The thing is though, that here we have German pastors (in training when I visited them in E. Germany) who would, as you can guess, vouch for me not having culture shock during the time they knew me, which was almost 4 years before I joined the Vienna mission.
***
Returning to our text... The next main section in this journal article is titled: "Review of the Domestic Adjustment Literature."
That is, this section is about adjusting to new work settings in one's homeland (vs. abroad).
"According to Van Maanen and Schein (1979: 211-212), 'Organizational socialization refers minimally... to the fashion in which an individual is taught and learns what behaviors and perspectives are customary and desirable within the work setting as well as what ones are not.'" (p. 296)
I never was completely sure what was expected of me. But the thing was, that I don't think the specific actions were that important to the mission, what they really wanted was just total submission. Until you reached that point the specific actions aren't that important. Of course, the problem I had was that they were a total institution, and although I didn't know that term then, I understood they wanted control of pretty much your whole life while with them (but they wouldn't have to dictate everything, because you knew pretty much what to do, because if you did otherwise you'd soon understand that you were out of line).
If I was going to give my whole life (even just 2 years of it) over to an organization, I had to be pretty certain I agreed with certain things like their values. It seemed very strange that a mission would have values that it didn't want communicated or to be direct about. That made me think that there probably was something that I wouldn't like and would regret later if I did submit. It was a catch-22 really, because you couldn't know these things until you submitted, but I couldn't submit as long as I felt there were things I didn't agree with, which were the things that I wouldn't be privy about until I submitted.
There is one thing I learned about myself at Vienna, although I didn't realize it until some time later, but I don't respond well to being pressured into something, especially something I don't think I'd like (or even things I know I wouldn't like). If the only means of persuasion in such situations is pressure or sheer force, versus rationalization and explanation, then I'm not a good candidate for conversion. To say I'm not a push over, however, implies that the others working at the mission were.
Here are the means I think the mission used to socialize me (assuming that's what they were doing):
> debasement (reading software manuals)
> psychology (assertion of me having culture shock)
> reference group/mentoring (via other secretaries)
> relations with my boss and his family
That's all that I can think of right now where the mission seemed to make an effort to socialize me specifically. Of course, other interactions and organizational events provided opportunities for me to observe and learn, but these weren't planned as being specifically for me.
***
I'm skipping a few sections that don't provide new information or are not otherwise helpful in this exercise of making sense of my time with the Vienna mission. I'm picking up here in a sub-sub-section called: "Sensemaking in the adjustment process."
"In Louis's model [of how individuals adjust to transitions], the pertinent question relates to how an individual makes sense out of his or her new experience. How does the individual cope? To a certain extent, the individual unconsciously acts out of programmed scripts. This is particularly true when the situation confronted is perceived as similar to previous experiences. In other cases, the individual must think and use rational means to understand the situation, and this occurs at a conscious level. Research has indicated that a person uses rational means to sort out confusion when confronted with a novel situation or with a surprise (e.g., unmet expectations) (Abelson, 1976; Langer, 1978). Fastinger's (1956) theory of cognitive dissonance explains the action: When what is expected does not happen, individuals must rationalize it through reanalysis, or what Louis referred to as a 'need... for a return to equilibrium.' (1980a, 337)." (p. 298)
There are helpful ideas here. Let's start with "To a certain extent, the individual unconsciously acts out of programmed scripts." I'm sort of familiar with this type of thing from my English teaching background and interest in sociolinguistics in particular. It's like when you go to the doctor, you know pretty much what to do and say. For example, I might walk in and sign a sheet indicating my arrival. Then I might need to fill out some paperwork so they can bill my insurance and I might need to pay a co-pay. Then I know that I wait until a nurse calls me in and then there are certain usual protocols for interactions with the doctor too.
What programmed scripts might I have expected to be effective in Vienna? I'm going to answer this using commonalities I might have expected there with other groups or situations:
1. I could have expected my work to be similar to other office temp work I'd done (filing, typing letters, etc.)
2. I could have expected the mission to function similar to other East European mission experiences or contacts I'd had
3. I could have expected the mission to have similar values to the ones I'd developed in my work and study of religion in Eastern Europe
4. I could have expected to have a similar value system based on our common conservative Evangelical Christian backgrounds
It's possible I could, with time, think of others, but suffice it to say that none of these fit what I found in the mission. None of those frames fit, the apparent logic of the mission didn't jive with any of these, and none of them served to help me predict actions and responses of the mission. So there was something else going on that none of these protocols fit. What was it? To be honest with you, it might be that your guess is as good as mine. I have a few ideas, but I'm not sure.
***
"Dawis and Lofquist (1984) argued that individuals can adjust by changing the environment in the new situation to more readily correspond to or match their needs and abilities and labeled this mode of adjustment as active. They also argued that individuals can adjust to the new situation by changing themselves and labeled this mode of adjustment as reactive." (p. 299)
Needless to say, the active mode was out of the question in the Vienna mission, unless, maybe you were the director, but even he couldn't have done it single-handedly. It may sound strange (and very naive!), but I hoped for some time that I could have what I thought of as a positive impact on the mission. But that was foolish dreaming. Since submitting was everything at the mission, newcomers had to be reactive and probably even after being socialized there would be precious few opportunities to be active.
***
"Adjustment made by changing neither self nor the situation [Nicholson (1984)] termed replication. Adjustment made by changing self but not the situation he termed absorption. Adjustment made by changing the situation but not the self was called determination. Finally, adjustment made by changing both self and the situation was termed exploration." (p. 299)
This is interesting too. I suspect that somehow a lot of the theologians adjusted by replication. That is there was very little they needed to change to fit in, that somehow there was something in there background that made the transition easy. I'm not sure about this though.
Other than that, all adjustments at the mission wold have to have been absorption. Those were the only two options available there.
So if you came to the mission with pretty much the same values and norms you might adjust by replication, but otherwise most everyone would have adjusted by absorption.
I think absorption is a very good term for the Vienna mission context because, in as much as it was a total institution, your whole life (for your tenure with the mission) became absorbed in it, including your identity, your relations, how you viewed the world, etc. You became the mission.
They would balk at this assertion, though, I'm sure, but I'd like to here from them some examples of exploration or determination as socialization processes of specific individuals if they do respond thus.
***
"According to Dawis and Lofquist (1984), the first set of antecedents of mode of adjustment is the flexibility of the work environment which moderated the mode of adjustment. Nicholson (1984) referred to this notion as role discretion, and both sets of scholars argued that greater role discretion leads to modes of adjustment that focus on adjustment through changing the situation rather than changing aspects of the individual. Additionally, Nicholson (1984) concluded that low role novelty leads to modes of adjustment focused on changing the situation and high role novelty leads to modes focused on changing aspects of the individual." (p.299-300)
Again, the work environment was not flexible in Vienna. I mean, I was given the latitude to arrange my own work flow patterns and the like, but if you (read: I) hadn't yet submitted, you'd just be shuffled off to another position, where, again, you'd have that latitude, but risked being moved again if you still hadn't submitted. So in this way, work environment had some flexibility, but the flexibility became meaningless if you hadn't submitted yet. This was how it worked for me, anyway.
***
"Nicholson argued that socialization tactics that are sequential and serial and that involve divestiture lead individuals to change aspects of themselves, whereas socialization tactics that are random and disjunctive and that involve divestiture lead individuals to change aspects of their work role." (p. 300)
The latter grouping fit my experience in Vienna, but the conclusion ("lead individuals to...") is a non sequitur one. It didn't lead me to "change aspects of my work role" because 1) I wasn't sure what needed to be changed, 2) I was pretty sure it had precious little to do with my "work role" per se, and 3) my position kept changing. So really, it was virtually impossible to try to learn the ropes in such a situation, but if "learning the ropes" wasn't the issue, then there is some logic to it.
***
"Nicholson also argued that two individual variables also affect mode of adjustment. He asserted that low desire for feedback and low need for control lead to adjustment by changing neither aspects of the work role nor the individual and that high desire for feedback and high need for control lead to adjustment by changes in both aspects of the work role and of the individual." (p. 300)
I think I probably had relatively low desire for feedback and low need for control. Or maybe it would be somewhat more accurate to say, that I had relatively low need for feedback and high tolerance for ambiguity. I wouldn't say I particularly desired or didn't desire feedback about my work, but I didn't feel a great need for it generally. It's possible that substituting "high tolerance for ambiguity" is not exactly the same as "low need for control," but I think they're pretty close in this context. I didn't need a high level of control in as much as I was willing for there to be some ambiguity (in the position, regarding the mission, etc.). If the ambiguity became intolerable I would begin to make adjustments to compensate, like try to regain some control.
The other thing here is that, if my tweaking of the statement is at all true to the intended meaning, I would be one of those people who end out changing "neither aspects of the work role nor the individual." This would definitely be anything but acceptable to the mission, that insisted on nothing other than complete submission (absorption). In its eye I'd probably be viewed as being passive, and there probably was some of that in my relations with the mission and in their view of me. I was passive in as much as I was trying to figure them out and not willing to make any major changes (in myself) until I understood it better.
***
This next sub-sub-section is titled: "Relocation Literature."
"The underlying notion was that the greater the disruption of prior routine caused by the relocation, the greater the resulting uncertainty, and the longer it would take before the uncertainty would be reduced to a comfortable level. Breatt (1980) argued that role conflict, role ambiguity, role novelty, and work environment novelty - because these factor tend to increase uncertainty - would be negatively related to adjustment after relocation (i.e., these factors inhibited a smooth and quick adjustment)." (p. 300-301)
I had all of these things, but some of them were intentional (directed specifically at me), and some were organization wide, but towards the end there was little difference between the two (i.e., the mission, I think, was trying to confuse me towards the end so I wouldn't know what was going on and therefore could do less harm after I left, since I was leaving on not good terms).
The role conflict came in when the mission insisted that I was so completely and utterly to be identified as a secretary, and I didn't see myself that way. Role ambiguity came because of there often being little direction and moving around so much. Role novelty was only that in as much as the mission made my role ambiguous and also redefined Eastern European ministry in a way I hadn't expected (i.e., their modus operandi). Work environment novelty existed in as much as the mission seemed to operate in a fashion I totally did not anticipate. Based on this analysis, this theory seems like it might be a helpful framework for understanding my "increased uncertainty" and problems adjusting to life with the mission.
***
This ends that main section of the article, and it's late and I'm tired, so I'm going to leave off here, but we'll pick up where we left off tomorrow.
Good night!
~ Meg
