Continuing right where I left off last time in the "Questions to Identify Organizational Culture" list.
"9. How does the organization make use of employee experience? Answers reveal something about how individual creativity is used, and the degree to which individuals participate in important organizational activities." (p. 133)
I'm not in a position to answer this question with any certainty other than regarding myself and my own experience with the mission. I will say that it seemed that I might have been the worst fit for the mission's expectation of anyone in the mission. That is, I didn't think that they didn't make good use of my experience. I don't know of anyone else that this might have been true for, which is a major reason (but not the only one or even possibly the most important one) for why it didn't work out between me and the mission.
There are several aspects of how they didn't make use of my experience, or at least how I perceived that they didn't make use of it. First of all, before arriving in Vienna, and I think I've discussed this before, I had no indication that my being a secretary with them was going to define my whole existence while I was with them now that they had other additional (possible or definite) intentions for me. When I first arrived in Vienna it didn't take long for me to realize that practically my whole identity was defined by my being a secretary, that the part of me that had prepared so carefully for ministry in Eastern Europe was not valued and they even wanted to squelch it, and eventually I learned that there could be other mission opportunities with them. I'm not sure they had those opportunities in mind when I was selected to work with them, however, or whether they just eventually realized I had these other potentials. There were several problems, from my perspective, with this setup.
First of all, I don't think I would have ever taken the position if I'd know that the secretarial role was going to so all-inclusively define who I was and limit me in the way they seemed to want. I had made it clear, at least to my sending mission's North American office, that I intended to try to pursue outside people ministry opportunities - that is, for my off hours. If I had known that there was going to be an objection to this once I arrived in Vienna I would have sought to resolve that issue then, I'm sure, because I would not have been satisfied being limited to secretarial duties as my only ministry outlet. The fact that I was so persistent in trying to pursue other ministry opportunities, including some outside relationships that I saw as sort of mentoring/discipleship by way of friendship. So that was a big issue right there alone in how they wanted to deny me the use of my potential in these kinds of areas. In their view, as I experienced it, they were the only ones who could identify my gifts and abilities and allow opportunities to use them; any other use of gifts outside of the mission were illegitimate in their eyes. This was a huge part of how I experienced them as a total mission.
It seemed that they also saw that only ministry skills developed in the narrow way they interpreted them were valid, and nothing else seemed to count or be relevant to them. So the fact that I might have developed ministry skills outside of their accepted channel pretty much discredited them in their eyes. Then, having discredited these skills from the outset, they wanted to limit my ministry opportunities, which meant I wouldn't even have the opportunity to demonstrate that I had these skills, which trapped me even more in the all-confining secretarial mold. Another way to put this was that they had a we'll-believe-it-when-we-see-it approach to ministry skill identification/potential, but then denied the opportunity to show them that I had it.
Then there was the other part of my skills and identity - besides the people ministry I tried to pursue - and that was my background knowledge and experience in Eastern European religion and ministry, especially the more theoretical aspects of it. This background, of course, is largely what enabled me to disagree with their way of operations in the first place, so it's no wonder they wouldn't have wanted me to use this part of my experience and knowledge, especially from the standpoint of them being a total institution which disallowed any questioning of the sorts I was having. I don't think they ever would have wanted to make use of this part of my experience, so it always would have been squelched no matter what else happened. There are several possible reasons for this, such as 1) I was a woman and therefore not eligible for more of a general policy-affecting role in the mission; 2) I was "only" a secretary; 3) my views in these areas disagreed with theirs; and 4) these were the types of areas that members were just supposed to take on faith, no questions asked.
So I came to Vienna not knowing that one part of my experience (the people ministry aspect) was going to be squelched as not fitting their "secretarial" mold and another part (the European Studies part) was going to be actually disastrous in as much as it provided the platform from which I could withstand the mission's efforts to get me to submit totally to them and then internalize their norms, lock, stock and barrel.
I think I was the only one who experienced the mission like this, largely because I was the poorest fit for the position I was intended for. And their having such tight molds for people might have been an intentional part of their security system or an unintentional byproduct of it, the latter of which would probably have assumed some level of unawareness that this was happening which I'm not sure is all that likely, although it could be possible. I don't think it would be too likely because they were too smart to let something like that go unnoticed. Having narrow molds like that for individuals and/or positions (i.e., irregardless of who the person is filling the position) might make it easier to oversee security controls. It's possible, though, that they might have loosened up on positional mold constrictions as they got to know the person, but in my case by the time that happened they never ever would have known I was good for anything other than typing and filing, if you will. If there were going to be any opportunities to demonstrate ministry potential it was going to be on their terms, at their instigation, or not at all.
This is pretty much how I experienced the mission, at least regarding actual or potential use of my skills, experience and knowledge.
***
"10. If the organization stopped doing some of the things it now does, what wouldn't change? Answers reveal critical organizational activities and functions." (p. 133)
Well, I think the three main components of the mission were the men's coursework, the women's ministry, and the security set up. Of these three, I think that the men's coursework would be the last thing to go because it's the most fundamental and critical part of the ministry, and it was also the initial impetus for the ministry. If finances became tough and they had to make choices as to what to cut, I think it would be the women's ministry. Security also would not be cut, because they were working in "closed" countries and, even with the fall of Communism, they continued to seek other such countries to work in, although they seem to have continued their work in the former East Bloc countries as well, so security for that part of the mission should have been dropped.
***
"11. What outside groups does the organization pay attention to? Answers reveal the extent and nature of the organization's activities and functions." (p. 133)
This is an excellent question, which I don't think I've dealt with quite like this before. Basically, as I understand it, this question is asking who the most important stakeholders are, importance defined by the impact on the mission. These stakeholders include:
1) the nationals taking the courses (or potentially taking the courses)
2) the governments in the countries they work in (especially in "closed" countries)
3) supporters back home
4) environment where the office is
5) missionaries in the mission
I think the nationals would have been seen as the most important in this mix, and everything was done to protect them above all else, as well as them being the impetus for the ministry in the first place.
Concern regarding governments, especially in the "closed" countries permeated the mission's concern for the nationals and the missionaries, and as such would be difficult to disentangle from those stakeholders. That is, the governments were important as much as they could affect the nationals being worked with and the missionaries (and their ministry). But so much attention was placed on security (which was only a concern because of the nature of the governments), that this group needs to be separated out from the missionaries and nationals. I think the governments would probably have been the second most important group, but it's possible, I think to argue even for it having been the first most important group because of the mission's obsession with security.
Missionaries and their ministry would be the third most important concern. I put it in third place because I think the missionaries had to be willing to do whatever was needed to protect the nationals and that that was the priority.
The Austrian environment was mostly important in as much as security precautions had to be taken to maintain their cover while living there, especially since there was the potential for exposure that could harm the ministry in the "spy capital of the world," namely, Vienna.
The supporters back home were the least concern to the mission, and they were mostly targets for p.r., via prayer letters and newsletters and the like in order to keep the support alive. But other than that the mission didn't really accommodate this group of stakeholders as it did the others. In my opinion I think this accounts, at least in part, for how the mission could become the kind of security-obsessed monster it was when I arrived on the scene. At least that's how I viewed it.
[4/9/11 comment: The board members/member missions should be included in this list of influential stakeholders. I think I would put them between the Communist governments and the missionaries working in the mission. Also, I'm sure there might be situations where this ordering would change, but in general I think this is the way it was.]
***
"12. What must the organization do particularly well? Critical organizational workings are uncovered by responses to this question." (p. 133)
I don't think I've dealt with this question at all yet, at least not that I can remember. Here are some of the possibilities:
1. teach
2. cross-cultural communication/skills
3. security
4. organization & record keeping
5. writing & publishing
I'll take these one by one.
Teaching was the very crux of what they did, so their teaching had to be effective, which included, I think, all aspects of teaching, including teaching methodology and content matter and sequencing, all of which they took very seriously and planned meticulously.
Cross-cultural communication and cross-cultural skills in general were valued in a wide variety of manners, including textbook illustrations, ability to navigate effectively around the countries where they were teaching, using these skills in the contacts with the Christian nationals, including teaching them. The mission did try to take into account the local cultures in its ministry.
Everyone, no matter what their position, was expected to have a certain mastery of security management, in accordance with positions held. In this way, there might be general security skills required of everyone at the mission living in Vienna, but there might be specific security skill demands for those who traveled in-country, for example. This was a mandatory skill, as I've discussed elsewhere, and the whole socialization process was basically all about this one skill and developing mutual trust (between the mission and the new missionary).
Organization and record keeping was also very important, and this is one thing I don't think I've mentioned before. It was important because there were certain aspects that had to happen in certain sequences and changes had to be pretty well documented to avoid potentially disastrous effects. Some of the areas this might involve include: 1) who was in what study group; 2) what each group had been taught, both in toto and in each lesson and teaching trip; 3) who had taught which lesson and had been on what teaching trip; 4) changes in the study group, such as venue or change of leader or main contact person (and why); 5) where textbooks were in the publication process and estimated publication date; 6) how textbooks were going to be delivered in-country and when... etc. These things were very important for insuring a smooth running of the classes and also the avoidance of security slip ups, such as not accounting for a change that might have been very important. I wasn't involved in this kind of thing, but those working more with the publishing and teaching end of things would have done a lot of this. Briefings before trips would take into consideration past information and debriefings would contribute new information to this record keeping system, at least as far as the instructional end of things went.
Writing and publishing was also had to be quality from several perspectives, including, for example, being educationally effective, culturally sensitive and appropriate, theologically accurate and acceptable (i.e., not causing undue disagreement from relevant various parties), editorially sound (e.g., layout design, proofreeding, etc.), of good physical quality (e.g., paper type, binding, etc.) and cost effective.
***
"13. How does one sell a new idea in this organization and who needs to be sold? Key decision makers are identified as is responsiveness to new ideas by answers to this question." (p. 133)
To be honest with you, I'm not very certain how one would go about doing it. But I can tell you this much, being a new comer with major disagreements regarding mission philosophy and values orientation I had little hope of recourse in getting my views aired and seriously considered.
But if we were to imagine that I had been there, say, 5 years already and I only wanted to redecorate my office, how might I go about that? Well, first off, the chances of my success would be much greater than the first (real) example. In this case, I think they'd say "go for it" as long as I didn't need any money from them and I did it on my own time or at least when I wasn't busy with other job responsibilities.
First of all, I need to try to conjure up what kinds of ideas one might have proposed in the mission. That might help me try to imagine a route of presenting a proposal. Here are a few possibilities, although I'm not saying how likely they would have been to have been suggested:
1. Have their first single woman live in-country
2. Have written job descriptions
3. Create a formal grievance procedure (one that will actually be used and not just on paper)
4. Live by written rules or change the written rules to reflect reality (what rights they intend to honor and what demands they actually make on missionaries)
5. Have h.r. demand everyone take a gender anti-discrimination course, followed by a test that everyone must pass
6. Have families come to Vienna with a nanny or include monies for the hiring of one in family budgets
7. Have something planned for the wives to do so that they don't feel left out of the ministry and so that secretaries don't have to fill in the gap for them feeling excluded and isolated from the ministry
9. Next time the board meets devote their entire agenda to the biblical meaning of "faith", how it might apply to the ministry and finding ways the mission might do better at living by faith
10. Improve the "hiring" process to include more specifications (from the mission's point of view) regarding what they expect from the new missionary (in a specific position) and for the missionary to also communicate concerns and wishes in advance of arrival in Vienna. (e.g., that I wanted people ministry and to live alone).
I guess that's enough for now, although I'm sure I could think of others too. I think I like this exercise. However, for all this I still haven't answered the question.
How would I try to sell these kinds of ideas? Well, I'm thinking that Esther might have had a good approach; that is, invite someone with power and authority in the mission over for a fine dinner, and maybe repeat this process once or twice before actually slipping in a possible suggestion for him to maybe possibly consider, if it pleases him, I mean. Doing it this way would indicate that I was (probably) submitted and humble enough and would indicate that I wasn't trying to (probably) undermine anyone's authority, especially if I didn't tell anyone else and the person in authority could take it to the next step (to the board) on his authority.
Alternately, this surrogate King Ahasuerus could choke on his food (that I'd so connivingly prepared for him) upon hearing my audacious request - understanding it as such despite all my care to couch it in as much totally submissive, uninsubordinate-like words and demeanor as I could garner. Such a response might be accompanied by the mission's equivalent to being whipped with 30 lashes, which is to say, being demoted to receptionist so I wouldn't have access to leaders that I could make such audacious requests of.
I guess I answered the "who" and "how" there, although I suppose it would be possible to contact a board member (or 2) with such requests, although that would undoubtedly be met with a stern lecture about the inappropriateness of such an action, and there could also be other potential repercussions.
If someone had any suggestions at all I guess they'd have to go to their direct supervisor, or possibly their sending mission, depending on the nature of the request. Then if their supervisor saw any virtue in the request s/he'd undoubtedly have to take it to the next level, and on up it would go as far as was appropriate for the specific suggestion. Most changes, other than very trivial ones, would have to be decided upon at the highest levels, though, I think. The mission had such a distaste for surprises and independence of action (I know, I've been there), that anyone contemplating a change would want to make sure that approval was granted for it at the highest level possible to avoid negative repercussions to attempting to institute it (the change).
There wasn't, as far as I knew, any kind of formal process for making suggestions, which is probably because the mission didn't particularly like changes.
***
"14. What are important strategies and tactics for getting things done in this organization? Political machinations and informal workings of an organization are addressed in answer to this question." (p. 133)
For one thing, despite the fact that there was a lot by way of informal organization vis a vis security, to actually get the work done there were virtually no "political machinations and informal workings" vis a vis the work itself. Since the organization valued group cohesion and solidarity so highly (largely, but not only, because of the security issue) to have such office politics going on would have been anathema and any sign of this at all would have been nipped in the bud and dealt with, probably not only quickly but even forcefully. This kind of thing would have been a pretty serious violation of group norms.
However, this being said, if, in cases like mine, if you weren't an accepted insider (by way of total submission to the organization) you would not have much influence to get things done. A couple months before I left the mission this was so bad that I couldn't even get anyone to play tennis with me at the organization-wide retreat! That is, I couldn't take the lead in anything and even though (American) women have a notorious reputation of going to the bathroom in droves, as a kind of social thing, I couldn't have even been able to muster enough influence to get my boss' adolescent daughter to join me in that trek (to the bathroom). So one has to be deemed an "insider" to be able to get anything done. But nobody, except me, stayed there long as an outsider, anyway, so that wasn't a big issue. As long as your efforts to get something done are deemed valid and within your acceptable realm of influence you shouldn't have too much trouble garnering cooperation.
Another example of how I was on the outs and had problems in this area, was, again, during the last few months of my time with the mission, when I was a receptionist. One of the things I had to do was keep track of where everyone was so I could direct calls appropriately. But that was a never-ending fight to get them to cooperate by letting me know of changes in their whereabouts. How much of this was intentional and how much of it was just that they were just so engrossed in what they were doing that they naturally forgot I'll never know.
***
This ends this list, and it's a good breaking point, so I'm going to get going. I have an ear-nose-throat appointment this afternoon. I had a good ENG doctor, but he was with all the others that now don't take my insurance. I'm seeing this new one because of the neurological symptoms from my cervical stenosis. I had symptoms in my head, and still have some, which, as I understand it, was/is probably caused by a foraminal stenosis (blocking or pinching of a nerve root where it comes out of the spinal cord) on a nerve that contributes to the cervical plexus (a web of nerves that return back up to the head).
This is the last question in this list.
