I woke up with a cold this morning... as if I needed another ailment!
Even so, the show must go on, as they say...
***
This next chapter section is titled "Task Factors" and discusses socialization as pertains to tasks on the job.
"Schein... suggests that one of the primary reasons for a new member's organizational disillusionment (and perhaps his subsequent withdrawal) is receiving, upon encounter, an assignment which is either too easy or too difficult. Both types of assignments upset and disconfirm some of the major assumptions a new person holds about himself or herself. If a person's motivation to belong is not sufficiently strong to induce the personal changes that allow the individual to adjust to the situation, if able, he or she will leave the organization." (p. 98)
I've discussed something similar to this elsewhere about how some organizations might give quite intentionally give them something way to easy or demeaning to do in order to humble or break the person, and that the Vienna mission took this tactic with me. But this text sheds even more light on this treatment I received, indicating that such treatment could backfire (my interpretation of this text) and actually serve to alienate the individual because it "disconfirms" what s/he think of him/herself and or his/her view of the organization in selecting it (agreeing to the job offer).
In my case, I never really identified myself as a secretary, but I agreed to take the position, thinking of it as just an entry point or stepping stone. It's possible, however, that the mission thought of me pure and simple as a secretary like all the other secretaries. The mission I'd worked with prior (part-time, short-term) would have known otherwise, however, and they were part of the 15-mission make-up of the Vienna mission, but whether or not they divulged any of my skills to the others I don't know.
But the real clincher was the initial task they gave me, which I think I discussed before and I'll get into in the chronology, which could have been completely avoided. That is, during deputation I'd offered to take a computer class if I knew which software they used, but they wouldn't tell me and said that was necessary (for me to take the class). So immediately (that is, upon beginning work ca. 3 days after arrival) upon arrival I'm shown a stack software manuals!
This seemed clear idiocy to me, a waste of time and very much intentional. But, as was my way the whole time I was with them, I did not grumble but chearfully took up the task set before me. If I ever grumbled at all about anything during my time it wasn't much, and they probably wanted me to grumble more so that I'd show a weak side and could be put back together again how they wanted me. In other words, to break me in.
This did nothing, as you might be able to imagine, to strengthen my ties to the mission. Au contraire - I looked outside of it for the ministry I really desired, although I don't think I ever said that, which would be tantamount to complaining about the work I was given with the mission. I was conscious of doing this at the time, but learning things like what this current text says helps me understand even more what I was doing and what the mission might have been doing.
***
That being said, however, the next paragraph describes, in short, how the level of control one has over tasks set before him/her can also affect one's attitudinal orientation towards the organization. More control leads to more satisfaction by the individual. What this translates to in terms of my Vienna experience is that although I was given this task that seemed to me to be idiotic, unnecessary and manipulative, I could tackle it basically however I wanted and I wasn't even pressured time-wise to get it done. So this much I must say, that the mission didn't breathe down my neck (I don't know about you, but I can't stand bosses like that) in performing my tasks. I guess they trusted me at least to do what I was supposed to and do it quality-wise within acceptable perimeters. I think that was the way things operated in general at the mission, and wasn't specific to me. Whenever I took initiative in doing something to improve how my position was carried out that was generally appreciated (like how I organized aspects of a reception position I was in at the end). So this much I must say: despite all the awful stuff I encountered with the mission, they at least let me make the best of unfulfilling, crappy and sometimes needless jobs I was given. But it also could be that they gave me that latitude to watch and see how I'd take it, which could either mean seeing if I could work unattended or testing me. If they'd provided a lot of guidance it might not have been much of a test. If this latter was the motivation (or a major motivation among others), I was probably tested pretty much the whole time I was there.
***
I'm summarizing some of these texts, because it seems the best way to approach them for my purposes.
The next paragraph explains how it has been shown that either too many "continual changes" can lead to frustration or "settings which leave a new member with the same task" can result in restlessness and boredom. (p. 99)
In my case I faced mostly the "continual changes", and, I think, each change made it harder for me to connect with the mission and think they were serious about wanting to work with me. But these changes were also confusing, which quite possibly could also have been intentional. After all, they had all this secrecy about details of their work in "closed" countries, and if they didn't feel they could trust me (because they couldn't get me to break and take on their norms), they may have felt they had to keep me on guard. If they were sincere in wanting me to work with them, it's possible that they were torn somewhat between whether to hold out carrots (e.g., meaningful work, actual or promised) or lambaste me with sticks (trivial & degrading work, actual).
***
"Some systemic evidence has been compiled by Hackman and his associates which indicates that five so-called "core" dimensions of work tasks are critical vis-a-vis one's satisfaction and performance in the organization... The dimensions include: skill variety (the degree to which the job requires one to use different skills or perform different activities); task identity (the degree to which the job requires the individual to complete an entire process); task significance (the degree to which the job has a perceivable impact on others, either inside or outside the organization); feedback (the degree to which the individual receives information from significant others as to the effectiveness of his work); and autonomy (the degree to which the job provides one with freedom, independence and discretion in scheduling and carrying out work assignments)." (p. 99)
I'll address these dimensions one by one.
Regarding skill variety, I wasn't given much variety, and what I was given seemed mostly menial (especially considering the frequent job changes). It was difficult for me to see myself as performing a role that was at all integral to the functioning of the organization. After all, with so much moving around I never got a chance to fully develop any one position so I was always pretty much at stage one and if I'm so apparently expendable in so many positions, how valuable could I be to the organization, anyway? Also, even the range of skills required between the various positions wasn't a lot; that is, they required very similar basic skills. There were a couple exceptions, in that I found working in-country, when I took ministry trips there, to be fulfilling, but I wasn't a central person in that work either.
As to task identity, I already explained (when I discussed reference groups) that I didn't see myself as a secretary; that wasn't who I was, but just a position I held as a stepping stone to using my "real" professional skills.
My feeling about most of what I did was that it wasn't very significant, or even not significant at all except as a tool to socialize me. The leadership would vehemently and profusely deny this, however, with all kinds of wonderful commendations and flattery about importance of the position(s) and also how well I fulfilled them. I thought this was a bunch of bunk, even then, and a few months after I left the mission I got a post card thanking me, yadda yadda. That post card disgusted me even then.
I did get feedback and it was always positive and encouraging (flattery?). But it apparently didn't matter how well I did my job, as to how much responsibility they were going to give me. If anything, my positions became more menial as time went on (except for a few ministry trips). So it didn't really seem like the quality of my work was what they really wanted, although I suppose if I hadn't performed well there might have been even more negative repercussions.
I already discussed autonomy in this same post, and I don't think I have anything more to add to that right now.
Taking these 5 dimensions all together, there wasn't much to endear the mission to me task-wise. On the contrary, tasks were undoubtedly one of the alienating driving forces from my side of the equation (i.e., my attitude towards the mission). And we've already discussed how important attitude was to the mission, so I guess it was a cyclical downward spiral, where the mission and I were feeding each other reasons to be alienated from each other, or at the very least, mixed messages that inhibited our relationship from maturing.
***
That's all for now and I need to get going to get some things done.
~ Meg
Thursday, March 3, 2011
Wednesday, March 2, 2011
129. Socialization File, Pt. 12 (Dubin, pt. 11)
I've been trying to keep to doing 2 of these a day (although the last one today was sort of an extra). My recovery from cervical surgery is being slow, so my energy is limited, and I have other things to do too.
Sometimes I may sound angry on this blog, and I do think that I have a certain amount of anger in me about some of my experiences. There's another one going on now that I'm trying to figure out how to deal with. I haven't told many people about this project and when I have I haven't given any details, but there are a couple people at church that I think are going to try to make me share some of these things publicly before I want to. Sometimes when I get into these things (people who want me to do things I don't want to), it ends out not very good, like coming up in a public situation where I have to explain myself when I don't particularly want to, or it's not the right setting, or whatever. So I end out avoiding potential situations like that, which in this case would probably mean not going to church until I've finished this project. Also in these kinds of cases it can look like the other person is being supportive when their disregard for my wishes makes me feel disrespected.
But let's leave that and move on. Since the above issue relates to things I'm talking about here, however, I may come back to it if there are any further developments.
***
"What is often missed in the discussion of the influence of reference and/or colleague groups is that the members of such groups are rarely perceived as equals by the recruit. Moore (1969) indicates that it is the role of the significant other that induces a new member to share the group's attitudes and beliefs." (p. 92)
Regarding my perception of myself vis a vis the secretaries, it was a mixed bag. I felt that they were better secretaries than me and certainly they knew the ropes of the organization than I did, but I came with a lot of knowledge and skills that they didn't have too, so I wasn't too encumbered with feelings of inadequacy in my relations with them. Also, I didn't need a lot of help in getting settled because I already had enough experience to get around by myself, and so I'm sure this made me more difficult to socialize.
However, regarding the "significant other" here, I think in my case if there were just one person to pick out as the main one in the socialization effort, it was my boss. That might have been otherwise if I had shared an apartment with one of the other secretaries (the one who called me from Alaska when I was in Colorado on deputation). In that case, she probably would have been the "significant other", but I'm not sure of that either, because she didn't arrive all that long before me and so probably wasn't far enough down the socialization process to be my "significant other" in the sense of having a main role in socializing me; rather our relationship might have been a kind of buddy-buddy system set up, since we were both being socialized at more or less the same time.
The relationship with my boss was a story all itself and I'm not going to go there right now.
***
"Those who feel they have been treated by another with affection and consideration usually regard their personal obligations as binding." (p. 98, quoting Shibutani (1962))
I think this does describe how it was supposed to be between me and my boss, but it was not just between me and him but by association also with his family. They were very kind and attentive (until the end), and I tried to build good relations with his family, especially his wife and one daughter, that I sort of had a big sister relationship with.
I'm not sure internally I responded as they wanted though, because I mostly felt like I was still trying to figure things out and so even with these efforts I was somewhat aloof, I think, and it's possible I could have been a bit of an enigma to them.
***
"Strauss (1968) sees the 'coach' as the significant other for some organizational initiates. The coach (or in some cases, coaches) is one who takes - either formal or informal - responsibility for seeing that a recruit is properly groomed, instructed, advised or cared for during the 'breaking-in' period. He notes that the coach's role is to develop a new identity for the learner by guiding him along a series of noninstitutionalized steps leading to full organizational membership. And the affective relationship that develops between coach and learner is key to the success of the process." (p. 92)
I wasn't going to include this quote, except I thought the last line warranted it's inclusion, with the preceding sentences setting the stage for the final comment.
Indeed, there did seem to be a sort of bond that was supposed to develop between me and my boss and it seemed to be a common sort of thing between the bosses and secretaries. How can I explain it? One thing was that it seemed that the bosses and secretaries got to know each other well enough that they sort of thought along the same lines or understood each other without a lot of extra verbage... sort of like a wife-husband relationship in that regard. But care was always taken for the secretary to have a good relationship with the boss's wife and family, and the boss-secretary relationship was given added respectability by that other relationship. Also the wives weren't at the office day in and day out, so having a relationship with them was important to avoid any possible misconceptions on their part by the secretary and her husband working together at the office and understanding each other so well. In a way, it could have been a benefit of being a wife of someone with a secretary, because other wives didn't have this office connection, although there certainly were other kinds of relationships going on too, but not sort of formalized ones so much as between the secretaries, their bosses and their boss's wife.
In this coaching relationship, which I've described some already in previous posts, there was a closeness that seemed bordering on sensual, which I think is because the socialization process in the mission required great vulnerability (in my opinion) and conformity of values, beliefs and opinions regarding the ministry and how to live while working with the mission (and even afterwards to a certain extent - such as how to represent the mission when you're back home). So there was this vulnerability back and forth going, where the inductee (the secretary) would be going through the throes of adjusting to this new life and her confidant would be there to provide whatever was needed to help her along, including understanding, assurance, counseling, sharing of personal experiences, etc. etc.
I experienced this the first few weeks, but then it was sort of surface issues, but after that I think as I didn't fall in line as I should things all went haywire for me, which is to put it quite mildly. But I could see how the others related and learn things from the other secretaries.
***
"...[T]he manner in which newcomers perceive their social roles and positions is a major influence on the organizational socialization process... At one polar position is the 'cosmopolitan' who is more committed to his specialized role than he is to the organization itself. At the other extreme is the 'local' whom Gouldner depicts as more committed to the organization than to his specialized role. For the cosmopolitan, his reference group is located outside the organization. Hence, socializing the new cosmopolitan member to organizational norms or values that differ from those of his reference group is bound to be difficult." (p. 93)
In many ways, I was a cosmopolitan coming into the mission. However, I didn't have an outside reference group in the sense of other professions (e.g., accountants with their American Institute of Certified Public Accountants). But I did have a sense of the ministry that I'd developed on my own, including not just formal study and part-time and short-term work, but also volunteering at a major center for research on religion in Eastern Europe, spending a week with a Russian pastor and his wife (the sister of someone at my church back home) to experience their ministry with refugees and truckers in Hamburg, trips and relations I'd developed on my own in East Germany, working at a mission library filled with resources on missions to Eastern Europe and preparing a monthly packet of relevant current events and issues gleaned from a wide variety of mission newsletters from many missions, etc. So I may not have had a formal outside reference group, but I certainly had a decent grasp of the profession, if you will of missions to that part of the world. There was this sort of nebulous commitment to what I perceived as that profession "missionary to Eastern Europe", which was based on a fair amount of experience and knowledge.
In my case, I don't think they knew what they were dealing with. They didn't know I was a "cosmopolitan" and I don't think they knew why I was evading their efforts to socialize me (again, assuming that's what they were trying to do). Maybe if there had been a professional association to join and I was a card carrying member I would have been easier to identify as a "cosmopolitan". Remember, too, that I'd written all those letters trying to find a mission that would be the best fit for me, so I had an idea of what I was looking for and not looking for. It just so happened that I, despite my best efforts to the contrary, fell into exactly what I was not looking for and it probably would have been nigh impossible to find a group that was what I was looking for, because, as I learned in Vienna, all these missions (at least the ones of any size) were in bed together and were of one ilk.
Please don't say it was my fault though, because who would have told me that they were all like that? Recently my mom asked me if I'd had any problems in Russia regarding religion. I'm not sure if I'd thought exactly in terms of that question (which came following a discussion about a couple working in China), but I never had any problems in Russia that could have been interpreted as religion-related, and I used my rented office were I taught English to have a women's introduction to the Bible class, which I advertised in the local newspaper. The ONLY reason I ever saw as to why I had any problems there was because it all started from my dad working at Boeing as a program manager in the Strategic Defense Initiative/Star Wars. I had no connections with a mission while there (although I toyed with the idea of working with a couple groups while there) and did everything in the open and honestly, which is how I think ministry should be done and that's why I had problems in Vienna. But let it be said that I lived there according to my beliefs and if anyone says it can't be done, you just bring them to me.
I'm not saying that I could do exactly what I did just anywhere, but I am saying that ministry could be done honestly, and while it's very possible that there could be problems, that doesn't justify doing Christian ministry dishonestly. My experience also demonstrates that I did have a fair understanding of the ministry possibilities in that part of the world.
***
Continuing with this discussion regarding possible conflict of allegiances, Van Maanen next addresses the issue of latent identities, which may not affect the socialization process unless a conflict arises between the two set of norms.
"For example, Burchard (1954) found that military chaplains were torn between the cross-pressures of professional and organizational norms. Thus, the new member's resolution of this dilemma has serious consequences for the outcomes of the socialization process." (p. 93)
I'm just itching to get to the file on military chaplains, but we've only just begun this file. Nevertheless, this topic keeps popping up as relevant in so many places. Matthew 6:24 says "No one can serve two masters. Either you will hate the one and love the other, or you will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and money." Although the reference is to the choice of serving God or money, the principle still stands that "No one can serve two masters". So who do you think these chaplains serve? I think they don't serve God primarily, but their earthly master. Our 2-person human resources department was comprised of not one but two U.S. military reserve chaplains. Who do you think they were serving? Of course, when they weren't on military duty and were working with the mission, it would seem that the there wouldn't be a conflict because the whole purpose of the mission was to serve God, right? But why did they need 2 chaplains in those positions? To misquote the old bard (Shakespeare): "Something is rotten in ..." Vienna. Phew, I can smell it all the way over here.
Here's the million dollar question: If the military chaplains in the h.r. department gave me troubles (we'll get to that later), was it for the mission or because of my dad's work, or (even more insidiously) both?
***
That brings us to the end of this chapter section, and it's time for me to start getting ready for bed, which takes an hour or so with all the steps I have to take - mostly health-related tasks.
Good night.
~Meg
Sometimes I may sound angry on this blog, and I do think that I have a certain amount of anger in me about some of my experiences. There's another one going on now that I'm trying to figure out how to deal with. I haven't told many people about this project and when I have I haven't given any details, but there are a couple people at church that I think are going to try to make me share some of these things publicly before I want to. Sometimes when I get into these things (people who want me to do things I don't want to), it ends out not very good, like coming up in a public situation where I have to explain myself when I don't particularly want to, or it's not the right setting, or whatever. So I end out avoiding potential situations like that, which in this case would probably mean not going to church until I've finished this project. Also in these kinds of cases it can look like the other person is being supportive when their disregard for my wishes makes me feel disrespected.
But let's leave that and move on. Since the above issue relates to things I'm talking about here, however, I may come back to it if there are any further developments.
***
"What is often missed in the discussion of the influence of reference and/or colleague groups is that the members of such groups are rarely perceived as equals by the recruit. Moore (1969) indicates that it is the role of the significant other that induces a new member to share the group's attitudes and beliefs." (p. 92)
Regarding my perception of myself vis a vis the secretaries, it was a mixed bag. I felt that they were better secretaries than me and certainly they knew the ropes of the organization than I did, but I came with a lot of knowledge and skills that they didn't have too, so I wasn't too encumbered with feelings of inadequacy in my relations with them. Also, I didn't need a lot of help in getting settled because I already had enough experience to get around by myself, and so I'm sure this made me more difficult to socialize.
However, regarding the "significant other" here, I think in my case if there were just one person to pick out as the main one in the socialization effort, it was my boss. That might have been otherwise if I had shared an apartment with one of the other secretaries (the one who called me from Alaska when I was in Colorado on deputation). In that case, she probably would have been the "significant other", but I'm not sure of that either, because she didn't arrive all that long before me and so probably wasn't far enough down the socialization process to be my "significant other" in the sense of having a main role in socializing me; rather our relationship might have been a kind of buddy-buddy system set up, since we were both being socialized at more or less the same time.
The relationship with my boss was a story all itself and I'm not going to go there right now.
***
"Those who feel they have been treated by another with affection and consideration usually regard their personal obligations as binding." (p. 98, quoting Shibutani (1962))
I think this does describe how it was supposed to be between me and my boss, but it was not just between me and him but by association also with his family. They were very kind and attentive (until the end), and I tried to build good relations with his family, especially his wife and one daughter, that I sort of had a big sister relationship with.
I'm not sure internally I responded as they wanted though, because I mostly felt like I was still trying to figure things out and so even with these efforts I was somewhat aloof, I think, and it's possible I could have been a bit of an enigma to them.
***
"Strauss (1968) sees the 'coach' as the significant other for some organizational initiates. The coach (or in some cases, coaches) is one who takes - either formal or informal - responsibility for seeing that a recruit is properly groomed, instructed, advised or cared for during the 'breaking-in' period. He notes that the coach's role is to develop a new identity for the learner by guiding him along a series of noninstitutionalized steps leading to full organizational membership. And the affective relationship that develops between coach and learner is key to the success of the process." (p. 92)
I wasn't going to include this quote, except I thought the last line warranted it's inclusion, with the preceding sentences setting the stage for the final comment.
Indeed, there did seem to be a sort of bond that was supposed to develop between me and my boss and it seemed to be a common sort of thing between the bosses and secretaries. How can I explain it? One thing was that it seemed that the bosses and secretaries got to know each other well enough that they sort of thought along the same lines or understood each other without a lot of extra verbage... sort of like a wife-husband relationship in that regard. But care was always taken for the secretary to have a good relationship with the boss's wife and family, and the boss-secretary relationship was given added respectability by that other relationship. Also the wives weren't at the office day in and day out, so having a relationship with them was important to avoid any possible misconceptions on their part by the secretary and her husband working together at the office and understanding each other so well. In a way, it could have been a benefit of being a wife of someone with a secretary, because other wives didn't have this office connection, although there certainly were other kinds of relationships going on too, but not sort of formalized ones so much as between the secretaries, their bosses and their boss's wife.
In this coaching relationship, which I've described some already in previous posts, there was a closeness that seemed bordering on sensual, which I think is because the socialization process in the mission required great vulnerability (in my opinion) and conformity of values, beliefs and opinions regarding the ministry and how to live while working with the mission (and even afterwards to a certain extent - such as how to represent the mission when you're back home). So there was this vulnerability back and forth going, where the inductee (the secretary) would be going through the throes of adjusting to this new life and her confidant would be there to provide whatever was needed to help her along, including understanding, assurance, counseling, sharing of personal experiences, etc. etc.
I experienced this the first few weeks, but then it was sort of surface issues, but after that I think as I didn't fall in line as I should things all went haywire for me, which is to put it quite mildly. But I could see how the others related and learn things from the other secretaries.
***
"...[T]he manner in which newcomers perceive their social roles and positions is a major influence on the organizational socialization process... At one polar position is the 'cosmopolitan' who is more committed to his specialized role than he is to the organization itself. At the other extreme is the 'local' whom Gouldner depicts as more committed to the organization than to his specialized role. For the cosmopolitan, his reference group is located outside the organization. Hence, socializing the new cosmopolitan member to organizational norms or values that differ from those of his reference group is bound to be difficult." (p. 93)
In many ways, I was a cosmopolitan coming into the mission. However, I didn't have an outside reference group in the sense of other professions (e.g., accountants with their American Institute of Certified Public Accountants). But I did have a sense of the ministry that I'd developed on my own, including not just formal study and part-time and short-term work, but also volunteering at a major center for research on religion in Eastern Europe, spending a week with a Russian pastor and his wife (the sister of someone at my church back home) to experience their ministry with refugees and truckers in Hamburg, trips and relations I'd developed on my own in East Germany, working at a mission library filled with resources on missions to Eastern Europe and preparing a monthly packet of relevant current events and issues gleaned from a wide variety of mission newsletters from many missions, etc. So I may not have had a formal outside reference group, but I certainly had a decent grasp of the profession, if you will of missions to that part of the world. There was this sort of nebulous commitment to what I perceived as that profession "missionary to Eastern Europe", which was based on a fair amount of experience and knowledge.
In my case, I don't think they knew what they were dealing with. They didn't know I was a "cosmopolitan" and I don't think they knew why I was evading their efforts to socialize me (again, assuming that's what they were trying to do). Maybe if there had been a professional association to join and I was a card carrying member I would have been easier to identify as a "cosmopolitan". Remember, too, that I'd written all those letters trying to find a mission that would be the best fit for me, so I had an idea of what I was looking for and not looking for. It just so happened that I, despite my best efforts to the contrary, fell into exactly what I was not looking for and it probably would have been nigh impossible to find a group that was what I was looking for, because, as I learned in Vienna, all these missions (at least the ones of any size) were in bed together and were of one ilk.
Please don't say it was my fault though, because who would have told me that they were all like that? Recently my mom asked me if I'd had any problems in Russia regarding religion. I'm not sure if I'd thought exactly in terms of that question (which came following a discussion about a couple working in China), but I never had any problems in Russia that could have been interpreted as religion-related, and I used my rented office were I taught English to have a women's introduction to the Bible class, which I advertised in the local newspaper. The ONLY reason I ever saw as to why I had any problems there was because it all started from my dad working at Boeing as a program manager in the Strategic Defense Initiative/Star Wars. I had no connections with a mission while there (although I toyed with the idea of working with a couple groups while there) and did everything in the open and honestly, which is how I think ministry should be done and that's why I had problems in Vienna. But let it be said that I lived there according to my beliefs and if anyone says it can't be done, you just bring them to me.
I'm not saying that I could do exactly what I did just anywhere, but I am saying that ministry could be done honestly, and while it's very possible that there could be problems, that doesn't justify doing Christian ministry dishonestly. My experience also demonstrates that I did have a fair understanding of the ministry possibilities in that part of the world.
***
Continuing with this discussion regarding possible conflict of allegiances, Van Maanen next addresses the issue of latent identities, which may not affect the socialization process unless a conflict arises between the two set of norms.
"For example, Burchard (1954) found that military chaplains were torn between the cross-pressures of professional and organizational norms. Thus, the new member's resolution of this dilemma has serious consequences for the outcomes of the socialization process." (p. 93)
I'm just itching to get to the file on military chaplains, but we've only just begun this file. Nevertheless, this topic keeps popping up as relevant in so many places. Matthew 6:24 says "No one can serve two masters. Either you will hate the one and love the other, or you will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and money." Although the reference is to the choice of serving God or money, the principle still stands that "No one can serve two masters". So who do you think these chaplains serve? I think they don't serve God primarily, but their earthly master. Our 2-person human resources department was comprised of not one but two U.S. military reserve chaplains. Who do you think they were serving? Of course, when they weren't on military duty and were working with the mission, it would seem that the there wouldn't be a conflict because the whole purpose of the mission was to serve God, right? But why did they need 2 chaplains in those positions? To misquote the old bard (Shakespeare): "Something is rotten in ..." Vienna. Phew, I can smell it all the way over here.
Here's the million dollar question: If the military chaplains in the h.r. department gave me troubles (we'll get to that later), was it for the mission or because of my dad's work, or (even more insidiously) both?
***
That brings us to the end of this chapter section, and it's time for me to start getting ready for bed, which takes an hour or so with all the steps I have to take - mostly health-related tasks.
Good night.
~Meg
128. Socialization File, Pt. 11 (Dubin, pt. 10b)
I guess I'm warming up to writing in this blog again, because I've started thinking about it between posting. And I did some thinking in the shower just now.
***
I realize those "bitch" quotes had a bit of the shock factor in them, but I don't apologize for that. As you can see, winning a lot of friends is not one of my objectives in writing this blog. In fact, maybe it would be more accurate to say that I would be more pleased to have a any friends I may have at the end of it all be true friends that have been filtered through all the false veneers. That is to say, you, the reader may well not be part of my reference group, although it's also possible that you are - after all I don't know who is reading this.
I don't know about you, but sometimes it's quite irksome when people seem to agree with you but you feel like they don't really understand what you're saying. And then it can be hard to get them to see that they really don't understand, despite their profuse objections to being labeled as such.
That's not why I included those quotes though; I included them because it seemed to feed off of the discussion at hand and it does fit how I feel, at least now. This kind of sentiment, if it existed at all in me when I was in Vienna, would only have been in the very earliest stages of development and as such not very identifiable yet.
***
Another issue that it might be good to clearly identify, although I have been mentioning it here and there all along, is that of anachronism. Although anachronism can take many forms, for our purposes I am specifically talking about when during my life I held different attitudes and the like. For example, in talking about a specific time period (e.g., my Vienna years), I am trying to let you know if a perspective wasn't held (or developed or become conscious) until a later time.
It's hard to avoid talking about things before and after the specific period being covered, but this could result in some confusion for the reader. Some of the texts I'm using, however, are so enlightening regarding other times in my life that I'm afraid if I don't mention the pertinence to these other time periods in my discussion of a text these insights to other phases of my life might go overlooked altogether. Or sometimes it's hard to explain the relevance (or irrelevance, as the case might be) of the text at hand without bringing in other phases of my life.
Nevertheless, I hope you don't come away with a Raphaelesque anachronostic sense of my life (cp. the Wikipedia article on his painting "The Marriage of the Virgin"). Sure, there were elements of my present make-up that were in existence in the 1980s, but I wasn't then what I am now in a whole lot of ways. The same can generally be said of most everyone, but I think some people experience more changes (how many changes) than others and/or greater (more substantial) changes than others, for a variety of reasons. The aspects in my life that have been especially potent drivers of change are, first of all, my pensive and reflective personality, but also my work/career changes and changes in living circumstances. That is, these things were drivers of change, not the change themselves, and there were external and internal drivers that facilitated change.
If you knew my life at all (which you only know precious little of yet, unless you know me personally outside of this blog), I think you'd see that what I'm saying about myself is a no brainer. So I'm saying this for those who don't know me outside this blog or have only known me for a limited time that doesn't include some of these life-changing situations and/or the opportunity to really know my personality.
A final caveat: Although I've thought about many of the things I discuss on this blog a lot over the years and am a relatively introspective and astute person, there is always the chance that I inadvertently involve myself in some anachronism. This is hard to avoid, much in the same way that researchers have a hard time extricated themselves from research to reach some golden objective standard, which may actually be impossible to obtain despite the best precautions.
So what I'm saying is, I'm doing my best to keep the time frames clear to the reader, but I may not be perfect. So do as I say and not as I do: cut me some slack. And if you notice such apparent anachronisms (or just plain confusing mumbo-jumbo) and want to point them out I'm willing to entertain them. It could be a simple mistake (like a big typo) or unclear language, or it could be a more substantial conceptual issue that I need to address.
While I shouldn't need to apologize for some chronological skipping around, since that is a fairly common stylistic tool in literature, it should be clear as to what belongs in what time period even with the skipping around. If the skipping around results in something along the lines of Raphael's "Wedding of the Virgin", then communication has gone haywire somewhere along the line, and my hope is that my writing isn't that glaringly anachronistic! Nevertheless, even lesser anachronisms should probably be clarified.
~ Meg
***
I realize those "bitch" quotes had a bit of the shock factor in them, but I don't apologize for that. As you can see, winning a lot of friends is not one of my objectives in writing this blog. In fact, maybe it would be more accurate to say that I would be more pleased to have a any friends I may have at the end of it all be true friends that have been filtered through all the false veneers. That is to say, you, the reader may well not be part of my reference group, although it's also possible that you are - after all I don't know who is reading this.
I don't know about you, but sometimes it's quite irksome when people seem to agree with you but you feel like they don't really understand what you're saying. And then it can be hard to get them to see that they really don't understand, despite their profuse objections to being labeled as such.
That's not why I included those quotes though; I included them because it seemed to feed off of the discussion at hand and it does fit how I feel, at least now. This kind of sentiment, if it existed at all in me when I was in Vienna, would only have been in the very earliest stages of development and as such not very identifiable yet.
***
Another issue that it might be good to clearly identify, although I have been mentioning it here and there all along, is that of anachronism. Although anachronism can take many forms, for our purposes I am specifically talking about when during my life I held different attitudes and the like. For example, in talking about a specific time period (e.g., my Vienna years), I am trying to let you know if a perspective wasn't held (or developed or become conscious) until a later time.
It's hard to avoid talking about things before and after the specific period being covered, but this could result in some confusion for the reader. Some of the texts I'm using, however, are so enlightening regarding other times in my life that I'm afraid if I don't mention the pertinence to these other time periods in my discussion of a text these insights to other phases of my life might go overlooked altogether. Or sometimes it's hard to explain the relevance (or irrelevance, as the case might be) of the text at hand without bringing in other phases of my life.
Nevertheless, I hope you don't come away with a Raphaelesque anachronostic sense of my life (cp. the Wikipedia article on his painting "The Marriage of the Virgin"). Sure, there were elements of my present make-up that were in existence in the 1980s, but I wasn't then what I am now in a whole lot of ways. The same can generally be said of most everyone, but I think some people experience more changes (how many changes) than others and/or greater (more substantial) changes than others, for a variety of reasons. The aspects in my life that have been especially potent drivers of change are, first of all, my pensive and reflective personality, but also my work/career changes and changes in living circumstances. That is, these things were drivers of change, not the change themselves, and there were external and internal drivers that facilitated change.
If you knew my life at all (which you only know precious little of yet, unless you know me personally outside of this blog), I think you'd see that what I'm saying about myself is a no brainer. So I'm saying this for those who don't know me outside this blog or have only known me for a limited time that doesn't include some of these life-changing situations and/or the opportunity to really know my personality.
A final caveat: Although I've thought about many of the things I discuss on this blog a lot over the years and am a relatively introspective and astute person, there is always the chance that I inadvertently involve myself in some anachronism. This is hard to avoid, much in the same way that researchers have a hard time extricated themselves from research to reach some golden objective standard, which may actually be impossible to obtain despite the best precautions.
So what I'm saying is, I'm doing my best to keep the time frames clear to the reader, but I may not be perfect. So do as I say and not as I do: cut me some slack. And if you notice such apparent anachronisms (or just plain confusing mumbo-jumbo) and want to point them out I'm willing to entertain them. It could be a simple mistake (like a big typo) or unclear language, or it could be a more substantial conceptual issue that I need to address.
While I shouldn't need to apologize for some chronological skipping around, since that is a fairly common stylistic tool in literature, it should be clear as to what belongs in what time period even with the skipping around. If the skipping around results in something along the lines of Raphael's "Wedding of the Virgin", then communication has gone haywire somewhere along the line, and my hope is that my writing isn't that glaringly anachronistic! Nevertheless, even lesser anachronisms should probably be clarified.
~ Meg
127. Socialization File, Pt. 10 (Dubin, pt. 10)
I'm finding more sections in this chapter to comment on than in previous texts I've discussed on this blog that I hadn't marked up in my initial reading of it. Here's an example of that...
"...[P]art of the organizational process involves the individual's continual adjustment to the demands of the various subgroups in which he participates within the social system.
...[T]he term 'reference group' is used here to signify the group whose perspective is used by the novice as a frame of reference for defining his organizational experiences and expectations." (p. 91)
I really should have continue with this last night, but I hadn't realized that these unmarked-up sections needed commenting on.
I think this is really significant in terms of my Vienna experience. Who did I see as my reference groups? In looking back, I think that I saw as my reference groups mainly the people in Eastern Europe and Vienna that I might have ministry with, and I saw the mission itself only in secondary terms as a vehicle for reaching those people... at least at first I did. But then gradually I think the role of the mission in my "reference group" options greatly diminished as I realized that we had pretty divergent views on what was needed for ministry. I wasn't really aware of this, I don't think, at the time, because I couldn't imagine ministry without going through a mission and refused to give up the desire of ministry. Of course, this became a great conflict, then, for me. Eventually the mission did take on a greater "reference group" role, but it was, ironically, at the expense of the ministry target people as a "reference group" in my life. My view of the target peoples (Austrians, East Europeans) as a reference group had developed over the years (1979-1985) of my formal higher education, short-term and part-time ministries and living and studying in that part of the world. I don't think my view of the target people really changed during this time, or even later when I actually lived in Siberia for several years, but it began to take a back seat to the mission as a reference group the last months of my tenure with the mission.
Now this, as you can imagine, is not really how organizations, especially total ones, expect things to be set up. No, they want the front seat from the get go. But I hadn't joined the military (or the CIA) and I expected the mission to be a reasonable organization, which was (in my view) an errant perspective. That is, unlike many (but not all) other ministries, they didn't seem very open to new ideas about ministry and the issue was only, plain and simple, how well you were going to accept their way of doing things (and if you asked too many questions you probably didn't have the right attitude yet, although by asking the questions you'd undoubtedly clarify where exactly the problems were coming from in your not conforming.)
Another problem here is that it was pretty hard for me to identify with the reference group that I was supposed to be the most like - the other secretaries. The thing was, and I think I've mentioned this before, that I didn't really see myself as a secretary. All my studies had been for full-time mission work and I'd only taken on office jobs (often temp jobs) to earn money while I prepared for the professional work I'd studied for. It's very possible that if the mission had give me a different reference group I'd have succumbed more easily.
***
"To an individual, a reference group is an audience - shared, real or imagined - to whom certain values are assigned. More importantly, this audience is the one before which the individual is trying to maintain or increase his standing." (p. 91)
This most definitely does not describe my view of the other secretaries as a reference group. It's not that I didn't want to associate with them, it's just that they weren't my reference group and I didn't particularly see them in that way, as I've just explained above. I didn't really care too much what the other secretaries thought of me and I didn't want to be like them, not that there was anything wrong with them, but they just weren't what I aspired to or how I viewed myself. I didn't see a conflict between working as a secretary and having people-ministry, where the people ministry was more fundamental to my view of myself and working as a secretary was just a stepping stone along the way. Even at the time I was conscious of not viewing myself as a secretary, but I might not have realized the significance of that vis a vis the mission's socialization attempts.
Here I'm going to sort of go off in a tangent, but not a totally irrelevant one.
In recent years I've come to the realization that Evangelical groups are mostly pretty sexist and the roles for women in them are rather limited; being a secretary is one possibility, for example. There were a couple women instructors with the Vienna mission that taught courses for women in-country (i.e., in Eastern Europe), but there weren't any male secretaries, for example.
Another role that, apart from my experience with the Vienna mission, that I found might have been open to me is that of translator to help men gain access to ministry in Russia, for example. This, to me, is pretty demeaning because I only learned the language as part of the whole package of preparing for ministry and not to be some man's translator. To many in Evangelical circles, as you maybe can imagine, this kind of thinking is feminist, and I mean that very derogatorily, because that's how they'd use the word to describe such thinking.
I've been trying to find a short quote I know I've heard several times (but not recently), but in looking for it I found some close cousins to it:
"Being a Heartless Bitch isn't about stepping on other people, or reality TV-style sabotage antics. Its about working hard for what you want, and knowing when to stand up for what you deserve. Its not about demoralizing others; its about self-empowerment. Its not about being arrogant; its about displaying your confidence and intellect as a badge of pride. Its not asserting any inherent superiority or self-entitlement, but recognizing your own self-worth and value."
-- Kat D.
"I do get called a bitch quite often. What I do NOT get called is pushover, stupid, sweetheart, dear or doormat. Works for me."
-- Rebecca M.
Here's one that really touches a nerve for me (pun intended - sorry): -- Fabulana
Finally...
I wish I knew this earlier in life, but I had a lot going against me, including family and church upbringing, and it took a lot, mainly being separated from those two influences by half a world (geographically - and I mean Siberia here, not Vienna), to grow more fully in my confidence that I could do significant things on my own.
In any case, returning to my Vienna years now, I didn't exactly see things in this way; I just knew what I believed and didn't like what a lot of what I saw and experienced in Vienna, although much of it was very difficult to make sense of at the time. I didn't think of it in gendered terms, for example. Still, the training and knowledge that I did have even then was enough to help me try to hold my own in the midst of tremendous forces working against that. And don't get me wrong, the gender issue was not necessarily the worst thing I disagreed with. There was, for example, also the politicization of the ministry and the pragmatism (ends justifies the means) mentality.
But getting back to the reference group issue, the "target people" (it really is insensitive to use that term though, like for a marketing campaign in which people take on object status; if I think of a better term that isn't overly convoluted I'll try to start using it, but maybe this one's not completely inaccurate either) were a significant reference for me in that I wanted to really understand them and lower barriers as much as was possible without compromising my faith (e.g., without doing something that would be sin, like joining them in their vodka drinking), but I thought the mission and my church(es - the one in Vienna and back home too) should provide the Christian guidance. Boy, was I mistaken. What I learned in Vienna about that is that the Bible is a tool to be used to back up anything and everything the mission does and to reveal my errors (sins?) in not conforming.
So the mission never really did become a strong reference group for me, I guess, and that proved a barrier to my working with them. But I did see them as holding the golden key to a life of ministry, without which (the key), the ministry I so desired as a career would be virtually impossible (or so I thought at the time). I think this isn't the first time I've shown you the conflict I experienced, but here's another take on it.
I did want to "maintain or increase" my standing with the group, but I equally did not want to compromise my beliefs and values based solely on the desire to "maintain or increase" that standing. That is, I felt that I was being asked to change things that would have implications beyond the isolated context of that ministry, and would have affected some of my most basic beliefs and values. I think it's safe to say that I was conscious of this at the time, which is part of why I could resist succumbing to their ways as much as I did. And when I did in the end begin to succumb it was late enough that they were setting the stage for my departure and I didn't really ever change my thinking (at least not in ways they would have wanted), just my external relations. And when I get to this in the chronology, you'll see that they understood this too.
***
I need to go because I finished my morning stimulator (like a souped up TENS unit) long ago and I need to get breakfast.
"...[P]art of the organizational process involves the individual's continual adjustment to the demands of the various subgroups in which he participates within the social system.
...[T]he term 'reference group' is used here to signify the group whose perspective is used by the novice as a frame of reference for defining his organizational experiences and expectations." (p. 91)
I really should have continue with this last night, but I hadn't realized that these unmarked-up sections needed commenting on.
I think this is really significant in terms of my Vienna experience. Who did I see as my reference groups? In looking back, I think that I saw as my reference groups mainly the people in Eastern Europe and Vienna that I might have ministry with, and I saw the mission itself only in secondary terms as a vehicle for reaching those people... at least at first I did. But then gradually I think the role of the mission in my "reference group" options greatly diminished as I realized that we had pretty divergent views on what was needed for ministry. I wasn't really aware of this, I don't think, at the time, because I couldn't imagine ministry without going through a mission and refused to give up the desire of ministry. Of course, this became a great conflict, then, for me. Eventually the mission did take on a greater "reference group" role, but it was, ironically, at the expense of the ministry target people as a "reference group" in my life. My view of the target peoples (Austrians, East Europeans) as a reference group had developed over the years (1979-1985) of my formal higher education, short-term and part-time ministries and living and studying in that part of the world. I don't think my view of the target people really changed during this time, or even later when I actually lived in Siberia for several years, but it began to take a back seat to the mission as a reference group the last months of my tenure with the mission.
Now this, as you can imagine, is not really how organizations, especially total ones, expect things to be set up. No, they want the front seat from the get go. But I hadn't joined the military (or the CIA) and I expected the mission to be a reasonable organization, which was (in my view) an errant perspective. That is, unlike many (but not all) other ministries, they didn't seem very open to new ideas about ministry and the issue was only, plain and simple, how well you were going to accept their way of doing things (and if you asked too many questions you probably didn't have the right attitude yet, although by asking the questions you'd undoubtedly clarify where exactly the problems were coming from in your not conforming.)
Another problem here is that it was pretty hard for me to identify with the reference group that I was supposed to be the most like - the other secretaries. The thing was, and I think I've mentioned this before, that I didn't really see myself as a secretary. All my studies had been for full-time mission work and I'd only taken on office jobs (often temp jobs) to earn money while I prepared for the professional work I'd studied for. It's very possible that if the mission had give me a different reference group I'd have succumbed more easily.
***
"To an individual, a reference group is an audience - shared, real or imagined - to whom certain values are assigned. More importantly, this audience is the one before which the individual is trying to maintain or increase his standing." (p. 91)
This most definitely does not describe my view of the other secretaries as a reference group. It's not that I didn't want to associate with them, it's just that they weren't my reference group and I didn't particularly see them in that way, as I've just explained above. I didn't really care too much what the other secretaries thought of me and I didn't want to be like them, not that there was anything wrong with them, but they just weren't what I aspired to or how I viewed myself. I didn't see a conflict between working as a secretary and having people-ministry, where the people ministry was more fundamental to my view of myself and working as a secretary was just a stepping stone along the way. Even at the time I was conscious of not viewing myself as a secretary, but I might not have realized the significance of that vis a vis the mission's socialization attempts.
Here I'm going to sort of go off in a tangent, but not a totally irrelevant one.
In recent years I've come to the realization that Evangelical groups are mostly pretty sexist and the roles for women in them are rather limited; being a secretary is one possibility, for example. There were a couple women instructors with the Vienna mission that taught courses for women in-country (i.e., in Eastern Europe), but there weren't any male secretaries, for example.
Another role that, apart from my experience with the Vienna mission, that I found might have been open to me is that of translator to help men gain access to ministry in Russia, for example. This, to me, is pretty demeaning because I only learned the language as part of the whole package of preparing for ministry and not to be some man's translator. To many in Evangelical circles, as you maybe can imagine, this kind of thinking is feminist, and I mean that very derogatorily, because that's how they'd use the word to describe such thinking.
I've been trying to find a short quote I know I've heard several times (but not recently), but in looking for it I found some close cousins to it:
"Being a Heartless Bitch isn't about stepping on other people, or reality TV-style sabotage antics. Its about working hard for what you want, and knowing when to stand up for what you deserve. Its not about demoralizing others; its about self-empowerment. Its not about being arrogant; its about displaying your confidence and intellect as a badge of pride. Its not asserting any inherent superiority or self-entitlement, but recognizing your own self-worth and value."
-- Kat D.
"I do get called a bitch quite often. What I do NOT get called is pushover, stupid, sweetheart, dear or doormat. Works for me."
-- Rebecca M.
Here's one that really touches a nerve for me (pun intended - sorry):
"The brain is connected to the spine. Try to get them working in tandem for a change."
Finally...
I'm a strong woman who strives for excellence in all my endeavors. It used to bother me that strong women are termed "bitches," while strong men are seen as "go-getters." But I now wear the Bitch label with pride.
If a bitch is someone who goes after what she wants, then I am a bitch.
If a bitch is someone who stands up for her beliefs while surrounded by opinionless idiots, then I am a bitch.
If a bitch is someone who despises weakness and ineptitude, then I am a bitch.
I LOVE being a bitch. It feels good to be strong and confident, not giving a damn what others think. I'm not a man-hater; in fact I like men a lot, at least the ones with big brains. I am an equal-opportunity bitch. I hate stupidity, no matter from which gender it originates.
There, I've gotten it off my chest, I'm a bitch. At least according to the above definitions. Back then I was maybe an incipient bitch, with elements of it, but not quite with the belief that I could do things on my own without following in the shadow of someone else (usually a man).I wish I knew this earlier in life, but I had a lot going against me, including family and church upbringing, and it took a lot, mainly being separated from those two influences by half a world (geographically - and I mean Siberia here, not Vienna), to grow more fully in my confidence that I could do significant things on my own.
In any case, returning to my Vienna years now, I didn't exactly see things in this way; I just knew what I believed and didn't like what a lot of what I saw and experienced in Vienna, although much of it was very difficult to make sense of at the time. I didn't think of it in gendered terms, for example. Still, the training and knowledge that I did have even then was enough to help me try to hold my own in the midst of tremendous forces working against that. And don't get me wrong, the gender issue was not necessarily the worst thing I disagreed with. There was, for example, also the politicization of the ministry and the pragmatism (ends justifies the means) mentality.
But getting back to the reference group issue, the "target people" (it really is insensitive to use that term though, like for a marketing campaign in which people take on object status; if I think of a better term that isn't overly convoluted I'll try to start using it, but maybe this one's not completely inaccurate either) were a significant reference for me in that I wanted to really understand them and lower barriers as much as was possible without compromising my faith (e.g., without doing something that would be sin, like joining them in their vodka drinking), but I thought the mission and my church(es - the one in Vienna and back home too) should provide the Christian guidance. Boy, was I mistaken. What I learned in Vienna about that is that the Bible is a tool to be used to back up anything and everything the mission does and to reveal my errors (sins?) in not conforming.
So the mission never really did become a strong reference group for me, I guess, and that proved a barrier to my working with them. But I did see them as holding the golden key to a life of ministry, without which (the key), the ministry I so desired as a career would be virtually impossible (or so I thought at the time). I think this isn't the first time I've shown you the conflict I experienced, but here's another take on it.
I did want to "maintain or increase" my standing with the group, but I equally did not want to compromise my beliefs and values based solely on the desire to "maintain or increase" that standing. That is, I felt that I was being asked to change things that would have implications beyond the isolated context of that ministry, and would have affected some of my most basic beliefs and values. I think it's safe to say that I was conscious of this at the time, which is part of why I could resist succumbing to their ways as much as I did. And when I did in the end begin to succumb it was late enough that they were setting the stage for my departure and I didn't really ever change my thinking (at least not in ways they would have wanted), just my external relations. And when I get to this in the chronology, you'll see that they understood this too.
***
I need to go because I finished my morning stimulator (like a souped up TENS unit) long ago and I need to get breakfast.
Tuesday, March 1, 2011
126. Socialization File, Pt. 9 (Dubin, pt. 9)
Continuing where we left off...
"Roy (1952, 1955) has dramatically shown that in some organizations a worker will not be taught the necessary skills and secrets of his relevant work group until he is accepted as trustworthy by his fellow workers. The acceptance process may be rapid or slow depending on the nature of the secrets of the particular group." (p. 90)
Wow! This really fits my experience of the Vienna mission. However, that said, I'm not sure if this was a usual method of induction or not, as I can't remember other cases, besides my own, where I think this is true. If indeed I was unique in this regard - how I was treated in this way - then that might argue for something going on related to my dad rather than just a part of the mission's way of inducting people. In effect, I never was really accepted and so never knew much by way of the mission's secrets and towards the end it seemed they were trying to confuse me so I wouldn't know what was what by way of secrets.
Another possible explanation if I was really a unique case in this regard, is that no one else ever refused to accept the group's norms like I did. If my treatment was because of my dad's work, you'd expect that they never intended for me to be really integrated into the mission, but if it was just because I didn't accept their ways, then they sincerely tried to socialize me, but I didn't cooperate enough for them. I can think of one other possibility, but it would (in my opinion) paint the mission even worse than either of these other two options. Of course, it's possible they did treat others this way, but, like I said, I'm not aware of such cases, and if they did happen I didn't know it was happening because I wasn't in a position to know who might or might not have access to secrets, other than the assumed things like the head of the East German group should have known the most about the mission's work in East Germany.
***
"...[I]f the new member is approved, the work group will defend the newcomer's right to make mistakes." (p. 91)
It did seems as if mistakes took on a different light if one was accepted (had past the introductory socialization hurdle) or not. Part of it was the new comer's own attitude toward the mistake, and part of it was the group. The new comer would most likely be more or less insecure or unsure of him/herself, perhaps not knowing whether what s/he was doing or saying was acceptable. This was at least a part based on the individual's own make up, as to how or how much s/he'd feel this way. The group, on their part, could act in a variety of ways, depending on several variables, such as whether or not the individual was perceived as really trying and having the right attitude, or whether it was regarding something of vital importance to the group or not, for example. It seemed that each individual was treated as an individual in this way and it wasn't an assembly line affair that spit out socialized members at the end. Rather, it was more like the work of a craftsman that hand creates each piece taking into account the strengths and weaknesses of the raw materials for each project and fashioning unique objects each time, even if there were some similarities in the process used.
Once a person was accepted, mistakes were generally treated differently. No longer was there such an issue as to whether the person had the right attitude or motive, as they'd proven themselves in that regard to be accepted. That's not to say that a person, I think, also had to continue to prove themselves on the right track, at least for some time, when given new challenges and information to deal with. So most mistakes, I think, at this point were treated as honest and simple errors, although some errors might have been more potentially detrimental to the group, it's mission and the people it worked with than others, but there were lots of opportunities in safe situations to get these bugs worked out of newly accepted members. Once the person was accepted than attention could be turned more to skills and specific knowledge needed for the work. Needless to say, I never reached that point.
Some of these things are based on my impressions, but I think this is generally the way it was.
***
"Presumably, the power of the group's influence upon the initiate is determined by the degree the following three conditions are satisfied:
1. Size of the group - smaller groups are generally more influential.
2. Homogeneity of the group - homogeneous groups are generally more influential.
3. Communicative isolation - isolated groups are generally more influential." (p. 91)
Of these 3 I think the third one especially stands out, since members are geographically separated from family and friends in most cases by thousands of miles. However, that set, although the mission itself was rather large as far as mission groups go (especially all - or mostly all - in one place), influence was mainly by the immediate cohort, which for me was the other secretaries, and one's superiors. So in that way the first criteria was met, at least to a certain degree. As to homogeneity, the group was homogeneous too, despite representing 15 different missions. Somehow they had come together and did seem pretty cohesive and I think I was about the only sore thumb miscreant of the lot. Everyone else was quite amenable to the way things were done. (I was tempted to say "seemed amenable" but I'm pretty sure they actually were, and "seem" seemed unnecessarily hedgy.)
***
Next the author goes on to discuss how people consciously or otherwise act in such a way as to placate those around them. Why oh why didn't someone tell me this earlier! My goodness, and I've been so caught up on right and wrong, biblical mandate and universal truths and now I learn that this is how people are supposed to act. This way of acting, the author explains, is how people become more like those around them. At least in Russia people were willing to be my friends even if I wasn't exactly like them. Think of it, I was an Evangelical Christian in my 30s and my friends included: a 50+ year old sakhadja yoga follower with m.s. and a ca. 70 year old Russian Orthodox believer! Maybe in Russia they don't know about this principle, which is something the Vienna mission could rectify, I'm sure, given half a chance.
Anyway, as you can guess, I somehow didn't become like those around me in the Vienna mission and, while I did try to do my work pleasantly and well and be social as well, I continued to reject certain demands I felt were unreasonable, although towards the end they sort of wore me out and I began to acquiesce too little too late (but from my viewpoint it was too much too soon; I felt coerced). But rest assured, I never did anything intentionally against the group, although I may not always have been the wisest in my extracurricular pursuits and activities. But mostly I can't imagine my outside activities doing any harm to the group.
***
Time for another break until tomorrow.
~ Meg
"Roy (1952, 1955) has dramatically shown that in some organizations a worker will not be taught the necessary skills and secrets of his relevant work group until he is accepted as trustworthy by his fellow workers. The acceptance process may be rapid or slow depending on the nature of the secrets of the particular group." (p. 90)
Wow! This really fits my experience of the Vienna mission. However, that said, I'm not sure if this was a usual method of induction or not, as I can't remember other cases, besides my own, where I think this is true. If indeed I was unique in this regard - how I was treated in this way - then that might argue for something going on related to my dad rather than just a part of the mission's way of inducting people. In effect, I never was really accepted and so never knew much by way of the mission's secrets and towards the end it seemed they were trying to confuse me so I wouldn't know what was what by way of secrets.
Another possible explanation if I was really a unique case in this regard, is that no one else ever refused to accept the group's norms like I did. If my treatment was because of my dad's work, you'd expect that they never intended for me to be really integrated into the mission, but if it was just because I didn't accept their ways, then they sincerely tried to socialize me, but I didn't cooperate enough for them. I can think of one other possibility, but it would (in my opinion) paint the mission even worse than either of these other two options. Of course, it's possible they did treat others this way, but, like I said, I'm not aware of such cases, and if they did happen I didn't know it was happening because I wasn't in a position to know who might or might not have access to secrets, other than the assumed things like the head of the East German group should have known the most about the mission's work in East Germany.
***
"...[I]f the new member is approved, the work group will defend the newcomer's right to make mistakes." (p. 91)
It did seems as if mistakes took on a different light if one was accepted (had past the introductory socialization hurdle) or not. Part of it was the new comer's own attitude toward the mistake, and part of it was the group. The new comer would most likely be more or less insecure or unsure of him/herself, perhaps not knowing whether what s/he was doing or saying was acceptable. This was at least a part based on the individual's own make up, as to how or how much s/he'd feel this way. The group, on their part, could act in a variety of ways, depending on several variables, such as whether or not the individual was perceived as really trying and having the right attitude, or whether it was regarding something of vital importance to the group or not, for example. It seemed that each individual was treated as an individual in this way and it wasn't an assembly line affair that spit out socialized members at the end. Rather, it was more like the work of a craftsman that hand creates each piece taking into account the strengths and weaknesses of the raw materials for each project and fashioning unique objects each time, even if there were some similarities in the process used.
Once a person was accepted, mistakes were generally treated differently. No longer was there such an issue as to whether the person had the right attitude or motive, as they'd proven themselves in that regard to be accepted. That's not to say that a person, I think, also had to continue to prove themselves on the right track, at least for some time, when given new challenges and information to deal with. So most mistakes, I think, at this point were treated as honest and simple errors, although some errors might have been more potentially detrimental to the group, it's mission and the people it worked with than others, but there were lots of opportunities in safe situations to get these bugs worked out of newly accepted members. Once the person was accepted than attention could be turned more to skills and specific knowledge needed for the work. Needless to say, I never reached that point.
Some of these things are based on my impressions, but I think this is generally the way it was.
***
"Presumably, the power of the group's influence upon the initiate is determined by the degree the following three conditions are satisfied:
1. Size of the group - smaller groups are generally more influential.
2. Homogeneity of the group - homogeneous groups are generally more influential.
3. Communicative isolation - isolated groups are generally more influential." (p. 91)
Of these 3 I think the third one especially stands out, since members are geographically separated from family and friends in most cases by thousands of miles. However, that set, although the mission itself was rather large as far as mission groups go (especially all - or mostly all - in one place), influence was mainly by the immediate cohort, which for me was the other secretaries, and one's superiors. So in that way the first criteria was met, at least to a certain degree. As to homogeneity, the group was homogeneous too, despite representing 15 different missions. Somehow they had come together and did seem pretty cohesive and I think I was about the only sore thumb miscreant of the lot. Everyone else was quite amenable to the way things were done. (I was tempted to say "seemed amenable" but I'm pretty sure they actually were, and "seem" seemed unnecessarily hedgy.)
***
Next the author goes on to discuss how people consciously or otherwise act in such a way as to placate those around them. Why oh why didn't someone tell me this earlier! My goodness, and I've been so caught up on right and wrong, biblical mandate and universal truths and now I learn that this is how people are supposed to act. This way of acting, the author explains, is how people become more like those around them. At least in Russia people were willing to be my friends even if I wasn't exactly like them. Think of it, I was an Evangelical Christian in my 30s and my friends included: a 50+ year old sakhadja yoga follower with m.s. and a ca. 70 year old Russian Orthodox believer! Maybe in Russia they don't know about this principle, which is something the Vienna mission could rectify, I'm sure, given half a chance.
Anyway, as you can guess, I somehow didn't become like those around me in the Vienna mission and, while I did try to do my work pleasantly and well and be social as well, I continued to reject certain demands I felt were unreasonable, although towards the end they sort of wore me out and I began to acquiesce too little too late (but from my viewpoint it was too much too soon; I felt coerced). But rest assured, I never did anything intentionally against the group, although I may not always have been the wisest in my extracurricular pursuits and activities. But mostly I can't imagine my outside activities doing any harm to the group.
***
Time for another break until tomorrow.
~ Meg
125. Socialization File, Pt. 8 (Dubin, pt. 8)
I was going to end where I did last time, but pastor came by just as I was finishing up. I did a little work in the garden and then laid down to rest and after awhile mom called. I still have to really pace myself and avoid doing too much that will result in a setback (from healing from the surgery). It could be that my digging little trenches to covering an area with plastic is pushing the limit (see http://www.ecocomposite.org/restoration/soilsolar.htm or http://www.ehow.com/how_4037_solarize-soil.html for example). At least I was pretty tired afterwards. I might have to wait a while to continue with that project if I'm not ready yet for this kind of work.
***
Continuing with the rather long chapter section on socialization upon entry to an organization:
"If the new member has been preceded by others who have been through the same situation and can instruct him about the setting, the pattern is considered to be serial." (p. 89)
From what I observed in Vienna, this was the set up there. I don't know if it applied to all parts of the organizations, but I suspect it did. Generally, at least according to my observations, it was people in the more or less same type of position who would be involved in this kind of peer socialization. Sometimes they would use their experience as a source of "understanding what you're going through" because they'd been there. This may or may not exactly be true, depending on how similar, in the end, your socialization was to your mentor's.
Others involved in the newcomer's socialization might be his/her superiors and their family members and sometimes others with some kind of (potential) relationship to the newcomer's work. Their parts in the socialization effort didn't seem to be so much based on an "I've been there" rationale, which would be too egalitarian for the Vienna mission.
***
"Certain organizations possess selection devices which reduce the importance of the socialization process. For example, some organizations select only those individuals who have already assimilated the proper attitudes, values and motivations required for membership." (p. 89)
This was partially, but not entirely, true for the Vienna mission. The thing was that some of the "attitudes, values and motivations" were, it seemed to me, under wraps. The mission had a fairly elaborate selection process, but I'm not sure it was any more involved that is usual for nondenominational Protestant missions. I'm sure the mission would also try to assess the unspoken desired traits, but if they didn't want some of these requirements for success with the organization to become widely known they couldn't be direct in assessing them, which could leave room for error. Also, workers to the mission actually came from some 15 different participant missions, each of which had its own intake process, so there would have been some variation in this, possibly very great variation. It took me about 2 years to go from initial application, getting a response, raising funds and prayer support, and actually leaving for Vienna.
On this account I can only speak for myself, and I'm not sure what anyone else experienced before arriving in Vienna, so I would not even venture to suggest this could be generalized to other inductees. But for myself, once I was accepted but before I arrived in Vienna there were at least a couple incidents in relation to the Vienna mission that, if intentional, could have been tests or lessons. I'm not sure they were intentional though or intended this way, however. The two events were 1) the issue of living by myself and the phone call from the gal in Alaska when I was on the road in Colorado visiting churches, and 2) the last minute request for my to raise more money. If intentional, they could have taught me group centrality (i.e., no lone horses) and submission, or they could have been tests to see how I responded to these kinds of demands on me. Again, I am not at all certain these two events were intentional in these ways, but in hindsight the did seem rather prescient of things to come in Vienna. I believe I already discussed these events in my chronology.
***
This is it for this subsection, so I'll break off here. The next section discusses "Relevant Group Factors."
***
Continuing with the rather long chapter section on socialization upon entry to an organization:
"If the new member has been preceded by others who have been through the same situation and can instruct him about the setting, the pattern is considered to be serial." (p. 89)
From what I observed in Vienna, this was the set up there. I don't know if it applied to all parts of the organizations, but I suspect it did. Generally, at least according to my observations, it was people in the more or less same type of position who would be involved in this kind of peer socialization. Sometimes they would use their experience as a source of "understanding what you're going through" because they'd been there. This may or may not exactly be true, depending on how similar, in the end, your socialization was to your mentor's.
Others involved in the newcomer's socialization might be his/her superiors and their family members and sometimes others with some kind of (potential) relationship to the newcomer's work. Their parts in the socialization effort didn't seem to be so much based on an "I've been there" rationale, which would be too egalitarian for the Vienna mission.
***
"Certain organizations possess selection devices which reduce the importance of the socialization process. For example, some organizations select only those individuals who have already assimilated the proper attitudes, values and motivations required for membership." (p. 89)
This was partially, but not entirely, true for the Vienna mission. The thing was that some of the "attitudes, values and motivations" were, it seemed to me, under wraps. The mission had a fairly elaborate selection process, but I'm not sure it was any more involved that is usual for nondenominational Protestant missions. I'm sure the mission would also try to assess the unspoken desired traits, but if they didn't want some of these requirements for success with the organization to become widely known they couldn't be direct in assessing them, which could leave room for error. Also, workers to the mission actually came from some 15 different participant missions, each of which had its own intake process, so there would have been some variation in this, possibly very great variation. It took me about 2 years to go from initial application, getting a response, raising funds and prayer support, and actually leaving for Vienna.
On this account I can only speak for myself, and I'm not sure what anyone else experienced before arriving in Vienna, so I would not even venture to suggest this could be generalized to other inductees. But for myself, once I was accepted but before I arrived in Vienna there were at least a couple incidents in relation to the Vienna mission that, if intentional, could have been tests or lessons. I'm not sure they were intentional though or intended this way, however. The two events were 1) the issue of living by myself and the phone call from the gal in Alaska when I was on the road in Colorado visiting churches, and 2) the last minute request for my to raise more money. If intentional, they could have taught me group centrality (i.e., no lone horses) and submission, or they could have been tests to see how I responded to these kinds of demands on me. Again, I am not at all certain these two events were intentional in these ways, but in hindsight the did seem rather prescient of things to come in Vienna. I believe I already discussed these events in my chronology.
***
This is it for this subsection, so I'll break off here. The next section discusses "Relevant Group Factors."
124. Socialization File, Pt. 7 (Dubin, pt. 7)
I just spent a good part of the morning placing a Vitamin Shoppe order. I mistakenly thought that their semi-annual sale on store brand products was in March, but it's in April. So I had to redo the whole order I'd planned to place today.
***
"The more pervasive the normative system, the more important the organizational socialization process... The ideology, if accepted by the new member, creates a sort of psychological barrier prohibiting the individual's desertion of the organization." (p. 88)
Since the normative system of the Vienna mission seemed pretty all-inclusive/total/pervasive, the apparent importance of the socialization process shouldn't come as a surprise, at least if the theory advanced by this text is at all true. In fact, in Vienna it seemed that until you passed that first hurdle, the initial socialization, there really wasn't a future for you in the organization at all, in any capacity whatsoever. If you did not meet these criteria than you were persona non gratis, no ifs, ands or buts about it. Thus, even if Superman (or Wonder Woman) had offered their services, if they didn't pass the socialization test they'd be, without ceremony, issued directly to the door. And possibly a whole mythology would have developed around them about what happens to people (even super heroes) who try to buck the system.
As to the second half of this quote, in Vienna there was indeed a kind of "psychological barrier" as described here. In Vienna this, according to my experience and observations, served as a kind of intermediary between the organization and the rest of the world. It provided (often unwritten) guidelines as to how to interact in various contexts with the rest of the world. And since much of life was spent with others in the mission, there was always a sense that you were being observed as to adherence to these group norms. It's possible, though, that the more one internalized these norms the less there would be a sense of being observed, because even if one were being observed it didn't matter much because by then you acted inherently as you should anyway. I imagine that once being observed didn't bother you there would be a great psychological stressor lifted, which would be a reward (in the carrot/stick manner) of being acculturated into the organization.
As to the effect on possible desertion, I think there may be some viability to this in the Vienna context, but I'm not sure. On one hand, I think this is clearly true in that you would be less likely to (whether inadvertently or not) compromise the work of the group by your words or actions. This would include having any negative attitudes about the organization and leaving because of that, especially leaving in a way that could harm the organization. If you were going to leave, it had to be on their terms - as was the case for me. I left with bad attitude (although I'm not sure the extent and level of the bad attitude was understood upon my departure), but the mission seemed to do whatever it could to minimize any possible negative repercussions upon my departure after a troublesome tenure with the mission.
But on the other hand, the mission was not created with the intention that all members would stay on indefinitely with them. So there had to be a way to allow for this coming and going that would both maximize the benefit to the mission and minimize any potential problems from it. Thus, a successful departure, as I understand it, would have the leaving individual be one who had satisfactorily internalized the group's norms (relative to the position the individual held with the mission) and so would not compromise the mission upon leaving (i.e., carelessly divulge secrets) and would be a spokesperson for the mission to their supporting churches and individuals back home. I think sometimes alumni members of the mission became mission p.r. contacts for some time after their departure.
***
This next discussion is difficult to cite snippets from without loss of understanding, so I'll try to summarize it instead.
If a newcomer isn't explicitly taken in as a "learner", then "much of the learning takes place via the informal organization". The contrast to this is an organization where newcomers aren't explicitly thought of as "learners"; these organizational settings are considered more "formal" and they put "more stress... upon influencing the newcomer's values and attitudes, and [have a] more severe... socialization process." (p. 88 - both quotes)
I don't think this fits my Vienna experience. To a certain extent one might have been considered a "learner", but really one generally hit the ground running. For example, 3 days after I landed in Vienna I was already on the job, although that doesn't mean I was doing everything right away. And looking at other newcomers, I think pretty much the same could be said across the board. I do think, however, that newcomers (including myself) were given things to do right away that might have (depending on the position and person) been specifically learning-the-ropes tasks. For me it was reading software manuals, which I did in addition to other secretarial duties given me from the get-go.
Even so, the mission did stress "influencing the newcomer's values and attitudes"... a lot. However, this was often sort of under the radar or cloaked in theological or psychological mumbo-jumbo (I reveal my bias here, I know), which was used to integrate one into the group in whatever fashion seemed necessary for the individual. These processes seemed pretty taylor-made to the individual, although some aspects of it seemed to be common, at least to groups of individuals (e.g., to all secretaries).
In summary, the text here says that informal organizations (ones that didn't identify newcomers as "learners") didn't put much emphasis on values and attitudes and the converse also being true (formal organizations did put such emphasis). In fact, the Vienna mission, if I understand the text correctly, would be an informal organization that DID put such emphasis on newcomer socialization.
***
"The length of the formal socialization period is often a good indication of the organization's desire to influence deep or surface characteristics of the recruits." (p. 88)
I'm not sure how to respond to this statement, because there really wasn't a "formal socialization period" in the Vienna mission, although to me it's clear that such a period existed (albeit, simultaneously with performing one's duties). I have a feeling that the individual his/herself, their superiors and possibly other mission leadership knew how a person was coming along in their "adjustment to life" in the mission and if there were any serious deficiencies.
In the same vein, it was somewhat difficult to determine the length of time any particular individual experienced the initial socialization to the organization. But again, probably the individual and relevant leadership, including at least the key members involved in socializing the person would know how long the person was going through the initial process. Once a person had passed that hurdle they were more accepted into the organization, and it seemed recognizable to others when a person had reached this point or if there were serious problems, especially, as in my case, apparently recalcitrant problems.
***
"The more pervasive the normative system, the more important the organizational socialization process... The ideology, if accepted by the new member, creates a sort of psychological barrier prohibiting the individual's desertion of the organization." (p. 88)
Since the normative system of the Vienna mission seemed pretty all-inclusive/total/pervasive, the apparent importance of the socialization process shouldn't come as a surprise, at least if the theory advanced by this text is at all true. In fact, in Vienna it seemed that until you passed that first hurdle, the initial socialization, there really wasn't a future for you in the organization at all, in any capacity whatsoever. If you did not meet these criteria than you were persona non gratis, no ifs, ands or buts about it. Thus, even if Superman (or Wonder Woman) had offered their services, if they didn't pass the socialization test they'd be, without ceremony, issued directly to the door. And possibly a whole mythology would have developed around them about what happens to people (even super heroes) who try to buck the system.
As to the second half of this quote, in Vienna there was indeed a kind of "psychological barrier" as described here. In Vienna this, according to my experience and observations, served as a kind of intermediary between the organization and the rest of the world. It provided (often unwritten) guidelines as to how to interact in various contexts with the rest of the world. And since much of life was spent with others in the mission, there was always a sense that you were being observed as to adherence to these group norms. It's possible, though, that the more one internalized these norms the less there would be a sense of being observed, because even if one were being observed it didn't matter much because by then you acted inherently as you should anyway. I imagine that once being observed didn't bother you there would be a great psychological stressor lifted, which would be a reward (in the carrot/stick manner) of being acculturated into the organization.
As to the effect on possible desertion, I think there may be some viability to this in the Vienna context, but I'm not sure. On one hand, I think this is clearly true in that you would be less likely to (whether inadvertently or not) compromise the work of the group by your words or actions. This would include having any negative attitudes about the organization and leaving because of that, especially leaving in a way that could harm the organization. If you were going to leave, it had to be on their terms - as was the case for me. I left with bad attitude (although I'm not sure the extent and level of the bad attitude was understood upon my departure), but the mission seemed to do whatever it could to minimize any possible negative repercussions upon my departure after a troublesome tenure with the mission.
But on the other hand, the mission was not created with the intention that all members would stay on indefinitely with them. So there had to be a way to allow for this coming and going that would both maximize the benefit to the mission and minimize any potential problems from it. Thus, a successful departure, as I understand it, would have the leaving individual be one who had satisfactorily internalized the group's norms (relative to the position the individual held with the mission) and so would not compromise the mission upon leaving (i.e., carelessly divulge secrets) and would be a spokesperson for the mission to their supporting churches and individuals back home. I think sometimes alumni members of the mission became mission p.r. contacts for some time after their departure.
***
This next discussion is difficult to cite snippets from without loss of understanding, so I'll try to summarize it instead.
If a newcomer isn't explicitly taken in as a "learner", then "much of the learning takes place via the informal organization". The contrast to this is an organization where newcomers aren't explicitly thought of as "learners"; these organizational settings are considered more "formal" and they put "more stress... upon influencing the newcomer's values and attitudes, and [have a] more severe... socialization process." (p. 88 - both quotes)
I don't think this fits my Vienna experience. To a certain extent one might have been considered a "learner", but really one generally hit the ground running. For example, 3 days after I landed in Vienna I was already on the job, although that doesn't mean I was doing everything right away. And looking at other newcomers, I think pretty much the same could be said across the board. I do think, however, that newcomers (including myself) were given things to do right away that might have (depending on the position and person) been specifically learning-the-ropes tasks. For me it was reading software manuals, which I did in addition to other secretarial duties given me from the get-go.
Even so, the mission did stress "influencing the newcomer's values and attitudes"... a lot. However, this was often sort of under the radar or cloaked in theological or psychological mumbo-jumbo (I reveal my bias here, I know), which was used to integrate one into the group in whatever fashion seemed necessary for the individual. These processes seemed pretty taylor-made to the individual, although some aspects of it seemed to be common, at least to groups of individuals (e.g., to all secretaries).
In summary, the text here says that informal organizations (ones that didn't identify newcomers as "learners") didn't put much emphasis on values and attitudes and the converse also being true (formal organizations did put such emphasis). In fact, the Vienna mission, if I understand the text correctly, would be an informal organization that DID put such emphasis on newcomer socialization.
***
"The length of the formal socialization period is often a good indication of the organization's desire to influence deep or surface characteristics of the recruits." (p. 88)
I'm not sure how to respond to this statement, because there really wasn't a "formal socialization period" in the Vienna mission, although to me it's clear that such a period existed (albeit, simultaneously with performing one's duties). I have a feeling that the individual his/herself, their superiors and possibly other mission leadership knew how a person was coming along in their "adjustment to life" in the mission and if there were any serious deficiencies.
In the same vein, it was somewhat difficult to determine the length of time any particular individual experienced the initial socialization to the organization. But again, probably the individual and relevant leadership, including at least the key members involved in socializing the person would know how long the person was going through the initial process. Once a person had passed that hurdle they were more accepted into the organization, and it seemed recognizable to others when a person had reached this point or if there were serious problems, especially, as in my case, apparently recalcitrant problems.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)