Although it might not seem like it sometimes, this blog is really autobiographical in nature. You, the reader, are really getting sort of a front row seat into my efforts to understand my life. In this process of trying to understand my life I've had to try to make sense of what's going around me, and that's what you're seeing now. So while I'm trying to understand the mission organization that had a dramatic impact on my life, you're actually learning at least as much about me as you are about the organization (and my relationship to it) that I'm dissecting.
In as much as I'm speaking candidly (and lucidly) you should begin to understand me and my life better - or at least my view of my life. But I do hope that in the process the issues I deal with will also raise questions in your mind regarding these major influences in my life. But the credibility of specific insights will undoubtedly be colored by my credibility in general. Thus if you come to believe that I'm a relatively intelligent, sane and honest person, then you might be willing to consider some of my claims and concerns; which isn't to say that you're necessarily going to agree with me - certainly not all the time, anyway.
I just wanted to mention these things so that we both understand that this blog is primarily about me and only secondarily about other individuals and organizations as they become significant in my life. However, that said, one overriding belief that I've had about myself for years now is that I've paid a big price for standing up for what I believe in in certain very difficult situations, and in as much as these beliefs are important to me it is in my interest to advocate for them. For example, while it's taken years to try to make sense of my Vienna years, I was conscious even then of many of these things I really disagreed with and I still disagree with, and I really would like to expose those things.
That being said, I should explain why I would like to expose them. I don't think it's just to vindicate myself and what I went through while with the mission. Actually, I don't know how people will respond when they read my thoughts vis a vis me and the mission, and it actually could be very risky for me to go public - which is why I'm using a pseudonym at this point, in order to mitigate that risk at least until I get enough of my story out so that I have a real chance of being heard out. If I just wanted vindication, then I think that opens a whole new can of worms. Rather, I'm a committed Christian and I still think that the Vienna mission operated in a fashion counter to biblical teaching. However, since the Vienna mission involved so many member missions that worked all over the world, it is my conviction that some variations of the things I'm describing in that Vienna mission actually most likely occur in all Evangelical Christian missions to "closed countries," at least all such missions of any size.
So while I am basically telling my life story in this blog, there also may be some sermonizing inuendos, for example, along the way.
Also, while some of my discussions are couched in scientific terms, I don't mean to give the impression that this is a scientifically valid or reliable autobiography. I haven't taken precautions, for example, to minimize bias; nor have I attempted triangulation, at least not for scientific purposes. I think I explained early on in the blog that I collected all these articles as a way to help make sense of my life, especially certain elements of it. That's why I researched these subjects and it's why I'm using these sources now too - because it has helped me immensely. It helps because it clarifies my thoughts, and sometimes it validates my hunches, or it brings to light things I hadn't thought of before. What you're seeing here is really and truly what I've gone through to try to make sense of my life, especially beginning around 1983 or so. When I was in Minneapolis collecting these articles and book chapters I was only doing it for myself to help me make sense of my life. That's the only reason I collected these articles and went through all that effort.
Now the thing, though, about these articles, is although it can give me something to sort of hang my hat on, they don't really prove anything, and I never did think they proved anything. What they did was help me see what the realm of possibility was and, to a certain extent, why things might be possible or not.
If I can give a mundane very current example, yesterday my neighbor and I were discussing noise in the wall between us. The first time I heard it I sort of dismissed it, and she evidently went through something similar. But when it repeated several times, I figured there really was something going on in the wall, but I also knew that sometimes rodents can get in walls, so it wasn't crazy for me to think there was a noise in the wall (a sort of scritch-scritch noise). It's not like I was hallucinating or something. Returning to my life, things had happened to me that didn't fit my understanding of how the world operates, so I wanted to try to learn more about those areas - sort of like if I'd had to go to Home Depot (for example) to find out what could be causing the noise in my wall, so that I could know 1) that I'm not going crazy and hallucinating and 2) what I could do about the bothersome noise in the wall. Does this make sense?
***
This next text is another journal article:
King, Ruth C., & Vikram Sethi. (1992). Socialization of professionals in high-technology firms. The Journal of High Technology Management Research, 3(2), 147-168.
***
"The differences between high-technology and other firms generate significant issues related to the success of socialization practices. First, high-technology firms are characterized by strategic, technological, and operational uncertainty, which affects growth rate, competitive positions, and industry boundaries... Managers therefore need to ensure that new employees adjust to the firm's environment.
Second, high-technology firms, in contrast to traditional bureaucracies, tend to emphasize fluidity and flexibility in order to encourage interdepartmental coordination and innovation. Such an organic working structure has made traditional mechanisms obsolete. Instead of controlling employees, high-technology firms tend to deploy cultural norms as implicit rules of conduct... These norms are generally communicated through the process of socialization.
Third, one of the major characteristics of high-technology firms is the presence of concentrated pools of experts... who rely heavily on advanced technologies such as electronic mail...
The objective of this study is therefore two-fold: first, to examine the applicability of socialization theory to the particular context of high-technology firms and, secondly, to interpret any departures from stated theory within the same context." (p. 148-149)
This article, then is an attempt to advance socialization theory in a particular context, which differs from the average that most commonly used in studies and theory-building. I wouldn't say that the Vienna mission was particularly similar to high-technology firms, as described here, but something may be gained (vis a vis my Vienna experience) in seeing how these theories might look in a different context. It seems to me that the types of firms referred to here might include Microsoft or Intel.
The first unique characteristic of high-technology firms is, basically external ambiguity. While the exact nature of ambiguity would be quite different for the Vienna mission, the fact that there is significant external ambiguity could be said, I think. I also think that the level of ambiguity would be significantly greater for the Vienna missions than for mission efforts in "open" countries (e.g., church-planting in Austria vs. religious instruction in Communist Romania).
The second point about fluidity and flexibility might also apply to the Vienna context, at least to a degree. The missionaries with the most mission-related external contact were also the most likely to have to address face-on the ambiguity and usually alone or maybe with one other missionary. Thus, these people would have to have the presence of mind to know how to act in such situations.
In the Vienna context interdepartmental cooperation was necessary in as much as each department depended on the other. For example, the front line missionaries might be brought in on issues regarding textbook text or design to discuss issues that might come up in their geographic area of work (Poland, Romania, etc.). Also, the front line people had to know where things stood by way of textbook publishing and distribution so that they could adjust their teaching plans accordingly. These are only a few examples, and each work context would have them, but while the mission might not have been a high-tech organization, it was a high-risk one, so some of these interactions could have significant impact (for good or bad) on the whole work. The high risk element put a greater valuation on interdepartmental coordination.
I don't think the third characteristic of high-technology firms is terribly applicable to the Vienna mission. It might be now, but it wasn't when I was there.
***
"Organizations, by withholding or furnishing certain information, can affect the newcomer's behavior outcome." (p. 150)
This is a very general statement, of course, but it made me think about what information the Vienna mission might have withheld or furnished that could have impacted my own socialization to the mission. I think, as I remember it, there wasn't a whole lot of information given at first. It was more like a flurry of warm fuzzies and people telling me how glad they were that I was there... and reading software manuals, of course. Thinking back on it in this light makes me wonder if they were mainly watching me at that point and it was up to me, perhaps, to take the first step past that phase. I expect that would mean becoming debased, flustered, angry, or some other such self-deprecating posture.
***
Next the authors discuss the aspects of socialization expressed as continua that we already looked at elsewhere, but there is one interesting comment under the "Investiture vs. divestiture" heading.
"However, Jones (1986) argues that divestiture socialization tactics may not lead to a custodial role. Instead, the disconformance may challenge newcomers to 'excel in their roles' and encourage them to innovate on the definitions of their role offered by other senior members." (p. 153)
What this means (and it becomes clearer in the broader context of the discussion), is that individuals who experience 'divestiture' (i.e., debasement) will, because of being made aware of their faults, work extra hard to overcome them and thereby excel at their job. They'll try harder to overcome their perceived weaknesses.
At this point in the article, the authors are just laying out the theoretical bases for their research, so we have to read farther to see if this bears out, at least in their study. But in my case, while I thought the work I was given was - well, meaningless (I can think of stronger terms to describe it though). But if the mission took the stance of watching me, I think it could be said that I did the same by taking things in stride and trying to make sense of what was going on. Maybe we were like 2 monkeys staking the other out.
***
"Hypothesis I: Individualized socialization tactics will be associated with innovative role orientation for newly-hired professionals and institutionalized socialization tactics will be related to custodial role orientation." (p. 154)
Since new recruits came straggling in periodically at irregular intervals and there was virtually no group orientation nor formal instructional set up, I think it's safe to say that socialization in Vienna was 'individualized." Nevertheless, it didn't have the affect on me, for the most part, that this hypothesis puts forward. How creative could I be at reading software manuals? Of course, I might be given the occasional letter to type, but I didn't have enough to go on to even set up much of a filing system. I felt like I was expected to do the work I was given and could take liberties as to how exactly I did it, but there wasn't much to take liberties with. Maybe I could have learned to speed read to get through the software manuals faster or something.
I should say that I was also at another great disadvantage for not really having a job description. Most people start work with a formal job description that is somewhat detailed and against which they will be reviewed periodically. All I knew was I was going to be the secretary of this person and a little bit about what he did. That's it. So when I was given a manual to read, for all I knew that was the job description - for me to read software manuals for 2 years. In this case it's hard to know what to rebel against, and for all I knew this not having job descriptions in writing was how they operated and I was supposed to learn to function in that reality. In this case, I didn't have anything to excel at except what they gave me to do. The ambiguity was so great in the beginning that I didn't even know enough to make suggestions or innovations. Compare this to a few points in my initial job description:
1. "Assists patrons in the selection of library materials." Now I can think of a ton of ways I can try to excel on this one. For example, noticing the types of materials people checked out and asked about I could make a special effort to become familiar with those types of resources offered by the library.
2. "Analyzes collection development needs." I was a children's librarian, so I fastidiously went over the children's collection - both the physical collection and the catalog, looked for outdated books that needed replacement with newer ones, tried to find gaps in the collection that needed filling, etc.
3. "Plans, assigns and reviews the work of ... volunteer workers..." I made a schedule so I could keep track of which volunteers were coming in when and tried to have meaningful tasks for them to do, which also involved asking others in the library what they might need done.
Is that enough? And all I had was "secretary to the assistant director" to guide me in Vienna and that's not enough to really know how to excel at, especially with no other information or framework provided upon arrival.
***
"By providing or withholding certain information, the degree of uncertainty surrounding role expectation clarity will vary. Institutionalized socialization tactics tend to present newcomers with more specific information at their entry than individualized socialization; thus, new hires develop clearer role expectations and a stronger commitment to the organization.
Hypothesis 2: Institutionalized socialization tactics will be positively related to newly-hired professionals' role clarity and commitment. Individualized socialization tactics will be negatively associated with newly-hired professionals' role clarity and commitment." (p. 154)
I can hardly wait to read the result of this study! Will the author be correct in expecting that lack of role clarity will negatively affect commitment to the organization? I read ahead, but you'll just have to wait to find out how it ends.
As for me, I think it's fair to say that this lack of role clarity negatively affected my commitment to the mission. This does bear explaining, however. First of all, I think I have a pretty reasonable toleration for ambiguity and I think taking initiative is a strength of mine - I have very good self-motivation and always have. But there is a limit to how much ambiguity I can bear, but if there is someone that this isn't true for, I'd like to meet that person. But the problem in Vienna was actually a double-whammy in as much as I didn't see myself as a secretary either. That is the position wasn't fulfilling and then they made it even less fulfilling by giving me stuff to do that even a real professional secretary would find ridiculous. Even so, there are different ways one could respond to this, and I took the route to go with the flow, but seek fulfillment outside the organization, which really defeated the purpose of what they were trying to do. I wasn't acting like the mission was a total institution, which it was.
***
There's still one more hypothesis to go, but I'm going to stop now because I have more things to do.
