"Step Three: In-the-trenches training leads to mastery of one of the core disciplines of the business. Promotion is inescapably tied to a proven track record.
The first phase of socialization aims to attract the right trainees predisposed toward the firm's culture. The second instills enough humility to evoke self-examination; this facilitates 'buying in' to the firm's values. Increasingly, the organizational culture becomes the relevant universe of experience. Having thus opened one's mind to the company's way of doing business, the task is now to cement this new orientation. The most effective method for doing so is via extensive and carefully reinforced field experience."
The author then gives examples in which it takes years to be promoted through the ranks using this method, then goes on to say... "When all trainees understand there is one step by step career path, it reduces politics. There is no quick way to jump ranks and reach the top. Because the evaluation process has a long time horizon, short term behavior is counterproductive. Cutting corners catches up with you. Relationships, staying power and a consistent proven track record are the inescapable requirements of advancement." (p. 30-31)
I quoted most of the first part of the text here to refresh our memories regarding where we are in the orientation process and what's gone before. So, basically, at this point the new-hire has passed the deselection test, come out on top after debasement, and now is ready for on-the-job experiential training. S/he's unlearned the bad and is now ready to learn the good.
[It's frustrating that just when I'm really starting in on writing my stimulator changes gears and I have to move the settings to the appropriate positions for the next phase - "muscle" mode. It also reminds me how little I've accomplished in 15 minutes and that I have 30 minutes left.]
The is a moderately good fit for how I experienced the Vienna situation. The main differences, I think, in Vienna would be the meager advancement possibilities, and the bringing in of people that didn't start at the bottom. What I mean by there being meager advancement possibilities is that there just plain weren't many different types of positions in the organization, and considering it was an academic institution, it way less levels than a normal institution of higher education, which might include such levels as (in the US): teaching assistant, instructor, lecturer, assistant professor, associate professor, professor, distinguished professor, university professor... and then on up through the various academic administrative positions, the top of which is president of the academic institutions (college, university). Basically, in the Vienna mission context - regarding professional positions - there were instructors (or textbook writers), heads of departments, assistant director and director. Then there were the nonprofessional positions which entailed secretaries, receptionist and publishing layout workers. We also had a gardener / maintenance person. There were also in-country workers, which I'm not including in this list. And, of course, there were the two H.R. staff, who were both pastors (and military chaplains) by training.
In such a set up politicking would not be needed because the room for advancement was next to nil. However, in the second half of my time with the mission it did feel like there was some competition, such as my hearing that my boss's wife preferred another person over me, with the implication that there was a possibility that her preference could influence who worked for her husband. However, this, as far as I was concerned, fell within the realm of not being sure how much of it was true and how much not, and, in my usual manner of response to such things I didn't act on it one way or the other.
The other issue that doesn't fit this text is that it didn't seem that professionals (those who had credentials adequate for teaching) were necessarily promoted from within, even on the rare occasion when an opening (such as country coordinator - sort of like an academic department head) might come up. While I was there the only such opening that came up was that of H.R. staff (director and assistant), which were new positions, and was staffed by outsiders brought in expressly to fill those positions. It wasn't like they were going to deny you tenure if you didn't publish enough, though.
Nevertheless, even without an advancement structure or the (apparent) tendency to advance from within when the rare opportunity came up, the aspect of this text that refers to the creation of a new identity after the debasement does, I think hold up. [I added "apparent" in there because I don't know how they might fill other such positions, like country coordinator.]
So let's apply this to my personal experience with the mission - and I wouldn't necessarily use my experience as being typical, because I don't think it was typical. I started out not having properly unselecting myself from the position because I didn't know of the difference between myself and the mission. Then I arrived in Vienna, was briefly lauded and received with great fanfare, only to be immediately confronted with little work, boring work, and seemingly useless work, which didn't result in the correct response from me (namely, debasement). So then the mission took the debasement about as far as they could, which sent me back to the States for several months. When I seemed to have been properly debased and ready for this third step (putting Humpty Dumpty back together again, so to speak) in the socialization process, they brought me back to Vienna to complete that process, and that's when they began giving me some ministry opportunities, for example. Eventually, however, it must have become clear that I hadn't actually been adequately debased, because I continued to hold on to my old identity and ways.
I'm leaving out a lot of stuff here, including some things that might or might not exactly fit this paradigm, although, as you can see, it might explain some of what I experienced there, as long as using the socialization framework is the correct lens through which to interpret my experiences with the mission.
***
"Step Four: Meticulous attention is given to systems measuring operational results and rewarding individual performance."
This didn't happen in Vienna, probably because of it's being a mission with a faith-based support system. It wasn't like you could get a raise or advancement! The closest thing in such organizations to a raise is the mission requiring you to raise more money because the dollar has fallen or the cost of living where you're working has gone up. I suspect the only time quality (or quantity) of work would be an issue would be if someone really botched it up badly, but again, I'm only speculating here.
I hope you can see how, in such a context, the issue was mainly whether you were "in" or "out", and once you were in, there was a good chance you might stay in your position for the whole of you're tenure, unless you happen to be me, in which case you never quite make it "in" and are treated accordingly.
This might be a place to at least begin to address the possibilities open to the mission in cases like mine. How could they send me home early when I'd signed on for 2 years and my supporters had taken this into account when making their pledges? They couldn't say my work wasn't up to snuff ("She did a poor job of reading and learning software manuals." or "She didn't answer the phone correctly."). I didn't make waves, complain or be otherwise unpleasant. I didn't create any grave security breaches. So basically, they'd have to say that I didn't pass the debasement test and therefore couldn't be appropriately re-created in their image. And how do you think my supporters (not to mention, anyone else) receive this kind of explanation? With raised eyebrows, maybe? Like, "Debasement? Please explain what you mean by debasement." or "And what exactly is your image that she should have been recreated in?") And how likely was it that the mission might be open to answering such queries? Not very, I'm sure.
There was, of course, the (tacit) threat that if I didn't become debased they'd make me so debased that I'd go crazy, in which case no one would believe me, right? And then there's the issue that no one [i.e., no one of the American Evangelical persuasion] would believe that a mission might go to such lengths to socialize its members. So there you have my incredibility and their credibility juxtaposed and it's easy to see who the winner might be.
***
"Included in IBM's mechanisms for respecting the individual is a device known as the 'Penalty Box.' Often a person sent to the 'penalty box' has committed a crime against the culture - for example, harsh handling of a subordinate, overzealousness against the competition, gaming the reporting system. Most penalty box assignments involve a lateral move to a less desirable location - a branch manager in Chicago might be moved to a nebulous staff position at headquarters. For an outsider, penalty box assignments look like normal assignments, but insiders know they are off the track." (p. 31)
I'm glad Mr. Pascale made this note about how insiders might not recognize something that the insiders understand, because that kind of thing was rife in Vienna. That's part of what I mean about the "informal culture," things not written in stone, so to speak, but nonetheless part of the culture.
In my case, I think that any position I was in other than being secretary for the assistant director of the Vienna office was a "penalty box" assignment. Trips to the East (i.e., Eastern European countries) that I took weren't formal positions (I wasn't one of the 2 regular women's program instructors) but they would be exceptions in my experience and not be "penalty box" assignments, but, quite the contrary: They would be indications of the organization's growing trust in me and my becoming more of an insider.
Now, not knowing what went on behind the scenes or what the administration was thinking in having me take those teaching trips, but from my side they weren't adequate to make me change my opinion that some of their modus operandi were wrong. I wasn't going to change that opinion with a carrot any more than I was going to change it with a stick. I might have been somewhat more willing to be open to change if I'd felt there was a possibility of discussing the issues on equal terms. But I couldn't have discussed these things as clearly as I am now, because I didn't understand a lot of what was going on, which is why these articles are so much help.
You can call me a lot of things, but please don't call me a push over. If that makes me a bitch, that you can call me that.
***
I need to get on with my day now. I baked the cookies and I think they were appreciated. She (the neighbor who's daughter died yesterday morning) was seeing the last of her guests off about the time I was finishing up, so I brought them over to her. I was pretty wiped out, but I'm glad I did it.
Today I don't have any appointments, so my big plans are to go over my income taxes and do some house cleaning.
