I just spent a good part of the morning placing a Vitamin Shoppe order. I mistakenly thought that their semi-annual sale on store brand products was in March, but it's in April. So I had to redo the whole order I'd planned to place today.
***
"The more pervasive the normative system, the more important the organizational socialization process... The ideology, if accepted by the new member, creates a sort of psychological barrier prohibiting the individual's desertion of the organization." (p. 88)
Since the normative system of the Vienna mission seemed pretty all-inclusive/total/pervasive, the apparent importance of the socialization process shouldn't come as a surprise, at least if the theory advanced by this text is at all true. In fact, in Vienna it seemed that until you passed that first hurdle, the initial socialization, there really wasn't a future for you in the organization at all, in any capacity whatsoever. If you did not meet these criteria than you were persona non gratis, no ifs, ands or buts about it. Thus, even if Superman (or Wonder Woman) had offered their services, if they didn't pass the socialization test they'd be, without ceremony, issued directly to the door. And possibly a whole mythology would have developed around them about what happens to people (even super heroes) who try to buck the system.
As to the second half of this quote, in Vienna there was indeed a kind of "psychological barrier" as described here. In Vienna this, according to my experience and observations, served as a kind of intermediary between the organization and the rest of the world. It provided (often unwritten) guidelines as to how to interact in various contexts with the rest of the world. And since much of life was spent with others in the mission, there was always a sense that you were being observed as to adherence to these group norms. It's possible, though, that the more one internalized these norms the less there would be a sense of being observed, because even if one were being observed it didn't matter much because by then you acted inherently as you should anyway. I imagine that once being observed didn't bother you there would be a great psychological stressor lifted, which would be a reward (in the carrot/stick manner) of being acculturated into the organization.
As to the effect on possible desertion, I think there may be some viability to this in the Vienna context, but I'm not sure. On one hand, I think this is clearly true in that you would be less likely to (whether inadvertently or not) compromise the work of the group by your words or actions. This would include having any negative attitudes about the organization and leaving because of that, especially leaving in a way that could harm the organization. If you were going to leave, it had to be on their terms - as was the case for me. I left with bad attitude (although I'm not sure the extent and level of the bad attitude was understood upon my departure), but the mission seemed to do whatever it could to minimize any possible negative repercussions upon my departure after a troublesome tenure with the mission.
But on the other hand, the mission was not created with the intention that all members would stay on indefinitely with them. So there had to be a way to allow for this coming and going that would both maximize the benefit to the mission and minimize any potential problems from it. Thus, a successful departure, as I understand it, would have the leaving individual be one who had satisfactorily internalized the group's norms (relative to the position the individual held with the mission) and so would not compromise the mission upon leaving (i.e., carelessly divulge secrets) and would be a spokesperson for the mission to their supporting churches and individuals back home. I think sometimes alumni members of the mission became mission p.r. contacts for some time after their departure.
***
This next discussion is difficult to cite snippets from without loss of understanding, so I'll try to summarize it instead.
If a newcomer isn't explicitly taken in as a "learner", then "much of the learning takes place via the informal organization". The contrast to this is an organization where newcomers aren't explicitly thought of as "learners"; these organizational settings are considered more "formal" and they put "more stress... upon influencing the newcomer's values and attitudes, and [have a] more severe... socialization process." (p. 88 - both quotes)
I don't think this fits my Vienna experience. To a certain extent one might have been considered a "learner", but really one generally hit the ground running. For example, 3 days after I landed in Vienna I was already on the job, although that doesn't mean I was doing everything right away. And looking at other newcomers, I think pretty much the same could be said across the board. I do think, however, that newcomers (including myself) were given things to do right away that might have (depending on the position and person) been specifically learning-the-ropes tasks. For me it was reading software manuals, which I did in addition to other secretarial duties given me from the get-go.
Even so, the mission did stress "influencing the newcomer's values and attitudes"... a lot. However, this was often sort of under the radar or cloaked in theological or psychological mumbo-jumbo (I reveal my bias here, I know), which was used to integrate one into the group in whatever fashion seemed necessary for the individual. These processes seemed pretty taylor-made to the individual, although some aspects of it seemed to be common, at least to groups of individuals (e.g., to all secretaries).
In summary, the text here says that informal organizations (ones that didn't identify newcomers as "learners") didn't put much emphasis on values and attitudes and the converse also being true (formal organizations did put such emphasis). In fact, the Vienna mission, if I understand the text correctly, would be an informal organization that DID put such emphasis on newcomer socialization.
***
"The length of the formal socialization period is often a good indication of the organization's desire to influence deep or surface characteristics of the recruits." (p. 88)
I'm not sure how to respond to this statement, because there really wasn't a "formal socialization period" in the Vienna mission, although to me it's clear that such a period existed (albeit, simultaneously with performing one's duties). I have a feeling that the individual his/herself, their superiors and possibly other mission leadership knew how a person was coming along in their "adjustment to life" in the mission and if there were any serious deficiencies.
In the same vein, it was somewhat difficult to determine the length of time any particular individual experienced the initial socialization to the organization. But again, probably the individual and relevant leadership, including at least the key members involved in socializing the person would know how long the person was going through the initial process. Once a person had passed that hurdle they were more accepted into the organization, and it seemed recognizable to others when a person had reached this point or if there were serious problems, especially, as in my case, apparently recalcitrant problems.
