I'm wiped out. I knew it was going to be a long day today going to the other side of the city to my optometrist (I used to live nearby). But before I left home I had written this whole post - well almost all of it, and Firefox crashed again (I had too many tabs open) but this time Blogger.com hadn't auto-saved my work-in-progress. Usually when Firefox crashes I might lose a sentence or so, but not much more than that. When that happened I tried in vain to resurrect my work. Then I had to rush to get my shower and prepare for my trip to the optometrist; when I have to go out that way for something I try to combine errands to make the distance more worthwhile.
In my preparation to leave I couldn't find my phone, so then I went running around trying to frantically recover my steps to figure out where it might be. Then I wanted to gather some more medical documents for the optometrist, but by that time I was almost running late, so in my hurry I ended out grabbing the wrong documents. I did get all my glasses, though.
So my day continued in this semi-catastrophic harried manner until I arrived home about an hour ago (ca. 6:30 pm) wiped out. And I hadn't had lunch yet even, and didn't even remember to take my lunch meds. until after I'd left BJs, which was around 5:00.
Thankfully, not everything was such a mess. For example, I forgot I needed gas and the odometer was below the E the whole way to the optometrist... but I didn't run out of gas! Also, I was just finishing up my morning 45-minute stimulator session (I'm having the evening one now) when FedEx came with my new dehumidifier. It's so simple to operate that even in all that rush I was able to get it up and running before leaving home. By the time I got home there was, I think, about a quart of water already accumulated in the bucket.
My optometrist has known me the longest of any of my current doctors now that the university doesn't take my insurance, so it was nice to see her again. It really is nice when doctors get to know you; I think it's easier for them to know how treat you too. She said I was like a Timex watch: I take a licking and keep on ticking!
And in the spirit of International Women's Day, I'm including the lyrics of Helen Reddy's "I am Woman", the theme UN's theme song for the 1975 Year of the Woman:
I am woman, hear me roar
In numbers too big to ignore
And I know too much to go back an' pretend
'cause I've heard it all before
And I've been down there on the floor
No one's ever gonna keep me down again
CHORUS
Oh yes I am wise
But it's wisdom born of pain
Yes, I've paid the price
But look how much I gained
If I have to, I can do anything
I am strong (strong)
I am invincible (invincible)
I am woman
You can bend but never break me
'cause it only serves to make me
More determined to achieve my final goal
And I come back even stronger
Not a novice any longer
'cause you've deepened the conviction in my soul
CHORUS
I am woman watch me grow
See me standing toe to toe
As I spread my lovin' arms across the land
But I'm still an embryo
With a long long way to go
Until I make my brother understand
Oh yes I am wise
But it's wisdom born of pain
Yes, I've paid the price
But look how much I gained
If I have to I can face anything
I am strong (strong)
I am invincible (invincible)
I am woman
Oh, I am woman
I am invincible
I am strong
FADE
I am woman
I am invincible
I am strong
I am woman
***
I'm going to try to finish this chapter section ("Inefficacious Socialization") in this post, so be ready for a long one. I did manage to jot down a few hurried notes before leaving this morning, so at least I have that much to recreate my lost material.
"A new member learns that the organization's goals which he first encountered (and which are communicated to the outside environment) cannot justify his activities within the organization. This realization is likely to be disturbing to a recruit. To compensate, he adopts peripheral behaviors - such as rejecting the organizational values." (p. 112)
Taking this text as a springboard, here are some possible scenarios that might apply to the Vienna mission context.
1. The external p.r. image differs from internal reality of the organization. [This is a given.]
2. The awareness of the individual concerning the disparity (between external image and internal reality of the organization)
2a. The individual is unaware of any disparity
2b. individual aware of at least some of the actual disparity
3. The newcomer's value orientation vis a vis that of the organizational internal reality
3a. The individual's value system matches the organization's internal reality.
3b. The individual's value system doesn't (to some extent at least) match the organizational reality.
These divisions undoubtedly belie an even more complex reality, but it's a start, anyway, and I think a helpful one at that. Now let's look at possible combinations:
1. If 2a and 3a are both true, then the individual might encounter a surprise when first entering the mission, but being socialized should be reasonably easy because at least the value systems are similar.
2. If 2a and 3b are both true, then the socialization process would also have to address the values differences, and could be somewhat more difficult, depending on what the differences are, how strongly their held, etc.
3. If 2b and 3a are true, the individual should have a relatively easy socialization, involving mostly just learning the technicalities of the new context.
4. If 2b and 3b are true, the question would arise as to why the individual took the position knowing of the disparity beforehand. The answer to that question would probably play a major role in how the socialization process unfolded.
In these scenarios, I'm only looking at the recruit's perspective, and not so much the organization's, but this, I think, mirrors the text. Nevertheless, how the organization viewed the recruit would also be important. So, for example, the recruit fit the 3rd combination (2b & 3a), but the organization expects him/her to be like the 1st scenario (2a and 3a), in which case the individual would actually know more about the organization than the organization itself gives him/her credit for. I'm just laying this out as something else to consider, but I want, rather to go back to just considering the individual's perspective for now.
I expect that a lot of the theologians with the Vienna mission were surprised at the discrepancy, but their values meshed enough with the mission that adjusting to the mission's actual culture wouldn't have been too hard. And since they were thinkers anyway they probably had more cognitive abilities to help them ford the waters of adjusting to the new setting.
Some of the theologians might well have known of the disparity between the external side of the mission and its internal nature, putting them in the third category above. These would most likely be coming from previous mission experience in Eastern Europe.
I expect that the support staff (mostly secretaries) would have not known about the disparities, but their value system may or may not have meshed with the internal workings of the mission. Most likely, however, these people would not have the as many cognitive resources (i.e., relevant academic background) to help them adjust to the new reality. However, this could be a benefit in the case where their values differed from the mission if they were more impressionable because of the lesser academic / theoretical underpinnings that might otherwise make them better able to hold their ground against any organizational imposition on their value system.
I would have to put myself in the last category. I did expect there to be some differences between the public and internal faces of the organization, but there was a lot that I didn't foresee. The part that I did foresee I had no problems with, ideologically speaking. It's the part I didn't foresee that I ended out disagreeing with. So I actually don't exactly fit any of the categories, but these categories are somewhat arbitrary anyway, so it shouldn't be a surprise that not everyone would fit exactly.
The part (of the internal life of the organization that differed from its outward face) that I didn't foresee and didn't agree with, does fit this text in that I found these aspects of the mission to not be justified to meet its stated mission. The controls put on me, for example, I thought were very excessive and unnecessary and some of the things were downright manipulative. What place does that kind of thing have in Christian ministry?
***
To end this chapter section, the author describes 4 types of individual adjustment with organizations, based on whether the level of socialization reach is acceptable to the relevant group (reference group?) and to the organization at large.
In the Vienna context my "relevant group" would probably be the my boss, his boss, and his (my boss' boss') secretary in the sense that they would probably (I think) be the ones who would have the most to say as to whether I met their requirements. I think they would be more important in this case than the secretaries as a possible relevant group, although that would be another possibility. Since my boss and his boss pretty much headed the mission (along with the board, the head of the printing office located elsewhere, etc.) there would probably be a lot of overlap as to expectation meeting, but we'll look at this typology and see if there might be anything helpful.
The 'Teamplayer' has met the socialization objectives of the relevant group, and also those of the organization.
The 'Isolate' has not met the socialization objectives of the relevant group, but has met the organization's objective.
The 'Warrior' has met the socialization objectives of the group, but not the organization's objectives.
The 'Outsider' has met the objectives of neither the relevant group nor the organization.
I'm afraid that in this typology, I'd fit the 'Outsider' role vis a vis the Vienna mission. But in the Vienna mission I think the relevant group isn't as important as the mission itself. But then separating them, I think, is rather difficult in that context anyway, and not just for myself. Your socialization was either acceptable or not, period.
Here's what the text has to say about the 'Outsider' position:
"Finally, there is the 'outsider.' He is the individual who fails to meet the expectations of either the group or the organization. Normally, such participants find their organizational membership shortlived. In some cases, however, the outsider acquires support for his deviant position and moves into the warrior or isolate classifications (or, in the extreme, he converts the entire organizational system, becoming a teamplayer in the process)." (p. 113)
I confess to having had rather misplaced delusions of holding my ground and influencing the mission by virtue of convincing them I was a potentially valuable member and getting them to sort of sit down at the table and talk rationally and openly about our differences. Yeah, right, as if that would ever happen. I thought I had prepared myself well enough that I would be valued, but instead I was very much put in my place and humbled (degraded?), but not so much as to change my values to be in accordance with theirs.
I know that organizations in general are hierarchical to one degree or another, but I didn't view Christian ministry as being so one-directional in power structure as what I experienced there. It was more like a total institution in that way too - prisoners and prison management don't generally sit down to negotiate commonly agreeable arrangements, for example.
That's not to say that there wasn't any latitude, such as my being able to organize my work pretty much as I saw fit - that's the secretarial stuff or even the little teaching I did in Eastern Europe. But it's the other things, the overall socialization into the mission and its ways and thinking that I'm talking about. I never felt like open discussions regarding real differences would be either constructive or completely open and honest, and the power structure was very much against me too. For example, what would have happened if I came open with some of the things I've discussed on this blog (the things I was thinking at that time, I mean)? I think I'd have been issued the door post haste and probably under not so pleasant circumstances. Based on my experiences with them, it's hard to say how far they might have gone to silence me, since if I left and people back home believed me it might be a problem for them.
***
This ends the sub-chapter and there's only one more sub-chapter that doesn't have much of interest in it, so I should be able to make quick work of it next time.
Happy Women's Day!
~Meg
