I'm trying to mix the texts up a bit for variety's sake. This new text is:
DeSalvo, Gerald L. (1992, July). Taking training to the T. Security Management, 36(7), 64-66.
***
"For a security manager to provide on-the-job training effectively, he or she must be aware of basic individual learning styles and cultural and educational background differences among employees that could effect their learning and attitudes toward training.
ASTD [American Society for Training And Development] lists the following as the primary types of adult learners." (p. 65)
I'm really in my element in this kind of subject matter since I do have a Master's degree in Adult Education and 60 credits towards a doctorate in the same. I'm including this article here to show where the mission might have gone wrong (or how it might have been on the mark) in how they tried to socialize me.
***
"Detail learners. These are people who prefer to focus on details and not the big picture. An example is the security employee who focuses on each minute detail in a written procedure but neglects to integrate the details into his or her overall job.
Main idea learners. These are individuals who pay attention to the overall picture but skip instructions and details. An example is the security employee who neglects to read the detailed operating instructions for an alarm system but attempts to operate it by simply looking at the diagram and experimenting with the system." (p. 65)
I can't remember if I necessarily had myself pegged as to which type of learner I was in this regard (these two learner types should really be seen as two ends of one continuum), but if I didn't then I came to the realization that I'm a "main idea learner" (aka "big picture learner") early on in my Adult Education studies, which I started a year after my return home from Vienna.
As a big picture learner I much prefer to understand the lay of the land, the basic philosophy and reasoning for how something fits into the whole, the significance of something and the broad stroke processes. After I have a satisfactory (to me) understanding of these, and, for the most part, only when I have developed a satisfactory understanding of these things, do I avert my attention to filling in the details. And as I go through the process of filling in the detail I will be comparing those details to the broad picture framework I've developed to make sure it fits. If at any time I see a potential problem I might be motivated to stop and try to reassess how that particular details fits into the big picture and/or try to assess if I might have erred in my construction of an image/model/understanding of the big picture. I'd position myself pretty far over on the "main idea learners" end of the continuum.
I hope you see where there might be a problem for me in the context of the Vienna mission. The thing was that I already had developed for myself a pretty sturdy (I thought) understanding of Eastern Europe, how Christians might have experience living in Eastern Europe (including the variations country by country), what types of ministry were being done vis a vis Eastern Europeans (including East European expatriots), and what types of ministry were most viable and needed in the various East European country. So the Vienna mission needed to fit within that framework, and part of the reason I'd accepted the position was because I saw that it did fit within that framework pretty well. Also, I should add that I'd likewise worked out a lot of the ethical, biblical and philosophical aspects of what I thought were relevant issues to these other contextual issues.
That meant that when I arrived in Vienna I'd already fit the Vienna mission into this broader understanding of the context. So when I arrived in Vienna what I experienced and learned there needed to match the image I'd developed of it that matched the understanding I had of those broader context frameworks. In the event that my in-person experiences and observations of the Vienna mission neglected to meet this criteria (fitting the image I had of it that fit the broader context framework) I would try very hard to try to figure out why and how it did not fit that criteria.
In this process I might dismantle, in part or in whole, the understanding I previously had of the mission, but it still needed to fit within my broader understanding of the context and my philosophical/biblical/ethical framework. In as much as I could not construct an understanding of the mission that fit those broader frameworks, I would not be a good candidate for socialization. If they did not fit that broader framework my only options, I think would have been as follows:
1. Withstand any and all socialization efforts.
> This would be very difficult to do under the circumstances without completely breaking, although it would be feasible from the standpoint of my personality.
2. Withstand any socialization efforts that contradicted my broader framework.
> This, in fact, I think I did do. That is, I partook in selective socialization, by which I picked and chose aspects of what I thought the mission wanted that I could do within the confines of my big picture constructs. I think the mission might have at one point mistaken this for hook-line-and-sinker socialization.
3. Change (in part or in whole) my broader framework.
> The only way I could or would do this is to really be convinced (i.e., by something other than and more than pressure) that my framework was off the mark, either in part or in whole. The extent to which I might change the framework would correspond to the perceived error in it. I think I changed my framework vis a vis what mission organizations were like that focused on Eastern Europe. That's not the same as what I thought they should be like, only what they were like. In this way my stereotype of actual missions and mission operations to that part of the world changed, although I thought it should be otherwise.
4. Ignore the discrepancies, somehow live with the dissonance and move on to the details of socialization.
> I couldn't do this and be true to my basic personality, but in effect, I did this towards the end when I gave in, for example, by lessening my interactions with Austrians, by changing churches, for example. This did remain an area of dissonance, but I retained the framework and chose to live with the dissonance created by living in a way other than how I thought I should. This dissonance became more tenable for me at that point than the stressors I was experiencing from withstanding the mission's efforts to change me. I think, however, that giving in like that had major significance for what I thought of myself and contributed to my struggles after leaving the mission.
5. Opt out of the system in whole (i.e., quitting the mission) or in part (e.g, diverting part of time and attention away from the mission).
> I did both of these in as much as, the whole time I was with the mission, I refused to let them control my whole life and, in the end, I didn't make any attempt to try to extend my time with them beyond the 2 year commitment (although I'd joined the mission with the intention of it becoming a career). They never made any overtures to me by way of trying to extend my commitment either, though, so the feeling was mutual in this regard.
Another way to look at the implications of this, is that if the mission had any hopes at all of socializing me, it would have had to have dealt with me in accordance with my preferred learning style; that is, they would have had to have, from the get-go, helped me develop a broad understanding of them that fit within relevant pre-existing frameworks I'd already developed. Then the details of their socialization efforts would have to have fit in those broader frameworks in turn.
[4/8/11 comments: And/or the mission could have convinced me that my pre-existing frameworks were inadequate or erroneous and that there's was better.]
This, of course, was untenable for the mission because it contradicted their basic style of functioning and relating, which was to demand complete trust in its members that required strict adherence to the details of its demands. How things fit together, both how the details fit with each other and how the details fit within a bigger picture, would only be revealed when the individual had proven him/herself trustworthy and trusting.
In this way the only ways you could really be socialized by the mission are as follows:
1. You viewed the details as acceptable and also were willing to suspend judgment on the broader framework within which the details fit in. This would demand a lot of trust in the organization and the individuals in it that, even if you didn't understand the big picture, you believed they were well-intentioned and also that the big picture would not include anything you would not agree with.
2. You viewed the details as acceptable and the broader framework wasn't that important to you. In this case, you would accept the details at face value and the mission would pretty much have free reign vis a vis constructing the appropriate framework (big picture), since it wasn't that important to you anyway.
3. You viewed the big picture as important,....
3A. ...but you only had a rudimentary idea of the big picture and so it could relatively easily be developed for you by the mission. In this option, you might have had some frameworks that the mission-specific framework would need to fit in, but it was very likely that your frameworks consisted of such things as: biblical/theological, basic understandings of how missions operated in general, and you had a political framework that was sufficiently-anti Communist and/or emotionally charged. In this case the mission would have a lot of latitude to fill in the blanks, make connections and otherwise construct a mission-specific framework.
3B. ...but your pre-existing framework meshed well enough with the Vienna mission's that you had little trouble accepting the details. This would probably be the case for individuals coming to the mission from extensive Eastern European mission experience, who might already have developed a willingness to withhold judgment and accept the details unquestioningly.
There may be others, but I think this is a very useful explanatory tool for how individuals (including myself) may or may not have experienced socialization within the Vienna mission.
***
That's all I want to take from that article, so we'll move on to a new one next time.
***
