My relationship with my family has been rather ambivalent in a lot of ways. It's sort of like the old saying: "Men! You can't live with them and you can't live without them." At times my family has been a real blessing, but at others they've caused me a lot of grief and hardship, rather like the girl Henry Wadsworth Longfellow's poem:
There was a little girl,
Who had a little curl,
Right in the middle of her forehead.
When she was good,
She was very good indeed,
But when she was bad she was horrid.
My family is sort of like that, at least in their relationship to me. Sometimes the effects have been intentional, sometimes not, but the end result was still the end result, whether intentional or not. It's just that it can be easier to overlook unintentional results.
***
The first socialization strategy continuum in this text is the formal/informal one.
"The formality of a socialization process refers to the degree to which the setting in which it takes place is segregated from the ongoing work context and to the degree to which an individual's newcomer role is emphasized." (p. 22)
It's clear that the socialization process in the Vienna mission was on the far informal end of the spectrum, and this was so for everyone. I never knew of any exception to this and would be surprised if such ever existed. I'm sure there are many reasons why this was so, such as not having the resources to set up such a formal system. The informal socialization system would have allowed for greater attention to individual needs (according to the mission's definition). But it also made it difficult for the new recruit to discern what was socialization and what wasn't. For myself, I found it easier to assume that most interactions were intentional socialization, especially at first. Later on, I could differentiate more which encounters might be socialization and which not. But I might not always have been correct in classifying situations one way or the other.
***
"Generally, the more formal the process, the more stress there is influencing the newcomer's attitudes and values. The more concerned the organization is with the recruit's absorption of the appropriate demeanor and stance, the more the recruit is likely to begin to think and feel like a U.S. Marine, an IBM executive, or a Catholic priest. In other words, formal processes work on preparing a person to occupy a particular status in the organization. Informal processes on the other hand, prepare a person to perform a specific role in the organization." (p. 22)
This text doesn't fit my experience with the Vienna mission, because the socialization was definitely informal, but attitudes and values were important. I'm not sure about the status/role part of this text, either.
My mental comparisons were along the lines of cult and, eventually, how the Soviets treated believers. The comparisons weren't perfect, but they provided helpful comparison points. I never expected the sort of mental control I felt (in their wanting correct attitudes, etc.).
***
"Informal socialization processes, wherein a recruit must negotiate for himself within a far less structured situation, can also induce personal anxiety. Indeed, the person may have trouble discovering clues as to the exact dimensions of his or her assigned organizational role." (p. 24)
It sounds like this text is almost saying that informal socialization is completely without any effort by the organization to socialize the individual. I wouldn't go that far with the Vienna mission; while it seemed ad hoc and sometimes a bit arbitrary (especially when trying to make sense of things), I wouldn't say that it was completely accidental or altogether unplanned either. So maybe the Vienna mission isn't at the complete far end of this continuum.
I think the anxiety mentioned in this text fits the Vienna experience, and not just mine, although, again, the level of anxiety would have depended on a lot of things, including how cooperative the individual was in the socialization process.
***
The next dimension of socialization efforts is the individual-collective continuum.
"The degree to which individuals are socialized singly or collectively is perhaps the most critical of the process variables." (p. 24)
It's clear that by far most socialization happened with individuals, as newcomers came at different times and positions differed, so it would have been somewhat unusual to have socialization be other than with a sole individual. If it did happen with more than one person it would still have been a very small number of people - 2 or 3 maybe. One possible example of this is that the mission evidently wanted me to room with the other secretary (the one in Alaska) who arrived just a few months before me. That set up probably would have facilitated something more akin to a collective socialization, albeit only with 2 people.
***
"At the same time, the consensual character of the solutions worked out by the group allows the members to deviate more from the standards set by the agents than the individual mode of socialization does. Therefore, collective processes provide a potential base for recruit resistance." (p. 24)
This would certainly have been a concern for the Vienna mission, as no dissent was tolerated and great effort was exerted to develop, even among disparate work groups, camaraderie and a shared sense of purpose and organizational history. Unity and working tightly together was very important in the mission.
While collective socialization would hardly have been very practical in the Vienna mission, this could also have been another argument for their not using it.
***
"But the views adopted by people processed individually are likely to be far less homogeneous than the views of those processed collectively." (p. 25)
I can see how this statement makes sense, but the mitigating factor, I think in the Vienna situation is the fact that it was a total institution, and as such even if socialization happened individually you were in such constant contact with others in a variety of settings, so there would have been very little likelihood of deviance, as it would have been picked up pretty quickly and become a target of one's individual socialization regimen.
***
"Certainly, the newcomer may choose not to accept the advice of his agents, although to reject it explicitly may well lose him his job." (p. 25)
I'm sure I would have met this fate, but with a whole slew of other repercussions also thrown in; losing the job would have just been part of that verdict. At least I knew enough not to say what I really thought and this carried on throughout my tenure with the mission. That being said, however, my thoughts weren't always clear and what was going on around (or to) me seemed at times just as incoherent.
***
Talking about individual socialization:
"Outcomes in these one-on-one efforts depend on the affective relationships that may or may not develop between the apprentice and his master. In cases of high affect, the process works well and the new member internalizes the values of the particular role he is eventually to play quickly and fully. However, when there are few affective bonds, the socialization process may break down and the transition may not take place." (p. 26)
I just recently wrote here about my relationships with who the mission seemed to set as my reference group(s). I had cordial relationships with them, but it wasn't like we really hit it off or were best buddies. So my experience would probably mirror more closely the last sentence here. Relationship were important in the mission and people that worked together generally had pretty close relationships, almost like substitute families. Since I didn't feel a particularly close bond or commonality with these people, I sought other relationships and opportunities elsewhere, although I never abandoned these people altogether. But I'm sure it was supposed to be a closer bond than it was, and this, as the text says, did have an affect on the outcome.
Still, even if I'd felt more of a kinship with these reference people, there would still be the values differences, and I don't think closer ties would have lessened that problem, although it's possible that I might have let down my guard and listened to counter arguments more receptively because of the tighter relationship. But that's just speculation.
***
I'm going to leave off here for tonight. Have a good night...
~Meg
My family is sort of like that, at least in their relationship to me. Sometimes the effects have been intentional, sometimes not, but the end result was still the end result, whether intentional or not. It's just that it can be easier to overlook unintentional results.
***
The first socialization strategy continuum in this text is the formal/informal one.
"The formality of a socialization process refers to the degree to which the setting in which it takes place is segregated from the ongoing work context and to the degree to which an individual's newcomer role is emphasized." (p. 22)
It's clear that the socialization process in the Vienna mission was on the far informal end of the spectrum, and this was so for everyone. I never knew of any exception to this and would be surprised if such ever existed. I'm sure there are many reasons why this was so, such as not having the resources to set up such a formal system. The informal socialization system would have allowed for greater attention to individual needs (according to the mission's definition). But it also made it difficult for the new recruit to discern what was socialization and what wasn't. For myself, I found it easier to assume that most interactions were intentional socialization, especially at first. Later on, I could differentiate more which encounters might be socialization and which not. But I might not always have been correct in classifying situations one way or the other.
***
"Generally, the more formal the process, the more stress there is influencing the newcomer's attitudes and values. The more concerned the organization is with the recruit's absorption of the appropriate demeanor and stance, the more the recruit is likely to begin to think and feel like a U.S. Marine, an IBM executive, or a Catholic priest. In other words, formal processes work on preparing a person to occupy a particular status in the organization. Informal processes on the other hand, prepare a person to perform a specific role in the organization." (p. 22)
This text doesn't fit my experience with the Vienna mission, because the socialization was definitely informal, but attitudes and values were important. I'm not sure about the status/role part of this text, either.
My mental comparisons were along the lines of cult and, eventually, how the Soviets treated believers. The comparisons weren't perfect, but they provided helpful comparison points. I never expected the sort of mental control I felt (in their wanting correct attitudes, etc.).
***
"Informal socialization processes, wherein a recruit must negotiate for himself within a far less structured situation, can also induce personal anxiety. Indeed, the person may have trouble discovering clues as to the exact dimensions of his or her assigned organizational role." (p. 24)
It sounds like this text is almost saying that informal socialization is completely without any effort by the organization to socialize the individual. I wouldn't go that far with the Vienna mission; while it seemed ad hoc and sometimes a bit arbitrary (especially when trying to make sense of things), I wouldn't say that it was completely accidental or altogether unplanned either. So maybe the Vienna mission isn't at the complete far end of this continuum.
I think the anxiety mentioned in this text fits the Vienna experience, and not just mine, although, again, the level of anxiety would have depended on a lot of things, including how cooperative the individual was in the socialization process.
***
The next dimension of socialization efforts is the individual-collective continuum.
"The degree to which individuals are socialized singly or collectively is perhaps the most critical of the process variables." (p. 24)
It's clear that by far most socialization happened with individuals, as newcomers came at different times and positions differed, so it would have been somewhat unusual to have socialization be other than with a sole individual. If it did happen with more than one person it would still have been a very small number of people - 2 or 3 maybe. One possible example of this is that the mission evidently wanted me to room with the other secretary (the one in Alaska) who arrived just a few months before me. That set up probably would have facilitated something more akin to a collective socialization, albeit only with 2 people.
***
"At the same time, the consensual character of the solutions worked out by the group allows the members to deviate more from the standards set by the agents than the individual mode of socialization does. Therefore, collective processes provide a potential base for recruit resistance." (p. 24)
This would certainly have been a concern for the Vienna mission, as no dissent was tolerated and great effort was exerted to develop, even among disparate work groups, camaraderie and a shared sense of purpose and organizational history. Unity and working tightly together was very important in the mission.
While collective socialization would hardly have been very practical in the Vienna mission, this could also have been another argument for their not using it.
***
"But the views adopted by people processed individually are likely to be far less homogeneous than the views of those processed collectively." (p. 25)
I can see how this statement makes sense, but the mitigating factor, I think in the Vienna situation is the fact that it was a total institution, and as such even if socialization happened individually you were in such constant contact with others in a variety of settings, so there would have been very little likelihood of deviance, as it would have been picked up pretty quickly and become a target of one's individual socialization regimen.
***
"Certainly, the newcomer may choose not to accept the advice of his agents, although to reject it explicitly may well lose him his job." (p. 25)
I'm sure I would have met this fate, but with a whole slew of other repercussions also thrown in; losing the job would have just been part of that verdict. At least I knew enough not to say what I really thought and this carried on throughout my tenure with the mission. That being said, however, my thoughts weren't always clear and what was going on around (or to) me seemed at times just as incoherent.
***
Talking about individual socialization:
"Outcomes in these one-on-one efforts depend on the affective relationships that may or may not develop between the apprentice and his master. In cases of high affect, the process works well and the new member internalizes the values of the particular role he is eventually to play quickly and fully. However, when there are few affective bonds, the socialization process may break down and the transition may not take place." (p. 26)
I just recently wrote here about my relationships with who the mission seemed to set as my reference group(s). I had cordial relationships with them, but it wasn't like we really hit it off or were best buddies. So my experience would probably mirror more closely the last sentence here. Relationship were important in the mission and people that worked together generally had pretty close relationships, almost like substitute families. Since I didn't feel a particularly close bond or commonality with these people, I sought other relationships and opportunities elsewhere, although I never abandoned these people altogether. But I'm sure it was supposed to be a closer bond than it was, and this, as the text says, did have an affect on the outcome.
Still, even if I'd felt more of a kinship with these reference people, there would still be the values differences, and I don't think closer ties would have lessened that problem, although it's possible that I might have let down my guard and listened to counter arguments more receptively because of the tighter relationship. But that's just speculation.
***
I'm going to leave off here for tonight. Have a good night...
~Meg
