261. Organizational Behavior File, Pt. 9 (Zaleznik, pt. 3)

I got the stationery for sending out notices and thank yous ordered and the CD of the memorial service for mom burned for mom's sister. Then I came home and took a nap.

***

"Deviant behavior arises when the individual fails to internalize the group norms. He does not believe, for example, that the norms are moral, fair, or just, such as the case of the worker of Protestant, rural background who disapproves of the practice of restriction of output found so generally among urban workers of Catholic religious background (White, 1955; Zaleznik, Christensen, & Roethlisberger, 1958). To uphold his convictions he forgoes group rewards. Or, another way of putting the matter, the guilt he would experience as a result of conformity acts as a cost to offset the rewards from group membership." (p. 594).

This clearly describes much of how I felt about the Vienna mission that kept me from conforming at a great cost to myself, which I don't think a lot of people would have been willing to pay. That is, considering the great cost of my nonconformity, there would have to have been a very great conviction to disallow me from relieving myself of that cost and conforming to the groups norms. One issue here is that when I took the stand at the beginning I had no idea, really, what cost I would have to pay for holding my ground. The other is, even if I had given in, there is no guarantee that I would have been rewarded with a career to my liking, because there was still the issue of my dad and how his work might have gotten in the way of me doing what I really wanted to do. If I had given in I might have been rewarded with a life of being a secretary, for example. I don't remember this being of any significance, however, as to whether or not I could go along with the mission and accept its norms and values. That is, even if they could have promised me work roughly fitting what I saw as my interests and gifts, it still wouldn't have been worth giving in to the things I disagreed with.

***

"Deviant behavior also contains its own rewards in the sense that the deviant may experience satisfaction in 'showing up,' or acting superior to, members of a group for whom he feels scorn and disapproval. Group members, on the other hand, seek to exact conformity by imposing punishments for deviant behavior. The effect is to increase the costs of behaving in violation of group norms. The acts of increasing costs explain why Schachter (1953) found in his experimental studies of conformity and deviation that a large proportion of interactions are directed toward the deviant in attempts to 'bring him into line.' But beyond a certain point, the attempts at direct punishment to coerce the deviant become costly to the group members, who may then seek to isolate the deviant or otherwise cast him out of the group." (p. 594).

It should be remembered that this text does not seem to be taking into account leadership or management influences and interventions, which might be separate issues to what is described here, but nonetheless there were some official responses to me, such as in moving me around so much.

Regarding the first issue in this text, about the deviant feeling satisfaction, I think early on I felt a certain amount of this, especially on the issue of involvement with Austrians. I thought the mission was too insular and should have been more all-inclusive in its ministry outreach, not limiting itself just to the "official" ministry it had to Eastern Europe. So in this regard, I think I did scorn them and continued to do so as long as I could hold out against them to continue my own efforts. It didn't take too long, however, to realize that this insularity was probably intentional as a security precaution; but, again, I didn't agree with them that they needed to be as insular as they were. I thought of this as a case of throwing the baby out with the bath water in rejecting virtually all types of Austrian ministry for security's sake. However, I did understand that having any such ministry would have been difficult for those, for example, who traveled to Eastern Europe a lot, just because of time constraints and the need to also spend time with family.

The rest of the text does describe pretty well, I think how the mission related to me, ending up by trying to isolate me and otherwise encourage my departure at the end of my two-year commitment. They started this process in earnest after my parents left, but after dad left but mom stayed on to teach health at the new English language Christian school they were already beginning to treat me this way.

***

The text goes on to describe "the superior-subordinate relationship," which would, in my case, be my relationship with my boss who I was secretary for (at least who I was supposed to be secretary for and was so maybe 2/5 of the time I was with the mission.

"The superordinate exercises control through the rewards he is able to provide in his behavior. He may secure reward-providing tasks for the subordinate as a result of his position in the larger social structure. He may teach the subordinate and in the process help the subordinate to enhance his competence and ultimate achievement. The superordinate may also act in ways that protect or buffer the subordinate from undue risks and too early exposure to tasks beyond the subordinate's level of experience and competence. Another way of describing the protective behavior is to point to the costs of exercising responsibility and to suggest that at times the superordinate seeks to limit these costs for his subordinates. The superordinate also provides rewards through seeking advancement for his subordinates. The subordinate, insofar as he experiences these and other rewards, reciprocates through task accomplishment, respect, and esteem for the supervisor." (p. 594-595)

I might as well be describing the moon here because this absolutely does most emphatically NOT describe my relationship with my boss! I don't remember him ever teaching me anything and he never, as far as I know, ever did anything to protect me or seek my advancement. In fact I'm not sure what he might have done at all in relation to me except give me letters to type. It was through my mentor-secretary (the director's secretary) - not through my boss - that I learned I should befriend his family and wife. The only things that could at all have been considered rewards were taking part in the English teaching in Bratislava and the one women's ministry trip. I'm not sure how those opportunities came about though, or whether my boss payed any roll in those things or not. In any case, at the time I didn't think about him as having any part in it.

On my part, I didn't really have that much esteem for my boss, although I don't think I ever disrespected him or that anyone else would have thought that I didn't particularly esteem him. Maybe the buggy eyes and crotch scratching made him lose esteem in my eyes.

***

"A successful superior-subordinate relationship results from an optimization of profit for each individual through the relationship. When one individual's rewards result from costs experienced by the other, the relationship is ripe for conflict.

Conflict in the relationship also results from inappropriate behavior." (p. 595)

There was no way the relationship between my boss and I, as it was set up, could have resulted in "optimization of profit for each individual through the relationship." That is, if the position had to involve spending inordinate attention on his wife and family and required me to leave off Austrian ministry while at the same time not replacing it with other people-contact ministry, then I could not have been satisfied with it no matter how good my relationship with my boss could have been. Since I wasn't committed to being a secretary and I was ambivalent about my boss it probably could not have been optimally profitable for my boss either.

Remember that conflict in the mission was virtually unpermissable, so any conflict would have been stifled, which isn't the same as saying there wasn't any conflict. It would likely have been more difficult to identify, however. That being said, I think there was conflict between my boss and I, but I can't speak with any certainty from his side of things. From my end, though, his behavior in our one-on-one meetings in his office (see above) turned me off and although he didn't appear to be involved in how the mission treated me I couldn't help but expect that he was nonetheless party to the decisions as to how the mission should deal with me. So after the mission sent me home during my 5th month with it there was little chance that I could have been realistically reunited with my boss, although it appears that the two wives that apparently got similar treatment managed to return to Vienna having succumbed and they probably accepted full blame for having been sent home, which meant that they made the requisite change to suit the mission. I, on the other hand, didn't see the problem so much in me as in the mission and I never could change my view on this. I saw the mission as having single-handedly pushed me past my limits, and saw them as being wrong in how they treated me. And if there is any doubt about this, I now have 30+ years after my Vienna years to prove that nothing else has ever led me to that point.

***

That's all for this subject and next time we'll move on to another section of this book chapter.

246. Vienna Mission Years, Pt. 6

This is a traditional Russian Evangelical hymn, based the Lord's Prayer. This copy is from a collection of Russian songs from my undergraduate coursework. I went to a Christian private university.

***

When I was in the thick of things and so much going on I didn't think about this, but afterwards I did. That is, I wondered what I could have done differently or whether it was my fault. I think, though, what had transpired up to this point could not be attributed to me, I don't think. It was the mission who was treating me so intentionally badly, and I hadn't done anything to deserve it. So then one has to look at the mission, I think, and try to figure out why they were doing these things if it wasn't a response to anything I had done. Up to this point it looks to me, in hindsight, that it would probably have to be socialization. That is, the apartment and work issues especially.

The other thing, though, is that I think they intended for my spending so much time just reading software manuals to lead to frustration or some reaction like that that could lead to me opening up and them guiding me into their kind of logic (way of thinking) and the like. All it did though was plant seeds of distrust in them, I think, because I couldn't think of an acceptable reason for them doing these things. If the idea was to lure me in they took the wrong tack with me.

***

After the junior high kids left I joined the other singles in celebrating one of the secretary's birthday's (the one whose jumper I'm wearing). I don't know what we did for her birthday, but I do know that we often went out to dinner and then got standing places for live plays at the Burgtheater. We would pay for the birthday person's ticket and dinner.

The next day I may have gone swimming with one of the other gals at the mission, whose sending mission was the one I'd had connections with before.

Tuesday my landlady took me out to dinner. My calendar says either Chinese food or a heuriger.

Wednesday July 29 one of the other secretaries, the one from Alaska, had me over for dinner.

Then July 30 I might have had dinner at the head of the women's ministry's apartment. I have "tentative" written on the calendar.

***

As you can see, people were very welcoming and social, inviting me over and treating me to dinner and the like. I do remember the first little while like that, being overwhelmed by the welcome, but it eventually wore off. Also, this needs to be seen in contrast to the work I was doing, which was basically nothing - typing a few letters, reading software manuals, etc.

The other thing that started happening somewhere around this time was that my meetings with my boss seemed strange. It felt like I was supposed to have sort of an emotional attachment to him and having a relationship with his family felt like it was a counterbalance to that. But there were a couple things he did in my meetings with him in his office that were really strange. First of all, it felt like he would just be staring at me like with enlarged eyes or something and the other thing is he would scratch his crotch. Really, I'm serious. This happened at least a few times - three or so. I talked about this to a friend in the States who'd had some contact with the mission I worked with before and she said she thought she'd experienced the thing with the eyes there too in meetings with individuals there. I've never experienced anything else like this... ever, and I'm not making it up either.

So what was going on with that? One was the crotch scratching made me think that maybe they knew about that unwise relationship I'd had with the Russian emigrant back in the States (if they knew about it it would have been via the mission I had connections with at that time, and that mission was one of the 15 member missions of the Vienna mission). So in that way it made me feel like they might know more about me than I thought (so then you might wonder what they do know), but it also could mean they thought that was a vulnerable spot for me, to be tempted by men.

As for the eyes, that was just unsettling, so if a person was not coping very well maybe that could unnerve them so that they'd capitulate, if you will. (Really, it did seem like a battle of the wills - them against me.)

So then having both of these things going on made me have to concentrate more on what was said - the spoken words - and try to ignore the body language. That was hard to do, really, though, because Americans (and we were both Americans) generally look people in the eyes a lot of the time when talking to a person, although I tend to look at a person's nose more than their eyes. To avert my eyes away from his face and eyes, however meant I also shouldn't look down because then you'd have that crotch scratching. So what are you supposed to do, stare at the ceiling or walls? That also would seem a bit strange. I think I managed to ignore it enough, however, for them to realize that that approach also wasn't going to work with me. This did happen several times though. In any case, I never "broke down" with confessions, struggles, or the like, which is what I think they wanted, because then they'd have me in a spot to start guiding me into what they wanted me to be like.

So what did we talk about in those meetings? I don't remember a lot about it, except talking about a letter he wasn't typing up or his plans or what he wanted to do or maybe how I'm settling in... small talk and a little about work thrown in.

I felt like I was supposed to have a relationship with my boss that had an intimacy to it, but was respectable and above board otherwise. But it was supposed to be something, I think, that had a strong level of commitment involved too. I could also see this with the other secretaries and their bosses too, this relationship, although I don't know what happened behind closed doors between them. But their interactions were such that it was almost like they knew their boss as well as the wife did, and vice versa, too, of course. In fact, the boss probably knew even more about the secretary than she knew about him. So there was definitely a vulnerability involved in that relationship and having made oneself so mutually vulnerable was a strong safeguard, I think, against doing anything that might cause a problem.

I think that maybe the wives knew about this aspect of the secretary-boss relationship, which made the secretary-wife relationship even more important than it would have been otherwise. It felt like if the wife wasn't connected with the secretary there would be a suspicion of having an affair (an "appearance of evil"), just because of the vulnerability and emotional attachment between the secretary and boss. But there wasn't anything actually going on that could be called an affair. Nevertheless, the flesh being what it was it would be better to have the wife in the picture.

I'm just telling you now how it seemed to me. I know this is strange, and that's how it seemed to me too, especially the meetings with my boss. I just didn't let anything rattle me. But I didn't know who I was dealing with yet, either, because I "hadn't seen nothin' yet" as the saying goes. So if this seems strange, this is only the beginning.

Also, I would just like to add that I came to the understanding about secretary-boss relationships at the mission based on 1) my experience(s) with my boss and 2) observation of the other secretaries and their bosses and how they interrelated.

***

The other thing I would like to say about all these invitations out is that they were mostly instrumental. That is, the people who invited me out were intended to have a relationship with me. Sometimes this was more instrumental than others though. For example, the singles get togethers weren't so much this way, I don't think. Also my relationship to a family from the mission that lived pretty close to me wasn't like that either; that is, we didn't work closely in the mission and so our work didn't require that we socialize together.

I think of all the invitations out that I've covered so far, the ones that would be the most instrumental in nature would be the dinner with the two secretaries (June 29), the dinner with the director of human resources and his wife (June 30), the dinner with my boss' family (July 15) and the dinner with the had of the women's ministry (June 30, tentative). So these weren't invitations just for straight friendliness, but for some work-related reason.

This gives you a little insight into how at least some of the relationships were at the mission, that is, instrumental. You were supposed to understand who in the mission you should be closest to and these people would be part of your control network - that is keeping each other in line according to the mission's norms. Also, invitations can also, then have other meanings to them, such as the invitation (tentative) to have dinner with the head of the women's ministry. This might indicate that they were considering me for some role in the women's ministry, and if I was alert and tentative to this kind of thing, I would understand that meaning of the invitation. At the same time, I might also realize that my dinner with her could have a similar significance as a job interview, for example.

So there was this kind of thing going on too. There was a huge amount of social control that was sort of in the unspoken realm of the mission's consciousness. This meant too, that social control could also include a disciplinary or negative reinforcement element too, which I found out at the end of my time with the mission.

129. Socialization File, Pt. 12 (Dubin, pt. 11)

I've been trying to keep to doing 2 of these a day (although the last one today was sort of an extra). My recovery from cervical surgery is being slow, so my energy is limited, and I have other things to do too.

Sometimes I may sound angry on this blog, and I do think that I have a certain amount of anger in me about some of my experiences. There's another one going on now that I'm trying to figure out how to deal with. I haven't told many people about this project and when I have I haven't given any details, but there are a couple people at church that I think are going to try to make me share some of these things publicly before I want to. Sometimes when I get into these things (people who want me to do things I don't want to), it ends out not very good, like coming up in a public situation where I have to explain myself when I don't particularly want to, or it's not the right setting, or whatever. So I end out avoiding potential situations like that, which in this case would probably mean not going to church until I've finished this project. Also in these kinds of cases it can look like the other person is being supportive when their disregard for my wishes makes me feel disrespected.

But let's leave that and move on. Since the above issue relates to things I'm talking about here, however, I may come back to it if there are any further developments.

***

"What is often missed in the discussion of the influence of reference and/or colleague groups is that the members of such groups are rarely perceived as equals by the recruit. Moore (1969) indicates that it is the role of the significant other that induces a new member to share the group's attitudes and beliefs." (p. 92)

Regarding my perception of myself vis a vis the secretaries, it was a mixed bag. I felt that they were better secretaries than me and certainly they knew the ropes of the organization than I did, but I came with a lot of knowledge and skills that they didn't have too, so I wasn't too encumbered with feelings of inadequacy in my relations with them. Also, I didn't need a lot of help in getting settled because I already had enough experience to get around by myself, and so I'm sure this made me more difficult to socialize.

However, regarding the "significant other" here, I think in my case if there were just one person to pick out as the main one in the socialization effort, it was my boss. That might have been otherwise if I had shared an apartment with one of the other secretaries (the one who called me from Alaska when I was in Colorado on deputation). In that case, she probably would have been the "significant other", but I'm not sure of that either, because she didn't arrive all that long before me and so probably wasn't far enough down the socialization process to be my "significant other" in the sense of having a main role in socializing me; rather our relationship might have been a kind of buddy-buddy system set up, since we were both being socialized at more or less the same time.

The relationship with my boss was a story all itself and I'm not going to go there right now.

***

"Those who feel they have been treated by another with affection and consideration usually regard their personal obligations as binding." (p. 98, quoting Shibutani (1962))

I think this does describe how it was supposed to be between me and my boss, but it was not just between me and him but by association also with his family. They were very kind and attentive (until the end), and I tried to build good relations with his family, especially his wife and one daughter, that I sort of had a big sister relationship with.

I'm not sure internally I responded as they wanted though, because I mostly felt like I was still trying to figure things out and so even with these efforts I was somewhat aloof, I think, and it's possible I could have been a bit of an enigma to them.

***

"Strauss (1968) sees the 'coach' as the significant other for some organizational initiates. The coach (or in some cases, coaches) is one who takes - either formal or informal - responsibility for seeing that a recruit is properly groomed, instructed, advised or cared for during the 'breaking-in' period. He notes that the coach's role is to develop a new identity for the learner by guiding him along a series of noninstitutionalized steps leading to full organizational membership. And the affective relationship that develops between coach and learner is key to the success of the process." (p. 92)

I wasn't going to include this quote, except I thought the last line warranted it's inclusion, with the preceding sentences setting the stage for the final comment.

Indeed, there did seem to be a sort of bond that was supposed to develop between me and my boss and it seemed to be a common sort of thing between the bosses and secretaries. How can I explain it? One thing was that it seemed that the bosses and secretaries got to know each other well enough that they sort of thought along the same lines or understood each other without a lot of extra verbage... sort of like a wife-husband relationship in that regard. But care was always taken for the secretary to have a good relationship with the boss's wife and family, and the boss-secretary relationship was given added respectability by that other relationship. Also the wives weren't at the office day in and day out, so having a relationship with them was important to avoid any possible misconceptions on their part by the secretary and her husband working together at the office and understanding each other so well. In a way, it could have been a benefit of being a wife of someone with a secretary, because other wives didn't have this office connection, although there certainly were other kinds of relationships going on too, but not sort of formalized ones so much as between the secretaries, their bosses and their boss's wife.

In this coaching relationship, which I've described some already in previous posts, there was a closeness that seemed bordering on sensual, which I think is because the socialization process in the mission required great vulnerability (in my opinion) and conformity of values, beliefs and opinions regarding the ministry and how to live while working with the mission (and even afterwards to a certain extent - such as how to represent the mission when you're back home). So there was this vulnerability back and forth going, where the inductee (the secretary) would be going through the throes of adjusting to this new life and her confidant would be there to provide whatever was needed to help her along, including understanding, assurance, counseling, sharing of personal experiences, etc. etc.

I experienced this the first few weeks, but then it was sort of surface issues, but after that I think as I didn't fall in line as I should things all went haywire for me, which is to put it quite mildly. But I could see how the others related and learn things from the other secretaries.

***

"...[T]he manner in which newcomers perceive their social roles and positions is a major influence on the organizational socialization process... At one polar position is the 'cosmopolitan' who is more committed to his specialized role than he is to the organization itself. At the other extreme is the 'local' whom Gouldner depicts as more committed to the organization than to his specialized role. For the cosmopolitan, his reference group is located outside the organization. Hence, socializing the new cosmopolitan member to organizational norms or values that differ from those of his reference group is bound to be difficult." (p. 93)

In many ways, I was a cosmopolitan coming into the mission. However, I didn't have an outside reference group in the sense of other professions (e.g., accountants with their American Institute of Certified Public Accountants). But I did have a sense of the ministry that I'd developed on my own, including not just formal study and part-time and short-term work, but also volunteering at a major center for research on religion in Eastern Europe, spending a week with a Russian pastor and his wife (the sister of someone at my church back home) to experience their ministry with refugees and truckers in Hamburg, trips and relations I'd developed on my own in East Germany, working at a mission library filled with resources on missions to Eastern Europe and preparing a monthly packet of relevant current events and issues gleaned from a wide variety of mission newsletters from many missions, etc. So I may not have had a formal outside reference group, but I certainly had a decent grasp of the profession, if you will of missions to that part of the world. There was this sort of nebulous commitment to what I perceived as that profession "missionary to Eastern Europe", which was based on a fair amount of experience and knowledge.

In my case, I don't think they knew what they were dealing with. They didn't know I was a "cosmopolitan" and I don't think they knew why I was evading their efforts to socialize me (again, assuming that's what they were trying to do). Maybe if there had been a professional association to join and I was a card carrying member I would have been easier to identify as a "cosmopolitan". Remember, too, that I'd written all those letters trying to find a mission that would be the best fit for me, so I had an idea of what I was looking for and not looking for. It just so happened that I, despite my best efforts to the contrary, fell into exactly what I was not looking for and it probably would have been nigh impossible to find a group that was what I was looking for, because, as I learned in Vienna, all these missions (at least the ones of any size) were in bed together and were of one ilk.

Please don't say it was my fault though, because who would have told me that they were all like that? Recently my mom asked me if I'd had any problems in Russia regarding religion. I'm not sure if I'd thought exactly in terms of that question (which came following a discussion about a couple working in China), but I never had any problems in Russia that could have been interpreted as religion-related, and I used my rented office were I taught English to have a women's introduction to the Bible class, which I advertised in the local newspaper. The ONLY reason I ever saw as to why I had any problems there was because it all started from my dad working at Boeing as a program manager in the Strategic Defense Initiative/Star Wars. I had no connections with a mission while there (although I toyed with the idea of working with a couple groups while there) and did everything in the open and honestly, which is how I think ministry should be done and that's why I had problems in Vienna. But let it be said that I lived there according to my beliefs and if anyone says it can't be done, you just bring them to me.

I'm not saying that I could do exactly what I did just anywhere, but I am saying that ministry could be done honestly, and while it's very possible that there could be problems, that doesn't justify doing Christian ministry dishonestly. My experience also demonstrates that I did have a fair understanding of the ministry possibilities in that part of the world.

***

Continuing with this discussion regarding possible conflict of allegiances, Van Maanen next addresses the issue of latent identities, which may not affect the socialization process unless a conflict arises between the two set of norms.

"For example, Burchard (1954) found that military chaplains were torn between the cross-pressures of professional and organizational norms. Thus, the new member's resolution of this dilemma has serious consequences for the outcomes of the socialization process." (p. 93)

I'm just itching to get to the file on military chaplains, but we've only just begun this file. Nevertheless, this topic keeps popping up as relevant in so many places. Matthew 6:24 says "No one can serve two masters. Either you will hate the one and love the other, or you will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and money." Although the reference is to the choice of serving God or money, the principle still stands that "No one can serve two masters". So who do you think these chaplains serve? I think they don't serve God primarily, but their earthly master. Our 2-person human resources department was comprised of not one but two U.S. military reserve chaplains. Who do you think they were serving? Of course, when they weren't on military duty and were working with the mission, it would seem that the there wouldn't be a conflict because the whole purpose of the mission was to serve God, right? But why did they need 2 chaplains in those positions? To misquote the old bard (Shakespeare): "Something is rotten in ..." Vienna. Phew, I can smell it all the way over here.

Here's the million dollar question: If the military chaplains in the h.r. department gave me troubles (we'll get to that later), was it for the mission or because of my dad's work, or (even more insidiously) both?

***

That brings us to the end of this chapter section, and it's time for me to start getting ready for bed, which takes an hour or so with all the steps I have to take - mostly health-related tasks.

Good night.

~Meg