I suppose I should be numbering these "reprieve" entries. I want to continue calling them reprieves, though, because they are interruptions from my regular posting about my history, which currently means the "organizational behavior" file article comments.
There are a few things that have happened that I would like to comment on here. One involves family and the other is regarding church. These are the main things I want to discuss here.
Regarding family, I decided about a week ago I wanted a break from the close communications with my brothers. At the end of my phone conversation with one of my brothers saying how I couldn't believe I'd forgotten my physical therapy appointment, he made a comment comparing me to mom but saying at least I didn't do it repeatedly (that was the gist of his comment). This made me thing that he (if not both of my brothers) were going to look for chances to find me with emotional problems similar to mom. This I understand to be because that's the script the family has for me (which I think was laid out by dad years ago, which may have served, at least in part, to let dad off the hook for the impact his work has had on me. It also undoubtedly served to keep the male and female distinction all that much clearer in the family, regarding roles, stereotypical characteristics and expectations by other members of the family.)
This brief comment had several implications for me. One was that it demonstrated that nothing had changed with mom's death, and that they were still going to look for ways that I am like mom. I attribute this to being at least in part because they have a vested interest in maintaining their privileged position in the family, where the men "where the pants" so to speak. But, as I told my brothers a few weeks ago in an e-mail, I am not their wife and they are not my "head" (I Cor. 11: 3ff). That is, if they want to wear the pants in reference to a woman they are going to have to find themselves wives, because I'm not going to let them play this role vis a vis myself. I understand that rejecting this type of relationship opens myself to being left completely alone, however, because I don't know that they know any other way to relate to women, so if they can't relate to me in this way they aren't going to relate to me in any way at all.
So anyway, the long and the short of it is that I haven't had contact with my brothers for a week or so now. I just told them in an e-mail that I needed some space, but I did comment about how I didn't want to be compared to mom. The fact that I missed one appointment does not make me like mom, it only means that I'm frazzled and at my limits as to how much I can take... which I hope the reader can understand if you've followed how much I've been through just in this one year alone, let alone what immediately preceded this year (i.e., before I started writing this blog). It's not like I am just laying down in bed depressed and not doing anything. Rather, my being at my limits (including declining health from the new stenosis) has resulted in me making errors on various fronts as I try to keep up with everything, but am not so successful at it despite my best efforts.
One thing I will say is that it's possible my brothers might not be completely conscious of doing this or taking this position, but, if I may, I'd like to make a comparison to another social reality that I learned about while in my doctoral studies (which I left before completing). That is, regarding white people's "superiority" as far as social positioning in U.S. culture is concerned. That is, being white has it's advantages here. As far as an individual white person's belief about this in regards to his or her self is concerned, they may deny this as being true, and really believe that there is no difference, at least as far as he or she is concerned. But for the people on the other end of the stick - the non-whites - they feel it more clearly and are more sensitive to this kind of thing because they know they have to overcome this social inequality to be able to function on an even keel with whites. The advantaged party in this kind of relationship is more or less blind to inequalities, but the less advantaged party experiences it more clearly. This is the case with being woman in relation to men in many contexts too.
But my brothers may also be more aware of this relationship with women, and maybe with me in particular, than I give them credit for, in as much as they may realize their is sibling rivalry going on and they understand that the male card is one way they can try to maintain or gain superiority over me (or at least equality with me if they feel like they are disadvantaged in some other non-gender-related way). Also, they may have this image of maleness that disallows for a woman being strong. Having a strong woman, I suspect, can have at least two implications. One is that the woman could be labeled a "feminist," which is a bad thing. The other is that the existence of a strong woman could mean that they are emasculated, failing in their manliness whereby they should be the caretaker and authority over women (or at least women they have close relations with).
It may seem like I'm making a mountain out of a molehill, that is, reading more into a passing comment than is warranted. But I've been in this family 51 years now and my experience and understanding leads me to understand that this comment rests on an underlying pathological (in my opinion) mental construct.
The other thing I'd like to bring out from this brief exchange is how it exemplifies that men (cp. In the Company of Women) don't reveal their weaknesses and to do so is seen as weakness. The context of my admission of having forgotten that physical therapy appointment was in my explaining how I was getting overwhelmed and not keeping up with things very well - that there are just too many things going on in my life. The fact that that brother should verbally compare me to mom (who missed several appointments in the past several months, often for very real physical problems that had nothing to do with her emotional health), is somewhat ironic, however, because the paperwork he sent me regarding the estate had a few pages stapled out of order and one page in duplicate. So he is also having trouble keeping up with things and, if the golden rule is in play here, how he treated me is how he himself would like to be treated. In this case, I would say that when dad died they found his then recent affairs uncharacteristically not in as good an order as one would think considering he was a program manager in the control of very expensive military contract programs. That is, towards the end of his life he wasn't doing so well. I'm not sure how I can compare my brother to him in this situation, however. Might it mean that my brother will die shortly? Or maybe he is becoming overwhelmed with the care of his handicapped son similar to how dad was becoming overwhelmed with the care for mom, especially after she had attempted suicide that winter. This is the kind of thinking that one might expect in a tit for tat comparison of weakness of (adult) children following the weakness of a same-gendered parent. The logic, I think, is rather faulty, but this is how my brother apparently thinks. Or maybe he doesn't want a tit for tat (or "do unto others as you would have them do unto you" thought process.
***
The other thing that I would like to discuss here involves church. Months ago pastor decided to have a membership class with me and another person who'd indicated an interest in joining the church. To accommodate me with my health limitations, he'd offered to have the 3 orientation sessions at my place and even brought the other person here. From the beginning he set timelines so that we could be brought into the church at such and such a specific Sunday. There were a couple delays because of the other person or him. And then somewhere along the line they decided to have refreshments after church on the day were were publicly admitted as members. Towards the end, though, as I was feeling worse and worse and not attending church regularly (first because of being away when mom died and then not wanting to try to attend the Mother's Day service, followed by declining health.
The week before the service he said that he might have us both share our testimony and do something during the service, and asked me to read Scripture. The middle of the week before the induction I e-mailed him that I was getting worse and didn't want to be asked to do anything extra besides just doing the vows, but later that day he called to ask me to read Scripture, saying he was also asking the other person to do something. It seemed to me that he hadn't read my e-mail yet; otherwise, if he was intentionally ignoring it, that would have worse implications as to what was going on. He was so enthusiastic and made it difficult to opt out, so I rather reluctantly agreed to do it. In the above discussed conversation with my brother I told him about what was going on and he said to just say no.
Meanwhile, I was keeping him and the church updated as to my health issues and finally late last weak I e-mailed him saying I was feeling pressured and "railroaded" into doing more than I could and I said I couldn't promise I would be at church on Sunday because I was feeling so badly. Rather in alarm the pastor called me and said that people were bringing refreshments and making rather a big effort to...
June 14, 2011
I can't remember what interrupted me when I started this post, but I'll try to pick up where I left off.
... celebrate the entrance of 3 new members to the church. He suggested someone drive me to church, so I agreed and a while later he called to let me know about the arrangements to get me to church... but we'd find someone at the time to take me home.
I was feeling so crummy that I didn't even stand for any of the singing and they even had to bring a chair up for me to sit on when taking the vows. I stayed long enough to get just enough refreshments to take my noon meds & supplements, which included pain medicine. One couple had kindly prepared cards to welcome each of us, which was a nice gesture. Otherwise, me and the other gal who had gone through the orientation classes together sat at a small table alone and I was really feeling so badly that I even forgot her name, if you can imagine that! I was so bad off that I should not have been there and I think everyone recognized that and it was pretty awkward.
It would have been better to just say that I was ill and couldn't make it, instead of going through all that to get me there. I felt like I was sort of an object, something to add to someone's trophy case. To make it worse, no one from church has even contacted me since.
***
Well, I'll leave that subject for now.
The past couple of weeks have been a wild roller coaster of crises regarding my health and/or the condo search. I asked for some space from my brothers, which allowed me to sort of shelve the whole family thing, including dealing with mom's death. I was in survival mode, which is something, in case you haven't figured that out yet, that I'm quite familiar with. At least my doctors this time around have been on the ball and everyone's doing what they're supposed to be doing, which is a tremendous relief, to say the least. What I went through with the cervical thing this past fall and winter is something that was mostly avoidable... that is, my symptoms should have been dealt with quicker and better. Well, eventually they were handled well, once I found someone who was willing and able to do something about the problem.
This condo thing has been pretty stressful at times, though, and I think my realtor and I have at times had a bit of a love-hate relationship. Well, both of those terms (love and hate) actually exaggerate things, but you get the idea (I hope).
Today and tomorrow could potentially be watersheds in my living situation. This afternoon I meet with my financial adviser and hopefully things will begin to solidify in that regard, although it's still not 100% what my ongoing housing costs will be. Then tomorrow me, my realtor, the listing agent and a general contractor are all convening at the current unit of interest. This should lead to a pretty good estimate of what it would cost from the repair and renovation standpoint (i.e., not counting furniture). I'm trying to stay within a certain amount and I've been spending a lot of time on line trying to realistically figure things out.
For example, I've found various on-line venders that sell everything from furniture (general or specialized), blinds, flooring, paint, blinds, etc. I found 6 venders that have at least one option for each of my main needs (such as dinette set, patio furniture, etc.). Then I went through and selected the best in each category from each vender. The total costs range from about $13k to about $22k. But that's not counting shipping. I've found that most venders have free "curb side shipping," which means they delivery truck will park in front of the building. Beyond that, it's up to you to take it off the truck, bring it inside, bring it in the room of choice, unpack it, and assemble it (if necessary). That is, if you want those things you can have them... for a price. To learn the price for a particular item you usually have to call to ask about it. However, several venders to offer free "white glove" service on specific items, usually the more expensive ones, like large wall sets or china cabinets. Nevertheless, going through this process has let me know what might be reasonable to expect as far as how much to spend on furniture and what types of things are out there to choose between. I've been hampered by my health in doing much running around to local stores, though.
But beyond that I've turned to focus more on preparations for tomorrow's meeting with the general contractor. If the contractor is going to give me a useful and more accurate estimate, I have to provide certain information. For example, cabinet refacing, which this unit needs in the kitchen and also both bathrooms. It would be helpful if I suggested what type of cabinetry I'd like, including hardware. And the flooring and blinds/shades are even more important, because what type of flooring and blinds affect the installation process which directly affects the cost of installation. So I have to have these things reasonably decided upon.
The emotional part of all this has involved things like my realtor getting impatient with me, the interface between me, my lawyer, the realtor, the selling agent, the selling agent's lawyer, the seller, etc. And these communciations are generally not direct but funneled through someone else. Sometimes time has been of the essence. Sometimes it seems as if there has been some miscommunication, etc.
***
As to my health, I had an epidural shot last Thursday for the lumbar. The neuro-surgeon thinks it's lumbar, but the neurologist suspects it's thoracic. I don't have the results of the thoracic MRI yet, although I have the images themselves, which they gave me right afterwards. The thoracic MRI was problematic because hardware from my first spinal diskectomy & fusion (T11-L1) interfered with the imaging, so I had to re-schedule at another location (same company) where they had an open MRI.
Having the epidural allowed me to stop the tramadol, as I was up to 100 mg four times a day. But yesterday and today I've taken 50 mg at lunch.
The past week and a half my legs have been bothering me more, meaning it's become harder to walk. I had a couple good days in there, but it seems to be getting more constant. So whereas the epidural can help the pain, it can't necessarily help the other neurological symptoms, such as muscle weakness. Also, my gastrointestinal system has been affected and a few weeks ago I was prescribed this stuff you drink before having a colonoscopy. Then I was told I could increase my genrlac to 30 ml twice a day (up from once a day). The increased genrlac has helped a lot.
***
Last weekend I started getting caught up on some things so that I didn't feel so all over the place and focused only on whatever was happening at the moment. I hadn't had any contact with my brothers until yesterday and I think that was good, to have that break. Also, having so much to do with such urgency has helped keep my mind of mom and the family. Eventually that will catch up with me, but hopefully by then it will be more manageable to deal with constructively. In this regard, I've been more fortunate than my brothers because they've been working all this time on things regarding mom and even if they've been busy they haven't had the benefit of being able to step back from it. I did scan in and e-mail them a few more sympathy cards I received from the notices I sent out (from all of us). When I get the list, I will likewise send out thank you notes to those who made donations to the church in mom's name. But this is a lot less intense and demanding then the kind of things my brothers have been doing.
***
Well, this is a long enough post, so I'm going to end here. Can you believe my life? If I told you I feel like my whole life has been like this since more or less 1987 would you believe me? I won't make firm statements about whether or not I'm sane or how sane I might be, but I do think that altogether I've dealt reasonably well with everything I've faced. That doesn't mean I've always done everything right though (who has?), or that I haven't had my moments when things got to me. But I think all in all I'm a pretty strong person and fairly observant. I may be too analytical for my own good, but sometimes I feel like I'm treated like a "dumb blond" or "just a woman" or "an easy push over", and I think being observant and intentionally reflective has been one way to deal with these attitudes from others. I'm not saying it's the best way, just that it's something I do and I think it's at least a fairly good approach, especially within my personality.
***
One more thing: I know it may seem like I'll never get back to the chronology, but that's how I've felt about a good part of my life for years now. I'm always thinking things will normalize and then when it appears they are I start to take advantage of that and WHAM! something throws everything out of kilter again and off I go on another crisis and/or tangent...
Showing posts with label coping strategies. Show all posts
Showing posts with label coping strategies. Show all posts
Thursday, June 9, 2011
Saturday, April 30, 2011
262. Organizational Behavior, Pt. 10 (Zaleznik, pt. 4)
We're now continuing on in the section "Structural Theories of Interpersonal Behavior," but moving to the next sub-section "Equilibrium."
***
Also, some of these disagreements, as I've stated them here, indicate a different view of Scripture - either differing interpretations of it and/or differing understandings regarding the role it should play in these kinds of issues. This view of Scripture would have had to have been, I think, addressed for any satisfactory, unforced resolution of our differences to occur. The other major overriding issue was the place of emotions as guiding criterion.
***
This next lengthy discussion, in the same sub-section of the book chapter, describes the theory of social certitude in relation to group interactions. In a nutshell, what this theory says is that every individual has a social standing in the broader society based on that society's values. An organizational member has social certitude if his/her standing in the broader society is mirrored by his/her position in the organization. Thus, a person with relatively low social status but higher position in the organization will have less social certitude than would a person with a better matched social status and organizational position. A decrease in social certitude will result in increased role ambiguity within the organization. Then the author quotes Zaleznik, Christensen, & Roethlisberger (1958, pp. 355-361) regarding 4 implications for interpersional relations in organizations. I am just going to quote one of those implications here:
First of all, I think I need to start with figuring out where I was in terms of "social certitude." In the broader society (of the USA) I was approximately on par with other members of the organization, so I don't think there was any great issue there. However, I think that it is both helpful and relevant to narrow the field a bit to consider my standing in the conservative Evangelical community. The one thing I had going against me here was that I was raised in a church that differed somewhat theologically from the mainstream conservative Evangelical church or denomination, because not only was it dispensational, but it took a mid-Acts position (regarding when the Church started and the dispensation of Law ended). As such, my church background was rather on the fringes of conservative Evangelical Christianity, which affected my social standing in the broader context of conservative Evangelical Christianity (in the USA). I think it affected my standing in at least a couple of ways. First of all, it put me in a minority theological position. Secondly, it resulted in me being less socially connected among groups the mission commonly associated with, including its member missions. Generally speaking, the theological issue would only have come up if I mentioned it or if a direct conflict occurred regarding a doctrinal issue, such as water baptism. I don't remember this ever happening, so it should have been a non-issue. We're left, then, with the social interconnectedness factor, and I think this could well have impacted my standing in the mission. The possible countering factor would have been where I went to Bible school which was well within the mainstream of conservative Evangelical Christianity, but this wasn't enough to make up the difference, because it didn't result in me having a Th.M. (the Bible school didn't offer that degree yet when I was there). Because of the theological differences and the fact that my supporters were virtually all from the same church background as I was raised in, my supporters, including supporting churches, were not motivated to develop interactions with the mission apart from their support of me. So these things all pointed to my having somewhat less social status among conservative Evangelical Christianity and the mission, lacking information to the contrary, didn't consider my abilities and standing developed and used within my home church context.
The other issue, however, is my educational background, which would in some contexts provide me with a certain amount of professional credibility. But this background did not have that affect in the Vienna mission, despite my sense that my background was incredibly relevant to the mission's work.
So it would seem that I experienced a great lack of social certitude at the mission, wherein my position never coincided with my knowledge, skills, education and experience, despite my education and social standing being otherwise similar to others' at the mission. That being said, however, I've already discussed elsewhere how my European Studies background did differ from others' educational background at the mission.
Since I had this lack of social certitude, then, it seems appropriate to consider my possible responses as provided in this text. The numbering corresponds to those in the above quoted text.
(a) I don't think I lessened my interactions with the group; to the contrary, I would say if anything the mission eventually limited its interactions with me.
(b) I also don't think I restricted my activities to more structured social relationships with mission members, which is evident by my social overtures, wherein I took initiative to invite people over, for example.
(c) It would have been difficult for me to excel in technical skill, because this was a moving target since I was moved around so much. And in any case, I don't remember making any concerted effort to excel any more than I would have with or without social certitude.
(d) It was only much later that I developed more social attitudes - about 5 years after leaving the mission when I started trying to make sense of my life such as what led to my having these articles I'm commenting on here. I think my friend in Minneapolis sort of got me started in thinking along these lines, but I gave it my own twists and we would disagree on some significant issues.
(e) I never was the "butt of jokes" that I can remember; I don't think the mission did that kind of thing in general, which does seem fitting for a Christian organization. Nevertheless, I think that this "mixture of respect and disdain" can be viewed as coping mechanisms and it's highly likely that I did use other coping mechanisms, if not this one in particular. I think this deserves more thought. I'll go through a list of coping mechanisms to see which ones I might or might not have used (and why or why not, how others might have viewed my actions, etc.)
There are a couple more interesting quotes in this sub-section, but I need to get on with my day, so I'll just have to finish it in the next post.
***
"The theory of equilibration asserts that a central tendency in interpersonal relations is toward a balanced system in which the interpersonal affinities, perceptions, ideas, and attitudes held by members of a system toward one another and toward impersonal objects are valued in consistent patterns. Take a simple dyad made up of Person and Other. A balanced system results when Person and Other feel and react to objects in ways that correspond to their attachment to each other." (p. 596)It is clear that if one of the parties in this "Person and Other" dyad is me and the other is the mission, there was a great lack of equilibration in our relationship. Here are some issues in which our views differed (views on the left represent the mission, and views on the right represent me):
- philosophy (pragmatism vs. Christian idealism)
- political persuasion (staunch conservative views vs. relative apolitical concerns)
- view of communism (probable red scare mentality vs. relatively unemotional disagreement with it)
- belief about security (virtually anything is admissible vs. security limited by Scriptural guidelines)
- emotional attachment to security (obsession vs. rational precautions)
- ministry boundaries (limited by organizational mission statement vs. limited by Scripture)
- Church and State relations (church-state entanglement admissible vs. church-state entanglement unscriptural)
- etc.
Also, some of these disagreements, as I've stated them here, indicate a different view of Scripture - either differing interpretations of it and/or differing understandings regarding the role it should play in these kinds of issues. This view of Scripture would have had to have been, I think, addressed for any satisfactory, unforced resolution of our differences to occur. The other major overriding issue was the place of emotions as guiding criterion.
***
This next lengthy discussion, in the same sub-section of the book chapter, describes the theory of social certitude in relation to group interactions. In a nutshell, what this theory says is that every individual has a social standing in the broader society based on that society's values. An organizational member has social certitude if his/her standing in the broader society is mirrored by his/her position in the organization. Thus, a person with relatively low social status but higher position in the organization will have less social certitude than would a person with a better matched social status and organizational position. A decrease in social certitude will result in increased role ambiguity within the organization. Then the author quotes Zaleznik, Christensen, & Roethlisberger (1958, pp. 355-361) regarding 4 implications for interpersional relations in organizations. I am just going to quote one of those implications here:
"The less status congruent an individual is (i.e., in a condition of ambiguity), the less certain and more anxious he will be of his standing and position in the eyes of others. This condition of anxiety may be relieved (a) by infrequent interactions, (b) by restricting activities to more structural social relationships in which the ambiguity is accepted, (c) by excelling in technical performance where skill, competence, and knowledge are important, (d) by the expression of more liberal social attitudes, and (e) by the assertion of the ideals over the norms of behavior as to what the determinants of behavior should be." (p. 599)There is a lot to say about this, so this might be a longish comment.
First of all, I think I need to start with figuring out where I was in terms of "social certitude." In the broader society (of the USA) I was approximately on par with other members of the organization, so I don't think there was any great issue there. However, I think that it is both helpful and relevant to narrow the field a bit to consider my standing in the conservative Evangelical community. The one thing I had going against me here was that I was raised in a church that differed somewhat theologically from the mainstream conservative Evangelical church or denomination, because not only was it dispensational, but it took a mid-Acts position (regarding when the Church started and the dispensation of Law ended). As such, my church background was rather on the fringes of conservative Evangelical Christianity, which affected my social standing in the broader context of conservative Evangelical Christianity (in the USA). I think it affected my standing in at least a couple of ways. First of all, it put me in a minority theological position. Secondly, it resulted in me being less socially connected among groups the mission commonly associated with, including its member missions. Generally speaking, the theological issue would only have come up if I mentioned it or if a direct conflict occurred regarding a doctrinal issue, such as water baptism. I don't remember this ever happening, so it should have been a non-issue. We're left, then, with the social interconnectedness factor, and I think this could well have impacted my standing in the mission. The possible countering factor would have been where I went to Bible school which was well within the mainstream of conservative Evangelical Christianity, but this wasn't enough to make up the difference, because it didn't result in me having a Th.M. (the Bible school didn't offer that degree yet when I was there). Because of the theological differences and the fact that my supporters were virtually all from the same church background as I was raised in, my supporters, including supporting churches, were not motivated to develop interactions with the mission apart from their support of me. So these things all pointed to my having somewhat less social status among conservative Evangelical Christianity and the mission, lacking information to the contrary, didn't consider my abilities and standing developed and used within my home church context.
The other issue, however, is my educational background, which would in some contexts provide me with a certain amount of professional credibility. But this background did not have that affect in the Vienna mission, despite my sense that my background was incredibly relevant to the mission's work.
So it would seem that I experienced a great lack of social certitude at the mission, wherein my position never coincided with my knowledge, skills, education and experience, despite my education and social standing being otherwise similar to others' at the mission. That being said, however, I've already discussed elsewhere how my European Studies background did differ from others' educational background at the mission.
Since I had this lack of social certitude, then, it seems appropriate to consider my possible responses as provided in this text. The numbering corresponds to those in the above quoted text.
(a) I don't think I lessened my interactions with the group; to the contrary, I would say if anything the mission eventually limited its interactions with me.
(b) I also don't think I restricted my activities to more structured social relationships with mission members, which is evident by my social overtures, wherein I took initiative to invite people over, for example.
(c) It would have been difficult for me to excel in technical skill, because this was a moving target since I was moved around so much. And in any case, I don't remember making any concerted effort to excel any more than I would have with or without social certitude.
(d) It was only much later that I developed more social attitudes - about 5 years after leaving the mission when I started trying to make sense of my life such as what led to my having these articles I'm commenting on here. I think my friend in Minneapolis sort of got me started in thinking along these lines, but I gave it my own twists and we would disagree on some significant issues.
(e) I never was the "butt of jokes" that I can remember; I don't think the mission did that kind of thing in general, which does seem fitting for a Christian organization. Nevertheless, I think that this "mixture of respect and disdain" can be viewed as coping mechanisms and it's highly likely that I did use other coping mechanisms, if not this one in particular. I think this deserves more thought. I'll go through a list of coping mechanisms to see which ones I might or might not have used (and why or why not, how others might have viewed my actions, etc.)
- Acting out: not coping - giving in to the pressure to misbehave. I didn't do this, and if I had it would have been caught and dealt with right away.
- Aim inhibition: lowering sights to what seems more achievable. I might have done this, at least for the duration of my time with the mission, but not beyond that, which is part of why I couldn't have stayed with the mission and why I went on to get my Master's degree after leaving the mission.
- Altruism: Helping others to help self. I don't think I did this, that is, I didn't become any more altruistic than I otherwise normally was. This might have been something the mission would have wanted, though, as evidence of the individual putting the mission and its members above personal interest which would have been more of a security risk.
- Attack: trying to beat down that which is threatening you. I didn't do that at least partly because I was too scared to do so. It's possible that after I left the mission I had some of this. I don't think I'm doing it now, however, and I am trying to avoid things like this.
- Avoidance: mentally or physically avoiding something that causes distress. Eventually I did this in caving in to the mission's demands to have less contact with Austrians and attend the English-speaking church. But for about 18 months I was able to get by without resorting to this.
- Compartmentalization: separating conflicting thoughts into separated compartments. I think for the most part everything was so confusing that it was hard to do this, but this was probably part of my coping strategy for dealing with how the mission treated me starting about the 5th month of my tenure with it. That is, I think I was able to find enough I could agree to with the mission to allow me to function at a certain level within it, so I compartmentalized things that way - what I could agree with and what I couldn't go along with. Doing this helped with the horrendously stressful dissonance I was experiencing.
- Compensation: making up for a weakness in one area by gain [sic] strength in another. I don't think I did this. The main thing I would have been weak in is not having a Th.M., which couldn't have been compensated for as far as I know, other than actually getting the degree. In any case, my weakness was, as far as I know, noncompliance rather than skill or knowledge.
- Conversion: subconscious conversion of stress into physical symptoms. I didn't do this. (See "somatization.")
- Denial: refusing to acknowledge that an event has occurred. My denial was expressed in my irrational (I now believe) hope that the mission would ever want to hear me out as an equal. It was hard for me to believe that they didn't value my knowledge and skills and actually believed the things they seemed to believe (resulting in their means of operation).
- Displacement: shifting of intended action to a safer target. I don't know that I did this. At least I can't recall right now having done this.
- Dissociation: separating oneself from parts of your life. I don't think I did this, but I expect that the other missionaries had to have done this in order to accept the mission's normative structure and beliefs.
- Emotionality: Outbursts and extreme emotion. I didn't do this, although I think the mission would like for me to have done it, as it would have put me in a vulnerable position and provided a hook for them to catch me with.
- Fantasy: escaping reality into a world of possibility. I don't think I did this, although some might say that my belief structure was unrealistic and thus fantasy-like.
- Help-rejecting complaining: Ask for help then reject it. I don't ever remember rejecting help from the mission or complaining.
- Idealization: playing up the good points and ignoring limitations of things desired. I most likely did this in ignoring the risks involved in the type of ministry I wanted for myself.
- Identification: copying others to take on their characteristics. I did this, identifying with the other secretaries, to the extent I could without giving up my values and interest.
- Intellectualization: avoiding emotion by focusing on facts and logic. I probably did this as a way to get a handle on what was happening to me and what I was seeing in the mission in general, and I expect that this exercise (this blog) is a good example of my doing this.
- Introjection: Bringing things from the outer world into the inner world. I don't think I did this.
- Passive aggression: avoiding refusal by passive avoidance. I definitely did this and I think this has been something I've tended to do since my Vienna mission experience as well. Part of the reason was my fear of the mission, but I was also afraid of how my career was going to be affected by my experiences with the mission. Taking a stance other than passive aggression would mean either having to unilaterally capitulate or leave the mission.
- Performing rituals: Patterns that delay. I don't think I did this. This might be what elsewhere has been called "overconformity" which, as I've said before, would have been seen as nonconformity, maybe as a kind of parody of true conformity.
- Post-traumatic growth: Using the energy of trauma for good. I think I did this to a certain degree after leaving the mission, but how successful or healthy the "growth" was may well have been a mixed bag (i.e., some aspects of the "growth" quite healthy and others less so). I think that the mission might have intended this in how they treated me the 5th month of my tenure with them, and if I did have growth from that traumatic experience it wasn't the kind of growth they would have wanted, because it didn't lead to my internalization of their normative structure and beliefs.
- Projection: seeing your own unwanted feelings in other people. I don't think I did this.
- Provocation: Get others to act so you can retaliate. I didn't do this.
- Rationalization: creating logical reasons for bad behavior. I may have done this in as much as I had to convince myself that I was on solid ground if I was going to risk my profession to withstand the mission's apparent efforts to change me. So, for example, if the real reason I didn't go along with the mission was that I resented someone forcing their views on me, then I might have rationalized my behavior on moral and scriptural grounds. It might be foolhardy of me to out-of-hand deny such rationalization, but I don't think I did use this coping mechanism, because I did actually have strongly held and though-out convictions, knowledge and experience that the mission offended.
- Reaction Formation: avoiding something by taking a polar opposite position. I might have to think about this one a bit, although I don't think I did it. However, there may be some particular issue or the other regarding which I did use this coping mechanism. If I think of something later along these lines I'll come back and note it here.
- Regression: returning to a child state to avoid problems. I don't think I'd ever thought of this before, but I might have done this when, during my temporary return to the USA I ended out focusing on complaints against my parents, rather than addressing the real issues which would have put me in an even worse position than I was (who would have believed my complaints about the mission?). However, I don't think I ever really believed that my childhood experiences were the main issue, although I think I did believe that they weren't completely irrelevant, either though.
- Repression: subconsciously hiding uncomfortable thoughts. I probably did this and pretty much had to do it to continue with the mission without accepting their ways (or at least the ways I had serious issue with). After I left the mission I almost immediately stopped the repression, as is evident from my journal from that year.
- Self-harming: physically damaging the body. I did not do this.
- Somatization: psychological problems turned into physical symptoms. I did experience this, as my asthma became worse with the stress. I also took up running, a physical stress reliever. Also, it was during my time with the Vienna mission that I first began getting occasional stress-related migraine headaches.
- Sublimation: channeling psychic energy into acceptable activities. I don't think I did this. The closest thing I can think of would be taking up jogging as a stress release. If this is considered sublimation, then I did do it.
- Substitution: Replacing one thing with another. The mission's not providing me an outlet for my desire for personal ministry resulted in me substituting such a ministry with it for a ministry on the side external to the mission.
- Suppression: consciously holding back unwanted urges. I undoubtedly suppressed my great anger at the mission and my great sense of injustice as to how I was treated as well as my conviction that they were wrong (in the sense of unscriptural) in some of their ways and apparent beliefs, values and norms.
- Symbolization: turning unwanted thoughts into metaphoric symbols. I don't think I did this, mainly because I don't remember having "unwanted thoughts".
- Trivializing: Making small what is really something big. I don't think I did this because my valuation of issues like how my experiences with the mission would affect my career. If I had trivialized some of these kinds of things I might not have experienced the level of dissonance I did.
- Undoing: actions that psychologically 'undo' wrongdoings for the wrongdoer. I didn't do this because I never thought I had done anything to wrong the mission in any way, other than just not conforming, which I felt I was justified in doing because the issues in which I didn't conform in I disagreed with, and my opinion about these things has never changed.
There are a couple more interesting quotes in this sub-section, but I need to get on with my day, so I'll just have to finish it in the next post.
Thursday, August 19, 2010
78. Defense & High-Reliability Firms File, Part 4 (U.S. Navy, pt. 1)
A lot of the texts in this file are not marked up, so I'm going to have to read them more carefully to pick out the pertinent sections to focus on. So far all the materials I've been discussing on this blog have been previously marked up.
This next text is the chapter from a book:
U.S. Naval Education and Training Command. (1980). Module I (Human Behavior: Guidelines to Leadership and Management Training Courses. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.
Chapter 2: Influencing Human Behavior
***
This chapter begins with a discussion which is basically introducing Maslow's hierarchy of need, although it isn't exactly labeled as that. Leadership is described within that context, recognizing the influence of various needs on how an underling is functioning and responding appropriately.
Then the chapter addresses issues around the employees "will to work" or motivation and the use of various types of incentives to work.
"If negative incentives are used, as is sometimes necessary, the objective should be to use the smallest force that will ensure the desire outcome." (p. 2-9)
When we return to my chronological recounting of events, which will take us to my arrival in Vienna, it will not take long for you to see that extraordinary use of force/negative incentives was used with me. Several questions in this regard could be raised when we get to that point in my story. Such questions might include:
1) What were the objectives in how I was treated?
2) Why was it deemed necessary to use such means with me?
2a) Was it something about me personally that made it seem necessary?
2b) Was it something connected with my dad that made it seem necessary?
2c) Was it more to do with the mission (their plans, their vulnerabilities, their values...)?
3) Was any other approach possible?
3a) If not, why not?
3b) If so, ...
3bi) what other approach(es)?
3bii) why wasn't it/weren't they used instead?
***
"Of all the functions of the leader, that of generating good performance is perhaps the most important. People can be induced to do good work in a number of different ways, some proper and some improper.
The manipulative approach is improper. The manipulative leader uses understanding of human behavior to achieve an end without any real regard for the rights of others. This type leader goes through the motions of giving recognition and enriching the job but the leader's actions lack conviction; one essential ingredient is missing - sincerity. People who sense that there is no real interest in them as individuals, tend to distrust and question the leader's actions." (p. 2-9)
This was written in 1980 and maybe by 1987 this was already passe in the military, or maybe this was truism only accepted by the navy and not in whatever military branches our 2 chaplains were in.
It should come as no surprise, however, that if I say I felt that how I was treated was indeed manipulative, the leadership would point to saying this or doing that as "evidence" to the contrary. They would say that they did indeed care for me.
To give an example of what I mean, but in a different context, in dealing with my brother evicting me resulting in my move back down here, I told the psychologist (who was initially supposed to be going through behavioral therapy for fibromyalgia management until this other crisis erupted) that my brother said he loved me. He, the counselor, responded by supposing that that must be confusing for me, which I brushed off with "I think he really thinks he loves me, but I think it's a strange kind of love." That's along the lines of what I'd say about the leadership in Vienna too.
And as far as the manipulation part goes, it was all the stuff that felt totalitarian in nature without adequate demonstration that they were worthy of the kind of trust they wanted. I couldn't really see how they had my best interests in mind. Probably I was just supposed to trust that they did, but I didn't see that they could be trusted, especially after was I interpreted to be extraordinary "negative incentives."
It was like saying, "Here, trust me; now let me beat you to a pulp." After being "beaten to a pulp" if anything it would, if anything, be harder to trust the person/entity doing the beating or involved in it. Was it expected that beating me to a pulp (figuratively speaking here) would improve my trust? That seems pretty stupid except that it could have been that the fear factor (of being beaten again or worse) was expected to increase trust.
So we come again back to "Why?" Why would they use such negative incentive, if that is what it was intended to be? (And if that isn't what it was intended to be, then what was it intended to be?). It did indeed scare me shitless (pardon the expression). But it actually drove me away from them internally.
***
Chapter 4 is titled "People Under Stress" and much of the chapter is given to the discussion of different reactions people have to stress or stressful situation. I'll address a few of these that I think a used vis a vis the mission in Vienna. I'm not sure I was conscious of using them at the time, although I was conscious of sort of pulling back (out of horror and fear... you might understand when I get to that part of my story).
Apathy is suggested in this text as one example of an aggression as a response to stress. (Part of the text is cut off so I'm having to sort of guess at some of the words.)
"A person, hemmed in by barriers, confronted with continual failure, may [sustain?] a state of hopelessness and apathy. The [person] gives in, quits trying, convinces himself that he doesn't care..." (p. 4-8)
I think that as my time wore on in Vienna I used more and more of this strategy of coping. I didn't quit trying to do my job well, but I quit even giving the impression I was willing to really sort of succumb to their organizational culture. Socially I didn't pull away; it was they that pulled away from me. I became more convinced that we'd sort of reached an impasse on the "big issues" and I was the odd man out. It might sound blunt and trite to say now, but it really killed me inside. I was devastated.
***
"Compensation
The frustrated person, denied one goal, may cast about for something almost as good." (p. 4-9)
Actually, this may have started very soon after starting, because I did want to do more people ministry, but I did not foresee any conflict with me attending an Austrian church and getting involved there, for example. But this was probably a compensation strategy even from the get-go, and as my situation in Vienna became less and less fulfilling I looked elsewhere for fulfilling things to get involved in. Also, this continued after my leaving Vienna as I tried to regroup and look for something else. I'm not sure how the psychology of these kinds of things work, but I think that eventually I found something and then at some point it wasn't a means of compensation but something of value in its own right apart from Vienna.
My intentions regarding outside ministry in Vienna weren't meant to conflict with what I was doing with the mission I was with, but because of the nature of the organization I think they saw it as hindering my socialization into their group.
***
"Paralysis
If conflict is severe, the individual may simply freeze...
Many cases of so-called laziness are probably explainable as paralytic reactions to conflict...
This sort of conflict often has a lot to do with personal efficiency. Most people work as long as work promises to get them somewhere. They will not work when work promises to bring failure, or only small rewards, or downright punishment." (p. 4-11)
I think I experienced a certain amount of this, but I was of strong enough constitution that I could keep going. But immediately after the hammer really hit and I realized that they were actually going to carry out what they said that I did indeed freeze. I don't want to say any more about this yet though.
***
"Of course, any time the person tries to succeed at something it must be realized that one must 'take the bad with the good,' one must suffer some, one must run some risk of failure. If the suffering and risk seem greater than the rewards of success, however, no effort will be made. If the disagreeable aspects of work are too strong, if it looks to one as if the reward, instead of fitting the effort and performance, is a matter of luck, one's behavior will be continually jittery, inefficient, and full of conflict." (p. 4-12)
There was so much ambiguity in my experience of the Vienna mission, that I think different ones of these probably affected me at one time or another. I never shirked at my work though and the quality of my work was acceptable. But I did feel like I was probably obeying the letter of the law and not the spirit of it, in a sense, in as much as I never really accepted the less literal communications and apparent wishes. I felt like the only thing that would bring me into that sphere was full acceptance of their norms and values, which I couldn't do and which seemed to be, just as it was with SGA, nonnegotiable.
***
That's it for that text.
~ Meg
This next text is the chapter from a book:
U.S. Naval Education and Training Command. (1980). Module I (Human Behavior: Guidelines to Leadership and Management Training Courses. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.
Chapter 2: Influencing Human Behavior
***
This chapter begins with a discussion which is basically introducing Maslow's hierarchy of need, although it isn't exactly labeled as that. Leadership is described within that context, recognizing the influence of various needs on how an underling is functioning and responding appropriately.
Then the chapter addresses issues around the employees "will to work" or motivation and the use of various types of incentives to work.
"If negative incentives are used, as is sometimes necessary, the objective should be to use the smallest force that will ensure the desire outcome." (p. 2-9)
When we return to my chronological recounting of events, which will take us to my arrival in Vienna, it will not take long for you to see that extraordinary use of force/negative incentives was used with me. Several questions in this regard could be raised when we get to that point in my story. Such questions might include:
1) What were the objectives in how I was treated?
2) Why was it deemed necessary to use such means with me?
2a) Was it something about me personally that made it seem necessary?
2b) Was it something connected with my dad that made it seem necessary?
2c) Was it more to do with the mission (their plans, their vulnerabilities, their values...)?
3) Was any other approach possible?
3a) If not, why not?
3b) If so, ...
3bi) what other approach(es)?
3bii) why wasn't it/weren't they used instead?
***
"Of all the functions of the leader, that of generating good performance is perhaps the most important. People can be induced to do good work in a number of different ways, some proper and some improper.
The manipulative approach is improper. The manipulative leader uses understanding of human behavior to achieve an end without any real regard for the rights of others. This type leader goes through the motions of giving recognition and enriching the job but the leader's actions lack conviction; one essential ingredient is missing - sincerity. People who sense that there is no real interest in them as individuals, tend to distrust and question the leader's actions." (p. 2-9)
This was written in 1980 and maybe by 1987 this was already passe in the military, or maybe this was truism only accepted by the navy and not in whatever military branches our 2 chaplains were in.
It should come as no surprise, however, that if I say I felt that how I was treated was indeed manipulative, the leadership would point to saying this or doing that as "evidence" to the contrary. They would say that they did indeed care for me.
To give an example of what I mean, but in a different context, in dealing with my brother evicting me resulting in my move back down here, I told the psychologist (who was initially supposed to be going through behavioral therapy for fibromyalgia management until this other crisis erupted) that my brother said he loved me. He, the counselor, responded by supposing that that must be confusing for me, which I brushed off with "I think he really thinks he loves me, but I think it's a strange kind of love." That's along the lines of what I'd say about the leadership in Vienna too.
And as far as the manipulation part goes, it was all the stuff that felt totalitarian in nature without adequate demonstration that they were worthy of the kind of trust they wanted. I couldn't really see how they had my best interests in mind. Probably I was just supposed to trust that they did, but I didn't see that they could be trusted, especially after was I interpreted to be extraordinary "negative incentives."
It was like saying, "Here, trust me; now let me beat you to a pulp." After being "beaten to a pulp" if anything it would, if anything, be harder to trust the person/entity doing the beating or involved in it. Was it expected that beating me to a pulp (figuratively speaking here) would improve my trust? That seems pretty stupid except that it could have been that the fear factor (of being beaten again or worse) was expected to increase trust.
So we come again back to "Why?" Why would they use such negative incentive, if that is what it was intended to be? (And if that isn't what it was intended to be, then what was it intended to be?). It did indeed scare me shitless (pardon the expression). But it actually drove me away from them internally.
***
Chapter 4 is titled "People Under Stress" and much of the chapter is given to the discussion of different reactions people have to stress or stressful situation. I'll address a few of these that I think a used vis a vis the mission in Vienna. I'm not sure I was conscious of using them at the time, although I was conscious of sort of pulling back (out of horror and fear... you might understand when I get to that part of my story).
Apathy is suggested in this text as one example of an aggression as a response to stress. (Part of the text is cut off so I'm having to sort of guess at some of the words.)
"A person, hemmed in by barriers, confronted with continual failure, may [sustain?] a state of hopelessness and apathy. The [person] gives in, quits trying, convinces himself that he doesn't care..." (p. 4-8)
I think that as my time wore on in Vienna I used more and more of this strategy of coping. I didn't quit trying to do my job well, but I quit even giving the impression I was willing to really sort of succumb to their organizational culture. Socially I didn't pull away; it was they that pulled away from me. I became more convinced that we'd sort of reached an impasse on the "big issues" and I was the odd man out. It might sound blunt and trite to say now, but it really killed me inside. I was devastated.
***
"Compensation
The frustrated person, denied one goal, may cast about for something almost as good." (p. 4-9)
Actually, this may have started very soon after starting, because I did want to do more people ministry, but I did not foresee any conflict with me attending an Austrian church and getting involved there, for example. But this was probably a compensation strategy even from the get-go, and as my situation in Vienna became less and less fulfilling I looked elsewhere for fulfilling things to get involved in. Also, this continued after my leaving Vienna as I tried to regroup and look for something else. I'm not sure how the psychology of these kinds of things work, but I think that eventually I found something and then at some point it wasn't a means of compensation but something of value in its own right apart from Vienna.
My intentions regarding outside ministry in Vienna weren't meant to conflict with what I was doing with the mission I was with, but because of the nature of the organization I think they saw it as hindering my socialization into their group.
***
"Paralysis
If conflict is severe, the individual may simply freeze...
Many cases of so-called laziness are probably explainable as paralytic reactions to conflict...
This sort of conflict often has a lot to do with personal efficiency. Most people work as long as work promises to get them somewhere. They will not work when work promises to bring failure, or only small rewards, or downright punishment." (p. 4-11)
I think I experienced a certain amount of this, but I was of strong enough constitution that I could keep going. But immediately after the hammer really hit and I realized that they were actually going to carry out what they said that I did indeed freeze. I don't want to say any more about this yet though.
***
"Of course, any time the person tries to succeed at something it must be realized that one must 'take the bad with the good,' one must suffer some, one must run some risk of failure. If the suffering and risk seem greater than the rewards of success, however, no effort will be made. If the disagreeable aspects of work are too strong, if it looks to one as if the reward, instead of fitting the effort and performance, is a matter of luck, one's behavior will be continually jittery, inefficient, and full of conflict." (p. 4-12)
There was so much ambiguity in my experience of the Vienna mission, that I think different ones of these probably affected me at one time or another. I never shirked at my work though and the quality of my work was acceptable. But I did feel like I was probably obeying the letter of the law and not the spirit of it, in a sense, in as much as I never really accepted the less literal communications and apparent wishes. I felt like the only thing that would bring me into that sphere was full acceptance of their norms and values, which I couldn't do and which seemed to be, just as it was with SGA, nonnegotiable.
***
That's it for that text.
~ Meg
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)