I can't find a really critical document, so I'm depending on it being on one of my old 3.5" floppy disks and I ordered a floppy drive, which was high on my to-do list anyway. It's all of $20 but I just never got around to it. There always seemed to be a million other things begging for my attention.
So we're going to look at trust, which seems to be a pretty relevant subject for a mission that puts such high regard on security. But in the end, the trust issue went both ways, which is not how it's supposed to go, as everyone in the mission is supposed to be the subject, the object, and the mission is the doer. In grammatical terms, we'd say the the mission was the subject and the members were the objects, right? As in, The mission trusts the missionary. Or, the mission distrusts the new recruit. But not, the new recruit distrusts the mission. The new recruit, in the world of the Vienna mission most emphatically does not have the right to trust or distrust the Vienna mission, that is to make a determination on his/her own. The mission makes determinations and the missionary accepts the mission's determination and owns it. Period.
Since I was the renegade that refused to live by those rules, however, we are going to look at trust/mistrust coming from both sides of the relationship.
***
Luker, Norman W. (1990). Do you trust your employees? Security Management, 34(9), 127-130."Yet, trust plays a vital role in the whole security operation. Yes security technology is important. Yes, controls and procedures are absolutely essential in protecting information. But ultimately, if a company cannot trust its employees - and if those employees themselves don't feel they are trusted - all the machines and rules in the world won't amount to much. Trust is the most important human factor of all." (p. 130)
That's the final paragraph after he's described procedures of incorporating the human factor into all stages of and aspects of security. The Vienna mission had a pretty elaborate security system in place too, although a unique one appropriate to its setting. I think that most people in the mission did feel the trust that Mr. Luker speaks of in his final paragraph, but I most decidedly didn't. Otherwise, why would I alone have been shuffled around from position to position? And being sent home to the United States because of stress that was concocted by them in the first place but attributed to Austria? No, it is clear that the mission did not trust me, and the reason is not immediately clear to me.
***
Peterson, Joel C. (1993, Sept./Oct.). Can You Trust Your Company? Executive Female, 16(5), 69-71.
"Whether or consciously or not, we all evaluate the trustworthiness of those who lead us. Our evaluation is vital to our commitment. Consider the ten aspects of trust that follow, and evaluate, in a systematic way, the people and systems in your organization. Read the questions and assign scores from 0 (where never true) to 10 (where always true). Add your scores to determine whether your scores is a high-, medium- or low-trust environment." (p. 69)
I hope I don't have to quote the whole descriptions for each 10, but I'm going to rate the Vienna mission and the Komsomols, who invited me to work in Siberia under questionable circumstances in 1991. This should be an interesting comparison. If it were't for the fact that these two organizations caused me a lot of grief I could actually have fun with this.
***
"Integrity A leader's character has more impact on trust than any other single factor. Some leaders try to compartmentalize their lives into private and public areas, filing violations of personal trust under the private label....Second, no matter what their competence, charisma or command, leaders inspire trust only to the level of their personal integrity.
Are your leaders above reproach in their professional and personal lifes?" (p. 69-70)
KOMSOMOLS: 0
I had marked up this article when I read it when I first found it and I gave the BEE leaders a somewhat higher score. But after what I've already written on this blog, I don't think I can give a higher score, because they're the ones that induced all the security-led deception.
"Respect Trust depends more on the value placed on individual human beings than on management techniques or policy statements. Watch how organizations actually treat those over whom they have dominion (or from whom they have nothing to gain). ... If leaders engage in people-bashing - inside or outside an organization- even those who have been spared the attacks will have reason to mistrust.
Does your organization respect all who deal with it?" (p. 70)
Vienna mission: 2
KOMSOMOLS: 2
I gave both a 2 because as soon as someone they have dominion over disagrees with them or somehow clashes with them then they don't show respect to that individual. So they only show respect as long as their underlings tow the party line.
"Empowerment Trust-rich organizations expect people to do - and to become - their best. They encourage people to focus more on fairness than legalities...
By contrast, mistrustful organizations are preoccupied with keeping people from doing their worst. In trust-poor enterprises, heavy reliance on the paraphernalia of paranoia (policy manuals, compliance committies, rule books, legal departments, and tattler rewards) ensures there will never be a spontaneous outbreak of trust." (p. 70)
Vienna mission: 0
KOMSOMOLS: 2
I had given the Vienna mission a higher score, but this is my subjective experience, and the mission wouldn't let me hardly take initiative on anything to I didn't feel empowered at all. On the contrary, by being shuffled around from position to position and being pressured to quit my Austrian involvement, I felt very disempowered.
With the Komsomols they did seem to have ulterior motives for brining me to Siberia, but they did let me teach and more or less supported me in what I needed.
"Responsibility = Authority = Accountability When responsibility, authority and accountability are not in sync, finger-pointing invariably supplants accountability, and politics, replaces measurement.
Does your organization match responsibility, authority and accountability?" (p. 70)
Vienna mission:0
KOMSOMOLS:0
Both of these get 0, clearly because there is no accountability, or accountability is hidden.
"Vision ..... Are members of your organization inspired by its mission, and are dealings within the organization consistent with it?" (p.70)
Vienna mission:7
KOMSOMOLS:2
I kept these scores the same as the earlier ones I wrote on the article. The Vienna mission had a high score because I think that much of its activities were mission-centric, but the other part were messed up around security and other things that I thought were off course.
Regarding the Komsomols' score, it was pretty famous that by then (the early 1990's) most Communist party members (including Komsomols) were not necessarily ideologues, but members for practical reasons, such as to help get ahead or to get accepted into a college, for example. So I don't know that these Komsomols were necessarily ideological communists; I don't have any evidence that they were. So in this case, they wouldn't have been "inspired by" their party vision or mission.
"Communication Trust-building organizations tell the truth. They tell it simply, persuasively and competently.....
Does your organization communicate frequently, clearly and broadly?" (p. 70)
Vienna mission: 0
KOMSOMOLS:2
This is sort of a tough one. The Thing is that the Vienna mission was all about deception because of its security concerns. And, of course, the leadership always reserved the right to frame issues, so you could never be sure, I suppose how much was being left out or interpreted. But generally, stories of trips and that would be true. Also, I experienced not really knowing what was true or not, so it was hard sometimes figuring out what was going on, which is a kind of truth.
Regarding the Komsomols, the two leaders lied straight up to me regarding who they were because when I was in Siberia people were starting to tell me they were the Komsomols, but they called themselves by another name. So I asked them if that's who they were and they immediately said no, like a knee jerk reaction, which was very suspicious, especially when both of them did the same thing, independently. Then I had problems with the director and it became clear that he wanted to compromise me. I was supposed to go on a trip and I agreed to go with one of the gals in the group but instead the director showed up to take me, and things like that.
"Sacrifice Trust-rich organizations require sacrifice because it is the only way to use limited resources to achieve the common dream...
Does your organization ask people to sacrifice to meet common goals?" (p. 70-71)
Vienna mission:10
KOMSOMOLS:10
In this case both organizations required sacrifice.
"Budgets Because budgets reveal an organization's real values, trust-rich organizations share and explain their budgets. Only by doing this can people understand why certain sacrifices are being made. In trust-poor organizations, budgets are secret documents because leaders either conflict or are acting in ways that are inconsistent with the stated mission of the organization. They have failed to recognize that budgets often generate conflict whether they are kept secret or open.
Are budgets shared and discussed in your organization?" (p. 71)
Vienna mission:4
KOMSOMOLS:7
These were the numbers I gave these former employers on my earlier reading of this article. The mission budget was discussed, I think, among the department heads and when there was a change that affected everone else it might be mentioned to all, but you must remember that the mission was anything but a democratic institution, so it's not like there was going to be huge amounts of input from the masses or anything.
Since the Komsomols were a small group (5 altogether) I'm sure they discussed finances among themselves regularly. I can't say with any certainty, but I it would seem strange if they didn't. I know that one of their staff was an accountant.
"Conflict Healthy organizations are frequently the noisiest ones. To the outsider, they may appear conflict-ridden. On the inside, however, people are working through friction in a spirit of mutual trust, and ideas are sparked, wrong-headedness is corrected, difference in values are discovered early, and mutually beneficial solutions are created. Trust-poor enterprises, on the other hand, often enjoy the superficial peace of a hospital of a prison. Just below the surface brews suffering or conflict. Deprived of the information that comes from expressing disagreement along the way, they suppress and punish conflict, resolving differences in destructive ways.
Can people comfortably disagree in your organization?" (p. 71)
Vienna mission: 0
KOMSOMOLS: 0
I gave 0 to both, but for somewhat different reasons. In the Vienna mission, disonance was not tolerated. If, behind closed doors, you disclosed some kind of disagreement to an approved person (your mentor, etc.) then the mission would have an in to you to get to you in whatever way they wanted. But generally, it was not okay to disagree with the mission. The Vienna mission was like the "trust-poor enterprise" described above, except that everyone had so internalized the mission's norms and values that it would be highly unlikely that anyone would have any disagreements. Which was just fine with the mission.
The Komsomols, on the other hand, just made it very very difficult to be in conflict with their desires. So you might know what you want (to do) and know that it is in contradiction to what the Komsomols want, and try as you may, they outsmart you as to how to get out of it. So this is a special case of conflict, in which an action is involved. This kind of think happened several tims with them, generally with their leadership.
"Humility Organizations that seek to appear invicible to their members put off workers in the same way that smug, self-righteous people put a distance between themselves and others.
Do people in your organization understand its vulnerabilities?" (p. 71)
Vienna mission:9
KOMSOMOLS:5
I gave the mission a high score because I think the mission did present to the missionaries its vulnerabilities, which is why it was so preoccupied with security. It also discussed money when that was a concern. I actually think this was maybe too high because they didn't trust God enough and got too caught up in it.
I wasn't part of the Komsomols, so I don't know what they talked about among themselves regarding this kind of thing, so I'm just guessing, really, on this one.
Total score:
Vienna mission:32
KOMSOMOLS:30
High (good) scores are over 74 and low (poor) scores are under 26. As you can see, these are close to the poor end, which the author also calls "a suspicious and confining organization." I answered the questions for myself, just from my own perspective, not trying to answer for the whole organization necessarily.
***
I think that's it for now. The Botox is wearing off and my migraine is getting worse again... rats... It was good while it lasted anyway.
