I don't know what happened, but I couldn't sleep so I decided to get up again. I think after being out all afternoon I got wiped out and then got a second wind late in the evening. That happens to me sometimes (lately anyway, since I've had this post-surgery fatigue), but never so that I couldn't sleep. I guess that's what it is though.
***
I'm skipping over the first hypothesis as not being of particular interest. So I'll start with the run-up to the 2nd hypothesis and the hypothesis itself:
"...[S]ince institutionalized socialization tactics are likely to present newcomers with less problems in searching for situational consistency and mediating personal adjustment than individualized tactics, it is hypothesized that:
Hypothesis 2: Institutionalized socialization tactics will be negatively related to role conflict, role ambiguity, and intention to quit, and positively related to job satisfaction." (p. 266)
Now I know that it doesn't necessarily always follow that inverse relationships are true, but on the other hand the inverse often is true, so let's see what we'd have if we flipped it:
Since individualized socialization tactics are likely to present newcomers with more problems in searching for situational consistency and mediating adjustment than institutionalized socialization tactics, it is hypothesized that:
Hypothesis 2 (inverse): Individualized socialization tactics will be positively related to role conflict, role ambiguity, and intention to quit, and negatively related to job satisfaction.
That pretty well describes my Vienna experience. That is, socialization was individualized and (I think) "presented [me] with more problems in searching for situational consistency and mediating adjustment" and were "positively related to role conflict, role ambiguity, and intention to quit, and negatively related to job satisfaction."
For one thing, in institutionalized socialization the boundaries are generally clearer as to what the socialization is and I think you'd also be more likely to be experiencing it with a cohort, with whom you could bounce things off of in trying to make sense of your new surrounding.
In an individualized socialization it's likely to be less structured and there would probably be more learning by observation, for example, which makes the learner figure out the rules of play on their own, or with some help, the quality and quantity of which would vary by position and the individuals involved, for example.
At any rate, this inverse hypothesis pretty well fits my Vienna experience.
***
Next the author picks out 2 specific institutionalized tactics that would have more influence than the others:
"However, investiture and serial socialization tactics are likely to be most important, especially in situations in which information is ambiguous or role learning is complex, because they provide the social cues and facilitation necessary during learning processes (Feldman, 1976). This argument led to the following hypothesis:
Hypothesis 3: Investiture and serial methods will be the most important among the six categories of socialization tactics in mediating personal adjustment to organizations." (p. 266)
Although I think that it was common practice at the Vienna mission to want to draw newcomers to a position where they recognized they needed the mission and then allowed the mission (via specific reference individuals or a boss) to help resolve their need/issue and thereby draw them into the mission's way of seeing and doing things. But I'm not sure if divestiture was a common practice in that process, or to what extent it might have been used or in what ways (e.g., how thorough of a debasement it involved). But I do know that I was set up from before I came for at least one key aspect of how they used this on me. It was something that I'd mentioned I could prepare for in advance of my coming, but was told that that would not be necessary. I'll go into that more when I get to my chronology, but I've mentioned it before in other contexts. I will say though, that I mentioned it to my home office sending mission and they reported back to me the Vienna mission's response (while I was still in the States), so I suspect it was all a Vienna effort.
However others in the mission experienced socialization efforts on their behalf, everyone except me seemed to go through it okay. I think that one other secretary might have taken a while to sort of come to peace with her life there and with the mission, but I'm not sure about the details of her experience - why she seemed to be having difficulties. She did eventually seem to have gotten through it okay though and fit in.
[4/15/2011 Comment: One reason it would be hard to know what others were going through is that part of this whole process was learning to keep things to yourself, handle stress, and know who you could talk more freely with. So for example, I'm sure my boss would have been someone I should have opened up with like that. Also, if you talked about things, it had a way of coming back to you, so I learned eventually that it was best not to talk at all about what was really going on or what I was thinking or feeling. In such a context, then, others wouldn't know details about my socialization any more than I knew about the other secretary's.]
Whatever happened later, I would say the first 9 months of my experience with the mission were basically divestiture. I was the only one ever to have gone through what I did with the mission. There were 2 others, as I've mentioned before, that sort of went through something similar, but my experience was exponentially worse and longer.
***
Here's a new and interesting insight:
"...[N]ewcomers with high levels of self-efficacy may take proactive stances toward role performance in order to demonstrate their subsequent role orientations. These newcomers will interpret situations as they see fit. Conversely, individuals with low levels of self-efficacy may more readily accept definitions of situations offered by others. In general, it may be argued that what organizations employ institutionalized methods of socialization, custodial role orientations are more likely to result among individuals prossessing low rather than high levels of self-efficacy. This leads to the following hypothesis:
Hypothesis 4: A newcomer's level of self-efficacy will moderate the effects of institutionalized tactics on role orientation." (p. 267)
I think it's pretty safe to say that I came to Vienna with a reasonably high level of self-efficacy. I understood that my secretarial skills were not my forte, and I was sure that the theologians on staff would be stronger in that area, although that's not to say I was completely inadequate on that score. But the thing that I felt the most efficacious in is the area of area studies: language (Russian, German, French), a good foundation knowledge (much of it gained from very respectable sources) on issues around missions in Eastern Europe and life for believers in those countries, etc. And this was exactly the area that the mission wanted to influence.
That is, there weren't theological quibbles, nor socialization efforts regarding secretarial work (that is to teach me secretarial work), but rather the mission's socialization was almost 100% geared around the Eastern Europe security issue. But, since I felt "self-efficacious" in this area, I had stronger opinions about related issues and thereby was able to stand my ground, albeit not without considerable suffering.
But that's not exactly what this text and hypothesis says either. Although the hypothesis itself uses a relatively neutral verb ("moderate"), the discussion above it makes me think that Jones thought that a feeling of self-efficacy would result in putting forth extra effort to demonstrate one's value in that area. But the mission did not want strength in that area, I don't think, or to put it another way they did want strength that supported the status quo (i.e., how such missions to Eastern Europe generally function).
Even though I consider my time with the mission mostly horrible (there were bright spots, but they were the exception) and I did in the end begin to wear down and change my associations, I never really considered accepting their way of doing things - what I considered to be manipulative, taking on ways not entirely dissimilar to East European government, military connections, apparent lack of faith in God, deceit, etc.
The world doesn't appreciate my stance and the Church doesn't really either, but I have never regretted that I didn't concede my values. And this wasn't the only time I've had to stand my ground in an isolated situation.
***
I'm going to skip the explanation of the methods, sampling and the like, but if you're interested in checking these things out, you can go to my last post (the one before this one) and check out the complete reference there.
I'm going to try to get some sleep again, but we'll pick up at the "Results" section next.
