing to become very vulnerable in order to be completely trusted by the group, and, in the case of value conflict be willing to suspend personal judgment in favor of the group's perspective. If these (or something like these) were the true, or the more important, identifier qualities for the Vienna mission, I was a poor fit.
In contrast, I believe I always have the right to come to my own value and ethical decisions and I thought (and still think) that be becoming completely vulnerable they'd have an easier time getting you to agree to their values and ethics, which would end out being coercive, in my opinion. Again, the mission leadership would deny the "coercive" accusation, but since there clearly would be a power imbalance (the newcomer vs. the entire mission machinery), I find it difficult to imagine it being anything but coercive. For it not to be coercive, at the very least the individual should not be required to be completely vulnerable (bare your soul, if you will).
***
On page 82 the author discusses one theorist who describes how a person's self-conception develops through a reality-testing process, where the individual tries out a theory and takes the result of that attempt to feed back and help reaffirm or adjust the self-concept theory. Selection of a career is seen as part of this process, where career selection is congruent with a person's self-concept.
In my case I'd say this is true. I have quite an altruistic bent and being a missionary fit within that aspect of my self-concept as well as my theology and other aspects of my self-concept.
But I've often noticed how it seemed that missions to Eastern Europe seemed to be different from other fields. Even after the fall of Communism, when I was living in Siberia I couldn't believe how many church planters there didn't know any of the language! This is certainly not what I learned in Bible school about missions, and when I think of the gal I went to school with who worked as a literacy educator in north Africa took 2 years to prepare for that work - 1 year learning French and 1 year learning Swahili!
It seemed it took a different kind of person or different kind of motivation or something to work in that part of the world, maybe it was political persuasion that Communism is the red scare or the potential seat of the antichrist or something. I didn't have this type of orientation, so it probably made me a bad fit. Theoretically and theologically I disagreed with Communism, but I worked through those issues during the process of formal education and on my own as well - I was not particularly politically oriented. I came to these understandings way after I started on the road to preparations for ministry to Eastern Europe. And I wanted to take what I learned in Bible school regarding missions, and not flagrantly go against it, especially as I'd readily accepted these teachings and not had any qualms with them.
So I thought my occupational choice fit my self-concept, and I still think it did, but I didn't have an accurate understanding of how the missions operated, even after having prior short-term and part-time exposure to it. So I was a good fit with an errant view of how things actually worked in that mission field. I may have had an errant view, but I still think that the mission was wrong, in as much as I think they were mistaken in using the deceptive and manipulative measures they did. It certainly doesn't fit my understanding of God nor of the biblical mandate to ministry.
***
On page 83 and the top of 84 van Maanen discusses how students (specifically medical students in his example) go through training and gain some limited experience, but are not independently practicing professionals until after they graduate, so there is some uncertainty as to how a person will actually function once on the job. Presumably this could be broadened to any job, not just the first professional job after training. And preparations could be more or less realistic or pertinent to any particular position.
***
That's all for now. Next time we'll discuss what happens when the person enters the organization.
