[4/7/2011 comments: I made significant changes to the following text, not in its substance, but because I didn't think I'd originally stated what I meant clearly enough.]
I hope it's obvious to anyone who might take the trouble to read these posts that I don't expect anyone to feel sorry for me. When I got into these scrapes, like the situation in Vienna, I didn't really know what I was getting into, despite my best preparations, but I never regretted not going along with what they seemed to want (although I wasn't always sure what they wanted, which, as we're seeing in this text, is not unusual in a socialization situation). Part of the thing was that it didn't feel like what they really wanted was a small conciliatory step; but something more, and that I didn't know where a small step would take me, nor whether I could ever get out of it, or how I would get out of it.
Not that the main issue was whether I knew how to get out of it without taking any conciliatory steps, but rather once you get sucked in to a certain type of logic you can no longer look at objectively from the outside, because you're in and it's become you, or part of you anyway. So even if you might know how to get out once you're in, you might not want out because your frame of reference had changed by virtue of becoming an insider and taking at least the initial step(s) towards accepting the mission's way of thinking.
In this way, then, it wasn't the knowing how to get out that was the main issue, but the value structure to decide whether to get out or not would change. So you could have an outsider's value structure without knowing how to get out, or you could have an insider's value structure and maybe know how to get out (although that wasn't a given either). In this way, if you didn't want to go in you couldn't know how to get out, or, if you went in you didn't want out.
It would have been nice, of course, if I could have stated my observations and thoughts in so many words like this when I was going through it, but I did often feel more or less like an outsider looking in to something that I couldn't agree with.
So I don't regret not succumbing to their way of thinking and doing things, but I do regret not knowing about it beforehand, as I could have tried something else to reach my ministry goals. But what that something else might have been I can't say. But parts of my experiences in Vienna have come back to bite me from time to time, mostly via family members.
***
This chapter section is titled "Continuance: Metamorphosis".
"Porter (1971) notes that during the encounter phase, the organization has three tactics available to induce new members to change. First, the organization may reinforce and confirm the new member's behavior by providing rewards. Additionally, the organization may punish the recruit by withholding rewards or providing various negative reinforcements. The punishment approach is designed to 'extinguish' certain characteristics which the organization deems inappropriate for the prescribed role the new member is expected to play. Finally, the organization may do nothing. This tactic literally ignores certain characteristics and behaviors of new member... According to Porter, success of any of these strategies depends upon the individual's motivation to belong and the extent to which the organization possesses the ability to administer the valued rewards or relevant punishments to the neophytes." (p. 99)
This text might be important in helping me understand various individual experiences I had with the organization in Vienna. If it's true that "punishments" are meant to "'extinguish' certain characteristics" for example, I could try to figure out what characteristic was being addressed. However, on the other hand, I wish it were that easy. For example, were negative experiences with the mission (and individuals in it) meant to socialize me? If not, maybe they were meant to get me out of there (i.e., because of conflict with my dad's work). Or maybe they were just meant to scare the sh*t out of me and convert to their ways out of sheer fear. The inquisition comes to mind right now; those poor Jews. Also, were others subject to the same treatment as me (in accordance with their compliance, position, etc.)? If not, why not? Or in what way was I treated differently if I was?
But getting back to this text (it's hard not to digress, sorry), I'm not 100% sure how applicable these three options are to my experience in Vienna. In the beginning I got tons and tons of positive feedback, I felt rather slathered in it. But within 5 months I got the shocker of my life - a "negative reinforcement" (if that's what it was) that I never expected.
I think there are a couple of things that should be addressed regarding the applicability of these three tactics to induce change in the new recruit. First of all, there is the aspect of how I was treated taken just by itself, namely positively, negatively or doing nothing. The other part of the equation is that this text talks about these things in relation to the goal of socializing the new recruit. The fact that I received each of these treatments (although I have to think about the "doing nothing" one a bit) seems pretty clear-cut in my mind; but whether the intention was to socialize me is not (and was not) so clear, and I'm not entirely convinced that that that was always the goal in how they treated me. The question then is, of course, why did they treat me in certain ways at certain points if not to socialize me?
***
"Kelman (1958) notes that there are three underlying processes which the individual engages in when he adopts new responses. Each of the three affect the continuance of the induced response by manipulating various aspects of the individual's expectations and self-conceptions. The individual may accept organizational demands because they enable him to gain specific rewards and avoid certain punishments. Kelman calls this process compliance. At another level, a person may accept influence because he desires to establish or maintain a satisfying, self-defining relationship with another person or group. This process is labelled [sic] identification. Finally, the individual may accept organizational influence because the content of the induced behavior - the ideas and actions of which the behavior is comprised - is intrinsically rewarding. This process is referred to as internalization." (p. 99)
Here's another good one. What type of compliance did the mission in Vienna want? Since they were concerned about attitude and the like it seems that it would have to be the last option: internalization. I'm having to think a bit about the "intrinsically rewarding" part of the option though. In the context of Vienna, this would probably be that the newcomer would accept the logic of their reasoning and way of doing things (especially if they 1) already had politicized ideas about the Commie pinkos and the virtuous West, and 2) they didn't know much about ministry to that part of the world and so were prone to accept the wisdom of those who knew more than themselves. Some biblical sermonizing might be sprinkled in there too, which in those circles, if done right, could be very persuasive in itself. In this way the newcomer would see that of course they had to take all these measures manage their lives around them. How else?
So where was I in all these response types? On the compliance level of response, I never was clear about possible rewards and different things were thrown out at me as possibilities throughout my time there and I never knew which (if any) were real, which (if any) were possible and which (if any) were snow jobs. And since I didn't view myself as a secretary, the position itself wasn't much of a lure.
I'm not a cultural relativist, as I think I've mentioned before, and I willingly (usually) take on elements of a culture that don't seem to raise any moral or ethical issues. But as soon as these types of issues become an issue in my response to a culture (whether Vienna, or living in Siberia amongst Russians) I respond (or I try to) in a way corresponding to how I see right and wrong (which hopefully coincides with biblical teaching). An example of what I mean is that, when living in Siberia I got to taking my shoes off when I entered a home/apartment, but I was able to get by without ever having to bribe anyone. Taking the shoes off is no big deal, but bribing is more troublesome. Continuing in this line of thinking and using it regarding my socialization to the mission in Vienna, I willingly took on aspects that I didn't have any qualms about, but others I didn't. As it turned out, I had more trouble in this regard with the mission than with the Austrian people and culture.
Coming back from that digression... compliance wasn't what the mission wanted, except perhaps as a first step along the way to full socialization. And I don't think my reasons, at least usually, for ever complying were particularly in response to any possible rewards or punishments. I mainly just did what I thought I should do, for the most part. Their treatment of me was often confusing, anyway. Maybe they were trying different rewards and punishments to see which would work for me - like in the literature I discussed earlier on recruiting spies: maybe they had to find my weak spot. I wasn't blatantly noncompliant, just not compliant, I guess, in the way they wanted, or to the degree they wanted.
The next type of response by the new recruit to socialization efforts of the organization is that of identification. I don't think I need to address this much, except to say that I didn't see myself as a secretary and didn't see the other secretaries as my reference group. So this was pretty much a no-go, although I did interact with the other secretaries and other people in the mission too. It's just that I'm not sure identification fits my Vienna experience.
Finally, finding the group's ways and norms intrinsically rewarding and internalizing them. I didn't get this far for sure. Intrinsically rewarding? That's about as far from the truth as you can get, which is exactly why I was experiencing such a horrible dilemma.
So I sort of complied, didn't identify with my peers really, and certainly didn't internalize their norms.
***
The next paragraph describes how this process can be developmental, that you move from one to the next until you reach internalization (I almost tongue-in-cheek said "nirvana"). The way this process is described is exactly what I was afraid of:
After fulfilling his new job well and developing relationships in the organization "the neophyte finds that simply the performance of these behaviors is rewarding and, furthermore, their performance is congruent with his evolving value system." (p. 99)
To me, this illustrates the classic slippery slope. Generally, this should be a fairly benign process, but what if you have concerns almost from the get-go about the organization and it's values and ways of doing things? I guess you can say in some ways I was like the dog with his hackles up just bracing for a fight, ready to ward off any surreptitious efforts to undermine my beliefs and value system. So much for socialization.
***
Now we move on to more details about how this process might work.
"Using Lewinian terminology, [Schein] suggests that an unfreezing process is required because some persons enter socialization settings at odds with the organizational expectations. Hence, the organization must prove to the individual that parts of his 'previous self' are no longer of value to him. The organization may accomplish this by deliberately or accidentally creating a series of 'upending' events which disconfirm some of the new member's assumptions about the situation. The intensity of these upending events very widely, yet they serve to motivate the new member to search for new responses based upon his new information." (p. 99-100)
This isn't the kind of thing they teach in Bible school about missions, at least not in my experience. But there may well have been some of this in Vienna. Certainly, as we'll see when I get back to the chronology, the first task they gave me is hard to understand apart from this kind of intentional breaking me in. Mostly I can't say exactly what about me they might have wanted to change except just that I needed to wholeheartedly accept their ways, or possibly accept their complete authority. If you accept someone's authority, then it's not necessarily the norms and values you're accepting, because those could change (presumably); instead it's the person's (or organization's) authority that you accept. Then, by accepting their authority, you would also, by association, accept the norms and values they thrust upon you. If you just accept the norms and values then you might have a problem if they change, so it seems to me that it would be more important to accept the new authority than it would be to accept the new norms and values in and of themselves.
***
"In general, the most serious 'upending' events evolve around the individual's failure to receive confirmation of self. This situation is likely to produce the most significant personal changes in a new member. Disconfirmation may however, only involve certain organizationally related expectations, producing only mild readjustments in the individual's cognitive structure. Regardless of level, the disconfirmation induces a sort of guilt anxiety or inadequacy feeling within the individual. Consequently, since this state is uncomfortable, he is motivated to seek what Schein (1968a) calls 'psychological safety' by rearranging his expectations or, at a more profound level, his self-image." (p. 100)
Now this is a 100-pound weight! Remember this when I get to my story again. Let's say a person joins a total institution that expects the results of socialization to be nothing less than internalization of norms and values (and complete acceptance of the authority of the organization), what do you think this will be like to the newcomer? Does this sound a little like what it's like to join a cult (which I discussed in earlier posts)? And WHAT IF the newcomer is in the throes of a major "disconfirmation" of self and takes the MMPI (Minnesota MultiPhasic Personality Inventory)? Do you think any of this organization-induced "sort of guilt anxiety or inadequacy" might be picked up by that instrument?
In Vienna, according to not just my personal experience, but also my observations of others, it was fairly common to go through something like this, and I've described that already in other posts, although this is another take on what might be happening.
***
Now we discuss attitudes, which I have. I have an attitude, that is; specifically, an attitude problem.
"Attitudes are viewed as predispositions to respond in a particular way to a specified class of objects... At a very general level, the theory postulates that attitudes are mediating states which exert a direct and dynamic influence on behavior. Attitudes are viewed as composed of cognitive, affective and conative states associated with knowing, feeling and acting, respectively. Attitudinal responses to influence may fall into one or all of these states. Attitude change is perceived as primarily a social influence process relying on communications... The cornerstone in the theory is that a person holding conflicting attitudes is in an uncomfortable mental state and is motivated to reduce the tension by altering his attitudes." (p. 100)
As I've said before, it's clear that attitude was very important in Vienna. According to this theory about attitudes (i.e., in this text), it seems to me that the mission could have surmised a newcomer's attitudes by his/her knowledge (verbally stated), feelings, or actions. Since the mission cared so much about attitudes it had to somehow determine that a person espoused the right attitude and, probably, as much as possible about the person's attitudes. So they would have to, it seems to me, listen to and watch the person to try to deduce it, and try to monitor the progress in developing the correct attitude(s), or not developing them, as the case may be.
I think that attitude could be a fairly slippery thing to understand, unless it's about something very obvious and clearcut. But if the goal is to develop a pretty all-inclusive attitude towards the mission and its ways, that might be a bit difficult. Then they'd have to separate out the proper attitudes and the errant ones and, supposedly, try to figure out what it would take to correct any errant attitudes and/or confirm the correct ones.
Can you see how such a process could feel invasive to a newcomer? Especially if virtually their whole life is at the service of the organization and they're away from familiar influences?
We already saw that the reference group they'd set up for me wasn't a very good hook to draw me in with. And, even though I was away from family and friends, I soon had visitors from the USA, and got involved in Austrian life rather quickly. So some of the usual hooks would have been pretty useless on me.
***
"Often of importance to the continuance phase of socialization are symbolic transitional events. These rites de passage may be formal or informal, but they demonstrate to the initiate that he has been granted full-fledged membership and aid in developing a new member's sense of belonging (Blau, 1955). Such transitions may involve the giving of title, extra rights, or the sharing of information which previously had been withheld. Thus, these events celebrated a sort of individual metamorphosis. They signify that the member now has the skills, knowledge, and motivation to occupy a particular role." (p. 101)
In my case, I got such dramatically divergent signals that it got so that none of them - positive or negative - really phased me. I can't say that this didn't affect me at all, because it did cause me a lot of trauma and confusion about what was really going on. But I tried to take the good and the bad both in stride and not get too caught up in it either way. That would have been emotional suicide, really, or maybe I'd completely have lost a sense of reality trying to figure it out. As it was it was plenty hard enough without letting it get to me too much.
Some things, if taken in isolation could have been thought of as rites of passage of a sort, but again, there were too many negative things going on to really see these as truly rites of passage, although they must have indicated a little trust in me by the organization or I wouldn't have been given such opportunities. But then why the negative things were going on, still has to be addressed. The events that could have been viewed as rites of passage if they had been congruent with other things going on include: having the opportunity to travel to Bratislava to teach English using the Bible; a women's teaching trip to Romania; participating in hosting the board meeting once when it was in Vienna. That's all I can think of right now.
***
That concludes this chapter section. Good night.
~ Meg
