A couple days ago when I was making those bars I mentioned I realized I couldn't find my large food processor and I've looked high and low for it. I found all the accessories - the extra blades, etc. - but not the unit itself. The accessories I kept in a drawer apart from the unit itself. Then I got to wondering if there were any other appliances I was missing and I can't find the deep fat fryer either. Those aren't small things and I took everything out of their boxes and there are only a limited number of places they could be so I suspect the workers stole them from me. I'm really on a tight budget now and when you add this to the things they did wrong or incompletely that I'm now going to have to pay others to undo or complete this is really not good. I don't know if I have enough to pull together to sue them though and I'm not really sure I'm up to that either. The thing is that going in to this remodeling I wanted to have someone who would oversee the process because I am not well and I feel the interior decorator really didn't do that and she is just copping out saying all she did was refer them to me and she has no other responsibility than that. I'm sure she and her company consulted lawyers to come up with that, but I'm planning to post bad reviews of her based on the kind of workers she refers. I can't get the workers to come in and fix their work, especially the plumber/electrician, and the interior decorator isn't doing anything to go to bat for me at all. And the interior decorator is with a large furniture company with many branches across the country. I submitted a complaint complaint with pictures to the store and am waiting for a response from them too.
I'm waiting now for repair people to come to fix my new refrigerator as the ice maker isn't working. It's under warranty, so there's no charge for me, though. They're supposed to come before 1:00 and I have a 3:30 appointment with the new cardiologist.
But back to the text...
***
The next main heading is "ORGANIZATIONAL CULTURE.""Organizational cultures vary tremendously and can have a profound impact on the behavior and performance of an organization. In using the concept of organizational culture, emphasis is upon understanding the nature of a specific culture so that purposeful efforts can be made to change the culture to achieve organizational goals. In this section we will define the concept, diagnose the defining characteristics of organizational culture, describe the effects that culture can have upon organizational performance, and make recommendations for changing organizational culture." (p. 445)
In the Vienna mission organizational culture was particularly complex and also particularly critical. The complexity was due to the fact that the workers were on loan to the mission from some 15 or so missions, all with their own cultures, plus there were were a few other missions on the board that contribured in other ways to the functioning of the mission (such as currier service bringing textbooks to the students in Eastern Europe). So each worker in the mission was caught in a web of their relations back home, their sending mission, the Vienna mission to which they were on loan, and perhaps the country they worked most closely with, if they were in a position that that was relevant for. And the mission as an organization itself faced similar cultural anomalies and ties. Departments within the organizatino might also have it's own uniue configuration as well. The security issue, and the importance the mission and its various constituents put on security, made organizational culture particularly important as a security issue and a security tool, more than a productivity tool, I think. That is, missionaries came to Vienna revved to produce and I doubt highly that productivity would have been much of an issue, other than perhaps directing the energy into effective channels, so I doubt you would have had to use organizational culture much for productivity reasons in the usual sense in the mission, yet I dare say that organizational culture was used (that is, did not just happen, but was intentionally used and encouraged by management) in the Vienna mission. So there must have been a different reason, other than productivity, for its use.
***
The first sub-heading under this main heading is "Organizational Culture Defined.""Organizational culture... can be defined at one level as 'the shared philosophies, ideologies, values, assumptions, beliefs, expectations, attitudes, and norms that knit (an organization together.' The key term in this definition is the word shared. There are many values, assumptions, beliefs, etc. that exist in organizations that are not widely shared. The ones that define the unique characteristics of the culture are therefore widely held and dominant... However, individuality is suppressed in very strong cultures as individual assumptions and values are subordinated to those of the stronger culture. If intolerable confliect exists between the two value systems, the individual will likely leave the culture and find one that is more compatible with his or her value system." (p. 446)
Obviously (at least to me it's very obvious), the Vienna mission was a "very strong culture." I think I couldn't really accept that the mission was so totally demanding until I started my master's studies in adult education and prepared to try to go to Russia for ministry that way. Before that I was still emotionally holding on to and grappling with a tiny modicum of hope that maybe I was wrong. But after that I finally accepted that no, I was right and I just had to move on and give up on them (and virtually all missions to that part of the world).
I have no idea what it's like now... I mean, obviously it's not the same for working in those countries, but the mission now works in Muslim countries or China, for example. Does it still work under these same principles as when I was with it? Of course, there's the issue of my dad that muddies everything, so we don't know if I just got "special" treatment because of his work. Still I did see that other secretary seem to struggle and based on what I saw there it did seem like it was a total institution. I would like to see the theological underpinnings for total institution organizational style in mission work. They have enough theologians on staff, so surely they must have someone there who could write a thesis about that. I'd like to see what kind of biblical gymnastics they have to go through to justify that. It's probably right up there with their ends-justifies-the-means pragmatism (pardon my skepticism).
***
The next sub-heading is "Characteristics of Organizational Culture." I've already said a lot about this elsewhere in this blog and this text doesn't really add anything new so I'm going to skip it.The next sub-section, "Effect of Culture on Organizational Performance," promises to offer some new insight, however, on the Vienna mission.
"The impact that organizational culture will have on the organization is a function of three factors, direction, strength and pervasiveness. Direction refers to the path indicated by the organizations's culture. The direction may be the positive (that is the culture facilitates the accoplishment of the company's goals), or the direction may be negative (i.e., the culture hinders the attainment of goals)...
The pervasiveness or homogeneity of the culture is related to the degree to which a culture is characteristic of the organization. Organizations typically have a number of subcultures within various divisions or departments. If the organization is dividted into relatively autonomous units, these subcultures may be quite different and distinct. Different subcultures can also exists within different occupational subcultures and the greater their strength, the less homogeneous the overall organizational culture will be. Theis in turn reduces the impact that organizational culture will have on organizational performance.
The strength of the culture is defined by the pressure it can exert on organizational members. Strength is largely affected by the length of time the culture has existed and turnover among members... " (p. 448-449)
Direction is clear - organizational culture was a top to bottom affair. Once the cultural machine was in place (and continually maintained via regular formal meetings and informal interactions with leadership) then appropriate others could take initiative within that framework to do cultural things (in keeping with the culture) but it was the leadership that were in charge and they were the ones who would make any corrections in the culture as needed, for whatever reasons. It would have been at the highest leadership levels that the purposes and goals of organizational culture would have been set, although this could have been a somewhat ad hoc process where initially they just started with some kind of a mishmash of the policies used by the founding missions and then the culture evolved as needed and as other stakeholders became involved. This is how I suspect the mission developed it's organizational culture, in broad-brush terms.
Having said this, however, I think there are indoubtedly examples where culture was not exactly developed top-down. However, it depends on what you mean by top-down. For example, I'm not sure how the women's group got started, but chances are it was founded by a female high up on the food chain like a wife or wives of a leader / leaders within the mission. Because of who she was the wife of, she was automatically in a high posotion as far as women go (especially when you don't count the womens ministry team, which consisted of 2 Th.M. -bearing instructors, one of which was a department head on par with any other department head). But if I had tried to start something like that I'd have been laughed out of town because I didn't have the appropriate standing, although someone in good standing and with power/influence after me might well have succeeded in doing what I couldn't.
Regarding pervasiveness and homogeneity, this was strong in the mission. There were some differences mostly evident in the country teams and in the USA office (where textbook printing was done). But there were a lot of things that brought us all together so we shared a lot (meetings, social events, etc.) as a group which tended to help reinforce commonalities and shared stories, I think. We shared each other's joys, stories, and funny events and prayed about concerns and upcoming issues and trips. But there was also a lot of working together across departments to that we really got to know first hand a little of what the different departments were like and were doing and that helped to mitigate any differences as well.
The country groups had to be able to work well within the country they specialized in and so they could tend to take on traits of that nationality sometimes, but I don't think that the administration would have tolerated that or any other kind of distinctiveness or diviciveness to get in the way of our unity, as that was very important to them. They didn't like the individualism, but I don't think they liked groups to stick out any more than they liked individuals to stick out, so they had to make sure that everyone was unified under their umbrella (cultural and otherwise) and they just wouldn't tolerate any kind of non-unity, although they would tolerate some measured differences necessary to carry out the work, but these needed to be kept under the dominion of the large group unity.
The strength of the mission culture on individuals was great but not unlimited. It was a total institution but there were some limits. When we think of total institution we usually think of places like the military or prison. Both of those places are hard to leave and have their members relatively isolated from society, although not all prisons and military situations are equality this way, of course. The Vienna mission isolates its members more than many prisons and military situations, if you think about it. I am talking about isolation first of all from what is known and familiar. The missionaries were far from home in a land that spoke a language that more often than not the new missionary didn't know at all and they were completely dependent on the mission to help them get along in the new culture as well as in the new work. But when you think about my experience where the mission actually censored my prayer letters, then there was also that kind of isolation and the pressure to attend the English-speaking church and things like that, so there were those kinds of pressures too that served to isolate the missionary into the world of the mission that the mission could control.
Also, even though it could isolate the missionary, and although there were a lot of ways it could exert pressure on the individual, there were limitations. It couldn't use some of the things the military, prisons or even regular employers use, for example. The military tribunal, solitary confinement and getting written up wouldn't work in the mission setting, especially for issues not directly work related or involving gross moral misbehavior, for example, which could be treated as regular human resource issues. So they had to find other ways to exert pressure on ist members, especially, I suppose, it's deviant members such as myself.
I guess I never really thought I would have to deal with such a mammoth organization (involving so many organizations!) with such an apparent definition of (socially) deviant. I thought they would look to the Bible for a definition of "deviant", but then, as I've said before, I'm an idealist in the vein of St. Augustine in that I think given a choice as to which is ultimately the most "real," the physical world or the spiritual world, I'd have to say the spiritual, and that is where I'd try to take my guidance from, (especially in ministry!). Pragmatists, on the other hand, are realists, and I've already shown how the mission was pragmatic (the ends justifies the means, one type or aspect of pragmatism), but it's a lot easier for me now so many years later to put this all together and see it so clearly. Back then I was just shocked and couldn't believe that they really operated they way they seemed to be operating (although even then I was piecing some things together, but it was all very emotionally loaded because of the consequences on my life, even though I was able to rationally think through and piece together some things).
So the thing is they had developed these views of (social) deviance (for within their group, which is what we've been talking about) and some of their values based on pragmatism (ends justifies the means) and they exerted pressure on me to accept their values, but I was an idealist and didn't agree with their values and their standard for deviance. I disagreed with their pragmatism because of my idealism and it's biblical roots, which says that what they were doing was wrong (discussed elsewhere). I'll just say that a major part of the issue was their living a life of deception, which is completely antithetical to what God is about. Since I don't think haven't documented that - that their kind of deception is antithetical to Scripture - here are a couple verses to mull over:
Titus 1:2
In hope of eternal life, which God, that cannot lie, promised before the world began
Remember Peter being asked if he was one of the followers of the detained Jesus and him denying it 3 times (before the cock crowed)? Well, according to this Titus passage, this is something Jesus wouldn't have been caught d... well, wouldn't have done period. Backtrack a bit to His questioning before the Sanhedron, where He was asked to comment on the popular belief that He was the "Son of God" what did He say? "You say that I am" and similar type answers upon repeated questioning. He didn't lie like Peter did, right? He wasn't deceptive and He didn't deny it, right? Well, don't just take my word for it...
Luke 22
66And as soon as it was day, the elders of the people and the chief priests and the scribes came together, and led him into their council, saying,
67Art thou the Christ? tell us. And he said unto them, If I tell you, ye will not believe:
68And if I also ask you, ye will not answer me, nor let me go.
69Hereafter shall the Son of man sit on the right hand of the power of God.
70Then said they all, Art thou then the Son of God? And he said unto them, Ye say that I am.
71And they said, What need we any further witness? for we ourselves have heard of his own mouth.
Here Jesus addresses the attitudes of His questioners and when He finally answers their question they understand that He is saying that He is the Son of God. It was enough to condemn Him and send Him to the cross...
The detractor would undoubtedly point out that Jesus' mission was different from ours (He had to die for our sins), but the fact remains that His ethic should not be different from ours, at least I am not aware that we have any (Scriptural!) mandate to deceive for the sake of ministry.
John 18
19The high priest then asked Jesus of his disciples, and of his doctrine.
20Jesus answered him, I spake openly to the world; I ever taught in the synagogue, and in the temple, whither the Jews always resort; and in secret have I said nothing.
You could say that Jesus worked in the then equivalent of a "closed country" in as much as He'd have had a difficult time applying for a missionary visa there. Chances are the Jews would have nixed it. He didn't have to apply for a visa, however, because he was a born native (i.e., ethnic native), but He suffered for the truth, as in paying the ultimate price for it. But He never waivered as far as the message or what the truth was. Sure He used parables, but if the purpose of using parables was to protect Him from harm He did a pretty crummy job of it and I think some workers at the Vienna mission could have helped him out there it that was something He was concerned about. But maybe it wasn't something He wasn't concerned about. Just maybe.
That being said, however, Jesus knew all along that the Jewish leaders didn't particularly like him (how many diatribes can you find in the Gospels against the pharasees and sadducees, for example?), sometimes He eluded capture when it wasn't "His time" yet, but everyone always knew who He was and what He was about and He was always open in He ministry. He never pretended to be something He wasn't nor pretended not to be something He was.
Let's take a peek at a few other Scripture passages dealing with deception.
Proverbs 27
6Faithful are the wounds of a friend; but the kisses of an enemy are deceitful.
This is how I felt when I got a post card from the mission management a few months a few months after leaving the mission. I hadn't heard from anyone else since returning home. It felt like the "kiss of an enemy" and deceitful, very hypocritical. I think I still have that post card.
Romans 3
9What then? are we better than they? No, in no wise: for we have before proved both Jews and Gentiles, that they are all under sin;
10As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one:
11There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God.
12They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one.
13Their throat is an open sepulchre; with their tongues they have used deceit; the poison of asps is under their lips:
14Whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness:
15Their feet are swift to shed blood:
16Destruction and misery are in their ways:
17And the way of peace have they not known:
18There is no fear of God before their eyes.
19Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law: that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God.
20Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin.
21But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets;
22Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference:
23For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;
So the point here (i.e., the reason I'm using this passage) is that deceit is part of the sinful nature, the old self (for the Christian viewpoint), and something that we should have left behind and not be involved with any more. No one is excluded from this description, so the only issue is whether, as a Christian, you are currently still in this lifestyle or if you've left it behind (or how totally you've left it behind).
II Cor. 4
2But have renounced the hidden things of dishonesty, not walking in craftiness, nor handling the word of God deceitfully; but by manifestation of the truth commending ourselves to every man's conscience in the sight of God.
This the Apostle Paul speaking about himself and his coworkers.
Here we have three different things as negatives:
1. dishonesty
2. walking in craftiness
3. handling the word of God deceitfully
The dishonesty comes about in specific lies, I think, whether it be to the supporters (remember the censored prayer letters - is that dishonesty?) or to border guards or to missionary kids' teachers. Walking in craftiness to me makes me think of a lifestyle built around deceit, which the mission had, complete with social controls, mission-approved narratives, etc. And, to justify some of the mission's methods, values, etc. and in counseling team members it may have been guilty of handling the word of God deceitfully as a tool to use for their ends. (I've discussed this latter issue in some detail elsewhere in this blog).
In contrast, there are three positives:
1. manifestation of the truth
2. commending ourselves to every man's conscience...
3. doing this in the sight of God
Two and three might be one thing,with two parts; I could take it that way too. First of all you have to start with the truth. There's no getting around that, if you don't have the truth, if you're not dealing with and expressing the truth then you might as well stop there and you're up in the negatives list. There's no way around that one.
Then you are open with the truth an let individual's conscience discern whether you are above board, whether you are indeed manifesting truth or not. This means the individuals have to have freedom to make these kinds of discernment; they can't be in the kind of emotional bondage that I found in the Vienna mission. There really wasn't freedom there to disagree or come to the decision that they were wrong.
Then, like it or not, this is all done in the sight of God and He is going to be the ultimate judge of whether or not I am truthful, the Vienna mission is, was, and has been truthful, the, etc. We can't do much about this, because it's going to happen and it is happening even right now as I right this and whenever it is that you read this.
Which side are you on? Which side do you want to be on? As for me and my house (that would be me and me alone because I'm single), I will serve the Lord... and I will do my best, living in the Spirit, to walk according to the second list.
***
This has been a long, long post, at least regarding how long it's taken to write it. I started before going to my doctor appointment and now it's 11:40 p.m.! Of course, I haven't been working at it the whole time, but I have put a lot of time in it nevertheless. I didn't start off planning to go off in the deceit Scripture tangent, but there it is, and it's a worthwhile addition, I think, to the blog, to the subject at hand.
Goodnight.
P.S. I revised this a bit the next morning 2/9/112
