There's one more character flaw I want to discuss, but I'm going to save it for another post and go straight to the Buchanan article. We've reached the "Results" section of the article.
The author begins by discussing the results for the respondents who fit the first category (1st year on the job as manager). Of the 7 experiences expected to affect commitment at this stage, 3 of them accounted for 78% of the "commitment scale variance in the stage one regression. These were 1) group attitudes toward organization (.56, p<.01) 2) first-year job challenge .31, p<.01), and 3) loyalty conflicts (.11). "The strength of the loyalty conflicts experience suggests that there are limits to the malleability of new managers. Guidance is sought and accepted, but recruits apparently are skeptical of an sensitive to the organization's efforts to influence their attitudes and values. Influence attempts exceeding an individual's threshold of tolerance may well be counterproductive." (p. 542-543)
In this analysis, I seem to have had more in common with these new managers than I did with my fellow missionaries in Vienna, because no one else seemed to have as much problem with the mission's efforts to "influence their attitudes and values." Maybe this is a case in which they were naive and I wasn't? I mean, maybe they considered that since it was a mission trying to change them (assuming it tried to change all new workers) that it can't be a bad thing, because everyone knows that missions are instruments of God, right? Of course, it's very likely they weren't idealists, either, and so didn't have the same problem I did from that standpoint. But at any rate, my threshold wasn't very high, evidently, or maybe it just wasn't high in the areas the mission seemed to want to change me. It was definitely counterproductive if they really did want to integrate me. Of course, if they didn't really want to integrate me their tactics seemed to work reasonably well. If they didn't really want to integrate me that might also help account for the fact that I alone seemed to have so much trouble with what was going on.
***
I had marked up some other portions of text, but I don't think it offers anything new, so I'll just go on to the next text, which is...
Weiss, Howard M. (1978). Social learning of work values in organizations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 63(6) 711-718.
This article is a research paper about how workers learn values in organizations.
***
"In [Weiss's 1977] study, success and competence were influential model characteristics, with imitation occurring only among low-self-esteem workers." (p. 712)
Earlier the author had explained that there were theorized to be 3 main variables in at-work value learning: characteristics of the model, characteristics of the observer, and situation. This sentence just deals with the first two variables.
The important thing I want to mention here is the fact that I did not feel compelled to imitate anyone (e.g., another secretary) might have been at least in part because I didn't have low self-esteem, as that seems to be a characteristic that most usually is present in cases of imitation (at least according to this text).
This could be rather important, but not completely dissimilar to other things I've said before. That is, I felt comfortable in the Austrian context because I'd been there before (one summer ministry term was spent on the outskirts of Vienna) and I also had at least a rudimentary knowledge of German and a fairly good grasp of other things pertinent to where we were living and ministering. Also, I was an independent thinker who had come to a lot of my own conclusions (remember I was one of the few women discussing theology with the male students). It's likely that most others coming to serve in the Vienna mission had at least in these areas less confidence in their own knowledge and skills, so were more susceptible to learning by imitation than I was.
***
"Much of the socialization process can be characterized as an active 'role search' by new workers." (p. 712)
I don't remember doing much role searching per se in Vienna. There wasn't much to search by way of the work I was doing, although I did take instruction about relationships, such as trying to foster friendships with my boss's family. I spent more effort just trying to figure the mission out, though.
***
"The expressed values of models serve as an important source of information to the new employee. However, expressed values alone do not provide enough information. Additional information is provided by the characteristics of the model. Bandura (1971, 1977) has argued that model characteristics such as success, competence, and nurturance provide information about the appropriateness of imitation and the likelihood of the observer receiving valued outcomes for behaving similarly or expressing similar values. Further, not all new employees actively seek the information provided by models. For example, Bandura (1971, 1977) and others (Flanders, 1968, Weiss, 1977) have suggested that individuals with low self-esteem are generally less confident in their own reactions to ambiguous situations and are therefore more likely to imitate others... Additionally, it is suggested that individuals with experience in a similar setting are less likely to engage in fewer role search activities because of previous learning histories." (p. 712)
Again, my model was my boss's boss's secretary. She did give me tips, but we were quite different personalities and are backgrounds were also very different, but I could see how she was involved in mission activities, especially social activities, and take a cue that those kinds of things would probably be appropriate for me too, even if my personality might lead to a somewhat different application. But this wasn't very controversial and I didn't have a problem with it and I don't think the mission faulted me particularly for anything along these lines either.
Since I was most concerned with the values and logic of what I was experiencing and seeing in the mission, I don't think I engaged in much by way of "role searching activities." I was arguably more active in searching for ways to get involved in the Austrian setting than I was in "role searching activities."
While I did have experience in somewhat similar settings, the similarity, which I soon found out, was very limited, at least when talking just about the mission itself.
***
"It was also suggested that individuals who have experienced similar situations or who are confident that their own reactions to various situations are generally correct will be less inclined to engage in role search. This latter argument is the explanation given for the self-esteem effect reported in this study." (p. 717)
I just want to say here that I thought my "reactions to various situations [were] generally correct" in as much as I thought the mission was wrong in what I could see of their ways of operating. In other words, "various situation" for me meant how I thought things should be done, rather than how things were done in the mission. Maybe others coming to the mission didn't have such an entrenched concept of how things should be done. In any case, I didn't think that my reactions were necessarily correct in the sense of what the mission leadership wanted. I knew there was a gap between my view and theirs, but I wasn't sure of a lot of the details of the differences.
***
"It may, in fact, be more useful and accurate to suggest that high-self-esteem individuals also engage in a role search procedure. However, as in any information search, an individual searching for his work role can look internally (at information stored in memory) or externally in the environment. High-self-esteem individuals may find the information retrieved from memory more relevant to the role definition problem than do low-self-esteem individuals. As a result, they would be less likely to seek and use information provided externally by models." (p. 717).
This may describe what I mean about having an idea of how things should have been in Vienna - it was a mental image based on experience, study and, often, careful thought. So that was my point of reference which guided me in my interactions, to a large extent, in the Vienna mission context. They wouldn't have liked that and would have wanted to be the sole source of values. If my conceptual images and ideals had been closer to the mission's there wouldn't have been such a problem, I'm sure, and that's how it would work for people who came from years of working with other Eastern European missions. Since my experience was more heterogeneous, I had never been fully socialized into a mission before, but I had been able to come to my own conclusions. I think learning this way can be advantageous in that it can avoid groupthink and it's also perhaps easier to think outside the box.
***
This brings us to the end of this article, too! So we've just finished 2 articles in one blog! The pile is whittling away, really, and the farther along we go the more I can skip over sections that seem unnecessary and overly redundant.
Showing posts with label mentors. Show all posts
Showing posts with label mentors. Show all posts
Wednesday, March 23, 2011
Sunday, March 6, 2011
136. Socialization File, Pt. 19 (Dubin, pt. 17)
I was thinking about going to church today but I woke up with this cold hanging on that I've been fighting the past few days with Robitussin and (at night) NyQuil. It's not a bad cold, but it's just contributing to the increased fatigue & decreased stamina that's been so slow in easing up from after the surgery. (The surgery-related fatigue was getting better until I was able to go without the neck brace.) I've taken to erring mostly on the conservative side, so I thought it best to stay home.
I don't suppose they'd ask me right away to speak (esp. about my life history), but I'm afraid it's going to be quite a while (!) before I'm done with this and want to go public with it. It's hard to find people I can talk with about it without some repercussion. And I'm really hoping that this blog doesn't get noticed till I'm much farther along; otherwise it will just be that much easier for people to come to early conclusions about interpretations, when there really could be something later on that should be taken into consideration.
***
This section is titled "Apprenticeship".
In the first paragraph van Maanen states that "transforming the new member to full status is delegated to selected experienced organizational members", but in the next paragraph says that "the delegation of responsibility is to only one member of the organization." (p. 105)
The one-to-one relationship is undoubtedly the usual understanding of apprenticeship, but since my situation may have been a many-to-one relationship, I'll discuss both of these.
I was (at least initially) supposed to be the secretary of the second in command of the mission, and if there was any one-to-one apprentice-like relationship it would have to be with the secretary of the director (my boss's boss). She was the example and the tutor for my specifically secretarial role and duties. But I think that other people also had lesser socialization-related tutor-like rolls to help integrate me into the organization in general. Although the group situations might have been more akin to role model situations.where apprenticeship would involves more direct and explicit guidance and instruction, whereas role model situations might involve more learning by example. Also, role model situations could be less intentional (although not necessarily) and more observational, whereas apprenticeship would be (generally) more intentional and involve more direct instruction and guidance. In this way, practically everyone and every encounter within the organization might fit one or the other of these (apprentice or role-model) learning types.
While I think that my relationship with the above-mentioned secretary was the most apprentice-like, and was probably intentionally set up to be so, it wasn't like I was consistently or predictably being tutored. Rather, this was carried out in an ad hoc way so that it distinguishing between role modeling and apprenticeship was often difficult to do. And it didn't help that sometimes others would provide apprentice-ship-like instruction or counsel.
This blurring of boundaries is, I think, descriptive of how the organization functioned in general and was part of it's character (or organizational culture, if you will). In a way, I think, this could be disarming and lead the newcomer into a more affective, experiential and relational interaction with the organization, which is to say, less relying on hard facts, sort of like what informal structure (or communication or power or...) is to formal structure (or communication or power or...).
Nevertheless, this secretary I've been talking about was in the position the most like mine and if anyone was to be seen as the expert assigned to guide me into successful functioning in my designated role within the organization.
***
"The one-to-one situation is likely to lead to an intense, value-oriented socialization effort, with the outcomes dependent upon the quality of the affective relationship which may (or may not) develop. In cases of high affect, the socialization process works well and the new member is likely to internalize fully the values of the particular role he is to play. However, when there are few affective bonds between the two individuals, the socialization process is likely to be incomplete and may lead to inefficacious results." (p. 105)
This texts makes me amend somewhat what I just said above. That is, that other secretary was especially who I was to emulate, but for affective guidance, my boss was the lead others (although others, including said secretary, might well have contributed). But affective development vis a vis my boss, involved affective attachment to him in particular. I think how such relationship generally developed in the Vienna mission varied according to the personalities of the boss & secretary and the boss's position. It seemed to me (granted, as one who never fully developed such a relationship), that necessitated a certain amount of blind trust in each other and understanding of what makes the other click, and meant being able to relate to each other in a proper but extra-task and -fact oriented way.
I'm not sure I'm describing this very well, but, personally, I felt like I was supposed to set aside (or get past?) rational/intellectual thinking to just relate to each other without these encumbrances hindering our relationship. I've discussed this process some in other posts, such as in dealing with cult issues.
The affective (emotional) relationship with my boss was particularly important in the meaning presented in this text, and had the potential of drastically affecting my success, one way or the other, with the organization, so the fact that this relationship was never fully developed pretty much tells you, in a nut shell, how things went for me with the mission.
It's not that I didn't like my boss, but, to be honest, he came across to me like a cute little boy. He was a bit shy and maybe had some self-confidence issues. He was very pleasant and easy going and quite easy to work with, but he did some things that put me off and set me on my guard. I felt like he maybe was either trying to test me to see if I could fall into a trap or maybe he was trying to get me to make a confession and open up and thus make myself vulnerable. This was relating on the emotional level, and the problem with that is that, as anyone knows who's been in a bad relationship, you can do a lot of stupid things and get yourself into quite a mess when you leave your brain at the door, so to speak. It's hard enough with the limited brain we're given to avoid problems. (I'm hoping using the "we" here isn't too presumptive of me; I hope I'm not the only one who can relate to this statement.)
A further issue was that while it was a personal relationship with him, and to a certain extent was just that, but it was also a relationship to the organization, and in that regard I half suspected that our supposed tête-à-têtes were discussed among the leadership vis a vis my progress and other related topics of concern to them. So if I opened myself up to him I might as well have brought the whole group in and opened myself up to them using it in how they dealt with me. So, although these one-on-one sessions seemed to be a matter of personal trust, it was really more than that, and, I think, a certain amount of trust in the organization. I couldn't have said this so succinctly then, but I think it's safe to say this was my gut feeling.
The problem was that there were a lot of confusing signals coming my way (from the mission, not from Austria, I might note) that I couldn't really let my guard down with anyone. Certainly not to the extent I felt like was required by my boss in those meetings. If they knew what I was thinking I probably would have had even more problems than I did. But now it's hard for me to convince some people that I had these thoughts and feelings because I didn't reveal them then... even to my parents, until way at the end when I was leaving.
***
"Clearly, in such socialization settings, there is no middle ground - either the new members fail or succeed. Consequently, apprenticeship must be viewed as an expensive mode of socialization for failures cannot easily be rescued. Training, because of its ease, efficiency and predictability, has tended to replace apprenticeship in the modern organization - except for those positions considered of high importance." (p. 105)
Pretty much every position in the Vienna mission was important in the sense that there was potential for risking the security of mission (and even the 15 member missions by extension), so there would have been potential reason to use apprenticeship for virtually everyone, but I'm not sure of the set up for socializing newcomers to other positions. My position was fairly important, not because of me so much, but because of my boss and the fact that by association I'd have access to a lot of information and contacts that could be potentially dangerous in the wrong hands.
As to how expensive this training method is, I think the mission would have used the extensive process to get there (it took me a good 2 years) to avoid mistakes happening... like winding up with slippery, obdurate problems like me.
The comment about there being no middle-ground in apprenticeship situations fit the Vienna mission. I expect that everyone there (with the possible exception of people who came to help for only a short time - weeks or months) went through some type of all-or-nothing experience in their socialization. I definitely felt this while I was there, and noticed it pretty soon after arriving in Vienna, although my understanding of it grew over time.
***
"[D]uring a new member's early organizational experiences, he must be more concerned with satisfying the expectations of his sponsor than with satisfying the expectations of the organization (although the two sets of expectations may be closely related, if not the same)." (p. 105)
The problem with this, was that it never was completely clear what the organization wanted. That is, I wasn't completely sure what the demands were once you've past the total trust barrier (which was a 2-way trust between you and the organization, perhaps mediated by specific individuals).
I certainly tried to do a good job, be pleasant and take initiative, etc. I did all that, but I didn't pass that pesky affective (read: complete trust) part of the socialization. I didn't expect a lot from the mission, in fact, it might have bothered them that I didn't expect more, because that would have, undoubtedly facilitated my affective socialization. But since I didn't really need the organization that much, any more than anyone generally needs their employer, this was actually a problem in my case, which is in direct contradiction to this text.
It's possible even that their usual socialization process was built on the basis of newcomer's need of the organization for pretty much everything, which is, again, opposite of what Van Maanen suggests here.
***
"If the new member is perceived as doing well, the role of the sponsor in the process is likely to be minor. However, if the recruit is perceived as proceeding poorly, the sponsor's role is likely to become much more active." (p. 105)
If this text accurately describes the set up in Vienna, and I think that's a distinct possibility, then some people could have glided through the socialization process barely aware they had a mentor. I think this is quite possible, especially amongst the theologian set. To go through this process so easily, however, I think you'd have to have share some basic assumptions, such as being caught up in the red scare mentality, being a rampant right-wing Moral Majority, card-carrying Republican (or the equivalent in whatever country the missionary comes from), and a sexist. These, I know, are heavy labels to dish out, so I'll just discuss them briefly:
1. Red scare mentality. I've already discussed this. Believing that Communism is inherently, practically and theoretically not enough; you have to also get caught up in the emotional fervor about it (Communism)/them (Communists, Communist countries).
2. Rampant right-wing, etc. I've already discussed this too. This might, possibly, not be as crucial as #1 above, but it would help in seeing the West as being (at least part of) salvation for Communists/Communism. This Westernizes Christianity.
3. Sexist. You had to accept the limits placed on women's involvement and leadership in ministry, which also meant submitting to male leadership. In a "total institution" that's pretty constraining.
At any rate, I perhaps knew my mentor all to well and she didn't know me well enough. It should have been the other way around.
***
And thus ends our discussion on apprenticeship. Next up: Debasement Experiences.
I don't suppose they'd ask me right away to speak (esp. about my life history), but I'm afraid it's going to be quite a while (!) before I'm done with this and want to go public with it. It's hard to find people I can talk with about it without some repercussion. And I'm really hoping that this blog doesn't get noticed till I'm much farther along; otherwise it will just be that much easier for people to come to early conclusions about interpretations, when there really could be something later on that should be taken into consideration.
***
This section is titled "Apprenticeship".
In the first paragraph van Maanen states that "transforming the new member to full status is delegated to selected experienced organizational members", but in the next paragraph says that "the delegation of responsibility is to only one member of the organization." (p. 105)
The one-to-one relationship is undoubtedly the usual understanding of apprenticeship, but since my situation may have been a many-to-one relationship, I'll discuss both of these.
I was (at least initially) supposed to be the secretary of the second in command of the mission, and if there was any one-to-one apprentice-like relationship it would have to be with the secretary of the director (my boss's boss). She was the example and the tutor for my specifically secretarial role and duties. But I think that other people also had lesser socialization-related tutor-like rolls to help integrate me into the organization in general. Although the group situations might have been more akin to role model situations.where apprenticeship would involves more direct and explicit guidance and instruction, whereas role model situations might involve more learning by example. Also, role model situations could be less intentional (although not necessarily) and more observational, whereas apprenticeship would be (generally) more intentional and involve more direct instruction and guidance. In this way, practically everyone and every encounter within the organization might fit one or the other of these (apprentice or role-model) learning types.
While I think that my relationship with the above-mentioned secretary was the most apprentice-like, and was probably intentionally set up to be so, it wasn't like I was consistently or predictably being tutored. Rather, this was carried out in an ad hoc way so that it distinguishing between role modeling and apprenticeship was often difficult to do. And it didn't help that sometimes others would provide apprentice-ship-like instruction or counsel.
This blurring of boundaries is, I think, descriptive of how the organization functioned in general and was part of it's character (or organizational culture, if you will). In a way, I think, this could be disarming and lead the newcomer into a more affective, experiential and relational interaction with the organization, which is to say, less relying on hard facts, sort of like what informal structure (or communication or power or...) is to formal structure (or communication or power or...).
Nevertheless, this secretary I've been talking about was in the position the most like mine and if anyone was to be seen as the expert assigned to guide me into successful functioning in my designated role within the organization.
***
"The one-to-one situation is likely to lead to an intense, value-oriented socialization effort, with the outcomes dependent upon the quality of the affective relationship which may (or may not) develop. In cases of high affect, the socialization process works well and the new member is likely to internalize fully the values of the particular role he is to play. However, when there are few affective bonds between the two individuals, the socialization process is likely to be incomplete and may lead to inefficacious results." (p. 105)
This texts makes me amend somewhat what I just said above. That is, that other secretary was especially who I was to emulate, but for affective guidance, my boss was the lead others (although others, including said secretary, might well have contributed). But affective development vis a vis my boss, involved affective attachment to him in particular. I think how such relationship generally developed in the Vienna mission varied according to the personalities of the boss & secretary and the boss's position. It seemed to me (granted, as one who never fully developed such a relationship), that necessitated a certain amount of blind trust in each other and understanding of what makes the other click, and meant being able to relate to each other in a proper but extra-task and -fact oriented way.
I'm not sure I'm describing this very well, but, personally, I felt like I was supposed to set aside (or get past?) rational/intellectual thinking to just relate to each other without these encumbrances hindering our relationship. I've discussed this process some in other posts, such as in dealing with cult issues.
The affective (emotional) relationship with my boss was particularly important in the meaning presented in this text, and had the potential of drastically affecting my success, one way or the other, with the organization, so the fact that this relationship was never fully developed pretty much tells you, in a nut shell, how things went for me with the mission.
It's not that I didn't like my boss, but, to be honest, he came across to me like a cute little boy. He was a bit shy and maybe had some self-confidence issues. He was very pleasant and easy going and quite easy to work with, but he did some things that put me off and set me on my guard. I felt like he maybe was either trying to test me to see if I could fall into a trap or maybe he was trying to get me to make a confession and open up and thus make myself vulnerable. This was relating on the emotional level, and the problem with that is that, as anyone knows who's been in a bad relationship, you can do a lot of stupid things and get yourself into quite a mess when you leave your brain at the door, so to speak. It's hard enough with the limited brain we're given to avoid problems. (I'm hoping using the "we" here isn't too presumptive of me; I hope I'm not the only one who can relate to this statement.)
A further issue was that while it was a personal relationship with him, and to a certain extent was just that, but it was also a relationship to the organization, and in that regard I half suspected that our supposed tête-à-têtes were discussed among the leadership vis a vis my progress and other related topics of concern to them. So if I opened myself up to him I might as well have brought the whole group in and opened myself up to them using it in how they dealt with me. So, although these one-on-one sessions seemed to be a matter of personal trust, it was really more than that, and, I think, a certain amount of trust in the organization. I couldn't have said this so succinctly then, but I think it's safe to say this was my gut feeling.
The problem was that there were a lot of confusing signals coming my way (from the mission, not from Austria, I might note) that I couldn't really let my guard down with anyone. Certainly not to the extent I felt like was required by my boss in those meetings. If they knew what I was thinking I probably would have had even more problems than I did. But now it's hard for me to convince some people that I had these thoughts and feelings because I didn't reveal them then... even to my parents, until way at the end when I was leaving.
***
"Clearly, in such socialization settings, there is no middle ground - either the new members fail or succeed. Consequently, apprenticeship must be viewed as an expensive mode of socialization for failures cannot easily be rescued. Training, because of its ease, efficiency and predictability, has tended to replace apprenticeship in the modern organization - except for those positions considered of high importance." (p. 105)
Pretty much every position in the Vienna mission was important in the sense that there was potential for risking the security of mission (and even the 15 member missions by extension), so there would have been potential reason to use apprenticeship for virtually everyone, but I'm not sure of the set up for socializing newcomers to other positions. My position was fairly important, not because of me so much, but because of my boss and the fact that by association I'd have access to a lot of information and contacts that could be potentially dangerous in the wrong hands.
As to how expensive this training method is, I think the mission would have used the extensive process to get there (it took me a good 2 years) to avoid mistakes happening... like winding up with slippery, obdurate problems like me.
The comment about there being no middle-ground in apprenticeship situations fit the Vienna mission. I expect that everyone there (with the possible exception of people who came to help for only a short time - weeks or months) went through some type of all-or-nothing experience in their socialization. I definitely felt this while I was there, and noticed it pretty soon after arriving in Vienna, although my understanding of it grew over time.
***
"[D]uring a new member's early organizational experiences, he must be more concerned with satisfying the expectations of his sponsor than with satisfying the expectations of the organization (although the two sets of expectations may be closely related, if not the same)." (p. 105)
The problem with this, was that it never was completely clear what the organization wanted. That is, I wasn't completely sure what the demands were once you've past the total trust barrier (which was a 2-way trust between you and the organization, perhaps mediated by specific individuals).
I certainly tried to do a good job, be pleasant and take initiative, etc. I did all that, but I didn't pass that pesky affective (read: complete trust) part of the socialization. I didn't expect a lot from the mission, in fact, it might have bothered them that I didn't expect more, because that would have, undoubtedly facilitated my affective socialization. But since I didn't really need the organization that much, any more than anyone generally needs their employer, this was actually a problem in my case, which is in direct contradiction to this text.
It's possible even that their usual socialization process was built on the basis of newcomer's need of the organization for pretty much everything, which is, again, opposite of what Van Maanen suggests here.
***
"If the new member is perceived as doing well, the role of the sponsor in the process is likely to be minor. However, if the recruit is perceived as proceeding poorly, the sponsor's role is likely to become much more active." (p. 105)
If this text accurately describes the set up in Vienna, and I think that's a distinct possibility, then some people could have glided through the socialization process barely aware they had a mentor. I think this is quite possible, especially amongst the theologian set. To go through this process so easily, however, I think you'd have to have share some basic assumptions, such as being caught up in the red scare mentality, being a rampant right-wing Moral Majority, card-carrying Republican (or the equivalent in whatever country the missionary comes from), and a sexist. These, I know, are heavy labels to dish out, so I'll just discuss them briefly:
1. Red scare mentality. I've already discussed this. Believing that Communism is inherently, practically and theoretically not enough; you have to also get caught up in the emotional fervor about it (Communism)/them (Communists, Communist countries).
2. Rampant right-wing, etc. I've already discussed this too. This might, possibly, not be as crucial as #1 above, but it would help in seeing the West as being (at least part of) salvation for Communists/Communism. This Westernizes Christianity.
3. Sexist. You had to accept the limits placed on women's involvement and leadership in ministry, which also meant submitting to male leadership. In a "total institution" that's pretty constraining.
At any rate, I perhaps knew my mentor all to well and she didn't know me well enough. It should have been the other way around.
***
And thus ends our discussion on apprenticeship. Next up: Debasement Experiences.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)