One of the things that had to be done prior to applying for the exemption, however, is changing your voter's registration address, which I hadn't done and only found out about that when I sat down to seriously prepare for the application, so I didn't get my voter's registration change of address change (with the necessary documentation included) mailed out until Feb. 13. Needless to say I was on pins and needles waiting to get the new voter's registration card and when it didn't come and didn't come, I finally called a couple days ago. I learned that they had received my application and eventually I could get the information online (but not right away).
So today I had my mammogram, drove to where I have my physical therapy, hopped on the train to the county office building and thankfully didn't have to wait long and even had time for lunch. Then I took the train back and had physical therapy.
After physical therapy the freeway was a horrible mess. I finally made it home and what should I find on my door but a notice that evidently had been place on everyone's door in the buidling about noise after 11:00. That was almost enough to send me into a fibromyalgia flare, and I've already told you about the fiasco with the people downstairs, and I just can't imagine what other people had been complaining. Personally, I haven't noticed any noise at all, as this is a very quite complex. Well, I went with my knee jerk reaction and called the condo office and left a voicemail message (it was 5:30 - after hours) telling them about the last incident with my neighbor downstairs regarding their calling when I was emptying the dishwasher. I also cited the police case number date and time too so that they could check on it if they want and understand that I am serious about not putting up with this B.S.
I guess I'd better look into legal assistance, but when? I spend all my time at doctor's offices! I hardly have time to keep up with the regular stuff I have to do, and I'm dealing with the mess with the interior decorator and contractors too! Not to mention my family. Which brings me to my next subject...
***
My family is a mess. I'm really coming to the realization that my brother in the Northwest (where I'm from) might be the worst of the lot. I don't know though, that's just my latest theory in trying to sort things out.
I'm pretty sure that that brother came to sort of resent me through the years, although he wouldn't admit it like that. I was the oldest and he ended out sort of having to follow in my shadow in school and then when I went off overseas and all then he probably ended out hearing about everything I did.
When he was in his 20s he was the last one to move out of mom and dad's house. It was like he didn't have the self esteem to step out on his own. So he's mostly sort of followed others, it seems, even though there is enough he could do on his own. He always took the safe route, which isn't always bad, it's just that in his case the reason is that he didn't have the self esteem to do anything else. (He did doe some oversees ministry, after having visited me in Russia - I feel like he used me in that trip, as most of his trips serve a purpose, it seems. He never just goes on vacation and he would never just visit me - unless to "help" me, and thereby set himself up as the "parent" and me the "child" in transactional analysis terms.) Now he's sort of stuck where he is, so there's not much he can do I suppose.
The other thing is that my brothers both just sort of idolized our dad and they just sort of formed a band of guys in a way that mom and I were left out of. And not just because we were female, but also because we were weaker, mom because of her emotional issues in particular, and me because they didn't understand my decisions regarding work and school so they labeled me according to what they thought fit me. After dad died, my two brothers continued the male bond in juxtaposition to mom and I, because it was still the strong against the weak, in their minds.
Now that both parents are gone, however, my brothers don't seem to be so content playing the two alpha males against the weak female, or maybe they're just taking a different tack, I don't know. But the thing is that I've pulled away from them, rather than them pulling away from me. So that's not maybe how they like it either, but it's what I want.
I think it's pretty disgusting to have this strong/weak relationship like that, especially for a family that claims to be Christian, because that is quite the antithesis of Christianity, and if anything, special attention should be given to the weak rather than taking an adversarial position or taking advantage of the differences. And if mom was treated like that and I was lumped together with her, I don't see any reason to change now. I haven't changed, so whatever reason I was being treated that way I guess still exists, right?
Anyway, I do want to get to the text... And I can't believe that notice on my door this evening... I need more problems like I need a hold in the head.
***
This next primary section is "Creating and Maintaing a Culture."
"Some organizational cultures may be the direct, or at least indirect, result of actions taken by the founders." (p. 53)
The Vienna mission was one such organizational culture. I've said this in various ways on this blog already. The culture (and also the informal organization) was a key component of the mission's security efforts, which were a very high priority.
***
"At other times a culture must be changed because the environment changes and the previous core cultural values are not in step with those needed for survival." (p. 55)
The main reason I include this quote is that just a few short years after I was with the mission the Communist regimes of Eastern Europe met their demise and the mission at that point probably underwent some changes and it appears that it has grown considerably since then, so the remarks I make about the mission only apply to the time I was with it. If anything I say fits later situations that is coincidental because I don't know what happened after I left. I will say, as I have before, however, that I suspect that their basic pragmatism and deceitfulness is probably the same and they may still be friendly with government entities too (like military chaplians), although I don't know that.
***
I'm skipping a lot because there are a lot of corporate case studies and examples and some things aren't relevant anyway. The sub-section we'll turn to now is "Maintaining Cultures through Steps of Socialization."
"Selection of Entry-Level Personnel. The first step is the careful selection of entry-level candidates. Using standardized procedures and seeking specific traits that tie to effective performance, trained recruiters interview candidates and attempt to screen out those whose personal styles and values do not make a 'fit' with the organization's culture." (p. 58-59)
The issue in my case was that the interviewers were like 3 steps away from the actual position. This is what I mean: I was interviewed by the North American office of my sending mission... who relayed the information to the International office of my sending mission... who relayed the information to the Easter European office of my sending mission... who relayed the information to the Vienna mission. Each step along the way I had to be accepted, etc.
So, somewhere along the way the message got garbled... maybe. But that really doesn't completely make sense either, because most everyone at the Vienna mission got there through a process more or less like the one how I got there and no one else had so many problems (as far as I knew). So did it get garbled? Hmmmm... I doubt it.
I do think, however, that they maybe didn't really believe that I meant it when I said things like 1) I don't want a roommate, 2) I want to work with Austrians on my free time, etc.
You see, unlike them, I really was of the conviction that my "yeah" should be "yeah" and my "nay" should be "nay" and I wasn't joking around or something when I stated those intentions and I thought that everything was clear and settled on those accounts.
I think they needed to find someone a little more "pragmatic" than me. In fact, if they still hold to that same philosophy, they might want to consider giving a test to potential recruits to determine whether they agree that the ends justifies the means or whether they can say "We're an international book publisher" without making a lie detector go off.
***
"Placement on the Job. The second step offucrs on the job itself, after the person with a fit is hired. New personnel are subjected to a carefully orchestrated series of different experiences whose purpose is to cause them to question the organization's norms and values and to decide whether or not they can accept them. For example, many organizations with strong cultures make it a point to give newly hired personnel more work than they can handle. Sometimes these assignments are beneath the individual's abilities. At Procter & Gamble, for example, new personnel may be required to color in a sales territory map. The experience is designed to convey the message, "While you're smart in some ways, you're in kindergarten as far as what you know about this organization." The objective is also to teach the new entrant into the culture the importance of humility. These experiences are designed to make newly hired personnel vulnerable and to cause them to move closer emotionally to their colleagues, thus intensivying group cohesiveness." (p. 59-60)
I clearly experienced the color in the sales territory map type work. In fact, I would say a good 90% of my work with the mission was like that for me, which is part of why I left the mission so broken after all I'd done to prepare for that work. I never really made it past this stage. It was like, "Okay, you're here, but don't count on getting anywhere with us." And I didn't.
The thing was, though, that I never complained, so I never broke. I think I was supposed to break, as in break down in tear about how I wanted to be useful and sob, sob, ... But I didn't. I've written about this elsewhere too, that I just didn't complain and took everything in stride and word of watched and tried to figure out what was going on.
As far as the group cohesiveness is concerned, I've also said a lot about that, as the secretaries weren't a very good identity group for me. I was friendly with them, but I didn't really feel like I could relate to them completely since I wasn't really a professional secretary and I never attended to be a career secretary.
***"
"Job Mastery. Once the initial 'cultural shock' is over, the next step is mastery of one's job. This is typically done via extensive and carefully reinforced field experience...." (p. 60)I clearly didn't get to this stage. I was supposed to be the secretary to the assistant director, but most of the time I wasn't in that position at all even. Also, I'd just like to point out the use of the term "culture shock" in reference to organizations, this conflicts with what the Vienna mission human resources director diagnosed me with (culture shock vis a vis living in Austria). I won't go into details here, but I was doing just fine in Vienna, including going to an Austrian church and getting around on my own, etc. My problems were with the mission.
***
"Measuring and Rewarding Performance." The next step of the socialization process consists of meticulous attention to measuring operational results and to rewarding individual performance... Anyone who commits a crime against the culture... is sent to the 'penalty box.' This typically involves a lateral move to a less desirous location. For example, a branch manager in Chicago might be given a nebulous staff position at headquarters. This individual is no off-track, which can slow his or her career progress." (p. 60)Despite the fact that I never made it to job mastery, I managed to make it to the penalty box. So my career went something like this (at least in part):
1) faulty selection process =>
2) unsuccessful transition to placement on the job [skip over job mastery] =>
3) crime committed against the culture via unsuccessful transition to placement on the job resulting in 'penalty box' assignments
So here the culture is king, in that it appears, based on my experience alone, that you couldn't have your job unless you mastered the culture.
***
"Adherence to Important Values. The next step involves careful adherence to the firm's important values. Identification with these values helps employees reconcile personal sacrifices brought about by their membership in the organization. They learn to accept these values and to trust the organization not to do anything that would hurt them. As Pascale observes, 'Placing one's self 'at the mercy' of an organization imposes real costs..."... However, the organization attempts to overcome these costs by connecting the sacrifices to higher values such as serving society with better products and/or services." (p. 60-61)Wow! This is good and something new, too. First of all, the mission would expect a certain amount of this early on in the socialization, but the new missionary would continue to for some time learning these things and the mission would be watching and helping to make sure s/he progressed well.
Another thing is that in the mission the sacrifices were greater than in your typical job because you'd left your homeland and your life mostly revolved around the mission, but the missionary would have known of the usual costs that missions entail. Issues like ones that messed me up, involving philosophy in respect to ministry in "closed countries", etc. may or may not have bothered others at first, or maybe there were different issues others dealt with. But if you're going to be traveling clandestinely into a country that is hostile to your work, you would want to trust your organization "not to do anything that would hurt" you.
Now let's get to the juicy stuff. First of all, I'm thinking of this text in contrast to how I think the church is supposed to operate, and the mission was an extension of the church. What is this accepting their values and trusting they won't hurt you?! Would your pastor hurt you? I don't think so! How about the elders? Evangelists? Anyone in the church? Why should it take some extra step of accepting their values and trusting them in order to know they won't hurt me?
Well, and just in case you have a problem with these values that you need to accept in order to trust that they won't hurt you, it might be more persuasive to know that the mission is serving society... How pragmatic can you get? That is, the ends (serving society) justifies any possible values issues that might bother you. And you want to be a part of this watershed project, don't you? Of course, you do! ... That's the mission cajoling the new recruit on to accept their values.
Furthermore, there may be costs to becoming a missionary and working with a mission, but "adhering to their important values" should not be among them. Let me explain myself here. If the mission has any important values that need adhering to, they should be Christocentric and true to the Bible. If this is the case then it hardly seems that adherance to their values would be a cost to the new missionary. That's not to say there wouldn't be some adjustments to make, but I don't think that in the values realm missions' appropriate expectations should be seen as costs; rather, these should be seen as opportunitis for spiritual growth. (Although, that being said, some things in the Bible aren't cut and dry and sometimes there is room for divergent interpretations, so the missionary might come with one credible understanding and the mission another, and hopefully these would be in minor issues ans the larger doctrinal issues should already have been hashed out.
But in the case of the Vienna mission, I think their core values, the ones I had problems with, were categorically not biblical (and not a "gray area"). In this case, for me to have conceded would indeed have been a cost, and one I felt I couldn't afford, despite my desire for the same ends as the mission, I couldn't go along with the means, or at least significant parts of it.
The other thing is that when the mission sent me home in the 5th month I was in Vienna, it was at that point that I knew beyond a shadow of a dobut that they could hurt me. I was shocked when it happened and after that I didn't know how far they'd go or what they could do, but at that point there was nothing anyone could do that would have convinced me that the mission might not (although not again not necessarily in the same way) hurt me. So at that point it was doutbtless pretty futile to think of anything potentially good coming of my relationship with the mission. But I didn't want to believe it. I kept hoping something would change.
***
I'm skipping the paragraph on "Reinforcing the Stories and Folklore" because they're nothing new or helpful there. Our last one is..."Recognition and Promotion. The final step is the recognition and promotion of individuals who have done their jobs well and who can serve as role models to new people in the organization... Role models in strong-culture firms are regarded as the most powerful ongoing training program of all." (p. 61)
This and mentoring were the main ways I was socialized with the mission. But I would also like to draw your attention to the way the role model status falls in the sequence of things and that's pretty much what I've been saying about the mentors too. So once a person has reached a certain level of acceptedness with the group they might be potential mentors/role models, and seeing someone in that role is an indication that the person has reached that level, too. (The mission was large enough that everyone didn't know exactly how everyone else was doing, so signs like this would be helpful.)
***
That's it for today. I'm tired... It's been a long day and a little stressful too. Goodnight.
