440. Military Chaplaincy, Pt. 47 (Fioramonti, pt. 1)

It's getting late, but I'd try to squeeze in another short post.  I'm waiting for the banana and fruit pulp to defrost a bit to make my bed-time Yo-Na-Na to go with my first round of bed-time meds.  I used to make smoothies, but I've been making these lately.

My first doctor appointment tomorrow morning is on the south side of town and I don't think my legs are up to driving that far.  I already had to reschedule that appointment once, so I feel badly about it, but I just can't see myself trying to make it.  It's frustrating, but I guess they should understand.  It's not like I planned this and I didn't know my legs would go haywire like this.

***

This next article is:

Fioramonti, Mary E. (1993, Spring). The Army chaplaincy and change. The Army Chaplaincy, 18-20.

***

The only section I'm interested in in this article is in the section titled "Use FM 22-102, Soldier Team  Development as a Guide." (p. 20)

The language in the section seems to mix development of teams/groups and development of individuals, but be that as it may, I'm particularly interested in this section under the above heading:

Every soldier goes through a formation stage.  The challenges to face include belonging and acceptance, settling personal and family concerns, and learning about leaders and other soldiers. 

The next stage is development.  A soldier learns to trust leaders and others, find close friends, decide who is in charge, accept the way things are done, adjust to feelings, and overcome family vs. unit conflict.

The final stage, sustainment, is where a soldier begins to assist and trust other team members, share ideas and feelings freely, sustain trust and confidence, share missin and values, experience feelings of pride in the unit and cope with personal and family problems.  (p. 20)

Presumably, if the H.R. staff at the Vienn mission, who were also U.S. military chaplains, and therefore trained in the kind of thing described here, the H.R. department could have included this kind of reasoning in their planning of socialization experiencees for new missionaries to the mission.  Let's see how it might have applied to my experience.

Did it look like they included some kind of acknowledgement that formation might be an issue for me (as with any new member)?  Their initial overwhelming fawning over me could be thought of this way, I think.  At least I suppose that's one way one could look at it.  And people did help explain the basic necessities for getting set up and where things were, such as getting registered with the police or opening a bank account (so I could access my money!).  On the other hand, I was thrust into a totally irrelevant (I thought) peer group, was given drivel to do which made me feel useless in the mission and like I was wasting my supporters' money.  And I was having some unusual stressors at work, such as problems with the computer, too, that I was certain was rigged, so I didn't complain about it, any more than I complained about reading computer manuals for weeks on end.

As to development there has to be a basis for the trust, at least that's how I operate, although maybe I'm strange in that way and the masses of humanity don't require this kind of thing in order to develop that trust.  Since everything possible was done in what I suppose might very loosely be considered my formative period at the Vienna mission to undermine my trust in the mission, it was impossible for me to learn to "trust leaders and others" as in the development stage in this article.  My double life fooled the leaders enough, though, that they didn't know this.  (By double life, I mean that when they sent me home to the USA I learned to keep my real thoughts hidden so well that it was like living a double life; it was the only way I could figure out how to survive there and keep my conscience.)

As to sustainment, well, it hardly seems necessary to even go there, because I practically failed formation and most definitely failed development so there was nothing to sustain.  You can only sustain what has been developed. 

One interesting question arises from this, though.  When the mission sent me back to the USA, were they hoping to get me through formation or development, or both?  I have a feeling that is was development that it would have been generally used for, because I was told that two other wives of well-appointed leaders were also sent home more or less similarly to me.  So I assume that they would have been past the formation stage, and maybe they were being groomed for a more visible position, in which development (where trust, etc.) would be significant issues.

The thing is that first of all, all the details surrounding my early months in Vienna had too many problems in Vienna and then the being sent back to the USA and how that was handled was just too much for me to even come close to ever considering it as "development," as used here in this text.  Before I left Vienna a few people tried to make it sound like I'd be back soon and things like that, but you could tell that people were tiptoeing around it, like something was not right and other people at the mission knew it too even before I left Vienna.  Of course, I never should have agreed to return to the USA, but I've discussed that elsewhere about what my options were and that I was shocked and didn't really believe them until it was right upon me that they were really going to do it.  And it's had impact on the rest of my life, so it's one of the worst things I've ever done.

So what they really needed to do was to take away the individual's free will.  That's, at least, what they would have had to do with me to make me reach the development and sustainment stage.  Just brainwash me or something.  That's what it would take, because short of that I'm not going to allow unwitting takeover of my thought processes and values, and I think that that's exactly what the mission would have been happy to do, although they would have some counseling sessions with mentors and bosses or the H.R. director to help push you over the edge or explain the nuances or overcome any lingering doubts.  But the thing is that my basic values and beliefs have come to me via study and serious thinking and, while I might not be a particularly great theologian or anything, I do mean that I don't just go along with any old thing that crosses my path either. 

I was sorry I never reached the sustainment stage.  But I never, ever could have shared my ideas and feelings freely (which I would have had to do at that stage).  That would have been a recipe for disaster and if they knew what I was feeling I can't imagine what would have happened, but I suspect that my mission term would have been cut short. 

Well, I guess that's all I have to say about this article, so I'll end here.

256. Organizational Behavior File, Pt. 5 (Ouchi, pt. 3)

I'm so wiped out... I had a 10:00 a.m. appointment with my primary care doctor (about the back pain & feet numbness) and I set the alarm on my phone (which is the alarm I used while away the past week) for 6:30 a.m. The alarm went off and I remember vaguely trying to figure out where the alarm was coming from and turning it off. Then I didn't wake up again until about 10:15! I really wanted to keep that appointment, but there's nothing I can do about it now.

I don't want to say any more about recent happenings right now, so I'm just going to go ahead and return to the Ouchi article. It's been over a week since I discussed it, though, so I may need to warm up a bit.

***

We're still in the "Introduction" section of the article, but now we're in the "4. Designing Control Mechanisms: Costs and Benefits" sub-section.

"On the one hand, there is a cost of search and of acquisition: some skills are rare in the labor force and the organization wanting to hire people with those skills will have to search widely and pay higher wages. Once hired, however, such people will be able to perform their tasks without instruction and, if they have also been selected for values (motivation) they will be inclined to work hard without close supervision, both of which will save the organization money. On the other hand, there is the cost of training the unskilled and the indifferent to learn the organization's skills and values and there is the cost of developing and running a supervisory system to monitor, evaluate, and correct their behavior." (p. 240-241)

Generally, the Vienna mission would have brought on missionaries that were skilled in both the tasks and values the mission thought it needed. Regarding tasks, however, I think it would be assumed that most new workers would not have the tasks specific to working in Eastern Europe and the values might need to be tweaked at least a little to conform to aspects of the mission's operations that weren't public knowledge. I suspect that what the mission would generally hope for in new workers would be professional skills (e.g., secretarial, theological, etc.), proper theological beliefs, and, perhaps, a "healthy fear" of communist regimes and/or conservative political (e.g., Republican, Moral Majority, etc.) beliefs. The mission's socialization tactics were, I think, based on the assumptions that these were all in place before the new missionary arrived in Vienna.

In my case, however, my professional (secretarial) skills were pretty rudimentary, I don't know that I really had any political convictions (i.e., Republican, Democrat) and my "fear" of communist regimes was undoubtedly not as well-developed as the mission would have liked. That is, I hadn't succumbed to the "red scare" mentality, although I didn't agree with communist premises nor like how they had been interpreted and applied in Eastern Europe. The mission, as I've said before, didn't seem terribly concerned that I wasn't a professional secretary, but I don't think it knew that I hadn't met the political requirements, which I didn't know were even relevant. Since I did not have the appropriate political stance I was more prone to question their modus operandi, but there were also other reasons, as I've discussed elsewhere (e.g., my Christian idealism stance), for my not readily adopting their ways. Since the mission was most interested in inculcating "proper" values, which they never succeeded in doing with me, I never really got into serious secretarial work, so my lack in that regard wasn't very important.

In any case, my poor fit in these areas (particularly regarding values) resulted in the mission having to spend a lot of time and money on socializing me, assuming that is what they wanted to do with me.

***

"...[V]arious forms of evaluation and control will result in differing individual levels of commitment to or alienation from the organization and its objectives. In general, a control mode which relies heavily on selecting the appropriate people can expect high commitment as a result of internalized values.

At the other extreme, a control mode which depends heavily upon monitoring, evaluating, and correcting in an explicit manner is likely to offend people's sense of autonomy and of self-control and, as a result, will probably result in an unenthusiastic, purely compliant response. In this state, people require even more close supervision, having been alienated from the organization as a result of its control mechanism." (p. 241.)

This is, in fact, more or less what happened with me, that I developed an "unenthusiastic, purely compliant response," having been alienated from the mission. However, this is over-simplifying what happened to a degree as to distort the mission's actions and my response.

Generally, I think the mission did rely heavily on recruiting the appropriate workers, but knew that in as much as a good chunk of its activities were carried out in secret there would always be at least some work on values adjustment and skill development with new recruits. Generally, however, if the new recruits had a general orientation fitting with the mission's values (and the new member was isolated enough from familiar surroundings and people) it wouldn't be all that difficult to socialize the individual to become fully functioning members of the organization. In this system, however, it wouldn't be very easy for the new worker to de-select him/herself before his/her arrival in Vienna because of all the things s/he didn't know about the mission (because those things were the "secret" aspects of how it functioned). So the onus was on the mission to determine whether or not the individual was a good match in those aspects of the work.

Monitoring and evaluation, as I've said before, was complex but also all-pervasive. That is, one's superiors would be monitoring the newcomer's progress, and I suspect that this was discussed formally and/or informally with other mission leaders. But since everyone was expected to internalize the mission's values and ways of doing things, everyone in the mission could play a monitoring and evaluation role, to one extent or another. This would be were social control came into play. Once one had been fully socialized I suspect that even though these controls were still in place one didn't feel it because one was no on the receiving end of corrective control measures.

In my case, again as I've said before, my "sense of autonomy and self-control" was offended because I didn't think the control measures the mission used were necessary or appropriate for a Christian organization. Also, I didn't think I was doing anything to compromise the mission and also wasn't willing to give up my personal responsibility for making moral judgements, which seemed to be what, at least in part, what was required by the mission. I thought (and still think) such a demand is unbiblical.

So in my case the mission's selection process failed in that by bringing me on they were accepting someone who didn't fit their requirements, and then once there they were (more or less) forced to monitor, evaluate and correct me more than usually was the case.

***

"The link between forms of commitment and types of control is quite direct. Internalized commitment is necessary for a market possesses no hierarchical monitoring or policing capabilities. Internalization is also necessary to a clan, which has weak monitoring abilities, that is, evaluation is subtle and slow under this form of control, and thus, without high commitment, the mechanism is capable of drifting quite far aoff course before being corrected. A clan can also be supported with identification, however, and over time, the identification may be converted into internalization of the values of the clan." (p. 843).

I have to backtrack a little to explain this table (click on it to see it better). The top of the chart would characterize, according to the author, organizations that take anyone "(although we assume that everyone is to some extent self-interested, hedonistic, or profit-maximizing" (p. 841). In these cases, such organizations rely on "commitment of each individual to self, since it employs a market mechanism of control in which what is desired is that each person simply maximize his or her personal well-being (profit). Since the organization's objective is thus identical to the individual's objective, we can say that internalization of objectives exists and thus no close supervision will be necessary, and enthusiasm for persuing the organization's goals will be high (since they are also the individual's selfish goals)." (p. 842)

"Market" does not fit the mission because it was not a profit-making institution. So we would have to substitute "profit-making" for something more along the lines of "ministry" or "indigenous church leadership development" or the like. Indeed, anyone wanting to work with the mission would share these kinds of goals, although they are not strictly a matter of self-interest. But for the mission to use these kinds of control, maybe it would have to turn these into self-interest. In this case, the self-interest of the mission would be for the mission's survival and/or growth and for the individual's career interests. If the individual puts enough stock on the "success" of his/her career and his/her career goals mesh closely enough with those of the mission's, then the basic "market control" set up could be reasonably applied, I think, to the Vienna mission's situation, making these substitutions to account for the mission setting. However, since there were some controls in place, this would put the mission in the "clan control" category, which fits other things I've said before.


In this scenario, then, the individual needs to have these internalized self-interested career goals in place for successful integration into the mission, although, as the text (in block quotes above) indicates, identification might have sufficed early on in the newcomer's tenure with the mission. In this set up, the mission's controls would mostly be affective early on in the newcomer's tenure with it, while the individual had an identification stance and was being socialized. Once the individual had been socialized and had moved to the internalization stance the mission could remove formal controls, relying solely on social control mechanisms.

It is possible that because evaluation is "subtle and slow" in the clan control context the mission was not able to adequately, correctly, and in a timely fashion identify my "deviance" from their norms and expectations.

So how could they have caught my deviance? I'm not sure I want to answer this question because I don't want to help the mission figure out more inappropriate (read: unbiblical) ways of functioning. Still, answering it might be useful for understanding what happened when I was with the organization. I'm not sure I can answer this question with any certainty, but I can come up with some suggestive possibilities, I think.

One thing was their indirectness, wherein it seemed there were certain "taboo" topics and/or views/opinions/beliefs, etc. This indirectness and tendency to secrecy provided, I think, a cover for me, that I could use just as the mission used it to hide its true identity from outsiders and unsocialized outsiders. I'm not sure I was really conscious of this, except I did learn to keep my mouth shut which I think I knew I extended to include applications the mission intended (e.g., hiding my disagreements with the mission from my boss). If there had been a method for mutual directness, my disagreements would have been more likely to become evident.

Also, if there had been more formal means of evaluation, such as an annual review, in place, it's possible that, if handled correctly, might have resulted in the mission becoming aware of my disagreements with it.

And if the mission had provided more self-fulfilling work for me to do I might not have become alienated, or at least no as much as I was. I had little career-commitment because they didn't give me enough relevant career opportunities for me to think that working with them my career could evolve in a way I wanted it to. As I said above, this individual career-commitment might have been critical for the mission to function well as it did.

There are likely other things the mission could have done to either catch my deviance or avoid me becoming alienated from them.

***

I had to break off here to go to a doctor appointment. I learned that there was some mild throat weakening up near my tongue, but the doctor thinks it's just from the neuro-surgeon having to cut through muscle to do the cervical diskectomy and fusion in January.

While waiting to get in to see the doctor I called a friend who lives sort of near the doctor's office and she came by and we had a nice chat over lunch. She said I even look tired!

I came home and watered my plants and my neighbor came by with another Vitamin Shoppe package. I guess it's the rest of the back order, but I haven't even opened the first box!

I'm having trouble reading with my new computer glasses, which is a real bummer. I guess I should make another appointment with the optometrist.

***

"The social agreement to suspend judgment about orders from superiors and to simply follow orders (see Blau and Scott [7, pp. 29-30]) is fundamental to bureaucratic control." (p. 842)

This could also be said of the Vienna mission, however, the suspension of judgment is more all-encompassing, so that the individual actually comes to share the same mindset that leads to "orders from superiors." So, whereas in bureaucratic control the suspension of judgment is only regarding individual orders, in the Vienna mission it comprises the whole kit and kaboodle - the entirety of the mission enterprise and its activities. I think this fits the clan concept because in a clan control setting individuals adopt the organization's norms.

***

"The issue of commitment and control may also pose a moral question of some significance. If organizations achieve internalized control purely through selection, then, it would seem, both the individual and the organization are unambiguously satisfied. If internalization is achieved through training of employees into the values and beliefs of the organization, however, then it is possible that some individuals may be subject to economic coercion to modify their values. Indeed, this kind of forced socialization is common in certain of our institutions (what Etzioni refers to as "coercive" organizations) such as the U.S. Marine Corps and many mental hospitals. In some such cases, we accept the abrogation of individual's rights as being secondary to a more pressing need. In the case of a company town or a middle-aged employee with few job options, however, we are less likely to approve of this kind of pressure. As long as organizations maintain an essentially democratic power structure, this danger remains remote. If the hierarchy of authority becomes relatively autocratic, however, the possibility of loss of individual freedom becomes real." (p. 842-843).

As an aside, I would like to say that I don't think I'd thought of comparing the Vienna mission to a mental hospital. That is an intriguing thought, however. In any case, I've shown repeatedly how the mission was a total institution and I've discussed the possibility of it being a coercive one also. How coercion is discussed here makes it appear similar to what I experienced in Vienna. That is, similar to the "company town or middle-aged employee..." for those newly arrived in Vienna to work with the mission it would be difficult to leave once one had arrived, and also before one arrived there would be a lot the recruit wouldn't know about (because the mission didn't want to reveal certain things). So the new recruit, faced with demands by the mission to internalize its norms, would have little choice and the effect would be induction by coercion.

Going back to the beginning of this quote, the author indicates that if internalization of organizational demands is achieved through selection than there is mutual agreement upfront, but if this internalization is achieved via training that occurs after recruitment, then there is the possibility of a moral aspect of the internalization process. I'm not sure what normative basis the author is using to come to this conclusion, but in the case of the Vienna mission it appears to me that using the Bible as a basis for moral determination is reasonable, because the mission was a conservative Evangelical Christian organization.

I will just point to my childhood church, named for the church in Berea:

"10As soon as it was night, the brothers sent Paul and Silas away to Berea. On arriving there, they went to the Jewish synagogue. 11Now the Bereans were of more noble character than the Thessalonians, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true. 12Many of the Jews believed, as did also a number of prominent Greek women and many Greek men." (Acts 17: 10-12)

Since the Bereans are extolled for their questioning of Paul and Silas' teaching and searching the Scripture to see if what they were saying was correct, it seems that this kind of thing is good and one that should be encouraged among believers. However, I'm afraid that I can't say that this would be the case in the Vienna mission. That is, first of all, if they found out that someone (e.g., I) was questioning anything they would pull out all stops to put an immediate halt to such deviant behavior. They would, in the process, make sure that it was clear that they had a monopoly on biblical interpretation and everyone was expected to tow that line. And they would undoubtedly find a scriptural basis for stifling any and all such questioning and use of Scripture as an independent basis for finding answer to such questions. I'm not talking about theology here, as they're open about that and everyone would have to have already agreed to their basic creed. I'm talking about questioning of how the organization operated and its reasoning and the like.

The other thing here is that the mission didn't exactly "train" new recruits in the usual sense, except through socialization, which I've discussed already at some length. But there were not h.r. courses in organizational values and norms, for example. I think that a certain amount of the norms were picked up through trial and error as the individual tried to learn the ropes. During that process certain things would be responded to well and others not so well, which helped steer the individual in the right direction, even if not totally consciously. That is, the individual might respond to some of these cues without really understanding that that's what s/he was doing. In a way this would be good for the mission because what wasn't understood consciously would be easier to deny. That is, if the individual didn't understand what s/he had come to internalize, then when faced with a question by someone outside the mission about it s/he could truthfully indicate lack of knowledge or understanding about the question. This kind of thing would than avoid having to be dishonest while serving the same purpose of not divulging organizational secrets.

***

That's all for this sub-section and I'm going to get on with a few other things I have to do.

234. Pre-Vienna Comments 6

Okay, so here is what I've come up with so far, at least from one angle of the theory-building process. These are the broad-stroke options:

1. The mission truly wanted me on board and anything I might have experienced with them was by way of socialization and the standard way they treated everyone (given similarities in response by the new member, etc.) In this theory, anyone could have experienced the things I did if they had responded as I did to the mission's socialization efforts.

1A. My view of the mission was greatly distorted by the fact that I was unique in how I responded to the mission, and so their response to that gave me an understanding of the mission that otherwise wasn't accurate, or at the very least was different from how others' viewed the mission. (In other words, I saw the mission at its worst, but this was an aberration of its usual self or nature.)

1B. My view of the mission is relatively accurate, either despite the mission having to respond harshly to my nonconformance or because I saw the belly of the beast that others didn't get to see. (In other words, I saw the mission at its worst, and that reflected its true nature.)

2. The mission - or at least those in a position to influence this - were influenced in how they treated me because of who my dad was (his job).

2A. The mission - or at least those in a position to influence this - wanted me to work with them, but only under certain conditions that wouldn't put my father or the mission at risk. This would mean I would have to be more controlled than other members of the mission and there might have been less of a toleration for 'independence' in me. (In other words, my experience of the mission was only partially similar to others' experiences of it and my actions only partially explained its responses to me - since my father's position would have been an extra consideration.)

2A1. My understanding of the mission was, therefore, errant because the mission wasn't acting towards me in a way that truly reflected its basic nature.

2A2. My understanding of the mission was, therefore, more accurate than others' interpretations of it because I saw and experienced what the mission was really like.

2B. The mission- or at least those in a position to influence this - didn't want me there at all because of my dad. In this case, the mission did all it could to get rid of me so I wouldn't be a liability to them.

2B1. My understanding of the mission was, therefore, errant because the mission wasn't acting towards me in a way that truly reflected its basic nature.

2B2. My understanding of the mission was, therefore, more accurate than others' interpretations of it because I saw and experienced what the mission was really like.

***

Let's just briefly take these one by one, in order. I'm not doing a comprehensive analysis, here, you understand.

1. If this is true, then there should have been evidence of variable treatment by the mission with other newcomers, and differences of treatment by the mission should be reasonably explainable based on typical differences such as individual response to the mission's socialization efforts and the nature of the position the individual was filling. It seems like there would have to be some kind of a congruence there between treatment and the apparent reasons for its treatment of the individual.

1A. In this interpretation, the mission acted out of character in how it treated me, even though there treatment of me was all related just to regular socialization efforts. In other words, I was a hard nut to crack and it used uncharacteristic means to pull me in line. Since the mission's actions were otherwise out of character, and my understanding of the mission is based largely on how they treated me, as a result, my understanding of the mission is inaccurate.

1B. In this interpretation, the mission acted in character, but it usually didn't have to use such strenuous means to socialize a newcomer, so members weren't used to seeing that more extreme side of it. As such, my understanding of the mission was accurate in the sense in which what I experienced was truly within its very nature. [For example, if I have a car that can drive 100 miles per hour (160.9344 km/h), but I only ever drive it on side streets, until one day I decide to try it on the expressway, the nature of the car has not changed at all - it always could drive at higher speeds; it's just that I had never driven it that fast before.]

2. In this option, socialization might have played a part in how the mission treated me, but if so there was also the added influence of my dad's work.

2A. Here, the mission wanted me to work for them, but only under tightly controlled circumstances that wouldn't cause a problem. So they really did try to socialize me, but might have been harsher because of the seriousness of the other issue involved, namely my dad's work.

2A1. In this case, the mission's consideration for my dad's work was unusual and did not reflect how it usually operated, in that it didn't normally have any political connections nor respond to these kinds of influences. In this case, my experiences of the mission and the resultant interpretations I gave those experiences did not reflect what the mission was really like.

2A2. If this is true, then how I experienced the mission was fairly indicative of what the mission was really like, because connections and influences of a political nature that resulted in them being concerned about my dad's work was a part of who they really were and how they functioned. In this case, I saw a side of the mission that a lot of people at the mission probably knew little or nothing about.

2B. In this case, I was treated differently from others from the get-go, and nothing I experienced with the mission could be considered socialization in the usual use of the term, because they would have been trying to get rid of me instead of assimilate me.

2A1. In this case, the mission's consideration for my dad's work was unusual and did not reflect how it usually operated, in that it didn't normally have any political connections nor respond to these kinds of influences. In this case, my experiences of the mission and the resultant interpretations I gave those experiences did not reflect what the mission was really like.

2A2. If this is true, then how I experienced the mission was fairly indicative of what the mission was really like, because connections and influences of a political nature that resulted in them being concerned about my dad's work was a part of who they really were and how they functioned. In this case, I saw a side of the mission that a lot of people at the mission probably knew little or nothing about.

***

I'm posting these now, but there will be more to say about them.

228. Socialization File, Pt. 109 (Van Maanen & Schein, pt. 12)

For those of you who are new to my blog, it's often quite difficult to pick things up mid-stream. Right now I'm writing a fictional story about a hypothetical evaluation, based on real people at the mission I worked at, the culture of the mission and otherwise what I knew of the mission.

Then the next section of the blog (after I stop the evaluation story part) is an ongoing effort to try to make sense of my experiences with the mission, and I'm using journal articles and the like as spring boards. I worked in a mission that worked in Eastern Europe (but was located in Vienna, Austria) in the late 1980s before the fall of Communism in that part of the world.

***

The mission leaders and their two guests from the States made some more headway on the evaluation plans. For example, they decided on most of the data collection methods - for each of the questions they'd developed earlier. They also revisited those questions and tweaked them a bit, for clarity and the like. They also developed a general timeline and discussed reporting a bit. They decided to take the morning off and meet around 2:30 the following afternoon to work some more on the plans. In the meantime Ms. Elliott promised to work on the collection development instruments to have drafts for discussion at that meeting. Ms. Elliott also asked everyone to try to think of potential obstacles they might face in the course of carrying out the evaluation and thinking about possible ways to deal with them if they did present a problem.

Mr. Adams and Mr. Benson were visibly tired and they had gotten a lot accomplished so Ms. Elliott tried not to let the meeting go too long, so they were out of the building by 10 o'clock. Mr. Adams took the guests to their hotels and promised that either he or Mr. Benson would be by to pick them up around 2 o'clock the next afternoon. In the meantime, however, they could contact him either at home or the office if they needed anything. He said he had some work to catch up on that had gone neglected, so he was going to spend some time at the office the next morning.

***

Soon after getting to her hotel room Ms. Elliott noticed the light flashing on the phone and found that it meant she had a message waiting. It was the other evaluator she had called earlier. The message said he would be at home for a couple more hours. She looked at the clock and placed the call immediately scrambling for paper and pen as she did.

She recognized the voice on the other end immediately and after they caught up on what each other had been doing most recently Ms. Elliott presented her problem to her colleague who was familiar with doing program evaluations in East Bloc contexts, if not exactly in religious institutions. After listening to Ms. Elliott's description of the situation, he warned her that there could be some serious things going on in the background. He couldn't know for sure in this particular situation, but it sounded like she did need to be careful and he advised taking a more distrustful stance, while not letting on that that's where she was coming from. In any case, he assured her, this wouldn't be her typical Christian institution she was evaluating, so she should be ready for things that she might not normally encounter in other religious organizations. He apologized for being so vague, but he evaluated businesses, not religious institutions and not being there in person it would be hard to be any more specific than that. He did say that if she needed any more help with the project to give him a call. He sounded almost curious to see what would come of the evaluation.

So with her fears confirmed, she knocked on Mr. Douglass' door, but he must have been sleeping already, so she decided to wait until morning to tell him about the phone call.

***

I'm ending this little story here. I never did intend to really finish it in a standard sense and it wasn't meant to be a story just as a story for its own sake, but rather a tool to help you understand what some of the issues were for me in Vienna. Again the people are the same people who were there when I was, except that I changed their names. The evaluator and Foundation president are made up, as are the member mission directors (the one who had come by to take Mr. Lyons away and the other one who was to come the next week).

***

Returning to the textual discussion, these portions of the text are taken from the "Propositions" sub-sub-section under "Interaction of the Socialization Tactics," referring to the socialization tactics I discussed in my most recent previous posts.

"1. A custodial response will be most likely to result from a socialization process which is (1) sequential, (2) variable, (3) serial, and (4) involves divestiture processes.

In other words, the conditions which stimulate a custodial orientation derive from processes which involve the recruit in a definite series of cumulative stages (sequential); without set timetables for a matriculation from one stage to the next, thus implying that boundary passages will be denied the recruit unless certain criteria have been met (variable); involving role models who set the 'correct' example for the recruit (serial); and processes which, through various means, involve the recruit's redefinition of self around certain recognized organizational values (divestiture)." (p. 253)

This is another incredibly accurate, but succinct description of my experience of the socialization process, especially in the first months of my time with the mission. The only quality that I'm not sure fits is the sequential one, because I only saw it as one jumbled up process with everything happening at once, rather than as distinct stages. Also, it felt to me like it was might have been intended to be a before and after situation, where all (pretty much) all the socialization happened until one became assimilated via totally submitting which allowed one to internalize the organizations norms and values. So it wasn't like I moved from divestiture into mentoring/role model/reference group socialization sequentially or moved from partial submitting to more submitting to completely submitting, for example, because, while moving in that direction (or appearing to do so) might have been a sign to the mission that you were responding, but until you had reached the total submission point they were just going to keep up with the socialization tactics, including using divestiture whenever it seemed that the new recruit might be holding back on submitting.

In this way, then, the "criteria" to pass from being an outsider new recruit to an insider new recruit was total submission. It was only after having totally submitted that the mission would start giving the new recruit "real" work and, I think, start providing him/her with more accurate and comprehensible cues as to the group's norms and values - its modus operandi. Until that point it would be difficult to make sense of things and the ambiguity and uncertainty would seem pretty great to the novice.

I've already discussed in some detail elsewhere how my main mentor was probably my boss's boss's secretary and my boss was the other individual with personal influence on my socialization, and that the secretaries were my intended "reference group." Although my position was new and so there couldn't be any continuation regarding the fulfillment of it (from a prior secretary in the position), I think I was expected to be like the other secretaries, which is part of why I felt so smothered by the apparent expectation that I was supposed to see myself as ultimately and primarily a secretary, which I didn't and couldn't do. I guess, in that sense, my views of myself aren't very dependent on what any particular group might think of me, even if the group should otherwise be in a position to be influential in that area. I tend to be the kind of person that if I have convictions about something there's a good reason for it, so unless that reason/those reasons are proven wrong I'm not likely to change them. For example, the fact that I had made a two year commitment to be a secretary for the mission couldn't erase all my other knowledge and skills, a fair amount of which had been recognized by others prior to the mission as being reasonably well developed. So I wasn't too prone to let immediate (current, real time) feedback undo prior feedback without good reason. I didn't (and still don't) consider appeal to force by itself as a "good" reason. However, that being said I think I might sometimes be able to distinguish between strengths that I perceive myself to have in some kind of absolute sense versus in a relative way. That is, I might see myself as having a particular strength, but that it might not be a strength in a particular context. In that way I might not really change my basic understanding about myself, but I might change my understanding of myself in a particular situation.

That being said, I think that in the Vienna context, my ability to do this was wearing down by the last 6 months or so, which is why the next year my journal reflects my confusion and lack of confidence in myself. So I was beginning to change my basic understanding of myself and accept the mission's apparent definition of me (based on how it was treating me, for example). I think that as soon as I started living according to the mission's apparent assessment of me it became more difficult to separate the two views of me and my basic view of myself then began to change to reflect how I was acting, that is, more in accordance to how the mission seemed to view me. This probably could use more fleshing out and psychologists would, undoubtedly have a lot to contribute here, but I think what I'm describing here could really describe part of what I was going through.

I've already talked at some length about the divestiture process I experienced with the mission, but I will comment a bit here, in as much as I think there might be something more to add to the discussion on that topic. As I understand the divestiture process, it is supposed to entail degrading and/or otherwise troublesome experiences meant to strip away (to one extent or another) previously held values, norms, views of oneself, etc., which is supposed to provide the "tabula rasa" then for constructing the new person the organization wants in its employ.

The problem was, however, that I never actually became a "tabula rasa" because of my not allowing the mission to clean the slate thoroughly enough for its purposes, although I might well have been coming close to it by the time I left them. They, then didn't begin any "reconstruction" efforts until they thought I had reached that point. I think at this point in the game it might be worth taking a stab at trying to guestimate what about me might have needed to be "erased" to make the slate clean enough to be able to become their version of the homo sovieticus (irony intended). So here goes...

1. my sense of identity apart from the mission (at least for the duration of my term)
2. my sense of confidence regarding my knowledge and experience in Eastern Europe
3. my sense of efficacy in the Austrian context
4. my view of myself in relation to anyone other than the mission and its members (with the possible exception of my family)
5. my understanding of my relationship with the mission (cp. social exchange theory)
6. my understanding of my relationship with everyone else (cp. social exchange theory)
7. my value structure, including the basic criteria for determining how and when to modify it
8. my views of authority (who has it, when, why, how much of they have why, and what kind of authority)
9. my basic philosophy (St. Augustinian idealism - it might be worth comparing this to how the Soviets especially hated the Roman Catholics and tried to replace pope with the orthodox patriarch because the pope was an external authority and as such not easily controllable/influenced by the Soviet government)
10. my view of "truth" (cp. "truthiness" for a close cousin to the Vienna mission definition)
11. my view of how to interpret and apply (especially apply) Scripture (i.e., not to use it in an apparently manipulative way as a means of coercing someone into changing or as validation for how the mission is treating a member)
12. etc., etc.
    

You might even be able to, if you're so inclined, go through all these posts and add to this list yourself based on the comments I've made here. At any rate, this should give you an idea of why I felt like what I was experiencing in Vienna was like brainwashing and/or mind control. When taken all together, let alone individually, these involve a pretty hefty overhaul of the individual psyche. That being said, however, I should say that I'm writing here from the perspective of how I felt and my experiences, and I can't speak for how pervasive this kind of thing was or how others experienced it. However, for the group to have the kind of solidarity in place it had to have at least a certain amount of this happening in a widespread (i.e., commonly experienced) fashion. And when you think that internalization of group norms was arguably the main security control in place, you can maybe see how that could lead to this kind of all-pervasive demand by the mission for individual change. Then, of course, there's still the issue of what the mission wanted to in still in place of the things with that it's erased from the indivdual's "slate" via divestiture.

***

"3. Role innovation, the redefining of the mission or goals of the role itself, is the most extreme form of innovation and is most likely to occur through a socialization process which is (1) individual, (2) informal, (3) random, (4) disjunctive, and (5) involves investiture processes.

In other words, for an individual to have the motivation and strength to be a role innovator, it is necessary for that person to be reinforced individually by various other members of the organization (which must be an informal process since it implies disloyalty to the role, group, organizational segment, or total organization itself), to be free of sequential stages which might inhibit innovative efforts, to be exposed to innovative role models or none at all, and to experience an affirmation of self throughout the process. It is very difficult indeed to change norms surrounding the mission or goals of an organizationally defined role. Therefore, it will probably only occur when an individual who is innovative in orientation at the outset encounters an essentially benign socialization process which not only does not discourage role innovation, but genuinely encourages it." (p. 254)

The only criteria (in the first paragraph) that surely matched my experience in Vienna, as I've stated before, was that it was individual, but that wasn't so much by choice as because the context pretty much demanded (i.e., newcomers straggled in and those who came in close time proximity to others might have been in very different positions in the mission). So, if this text is correct, the type of socialization I did experience in Vienna should have argued against a role innovation response on the newcomers part, and the fact that my experience did meet all the requirements in the previous text would validate a custodial response by the individual.

I don't want to give the impression that the mission did not want any "innovation" at all, but that initially it probably didn't want innovation of any kind. Then it would loosen the reins on the individual gradually and the person proved him/herself as having internalized the group's norms and values. The group would probably be able to use the individuals choice of areas to innovate in and the characteristics of the innovation itself to determine, at least in part, how well the individual had internalized the group's norms and values. In this way, then, innovation could be both a reward (being allowed a certain amount of innovation) and also a test (to see if the individual's innovation stood up to the organization's values and norms). But, again, I don't think the mission wanted any innovation at all until the individual had learned that s/he had indicated that s/he had submitted in toto to the organization (or at least was making very good and consistent progress in that direction).

***

This, believe it or not, ends the socialization file. I'm going to have to take a bit of a break (hopefully just a few days at the most) to regroup and get everything set up and in order for returning to the chronology. However, I may take one or two posts to try to recap the issues I've been discussing in these literature discussion posts, but then I'll return to the chronology aspect of this blog, picking up with my 1987 arrival in Vienna to work with the mission.

I know it's really too much to expect from my readers to think that they will read my chronology in the light of all these previous posts, but that's my intent and I'm not sure what else to do. The thing is that a typical reader is most likely to use their own experiences and frame of reference as the primary tool for understanding what I do, what I think, what happens to me, what happens around me, etc. I know I did that when I was experiencing and witnessing the things I did in Vienna, but despite all my preparations and background, it wasn't enough to prepare me nor was it adequate to allow me to have a very good or clear understanding of what was happening. And I suspect the average reader doesn't have the benefit even of all the preparations I had gone through - such as the specific subjects I studied (versus, say, engineering or nursing) and the short-term mission experiences in Eastern Europe (when it was the Warsaw Pact). So I expect it's going to be very difficult for the reader to understand what's going on and these discussions and the information that I've provided thus far might help make up for that lack of background. If the reader does attempt to incorporate, in part at least, the information in these earlier posts, then I think (or at least I hope) you will be rewarded with a better understanding of what happened in Vienna, or at least my perspective on what might have happened there.

That being said, however, there is a big caveat, and that is that my review of the literature (as described by my commenting on these texts), while it has helped me greatly to clarify my thoughts about what really was going on and maybe why, there are still a lot of unanswered questions, some or most of which may never be answered conclusively or with any confidence. In as much as that is so, the reader will be hampered in making sense of my experiences just as I am. I know it's hard to live with ambiguity like that and it's likely to dissuade many readers from proceeding, but, if it's any consolation, it's hard for me too to live with the ambiguity, even though I think I'm basically a pretty strong person.

227. Socialization File, Pt. 108 (Van Maanen & Schein, pt. 11)

For those of you who are new to my blog, it's often quite difficult to pick things up mid-stream. Right now I'm writing a fictional story about a hypothetical evaluation, based on real people at the mission I worked at, the culture of the mission and otherwise what I knew of the mission.

Then the next section of the blog (after I stop the evaluation story part) is an ongoing effort to try to make sense of my experiences with the mission, and I'm using journal articles and the like as spring boards. I worked in a mission that worked in Eastern Europe (but was located in Vienna, Austria) in the late 1980s before the fall of Communism in that part of the world.

***

In a few minutes Mr. Nelson came up to the board room and introduced himself to the guests. He understood the Ms. Elliott wanted to return to her hotel for the afternoon, but after acknowledging that he turned to Mr. Douglas and asked him if there was anything in particular he would like to see. At this point Mr. Douglas wasn't sure what he might like to see, at least partly because he was so lost in thought about what was happening. When Mr. Nelson could see that he wasn't sure he made a couple of his own suggestions, knowing what kinds of things guests seemed to like the most. There was a Danube River tour, or the Imperial Palace, or the zoo, or the Museum of Fine Arts... Mr. Nelson interrupted him and said the zoo sounded nice; it would be a nice chance to get out and walk around a bit. He was thinking it might also provide a chance to get to know Mr. Nelson a bit and maybe try to gain a little more insight into the organization he thought he knew pretty well but now wasn't so sure.

So it was settled and Mr. Nelson offered to help Ms. Elliott with her things, and she graciously accepted his offer.

At the hotel Ms. Elliott immediately proceeded to spread out her notes and go over what they had come up with. Then she drew on her years of experience as an evaluator and began to jot down notes about what had happened since they'd arrived Monday evening (it was now Friday afternoon). She noted the people, places, configurations of who they were with when, the comings and goings, what was said and how it was said and reactions that others had to what was said or done. Something was going on behind the scenes that the organization was shielding them from. (Anthropologists have to deal with that kind of thing all the time, but in as much as evaluators use some of the same methods - if to a different end - she had learned from them long ago about how groups might act when being studied, even just for regular research, which shouldn't be as threatening as evaluation. She knew about studies of bushmen in the Australian outback, or junior high social cliques, or...).

When you're right in the middle of a thing it's so easy to miss what's really happening, especially if you're an outsider and don't know the rules of play. But stepping back like this it dawned on her that the mission was probably facing some repercussions because of the evaluation. If this were so, then there could well be some jockeying going on in the background. She wasn't sure how far to take this though. Back home, before coming to Vienna, she had tried without success to find a previous evaluation of a mission to Eastern Europe, or China, or any other Communist country. She hadn't been sure what other types of evaluation might be helpful, although she certainly knew the literature on Christian mission work in general, and had carried out many evaluations on all kinds of mission, including a medical mission outpost in Bolivia, a mission school for street children in Brazil, a church planting mission in Uganda.

She had a colleague that had done an evaluation not long ago on a joint venture in the Soviet Union not long ago, so she decided to tall him to see if he had any suggestions. She left a message on his voice mail and hoped he would call back soon.

Then she proceeded to input all the work they had done into the computer so she could print out sheets for everyone to have. Even if they didn't get any more work done together as a group today the sheets might allow everyone to at least work individually on the evaluation planning.

She decided to not make any changes based on her thoughts about what might be happening in the mission in the background because she wanted to be perceived as someone steady and trustworthy, but that didn't mean she had to just ignore these hunches (which seemed to be becoming more than hunches).

***

At the zoo Mr. Douglass, Mr. Nelson and Gail enjoyed walking around the grounds and looking at the various animals. The two men asked the usual questions about family and work and interests and the like, while Gail mostly listened. They came upon an ice cream stand and Mr. Nelson offered to treat everyone, so they all sat down on a comfortable bench and ate their ice cream. Mr. Douglass decided this might be a good time to try a couple more probing questions, and decided to approach it from a financial angle, since he represented a foundation. So he asked Mr. Douglass about the financial end of the writing and publishing. His answer was mostly predicable, but he did learn about some expenses he might not have thought of on his own, so that was interesting. He was very approving of their effort to include the nationals in the process and try to produce materials relevant to their cultures, which spurred Mr. Nelson into explaining more about this aspect of the process, because it was something they worked hard at. Mr. Douglass listened and nodded affirmatively to these things and noted that it must take extra work to make such provisions in the production process, especially working in Communist countries. Mr. Nelson agreed and shrugged it off as not such extra work, at which point Gail suggested they get up and walk around again because maybe they should head back soon.

***

In Mr. Jeffries office, Mr. Jeffries, Mr. Adams, Mr. Benson and Mr. Mann discussed the fate of Mr. Lyons. Mr. Mann said his mission had sent him here explicitly to withdraw Mr. Lyons from the ministry because they weren't willing to risk any trouble the evaluation might cause. The room was tense, despite Mr. Adams' effort to lighten the atmosphere. Mr. Adams acknowledged that this must put Mr. Mann in a difficult situation and he asked what Mr. Mann thought about his assignment. Mr. Mann said he had come to agree with the rest of the leadership, that they needed to pull out now before the evaluation started so that they would not be connected with it at all. Everyone knew that Mr. Mann's (and Mr. Lyons') mission only worked in Communist countries and that the mission kept a low profile to protect its work and workers, as well as the nationals it worked with. Mr. Adams asked the obvious, just to make sure they were on the same page, wanting to know if that meant Member Mission #2 was intending to pull out of the mission altogether.

Mr. Mann just nodded and looked at the floor. "We had a special meeting last week about this and it was decided that as soon as we take Mr. Lyons out of the mission we will also remove our other ties with you. We respect your work, but will not be able to be a part of it any more."

"Do you have other plans for Mr. Lyons?" asked Mr. Benson.
"Yes, we do," answered Mr. Mann.
"So you don't want to give him the option of switching missions to stay here?" asked Mr. Adams, looking at Mr. Benson.
"We discussed that, but our decision was to pull him out and then let him decide what he wanted to do. We have another position we can offer him. If he chooses to stay here he will have to have a different sending mission."
Mr. Adams offered that if Mr. Lyons wanted to keep his position he could go under his mission.
With that, Mr. Mann got up and handed Mr. Adams a letter, saying as he did, "This letter was prepared by the administration after much prayer; it explains our position and what you can expect from us in the future." Then, with his hand on the doorknob, he turned around and said what a blessing it had been to work with each of the men in the room and he wished God's blessing on the mission as they move forward. And with that he left the room and went to get Mr. Lyons.

***

The men were silent for a moment, which was extremely unusual for each of the men individually, let alone all of them collectively. Finally, as the senior one in the room, Mr. Adams got up and tried to encourage the others with the admonition that they needed to trust the Lord with this as with all aspects of the mission, knowing that where He closes doors He can open others. He directed Mr. Jeffries to work with the East German team regarding the loss of Mr. Lyons. Then he reminded them of their meeting for the next morning. Mr. Benson, following his lead, got up and joined Mr. Adams at the door and the two men left Mr. Jeffries alone in his office. Soon, however, he got up and asked Inga to come in and gave her some instructions and then he went to talk with the East German country coordinator.

***

Gail, Mr. Nelson and Mr. Douglass got to the hotel to check on Ms. Elliott, who they eventually found in the cafe taking a break from her work. They chatted a few minutes to catch up on what they'd each other had been doing all afternoon. Then they went upstairs and Gail called the office and reached Mr. Adams, her boss, in his office. He told her briefly what had transpired and Gail turned her back to the others so the others might not see her face at the news. In her turn, she caught him up with what everyone else had been doing, and then asked him what the game plan was for the evening. Since the mission leadership had the meeting set up for the morning anyway, he thought there wasn't much to do now on that score so maybe everyone should get dinner on their own and, if Mr. Douglass and Ms. Elliott are amenable to it they would work a 2 or 3 hours more on the evaluation. Gail turned and asked everyone what they thought about the proposal and they all nodded in agreement. So it was decided to meet at the mission around 7:30 after everyone had eaten dinner, and the group at the hotel decided to stay there and eat at the cafe where they'd found Ms. Elliott earlier.

Ms. Elliott had taken more and more to watching what was going on, and she understood that Gail's turning away from the group when she was talking to her boss probably signaled some kind of bad news that she didn't want the others, meaning she and Mr. Douglass, to know about.

***

Now I'm turning back to the text, continuing with divestiture/investiture socialization methods.

"1. Divestiture processes are most likely to be found (1) at the point of initial entry into an organization or occupation, and (2) prior to the crossing of major inclusionary boundaries where a recruit must pass some basic test of worthiness for membership in an organizational segment." (p. 252)

I'm not sure if there were any other times, besides initial entry into the organization, when socialization took place in the Vienna mission. If it existed I did not know about it. Also, in the Vienna mission context, as I've said before, the test "of worthiness" was the test of trustworthiness. That is, in as much as the new recruit completely submitted to the mission that recruit was trustworthy, because s/he would do/say/be anything the mission demanded as a result of total submission to the mission. That's how, for example virtually everyone, including youth, shunned me at the end of my time with the mission.

***

"2. Divestiture processes are most likely to lead to a custodial orientation: investiture processes are most likely to lead to an innovative orientation (unless the recruit enters and is rewarded for holding a custodial orientation at the outset.

Divestiture processes, in effect, remold the person and, therefore, are powerful ways for organizations and occupations to control the values of incoming members. Such processes lie at the heart of most professional training, thus helping to explain why professionals appear to be so deeply and permanently socialized. For, once a person has successfully completed a difficult divestiture process and has constructed something of a new identity based on the role to which the divestiture process was directed, there are strong forces toward the maintenance of the new identity. The strongest of these forces is perhaps the fact that the sacrifice involved in building the new identity must be justified, consequently making any disclaimers placed on the new identity extremely difficult for the person to accomplish. Furthermore, since the person's self-esteem following the successful completion of a divestiture process comes to rest on the new self-image, the individual will organize his present and future experiences to insure that his self-esteem can be enhanced or at least maintained (Goffman, 1959; Schein, 1961; Schein and Bennis, 1965). In short, the image becomes self-fulfilling." (p. 252-253)

Wow! Where should I begin? Fortunately, I've already written about a lot of this before, so that, at least, makes it easier.

One thing that's new here, however, regards the socialization in to professions. Maybe the mission members that had the Th.M. (and higher) were already socialized by their training (in a way that I was not in my graduate certificate Bible school studies) in a way that made it easier to be incorporated into the mission. I think the only time I ever felt anything akin to divestiture in any of my professional training (adult education, library science, bible & theology) was maybe in a graduate research position I held in my doctoral studies.

The self-esteem discussion also seems pertinent to the Vienna mission. I think it parallels something I noticed a year or so ago. I was living in small town New England and started getting massages from a nurse who had turned to massage and other alternative medicine. She became involved with a company that had something like a pyramid scheme. I was impressed with what I learned about some of the materials, including the use of magnets - especially after I'd used a "bone growth stimulator" (prescribed by the neuro-surgeon) following thoracic surgery to speed up the bone growth. But a lot of the equipment the company made was on the pricey side, so before considering any such investment (which I couldn't afford anyway) I wanted to learn more about the products. I tried to find research studies, but couldn't find any, even on their internal web site for sales reps. (I joined hoping to get one or two big ticket things on a sales rep discount). My life situation changed, requiring a major move (and outlay of cash), so I canned that idea before it had a chance to even get off the ground. But when I was trying to find research validating the quality and effectiveness of the products, I began to think that people would begin buying the equipment, and maybe find some real benefit from it, but then they would get more products, go to sales meetings and eventually they were so invested in the equipment that just about the only thing they had to go on regarding its effectiveness was individual testimonials. So it was a self-feeding circle in this way, as those farther along told their experiences to the next generation of potential sales people coming up the ranks.

I think this is the kind of thing the text is describing here and I can see how it could be a reasonable depiction of at least part of how the mission functioned. If only Christians would evangelize with the same zeal as those people sold their health products or the missionaries nurtured new members.

***

That's it for this post, and there will just be one more before I go back to the chronology and pick up where I left off.

226. Socialization File, Pt. 107 (Van Maanen & Schein, pt. 10)

For those of you who are new to my blog, it's often quite difficult to pick things up mid-stream. Right now I'm writing a fictional story about a hypothetical evaluation, based on real people at the mission I worked at, the culture of the mission and otherwise what I knew of the mission.

Then the next section of the blog (after I stop the evaluation story part) is an ongoing effort to try to make sense of my experiences with the mission, and I'm using journal articles and the like as spring boards. I worked in a mission that worked in Eastern Europe (but was located in Vienna, Austria) in the late 1980s before the fall of Communism in that part of the world.

***

The tension in the boardroom seemed to have dissipated overnight and Ms. Elliott came close to thinking maybe Mr. Douglas was right about the men. But for whatever reason, things went a lot smoother that day and they made excellent progress on planning the evaluation. By the end of the day they had decided on all of the major objectives - the questions the study would attempt to answer, except that the cultural/naturalistic was left more open-ended, although some basic areas of concern had been identified even on that issue. Not only that, but they had begun discussion on what kinds of data would be needed to answer the questions and what types of information might satisfy each party. Ms. Elliott didn't perceive, however, that the Mr. Adams and Mr. Benson were perhaps not being completely straightforward in the discussions about acceptable criteria. By that time she had gotten used to their apparently unhindered cooperation, although she continued her normal alertness to making sure everything seemed to be taken into consideration and made suggestions wherever she saw a gap or potential inadequacy of any kind. While the men were very intelligent and highly educated, she was the specialist in evaluation so she was alert in her usual evaluator way.

During the afternoon break, in which Ms. Elliott excused herself to go outside and go for a walk and get some fresh air, Inga came up from downstairs to request Mr. Adams' presence downstairs to assist with a problem that had come up.

So Mr. Benson, Mr. Douglass, Gail and Heather enjoyed each others' company and polished off the rest of the oatmeal raisin cookies left over from the morning break. After the men finished complaining about the irresistible goodies and blaming the girls for any weight gain during the week, Mr. Douglass turned to Mr. Benson and asked him how he was getting used to having a secretary now (since he hadn't had one until Heather came a few months earlier). Mr. Benson assured Mr. Douglass that although there was a steep learning curve for him in this change of circumstances, he thought he wasn't doing too badly. Then Mr. Benson turned to Heather and asked her how she thought he was doing. Heather, understanding that she needed to answer with a certain amount of diplomacy without really giving away her true opinion, smiled and said she thought he was coming along just fine and given another 4 or 5 months she'd have him eating out of her hand. Everyone caught the joke and Mr. Benson patted his stomach and said he hoped not.

Inside Heather was actually pretty angry at this exchange because she understood it differently than what it seemed on the surface, although she couldn't be sure what anyone else thought, which is part of why she was having problems with the mission. Her interpretation of this exchange went something like this: Mr. Douglass was asking Mr. Benson about working with her in follow up to his earlier conversation with her that morning. Mr. Douglass avoided answering the question by turning it on her and she answered in like kind, which he didn't like and so made it clear to her that he had absolutely no intention of ever eating out of her hands. In this way she knew her place in the scheme of things, but this was only one such incident, so she had been looking for patterns to try to figure the mission out. Mr. Douglass probably even had less of a context than she did for understanding this exchange.

Mr. Benson, who came across rather as an impish boy and a modest man, used these traits expertly to hide other things that he might be thinking. Because of the whole situation with the evaluation he couldn't really take anything for granted, so he wasn't sure what might have provoked Mr. Douglass to ask about his secretary. It's possible that it was a purely innocent question, but it was also possible that it wasn't just that. Then Heather's response about him eating out of her hand was an outrageous disrespect for his authority. Ms. Elliott, if she had known, would have said Mr. Benson saw Heather's words as normatively deviant, that is to say, offensive to the organizational culture. No matter what you call it, however, Mr. Benson realized then that Heather had the potential for being a problem during the evaluation.

Mr. Douglass, on his part, had indeed asked the question intentionally in follow up to what he had known about Heather and the German teacher (and her junior high students) and also the morning's conversation with Heather. He did note that avoidance of really answering his question with any substance and what seemed to be "passing the buck." So he intended to ask Ms. Elliott to pursue this subject more closely, perhaps under the h.r. category of questions.

While Gail watched the volley of words her thoughts pretty much mirrored Mr. Benson's, so she knew she should keep a closer eye on Heather.

Ms. Elliott returned from her walk refreshed and in high spirits followed closely by Inga who came to call Mr. Benson downstairs. Mr. Benson excused himself and followed Inga to the basement. So that left the gals (Heather, Gail, and Ms. Elliott) and Mr. Benson alone upstairs. They could hardly resume the evaluation planning without the other two men so they decided to follow Ms. Elliott's lead and go outside also and enjoy the late summer sun for a few minutes.

***

Downstairs Mr. Benson found Mr. Adams, Mr. Jeffries, and Mr. Lyons, a member of the German team, and Mr. Mann, the board member who represented Member Mission #2. Mr. Mann had come, rather surreptitiously it appeared, to talk with the only person they had on staff, namely, Mr. Lyons, about the evaluation. But he evidently didn't come in surreptitiously enough because Mr. Jeffries, rather startledly noticed him and, recognizing him, stopped him in the hall with a big, warm handshake. Mr. Mann, unfortunately, wasn't particularly in the mood for big, warm handshakes, so he gruffly withdrew his arm and notified Mr. Jeffries that he was there to see Mr. Lyons. He brushed his way past Mr. Jeffries and continued making his way to Mr. Lyons' office.

Mr. Jeffries knew that this was not an acceptable turn of events so had requested his secretary, Inga, run and get Mr. Adams and tell him to come to Mr. Lyons' office immediately. Then Mr. Jeffries headed there himself. He felt immediately unwelcome, as it appeared that Mr. Mann wanted a private conversation alone with Mr. Lyons, who was very much caught in the middle and wasn't quite sure how to act, although he understood this was about the evaluation they'd all been told about by then.

Despite his not being welcome, Mr. Jeffries would not budge; he insisted this was something they all needed to work out together, and it was in everyone's best interests to stick together to make it through this, rather than do things that might only be divisive and make things worse. Mr. Mann, anger unabated (it's not like he came there of his own accord - his mission and their board members were in a tizzy about this and they'd sent him there for an explicit purpose), listened fuming to Mr. Jeffries, but he did see a certain logic in what Mr. Jeffries was saying, although that doesn't mean his mission would agree. He'd hardly had time to think about what to say, however, when in barged Mr. Adams too.

Mr. Adams, who, it must be said, is a very congenial man, approached Mr. Mann with his characteristic wide grin and big, outstretched hand. Mr. Adams' warmness could be very disarming, and he knew how to use that to his advantage, which is what it looked like he was doing right at that moment. Nevertheless, it was effective, and so Mr. Mann calmed down. Mr. Adams suggested they all go to Mr. Jeffries' office and discuss these things calmly. So they all traipsed in there and on the way Mr. Jeffries gave Inga some instructions, including to send for Mr. Benson.

After a while Mr. Jeffries came out of the office and told Inga to tell Gail, that some important business had come up and they were going to have to take an extended break. He suggested having Mr. Nelson, the director of textbook writing and publishing group, take the guests and Gail to see a bit of the town for the rest of the afternoon. He said Mr. Adams and Mr. Benson hoped they could get some work done on the evaluation this evening, and to tell the guests one of the country teams was having a crisis that involved an upcoming teaching trip (which Mr. Lyons was supposed to take leaving Sunday, if his mission let him remain in his current position, although Gail would know not to divulge that much of what was really going on). Heather was to stay and take care of the office in everyone's absence.

***

So that was Thursday, at least most of the day. In any case, Ms. Elliott and Mr. Douglass were a little taken aback by this sudden change of events. Ms. Elliott had to politely, but very firmly, decline the kind offer of a tour of the city because of not being able to socialize with the staff because of the potential of conflict of interest. Gail wasn't quite sure what she should say, but what she did very cheerfully and decisively say was that they would be glad to take her to the hotel then, if that was what she wished, and they could pick her up again in the evening if they were able to continue the talks then. So Ms. Elliott collected all her things and prepared to take them with her to work on at the hotel.

***

I'm returning to the text now, and we're in the sub-section "Investiture vs. Divestiture Socialization Processes."

"An investiture process says to the newcomer, 'We like you just as you are.' Indeed, the organization through the use of this tactic does not wish to change the recruit. Rather, it wishes to take advantage of and build upon the skills, values, and attitudes the recruit is thought to possess." (p. 250)

Needless to say, this wasn't how I was socialized in Vienna. In fact, just the opposite is true and you'll get to see in my journal entries after my working with the mission how devastated I was and how they just absolutely crushed my spirit. So even if there are good times, for a person like me to just come out of it so devastated... Something had to be going on there.

***

"Ordinarily, the degree to which the recruit experiences the socialization process as an ordeal indicates the degree to which divestiture processes are operating. Goffman's (1960) 'total institutions' are commonly thought typical in this regard in the deliberate 'mortifications to self' which entry into them entails. But, even in total institutions, socialization processes will have different meaning to different recruits. Thus, the degree to which the process is one of divestiture or investiture to a recruit is, in part, a function of the recruit's entering characteristics and orientation toward the role. " (p. 251)

I think that as long, or whenever, the mission thought I wasn't submitting adequately (i.e., when I was showing signs of being at all independent) it would pull out the divestiture treatment, which might explain the variability over the months in how I was treated. One exception, though, is around the time my parents came to visit me in Vienna. Then there were signs of increased positive attention, which I'll get to when I reach that point in the chronology, but there were specific positive events that felt to me like they were only happening because of one or both of my parents being there or coming soon.

The fact that socialization impact my vary from individual to individual strikes me as true, and I have discussed in earlier posts how the differences between me and the others at the mission (especially my European Studies background) might be one possible way to explain the differences in outcome, or at least partly explain it.

The first sentence in this quote is also very thought-provoking. It would be interesting to ask those other people who were at the mission the same time I was if they experienced anything like divestiture and get them to explain more about their socialization experience. If they didn't remember it as divestiture then you're back at the question of why I was treated differently then.

***

"Yet the fact remains that many organizations consciously promote ordeals designed to make the recruit whatever the organization deems appropriate, what Schein has described as 'up-ending' experiences (Schein, 1964)... Furthermore, measures are often taken to isolate recruits from former associates who presumably would continue to confirm the recruit's old identity. The process, when voluntarily undergone, serves to commit and bind the person to the organization and is typically premised upon a strong desire on the part of the recruit to become an accepted member of the organization (or an organizational segment). In brief, the recruit's entrance into the role or system is aided by his or her 'awe' of the institution and this 'awe' then sustains the individual's motivation through subsequent ordeals of divestiture." (p. 251)

This text describes pretty well what might have been going on in Vienna. The mission most definitely took steps to try to isolate me from friends especially (but not family). Also, I expect that the 'awe' element could have been there for a lot of recruits, especially because the mission really was pretty unique in what it did and the fact that you could get so many missions to work together like that was amazing enough all by itself. But, while I was greatly looking forward to my work with the mission, I don't think I ever had an awe about it. I guess in general I'm not easily "awed" in general, unless you're talking about a fantastic sunset over the ocean or a spectacular view from the top of a mountain ridge after a long hike. Now that's awe-inspiring. This lack of awe undoubtedly helped allow me to just step back and try to figure things out more matter-of-factly than by anything else, although that doesn't mean I was emotionless, because I most definitely felt the stress of the confluence of how I was being treated, what I believed and what the mission seemed to want from me.

***

"It should be kept in mind, however, that these stern tactics provide an identity-bestowing as well as an identity-destroying process. Coercion is not necessarily a damaging assault on the person. Indeed, it can be a device for stimulating many personal changes that are evaluated positively by the person and others. What is, of course, problematic with coercion is its nonvoluntary aspects and the possibility of misuse in the hands of irresponsible agents." (p. 252)

Well, I disagree with this statement. I don't care if there are sometimes (or even often) changes in a person that might be considered positive, it's not a way for Christians to treat Christians (or anyone else, either, for that matter). How many examples of people using force do you find in the New Testament, where it is a positive example of how to act? Did Jesus use this tactic? How about any of the apostles? I'll repeat it again: The ends does not justify the means.

As for the misuse issue, I felt like the Vienna messed up here too. That is, not ONLY did they use coercion when they shouldn't have, but they ALSO misused it, that is, used it manipulatively. I'd like to hear their biblical explanation for this treatment; or maybe I didn't get far enough in Bible school to understand this kind of thing.

***

I have several more pieces in this section of the text to comment on, but I'm going to break it up. It looks like I'll only have 2 or 3 more posts on these articles before returning (finally) to my chronology.

225. Socialization File, Pt. 106 (Van Maanen & Schein, pt. 9)

For those of you who are new to my blog, it's often quite difficult to pick things up mid-stream. Right now I'm writing a fictional story about a hypothetical evaluation, based on real people at the mission I worked at, the culture of the mission and otherwise what I knew of the mission.

Then the next section of the blog (after I stop the evaluation story part) is an ongoing effort to try to make sense of my experiences with the mission, and I'm using journal articles and the like as spring boards. I worked in a mission that worked in Eastern Europe (but was located in Vienna, Austria) in the late 1980s before the fall of Communism in that part of the world.

***

The next morning Ms. Elliott and Mr. Douglass met downstairs, as had become their habit, in the cafe where breakfast that was included in their hotel package was served, only this time they met a little earlier than they had been to make sure they had enough to talk about things before Mr. Adams or Mr. Benson picked them up to take them to the mission.

Mr. Douglass had not slept well, it turned out, because he had been disturbed at what Ms. Elliott had said about the men. He still didn't believe her premonitions about the men, but after repeatedly going through the events of the past couple of days he could at least see how she might have come to her conclusions, and the fact that there could be even an appearance of evil, so to speak, was enough to keep him awake a big chunk of the night. Once he finally accepted that it could be reasonably argued that there was at least the appearance of evil, then he couldn't help but think about the potential implications, including the impact an appearance alone of this nature might have on the ministry. That is not to say, however, that he took it any farther than that, because he knew the men well enough to be confident that Ms. Elliott was wrong, and the men just didn't realize what kind of an image they might be portraying, which might be something to consider in planning the evaluation.

Trying to be conciliatory, Mr. Douglass told Ms. Elliott that he had done some thinking and could see how she'd come to the conclusions she did about the men, and he encouraged her to pursue this farther, assuming that doing so would come out in the mission's favor. Ms. Elliott brushed him off saying that these things are all apart of the evaluation process, part of trying to figure out what's really going on. At the same time she made a mental note of Mr. Douglass' suggestion, fully intending to follow his advice (which was along the same lines of what she'd been thinking anyway, but if things blew up knowing that she had his support in this might be important).

After eating in silence a few minutes, Ms. Elliott pulled out a notepad, saying she'd jotted a few things down that they might want to at least think about if not discuss before joining the others. The first thing was that she needed to make sure Mr. Elliott understood that in evaluation the politics of a situation can make or break the evaluation. She explained to him how sometimes one had to navigate very carefully through complex situations. She said, for example, that while they did need to get the initial plan decided on, they needed to make sure they would have the cooperation of all parties (or at least key parties) while at the same time trying to push the process forward. In delicate situations one sometimes needed to proceed with care. Mr. Douglass nodded that he understood.

Next she asked him about his plans to extend his time in Vienna. Fortunately, Mr. Douglass had a type of plane ticket that allowed for free changes, so he said he'd forgotten to tell Ms. Elliott that he called his secretary back in the States last night and she'd changed the ticket to next Monday evening. He really couldn't stay any longer than that because he had other commitments back home that he had to keep and couldn't change. This meant that they'd have Friday and Monday to work on the plans, but could also use the weekend for this if it looked like they weren't far enough along by Friday afternoon.

Then they discussed what they hoped they'd be able to accomplish that day, and by that time their ride had come to pick them up. But this time is was someone else from the mission whom they hadn't met. They had moved to the lobby after finishing their breakfasts, which is where they had been waiting the other mornings too. The man came up to them and asked their names to confirm that they were the right people, then introduced himself as Joe Jeffries, the boss of Inga, whom they'd met the day before. He introduced himself like that because they were in a public place, so it wasn't like he was going to announce to the world that he worked for a mission to a Communist country in a certain position. He apologized for not having met the guests before, but he'd been out of town and just came back yesterday. They understood what he meant by being out of town and looked forward to hearing about his ministry trip. They also understood that he was in a leadership position (although below Mr. Adams and Mr. Benson) so he might be a relatively important person for the evaluation too, even if they weren't going to evaluation the ministry aspects per se of the organization. Both Ms. Elliott and Mr. Douglass complimented Inga, who seemed to them like a very affable and capable young lady. Mr. Jeffries agreed that it was a pleasure to work with her and she was a great asset to the department and even, in many ways, to other people outside the department.

The rest of the trip was taken up with discussions about Mr. Jeffries recent trip. Mr. Douglass and Ms. Elliott became so engrossed in his stories that they didn't even think to ask about Mr. Adams and Mr. Benson.

***

While Ms. Elliott and Mr. Douglass were having breakfast and then being brought to the office by Mr. Jeffries, Mr. Adams and Mr. Benson were having discussions of their own in Mr. Adams' office.

They had decided that they needed to let everyone at the mission know about a pending evaluation, because it would be divisive to let anything like that trickle out, and already other people at the mission were getting involved in it, like Inga and Mr. Jeffries. So they had arranged for a meeting with the main leaders, which included the director of h.r., Mr. Jeffries (who had left early to pick up the guests), and the head of textbook writing and preparations. They didn't have a lot of time for this meeting, so Mr. Adams had had his secretary prepare handouts so that everyone would have the details and not have to rely on memory. There was the problem of what to do with Heather, Mr. Benson's secretary, but she was going to have to know eventually too, despite her not having passed the socialization test yet. So she was brought in to help with the meeting and that's how she found what had really been going on the last few days. So, while Gail took minutes, Heather monitored the phones and stood ready to help with anything else.

I won't bore you about all the details of that meeting, but they discussed the evaluation itself, or what they knew of it thus far, they talked about the issue with the board members and how Mr. Cummings had been taking care of that end of things, with occasional input from Mr. Adams and Mr. Benson. They also discussed the possible impact this was going to have on the ministry, meaning the immediate scheduling of ministry trips. Mr. Adams was scheduled to Czechoslovakia in a week, but that would have to be cancelled - someone would have to go in his place. Neither he nor Mr. Benson would be available to go on any trips of any kind during the evaluation. He then encouraged the other leaders to think about how this might affect them and their departments as well. Then a follow-up meeting was set for Saturday morning. It was then that Heather noticed that there wasn't any mention of the board member who was coming next Tuesday to find out more about the evaluation, and she gave her boss a quickly scribbled note to this effect. After a moment when it looked like he was thinking about it, he said that preparations should also be made to host Mr. Knotts from Member Mission #1. Since Lou Lyons, on the East German team, was from that mission he should probably be involved in some way with that.

That was all they had time to discuss and the men from the other departments, except for Mr. Jeffries who was already gone, left to their respective departments, left to their own devices as to how to tell their workers.

***

Mr. Jeffries came bounding up the stairs in his usual energetic way to introduce the arrival of the guests, and Mr. Elliott and Mr. Douglass followed close behind him.

***

At this point Mr. Adams and Mr. Benson, although they hadn't had enough time to discuss this between themselves, there were only a limited number of options open to them. But they'd both been thinking it over and over, as had Mr. Cummings, trying to find a safe escape hatch, but it continued to evade them, despite their relatively high intelligence, both collectively and individually. Cancelling the evaluation would result in having to drastically cut the ministry back and then there would be a lot of questions they'd have to answer and wouldn't be able to; at least not to their liking. Other funders would want to know what happened. So would the workers themselves, many of whom wouldn't be needed any more. If they went ahead with the evaluation, they could fully accept it, let the evaluator have full and unfettered access to whatever and whomever she needed. Or they could try to sabotage the study, which anthropologists deal a lot with - not that Ms. Elliott was an anthropologist, but part of the study would be anthropological in nature. Another possibility might be to rig the reporting so that even if something damaging is found it doesn't reach the wrong eyes or ears. Or they could make it so reporting allowed for them to comment on the findings. This option might actually be the best hope for them, because they were very good at making things seem as if they were other than what they really were. So even if they couldn't convince an evaluator of that, they had a good chance of being able to convince everyone else. This was a skill indeed that might end out working for their advantage.

***

Mr. Adams and Mr. Benson decided they needed a few more minutes to discuss this kind of thing and they called Gail so they cold give her instructions if need be. It was during this meeting that they decided that they were going to try the strategy of re-interpreting the data to their advantage at the end of the study. This would free them up to cooperate fully with the study. They told Gail to call Mr. Cummings (which she understood to mean later in the day, though, because of the time difference). She should also try to keep tabs on what the department heads are doing vis a vis the information they'd just be given. In this way, Gail became a sort of gatekeeper between the top administration and the other leaders, just as Mr. Cummings had become the gatekeeper between the board members and the mission.

***

This little threesome tete-a-tete, however left Ms. Elliott, Mr. Douglass and Heather alone in the conference room (Mr. Jeffries had returned to his department, not realizing Heather would be left alone to entertain the guests). It wasn't long that Heather was alone with the guests, though, maybe 10 or 15 minutes at the most. But it was long enough, evidently.

Mr. Douglass hadn't told anyone yet (that is, anyone but his secretary back home) but one of the main reasons he had chosen this fundee, the mission, to evaluate first, besides them being one of the largest recipients in their portfolio of fundees, is that a month ago he had been at a 50th birthday party for a cousin of his in Omaha and had met a fascinating German teacher there who had actually been in Vienna the summer before with a bunch of her junior high students. She said that she had met Heather a few years prior on a short-term summer ministry trip in Austria and they'd planned for quite some time for the female students to stay with her and that she (Heather) would find a place for the boys. So, not even 2 months after arriving in Vienna Heather had hosted this teacher and her students, with the help of a male colleague at the mission.

It sounded like this German teacher had enjoyed her time and she was very appreciative of Heather's efforts to make their stay comfortable and enjoyable as well as a learning experience. The problem was that a couple of the things she said didn't match up to what he knew of the Vienna mission. This might have been a contributing factor as to why he saw how Ms. Elliott could have interpreted the way she did the course of events so far in Vienna. But he didn't want Ms. Elliott to know about that encounter in Omaha, in order that the evaluation not to be affected by it.

So given this opportunity, Mr. Douglas tried not to seem too pleased to have a chance to chat with Heather, but he did attempt to make small talk with her. He began by asking how long she'd been with the mission and how she liked her work so far. She seemed intelligent and quite observant, but also hesitant to answer his questions other than evasively. So he prodded her more on the subject asking what she did in her position. Her answers were still brief and she didn't offer any more information than just the minimum of what he asked, yet she didn't seem the shy type. She apologized and said she hadn't been with the mission long and so was still learning the ropes, which seemed true enough, having only been there 4 or 5 months, as she said. When asked how she like her work she said she liked it and the people were very nice. Somehow, Mr. Douglas still didn't feel like he knew quite what she did all day, but the others could be heard crossing the corridor towards the boardroom, so Heather excused herself to find out what she should do next, and soon learned that she was to resume her post by the phone. This time Gail had prepared muffins for the morning coffee break, but reservations needed to be made for lunch at the Schnitzel Haus restaurant down the street. Then Gail followed the others into the board room and Heather pulled out the book she was reading and looked up at the phone or her watch every once in a while.

***

I'm returning to the text again. This time we're in the sub-section "Serial vs. Disjunctive Processes."

"Sometimes, what appears to be a serial process is actually disjunctive. In many work organizations, it is the case that if someone is exceptionally good and is promoted to project leader by age 25, that some person must be exceptionally mediocre to be in that same position at age 50 or 55. Because of such circumstances, the age-graded stereotype of the youthful, naive, and passive junior member of the firm being coached wisely by a mature, informed, and active mentor is frequently false. The process may have been designed as a serial one, but, to the recruit, the process may be disjunctive if he or she is unwilling to take the mentor seriously." (p. 248)

Again, there are at least a couple things here that I might comment on vis a vis my Vienna experience. First of all is the issue of management intent and new recruit perspective/interpretation. I don't think that this (the one in the text) is the only situation what such a discrepancy might happen. Sometimes it may be obvious what a certain socialization characteristic in a particular situation is, such as boot camp being collective socialization, for example. But other times it's not so straight forward.

Considering all the texts I've read and been discussing here and also considering my own experiences in the Vienna mission, I think that when the new recruit enters a new organization, and the organization is different enough from prior experiences that there isn't a lot of grounding, then virtually everything is socialization, or at least seems like socialization in as much as everything the newcomer sees, hears, experiences, reads, etc. can contribute in one way or another to his/her adjustment to the new position and organization. On the other hand, the organization may or may not have been so all-inclusive in setting up a socialization program for the person. So first of all the individual would have to decide what is intentional to be able to then try to figure out what kind of a socialization it might be. And I think that, based on what I've been reading and commenting on, understanding what type of process the organization is intentionally giving the new recruit may help him or her understand what the intended message is (the content of the learning - whether skill, attitude or knowledge or a combination). I had a hard time, for the most, part distinguishing what was or wasn't socialization, and often I didn't understand the intent of the mission, or I might have understood (or thought I understood) the immediate intent, but not the ultimate one. For example, if I determined that they wanted me to "just trust" them (i.e., totally submit), then my next question would be, "And then what?" Because, to me at least, totally submitting to something like that doesn't relieve me of any responsibility for what might follow, but it might be harder for me to get out of it once I start conceding. This is something I think I discussed from the espionage file, how spies might first ask you to do some little innocent thing, then they'd ask you to do something somewhat questionable but still not bad... and on and on until before you know it you're a full-fledged card carrying spy, for all practical purposes. That's how I felt about the Soviet guest during the Seattle Goodwill Games when he asked me to help him set up a sister-city association (after asking if my dad paid me!?). I felt like he was going to try to lead me on a path like that that could potentially lead to my dad.

One thing I will say specifically say about this text is that I don't think I was ever "unwilling to take [my] mentor seriously." I think I took her seriously enough and respected her as a probably very good professional secretary. The only thing in that regard that I had problems with was the mission's effort to pigeon-hole me into a secretarial mold that basically defined my whole life, inside and outside the mission both. The secretaries themselves were okay, but I doubt very much that they originated the pigeon-hole view of me. It came from someone(s) higher up.

***

I'm only using one of the propositions from the serial/disjunctive socialization section.

"1. Serial socialization is most likely to be associated with inclusionary boundary passages.

This association results because to become a central member of any organizational segment normally requires that others consider one to be affable, trustworthy, and, of course, central as well. This is unlikely to occur unless these others perceive the newcomer to be, in most respects, similar to themselves. Recruits must at least seem to be taking those with whom they work seriously or risk being labeled deviant in the situation and hence not allowed across inclusionary boundaries." (p. 249)

If I understand the difference between "serial" and "disjunctive" socialization, serial socialization is when information, skills, etc. are passed from one generation of workers to the next in a way that results in great continuity, whereas disjunctive socialization results in more of a break with tradition and the newcomer is not necessarily socialized into the ways "things have always been done". In this way, the Vienna mission would have to have been a serial one. If it is still very serial it might even not have changed all that much from when I was there, except for say the technology and accommodation to working in new cultural contexts.

Because I insisted on the right to be able to think for myself I was "deviant". In some contexts they might say I was a dissident.

In any case being central in the organization - informal power, knowledge, etc. by virtue of being well-connected, trusted, liked, etc. was important in the Vienna mission. I think you probably would have had to have continually proven yourself with different types of issues and the like and that way one could work themselves inward, even if there was precious little opportunity to advance upward.

In just thinking about myself, if I were to given in to the mission, I would have had to change my thinking in ways that would have had major repercussions on my thought processes. In the field of education we speak sometimes of building mental models, reinforcing learning, making connections, and the like. I think in these terms acceding to the mission would have meant a pretty thorough overhaul of my way of seeing things, something akin to a paradigm shift maybe (e.g., the world is not flat). Such a major change would have involved a lot of incongruities (more than I have now, anyway) that would have to be dealt with over time. I'm not sure how the others experienced it though. Maybe for them it wouldn't have involved such a major overhaul. It's hard to imagine my being the only one, though, especially among such intelligent, highly educated people.

***

That's it for this post. Thanks for stopping by.