What a week! I was in Seattle a full week, but my other brother and his kids could only stay for 5 days. It was a very hectic 7 days, although my brothers handled the physical labor. Still, my mid-back pain has gotten worse and I had to call back to my doctors to try to get more pain medicine for it. So I'm back to taking more Tramadol, 5 mg pretty much every 4 hours. I've also had some numbness in my feet, which would be a neurological symptom and point towards the likelihood of my having another diskectomy in the not-too-distant future.
Anyway, the memorial service went well, as did the graveside. It's my job now to send notices to people who couldn't come to the memorial service, so I have all mom's address books for that purpose.
In one sense, mom's death isn't totally unexpected since she hadn't been well for some time, but none of us really expected it. It's better for her now, though, in heaven.
I think we were so busy just taking care of things that it still hasn't fully hit that she is gone. I'll pick up where I left in my text discussions in the next day or two though.
Wednesday, April 27, 2011
Tuesday, April 19, 2011
254. Reprieve: Parents
I've been lying in bed and have hardly slept at although I guess I must have slept a little. But I've been thinking... there's so much going on to think about.
Before this happened with mom, her death, I mean, I was thinking about writing a post about more of my thoughts regarding my parents. I need to work on writing something up that could be the start of an obituary, though, but not right now.
The thing is that I'm still trying to make sense of my life, which is what this blog is all about, and there are some new thoughts that have come to me and some old ones that I haven't discussed here yet.
First, about dad. I got to thinking more about his title on his business card (post #12), which is "Program Planning and Control Manager." I think the "control" part could be security-related and as such, if this is so, could point to him having some intelligence-related responsibilities, at least enough to make sure his workers were all in line.
Another thing that hit me is when I was a teenager, once mom got recertified as a nurse (after about 12 or so years of being a stay-at-home mom) and started working part-time again, and she used to say how she was so much busier at her work than dad was. And dad used to play bridge with a group of others during lunch at work. So I'm thinking that this could have been some of the sort of security "clan culture" types of things going on that I experienced in Vienna. That is, such activities as bridge and "down times" were not as frivolous as they might have on the surface seemed; they served an important role in the scheme of things by way of "control".
Then I'd also been thinking about mom. I've wondered for years about how much she knew or didn't know regarding dad's work. She was pretty guileless, though, so it's quite possible she was naive to the significance of anything related to dad's work. But she used to go to dinners they had with dad's work, such as after winning a proposal, and she went down to Albequerque at least once with dad when he went on a business trip. It's hard for me not to compare what I experienced in Vienna with what might be going on related to dad's work. In Vienna, even if the women were not active in the ministry (although some occasionally took women's ministry trips), they had to know a lot of the security things, including how to keep their kids reined in, such as how to talk about their father's work and what they (the family) were doing in Vienna. So did mom have any of this kind of thing? Of course, dad's work and our family situation were quite a bit different than the Vienna mission. For example, we didn't have to "explain" what we were doing in Seattle. And Boeing was such a major employer in Seattle that kids especially wouldn't have thought anything about a parent working there... not like the Vienna mission which could have raised childish curiosity.
So I'd been thinking for a while about writing a post like this, but now, of course, it's all different after mom's death. Saturday I mailed off a little something for her for Easter. It was one of those big no-sweat glasses with her initial on it and some homemade chickpea chips I'd talked with her about on the phone. I filled the cup with the chickpeas. So what should I do with the glass now when it arrives in Seattle? Fill it with flowers and put it by the grave?
In a lot of ways it feels like mom was the last person alive that loved me. When I had my surgery in January she was the only one of the family that contacted me during that time, and she called repeatedly while I was in the hospital, especially when I was in so much pain because the nurses weren't giving me enough pain medicine. It really hurt, though, when she didn't even call me on my 50th birthday less then 2 months after the fiasco with my brother that landed me back down here.
Then I think back on the statement by a physicist who had worked under dad, who in 1981, on the sister-city trip to France he said I should have studied Italian instead of Russian - Italian is half my heritage on dad's side, and Ukrainian is half my heritage on mom's side. How much of my experiences and life can be explained because of the conflict with dad's work and my interests? And how much did mom know or understand?
Before this happened with mom, her death, I mean, I was thinking about writing a post about more of my thoughts regarding my parents. I need to work on writing something up that could be the start of an obituary, though, but not right now.
The thing is that I'm still trying to make sense of my life, which is what this blog is all about, and there are some new thoughts that have come to me and some old ones that I haven't discussed here yet.
First, about dad. I got to thinking more about his title on his business card (post #12), which is "Program Planning and Control Manager." I think the "control" part could be security-related and as such, if this is so, could point to him having some intelligence-related responsibilities, at least enough to make sure his workers were all in line.
Another thing that hit me is when I was a teenager, once mom got recertified as a nurse (after about 12 or so years of being a stay-at-home mom) and started working part-time again, and she used to say how she was so much busier at her work than dad was. And dad used to play bridge with a group of others during lunch at work. So I'm thinking that this could have been some of the sort of security "clan culture" types of things going on that I experienced in Vienna. That is, such activities as bridge and "down times" were not as frivolous as they might have on the surface seemed; they served an important role in the scheme of things by way of "control".
Then I'd also been thinking about mom. I've wondered for years about how much she knew or didn't know regarding dad's work. She was pretty guileless, though, so it's quite possible she was naive to the significance of anything related to dad's work. But she used to go to dinners they had with dad's work, such as after winning a proposal, and she went down to Albequerque at least once with dad when he went on a business trip. It's hard for me not to compare what I experienced in Vienna with what might be going on related to dad's work. In Vienna, even if the women were not active in the ministry (although some occasionally took women's ministry trips), they had to know a lot of the security things, including how to keep their kids reined in, such as how to talk about their father's work and what they (the family) were doing in Vienna. So did mom have any of this kind of thing? Of course, dad's work and our family situation were quite a bit different than the Vienna mission. For example, we didn't have to "explain" what we were doing in Seattle. And Boeing was such a major employer in Seattle that kids especially wouldn't have thought anything about a parent working there... not like the Vienna mission which could have raised childish curiosity.
So I'd been thinking for a while about writing a post like this, but now, of course, it's all different after mom's death. Saturday I mailed off a little something for her for Easter. It was one of those big no-sweat glasses with her initial on it and some homemade chickpea chips I'd talked with her about on the phone. I filled the cup with the chickpeas. So what should I do with the glass now when it arrives in Seattle? Fill it with flowers and put it by the grave?
In a lot of ways it feels like mom was the last person alive that loved me. When I had my surgery in January she was the only one of the family that contacted me during that time, and she called repeatedly while I was in the hospital, especially when I was in so much pain because the nurses weren't giving me enough pain medicine. It really hurt, though, when she didn't even call me on my 50th birthday less then 2 months after the fiasco with my brother that landed me back down here.
Then I think back on the statement by a physicist who had worked under dad, who in 1981, on the sister-city trip to France he said I should have studied Italian instead of Russian - Italian is half my heritage on dad's side, and Ukrainian is half my heritage on mom's side. How much of my experiences and life can be explained because of the conflict with dad's work and my interests? And how much did mom know or understand?
253. Reprieve: Mom Died Today
I'm going to be taking a break to take care of family business. I'm hoping to get one more "Page" uploaded though before I leave for Seattle tomorrow.
Monday, April 18, 2011
252. Organizational Behavior File, Pt. 4 (Ouchi, pt. 2)
Continuing where I left off last night...
But this instance is at least an attempt to base a practice on Scripture, whereas that's more that the Vienna mission could say for its "security" measures. In fact, not only were these "measures" mostly unwritten, they were also "unspoken" which means that you could wheedle your way out of any assertion that any particular security measure exists. For example, let's consider the roommate thing (where they kept trying to set me up with that poor unsuspecting Alaskan secretary). If confronted on this they could all turn to each other and say, with very innocent looking eyes and looks of surprises on their faces, "I didn't know anything about you not wanting a room mate." Then turning to the next person, "Did you know anything about you wanting a room mate?" "No, I didn't. Why did you think we wanted to set you up with a roommate? All we did was provide a place for you to stay when you first got here so you would have the choice yourself as to where to live rather than us setting you up with one. How would we know what kind of apartment you'd like?" Etc., etc. But the thing is, that in doing this kind of thing, they might very well know that someone or the other probably knew of my desire to live alone, but they wouldn't ask that person if he knew anything about my wanting to live alone.
So that's the kind of thing you'd face there, all these unspoken rules that were intentionally unspoken so that there were quite reasonable ways they could brush off any assertions of anything other than the surface truth going on. But if you were an anthropologist you might be able to read between or look past some of their words to pick up discrepancies, or anything that might betray their carefully mastered disguises. I hope you don't doubt me by now and even if you do, if you know anything at all about what the former Communist regimes were like in the Warsaw Pact countries and what it might have been like to be a believer in them, you might agree that this kind of thing is quite possible. However, my experience is that the believers in Eastern Europe generally had a lot more integrity than those missionaries did. Which makes me think that maybe the East European believers should be teaching the missionaries and not the other way around. After all, head knowledge can only take you so far in Christianity, and, if you agree at all with Kierkegaard's interpretation of Scripture, eventually you have to take a "leap of faith," which we know these missionaries weren't prone to do, preferring to rely on their own security machinations instead of God. And again, I'm talking about not taking such precautions any farther than what Scripture allows. As soon as you start in on things that are clearly contrary to Scripture you're on spiritual quicksand.
Returning again to the text, however, I'd like to talk next about "deep level of agreement among members on what constitutes proper behavior." In the case at hand, the Vienna mission, that is, I have already demonstrated in previous posts how the mission's demands, especially the security-related ones, were often unbiblical. So then it becomes the mission's challenge to get seminarian to agree on a "deep level" to such "proper behavior[s]." This might be where Milgram comes in, not that the missionaries were shocking anyone, but just that they took the same stance towards authority as did the subjects in Milgram's famous study. That is, they put the mission's authority above Scripture, which is sort of how, for example, a lot of German pastors could go along with Hitler, whereas Bonhoeffer was one of the few who wouldn't. (This example is good in as much as the individuals are all church workers, but the mission can't be compared to Hitler, so that part of the comparison is not good.) Despite the differences in the nature of the authority and what was asked of the church workers, they were, in both cases asked to do unscriptural things and went along with it, putting the authority above Scripture and God's authority. In other words, in their service to God they were willing to disobey God, because, apparently they believed that the ends could justify the means and/or the means were good because the authority status they ascribed to the mission made them (the means) good. This is a new twist to in trying to understand their logic, and the comparison between these two mechanisms looks like this:
The mission leadership makes an unscriptural demand.
The members of the mission ascribe a certain quality of authority that allows them (the members) to view the demand as being justified and scriptural.
The members accept the demand.
[View of authority allowing for acceptance of the demand.]
Or...
The mission leadership makes an unscriptural demand.
The members of the mission believe that the objective of the ministry and/or demand is adequate to override any Scriptural sanction or instruction contrary to the demand.
The members accept the demand.
[View of the objective and pragmatic belief structure.]
However, I'd be guilty of "false dilemma" if I suggested that 1) these two are mutually exclusive and/or 2) they were the only options. For example, another possibility might run like this:
The mission leadership makes an unscriptural demand.
The members of the mission actually believe that the demand is scriptural.
The members accept the demand.
This case is somewhat more complex, I think, then the other two, however. For example, in this case errors could happen in 1) mistaken understanding of scripture and/or 2) mistaken understanding of the demand. In this case, the mission could provide their interpretation of the relevant scriptural teaching and/or they could present the demand in such as way as to make it seem biblical (thus hiding or glossing over potentially unbiblical aspects of it).
I find all of these possibilities to be reasonably plausible and suspect that they were all in effect with different workers regarding different demands under various circumstances. In any case, once you get sucked into this kind of thing, I suspect that it begins to look normal to the individual, they receive lots of positive affirmations upon acceptance of it, and then it's hard to get out of it, like the spy gradually hooking his recruit in with gradually more and more unethical or illegal cooperation. Eventually you're in a potential blackmail situation and the costs of extricating oneself are greater than continuing on in the relationship. (I'd like to also take this opportunity to thank the mission - along with a certain Goodwill Games guest and the Bratsk Komsomols - for providing the impetus for my learning about spy tactics. If it weren't for them I would be none the wiser on these issues.)
***
Next the author explains explicit informational demands are greatest for the "market system" than for the "clan system," while the implicit demands are greatest for the "clan system." This certainly fit the Vienna mission, a "clan system" too, as I've discussed above, regarding how mission leadership could fairly easily deny things in the "implicit" realm, which was one of the main purposes of their being a highly developed "implicit realm" (which was in their case largely deceptive in purpose and nature). The authors describe this as "a very efficient set of symbols with which to communicate complex ideas, thus conserving on the very limited information-carrying capacity of an organization." (p. 839)
It might have been even more efficient, however, to just do away altogether with the written policies and guidelines, since they weren't adhered to consistently anyway. It's possible, however, that much as the Soviet legal nihilism, they could find some helpful use (or misuse) for such written missives. It might also be noted that the mission, it seemed, wanted to have a monopoly on written explicit communications, which is why all prayer letters had to be censored before being sent out to supporters. That is, if anyone was going to make use of explicitly written communiqués, it was going to be them and/or on their terms. Fortunately for me and you (unless you are connected with the mission), they can't censor my written communications now. Unless you can't tell... I just want to make that very explicit... in case there were any doubts about that, I mean.
***
The thing is that homogeneity also included what kind of education a person must have. I've already spoken enough about my European Studies background, so I won't go into that again here. But what I would like to suggest, by way of adding to the homogeneity discussion, is that it seemed that the bulk of the new theologians came from one particular seminary, although not all of them did. But I think that having so many of them come from that one educational institution also increased the homogeneity. The woman who's apartment I first stayed in (with the Alaskan secretary) upon arrival in Vienna was at that very time studying at that seminary too. In addition, that seminary was located in the same city as the U.S. office of the mission. It seemed like a lot of these new workers were recruited by word of mouth, and they may also have come before for one or more teaching trips (like a visiting professor) into Eastern Europe. On the other hand, when someone on staff, such as the person preparing for women's ministry, needed to acquire a Th.M., they sent him/her to that seminary. So it seemed as if there was some mutual appreciation going on there between the mission and that one seminary. And new workers, having come from that one school would have similar outlooks, making it easier to assimilate them.
I actually attended a Bible school that had a pretty close tie to that seminary, in that a lot of people from my Bible school went on to get their advanced degree from that seminary. But part of the issue in my experience though, was that I didn't go through the undergraduate program, but a special one-year graduate program and then one more year as an "unclassified" student. The graduate program consisted of some approximately 60 students who all went through the same classes, with a few electives thrown in, so they were more or less isolated from the rest of the students in that way. Also, we were allowed to live off-campus, whereas undergraduates were, unless they were married, and I did live off campus that year. So a lot of us were also cut off from the other students in that way as well. The second year (being neither married nor in the graduate program) I did live off campus, but I could take whatever classes I wanted and didn't really have a cohort, although I did get along well with a lot of my dorm-mates, many of whom I kept in touch with for quite some time, until I began to rethink some of my views on life while living in Russia and trying to figure my life out. I didn't change my theology, per se, though. But still, my attitude towards the church did change considerable.
Also, missionaries coming (largely) from that one seminary could be similar, I think, to the Hui and Tanomoshi members coming from a particular "social and kinship network."
Regarding the untolerance for turnover, I expect my demise was problematic for the mission, but I'll never know how much or in what ways exactly. I think that once someone was properly socialized and acting as a useful member they hoped the person would stay on, although there was undoubtedly more turnover among the secretaries than the other workers, because secretaries might have been less likely to see themselves as career missionaries.
***
Although there are only 5 or 6 pages left of this article, they are highly marked up. But I'll have to continue my comments in my next post.
"A clan requires not only a norm of reciprocity and the idea of legitimate authority..., but also social agreement on a broad range of values and beliefs. Because the clan lacks the explicit price mechanism of the market and the explicit rules of the bureaucracy, it relies for its control upon a deep level of common agreement between members on what constitutes proper behavior, and it requires a high level of commitment on the part of each individual to those specially prescribed behaviors. Clearly, a clan is more demanding than either a market or a bureaucracy in terms of the social agreements which are prerequisite to its successful operation." (p. 839)One problem here is the fact that we're talking about a Christian organization. Now yesterday I had my first membership class for the church I've been going to (when I'm able) since I moved back here just over a year ago now. Yesterday we learned mostly about the history of the denomination, which is a new denomination for me (I'm more committed to my beliefs than I am to a particular denomination, so I find the church that seems the best fit wherever I happen to be living.) So I learned that this church practice triple-dunk baptism, and they use Matthew 28:19 ("Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit") as their reasoning. However, Scripture doesn't exactly say to "baptize by dunking face first in the water three times, once for each member of the Godhead." So there is a little interpretation going on there - sort of reading between the lines, if you will. I'm not saying there's anything wrong with this, just that we should recognize it for what it is.
But this instance is at least an attempt to base a practice on Scripture, whereas that's more that the Vienna mission could say for its "security" measures. In fact, not only were these "measures" mostly unwritten, they were also "unspoken" which means that you could wheedle your way out of any assertion that any particular security measure exists. For example, let's consider the roommate thing (where they kept trying to set me up with that poor unsuspecting Alaskan secretary). If confronted on this they could all turn to each other and say, with very innocent looking eyes and looks of surprises on their faces, "I didn't know anything about you not wanting a room mate." Then turning to the next person, "Did you know anything about you wanting a room mate?" "No, I didn't. Why did you think we wanted to set you up with a roommate? All we did was provide a place for you to stay when you first got here so you would have the choice yourself as to where to live rather than us setting you up with one. How would we know what kind of apartment you'd like?" Etc., etc. But the thing is, that in doing this kind of thing, they might very well know that someone or the other probably knew of my desire to live alone, but they wouldn't ask that person if he knew anything about my wanting to live alone.
So that's the kind of thing you'd face there, all these unspoken rules that were intentionally unspoken so that there were quite reasonable ways they could brush off any assertions of anything other than the surface truth going on. But if you were an anthropologist you might be able to read between or look past some of their words to pick up discrepancies, or anything that might betray their carefully mastered disguises. I hope you don't doubt me by now and even if you do, if you know anything at all about what the former Communist regimes were like in the Warsaw Pact countries and what it might have been like to be a believer in them, you might agree that this kind of thing is quite possible. However, my experience is that the believers in Eastern Europe generally had a lot more integrity than those missionaries did. Which makes me think that maybe the East European believers should be teaching the missionaries and not the other way around. After all, head knowledge can only take you so far in Christianity, and, if you agree at all with Kierkegaard's interpretation of Scripture, eventually you have to take a "leap of faith," which we know these missionaries weren't prone to do, preferring to rely on their own security machinations instead of God. And again, I'm talking about not taking such precautions any farther than what Scripture allows. As soon as you start in on things that are clearly contrary to Scripture you're on spiritual quicksand.
Returning again to the text, however, I'd like to talk next about "deep level of agreement among members on what constitutes proper behavior." In the case at hand, the Vienna mission, that is, I have already demonstrated in previous posts how the mission's demands, especially the security-related ones, were often unbiblical. So then it becomes the mission's challenge to get seminarian to agree on a "deep level" to such "proper behavior[s]." This might be where Milgram comes in, not that the missionaries were shocking anyone, but just that they took the same stance towards authority as did the subjects in Milgram's famous study. That is, they put the mission's authority above Scripture, which is sort of how, for example, a lot of German pastors could go along with Hitler, whereas Bonhoeffer was one of the few who wouldn't. (This example is good in as much as the individuals are all church workers, but the mission can't be compared to Hitler, so that part of the comparison is not good.) Despite the differences in the nature of the authority and what was asked of the church workers, they were, in both cases asked to do unscriptural things and went along with it, putting the authority above Scripture and God's authority. In other words, in their service to God they were willing to disobey God, because, apparently they believed that the ends could justify the means and/or the means were good because the authority status they ascribed to the mission made them (the means) good. This is a new twist to in trying to understand their logic, and the comparison between these two mechanisms looks like this:
The mission leadership makes an unscriptural demand.
The members of the mission ascribe a certain quality of authority that allows them (the members) to view the demand as being justified and scriptural.
The members accept the demand.
[View of authority allowing for acceptance of the demand.]
Or...The mission leadership makes an unscriptural demand.
The members of the mission believe that the objective of the ministry and/or demand is adequate to override any Scriptural sanction or instruction contrary to the demand.
The members accept the demand.
[View of the objective and pragmatic belief structure.]
However, I'd be guilty of "false dilemma" if I suggested that 1) these two are mutually exclusive and/or 2) they were the only options. For example, another possibility might run like this:
The mission leadership makes an unscriptural demand.
The members of the mission actually believe that the demand is scriptural.
The members accept the demand.
This case is somewhat more complex, I think, then the other two, however. For example, in this case errors could happen in 1) mistaken understanding of scripture and/or 2) mistaken understanding of the demand. In this case, the mission could provide their interpretation of the relevant scriptural teaching and/or they could present the demand in such as way as to make it seem biblical (thus hiding or glossing over potentially unbiblical aspects of it).
I find all of these possibilities to be reasonably plausible and suspect that they were all in effect with different workers regarding different demands under various circumstances. In any case, once you get sucked into this kind of thing, I suspect that it begins to look normal to the individual, they receive lots of positive affirmations upon acceptance of it, and then it's hard to get out of it, like the spy gradually hooking his recruit in with gradually more and more unethical or illegal cooperation. Eventually you're in a potential blackmail situation and the costs of extricating oneself are greater than continuing on in the relationship. (I'd like to also take this opportunity to thank the mission - along with a certain Goodwill Games guest and the Bratsk Komsomols - for providing the impetus for my learning about spy tactics. If it weren't for them I would be none the wiser on these issues.)
***
Next the author explains explicit informational demands are greatest for the "market system" than for the "clan system," while the implicit demands are greatest for the "clan system." This certainly fit the Vienna mission, a "clan system" too, as I've discussed above, regarding how mission leadership could fairly easily deny things in the "implicit" realm, which was one of the main purposes of their being a highly developed "implicit realm" (which was in their case largely deceptive in purpose and nature). The authors describe this as "a very efficient set of symbols with which to communicate complex ideas, thus conserving on the very limited information-carrying capacity of an organization." (p. 839)
It might have been even more efficient, however, to just do away altogether with the written policies and guidelines, since they weren't adhered to consistently anyway. It's possible, however, that much as the Soviet legal nihilism, they could find some helpful use (or misuse) for such written missives. It might also be noted that the mission, it seemed, wanted to have a monopoly on written explicit communications, which is why all prayer letters had to be censored before being sent out to supporters. That is, if anyone was going to make use of explicitly written communiqués, it was going to be them and/or on their terms. Fortunately for me and you (unless you are connected with the mission), they can't censor my written communications now. Unless you can't tell... I just want to make that very explicit... in case there were any doubts about that, I mean.
***
"Ivan Light [22] has described the Chinese-American Hui and the Japanese-American Tanomoshi, revolving-credit lending societies which provide venture capital for starting new businesses. They carry out all of the functions of any Wall Street investment bank, but, within their ethnic group, they are able to make loans which would be far too risky for any bank because they enjoy potential borrowers or members. None of their practices are explicit - even the rate of interest paid by borrowers is left unspecified and implicit. Entry into a Hui or Tanomoshi is strictly by birthright, a practice which guarantees that each member is a part of a social network and kinship network which will support the values and beliefs upon which the control mechanism is founded. Clearly, the Clan information system cannot cope with heterogeneity nor with turnover, disadvantages which make it all but infeasible as a central mechanism of control in modern organizations, but the Clan, like the market, can operate with great efficiency if the basic conditions necessary to its operation can be met." (p. 840)Like these Asian-American revolving-credit societies, the Vienna mission could most definitely not tolerate any non-homogeneity at all. That is, except regarding secretaries, it would seem. Secretaries, I think were a special class because they were generally uneducated (that is, without higher education degrees) and so because of this more maleable, especially by Th.M (and Th.D.) holding theologians. Well, except me, of course, as it turned out. Anyone who really might want the mission to continue to function in the manner in which I'm describing here might take note of this, that in the future it might be more advisable to select less-educated secretaries.
The thing is that homogeneity also included what kind of education a person must have. I've already spoken enough about my European Studies background, so I won't go into that again here. But what I would like to suggest, by way of adding to the homogeneity discussion, is that it seemed that the bulk of the new theologians came from one particular seminary, although not all of them did. But I think that having so many of them come from that one educational institution also increased the homogeneity. The woman who's apartment I first stayed in (with the Alaskan secretary) upon arrival in Vienna was at that very time studying at that seminary too. In addition, that seminary was located in the same city as the U.S. office of the mission. It seemed like a lot of these new workers were recruited by word of mouth, and they may also have come before for one or more teaching trips (like a visiting professor) into Eastern Europe. On the other hand, when someone on staff, such as the person preparing for women's ministry, needed to acquire a Th.M., they sent him/her to that seminary. So it seemed as if there was some mutual appreciation going on there between the mission and that one seminary. And new workers, having come from that one school would have similar outlooks, making it easier to assimilate them.
I actually attended a Bible school that had a pretty close tie to that seminary, in that a lot of people from my Bible school went on to get their advanced degree from that seminary. But part of the issue in my experience though, was that I didn't go through the undergraduate program, but a special one-year graduate program and then one more year as an "unclassified" student. The graduate program consisted of some approximately 60 students who all went through the same classes, with a few electives thrown in, so they were more or less isolated from the rest of the students in that way. Also, we were allowed to live off-campus, whereas undergraduates were, unless they were married, and I did live off campus that year. So a lot of us were also cut off from the other students in that way as well. The second year (being neither married nor in the graduate program) I did live off campus, but I could take whatever classes I wanted and didn't really have a cohort, although I did get along well with a lot of my dorm-mates, many of whom I kept in touch with for quite some time, until I began to rethink some of my views on life while living in Russia and trying to figure my life out. I didn't change my theology, per se, though. But still, my attitude towards the church did change considerable.
Also, missionaries coming (largely) from that one seminary could be similar, I think, to the Hui and Tanomoshi members coming from a particular "social and kinship network."
Regarding the untolerance for turnover, I expect my demise was problematic for the mission, but I'll never know how much or in what ways exactly. I think that once someone was properly socialized and acting as a useful member they hoped the person would stay on, although there was undoubtedly more turnover among the secretaries than the other workers, because secretaries might have been less likely to see themselves as career missionaries.
***
Although there are only 5 or 6 pages left of this article, they are highly marked up. But I'll have to continue my comments in my next post.
Sunday, April 17, 2011
251. Organizational Behavior File, Pt. 3 (Ouchi, pt. 1)
I just posted a very long list of terms used in this blog up to the end of the Socialization file posts. I hope someone finds it useful. I've been working on that, which is why I haven't posted so much these past couple days. Next I want to work on a list of Scripture passages quoted and referenced in my posts. That'll be a lot easier though.
***
This next article is:
Ouchi, William G. (1979, Sept.). A conceptual framework for the design of organizational control mechanisms. Management Science, 25(9), 833-848.
***
This seems straightforward enough. First, however, one needs to identify the objectives, I think, because that will make a difference in what kinds of controls to choose, right?
The objective of the mission basically, was to equip indigenous church leaders in Eastern Europe.
***
I'm skipping over market and bureaucratic mechanisms, because they don't provide anything helpful (in trying to understand the Vienna mission.
It might take a bit more by way of mental gymnastics to apply this to the Vienna mission context. But, since this text seems to start with the difficulties of oversight, I'll take that approach too. What would the difficulties of oversight have been for the Vienna mission?
Per me: I don't think I would have been that difficult to "oversee" in the usual sense of the term because it should be readily recognizable if I was filing everything wrong or making a lot of typos in my letters, for example. So from that standpoint a bureaucratic control of me should have sufficed. But the thing is that you have to add in the security issue.
Since the security issue was organization-wide (albeit with different positions have their own peculiar nuances), I'm going to consider the security issue in general.
How could the mission realistically make sure that its workers were complying with the security expectations (written and otherwise, spoken and otherwise)? One possibility would be to post cameras all over the building and having the evil military chaplain h.r. director (or his assistant) sit all day and watch the cameras. However, you might also want to get audio recordings, so there should be bugs in all the rooms and phones too, which would keep the evil h.r. director busy all day (unless he hadn't delegated camera duty to his assistant, in which case the assistant would monitor the bugs).
But then you still would have the issue of what happens when people leave the office. One possibility would be to just not let them leave the office, but keep them safely tucked away under close surveillance. And I suspect the theologians on staff would not have been sufficiently developed to mind these precautions at all, but would have just readily complied for the sake of security, which everyone knew was of utmost importance.
But the Austrian authorities might get suspicious if no one ever came out of the building, and then you have to deal with the schnitzel delivery guy... And heaven forbid someone from the States might come visiting.
No, so even if the theologians would have been okay with this set up, I have a sneaky suspicion it would have been problematic at some point in the process.
Another alternative would be to take a cue from the Soviets. They had something called an informant system in place, and this was so to one degree or another in all the Warsaw Pact countries. In this set up, what you would do is just recruit a few members of the organization to be snitches. And since no one would know who the snitches were, they'd be careful around any other staff members. And the organization could have a policy of everyone having to do everything with another staff member (maybe this is why the practice got started of women not being able to go to the restroom alone in public places - if you're not aware of this American custom it's just that women always go in droves to the restroom, such as at a restaurant).
The problem with this is that it would foster a climate of distrust, and the mission wouldn't go for that because it would make it hard to work together. Also, if anyone figured out who the snitches were they might find a way to do things in groups with no snitches amongst them. These are theologians, after all, and they're sometimes clever. You never know.
No, this text, I think provides about the only way possible to control the workers in the Vienna mission. But the thing is, as far as I'm concerned, just how much controlling should be done? How likely is it that people who have studied for their profession and then spent a year or more to raise support all just to work with the mission would become a traitor and betray the organization? And who would they betray the mission to, anyway? Their whole work was with believers in Communist countries, some of whom paid a heavy price for their faith - would the workers then go tell the Communists about the organization? I hardly think so!
But then there's the issue of Vienna being the hotbed of spies it was. So let's say that someone might accidentally tell a spy something about the mission. Does that mean that everyone should stay cloistered in their homes after work? Or maybe just hang out among themselves or maybe just with native English speakers?
The point is, how far are you going to take this? I've already written at some length about how the mission shouldn't have been so paranoid anyway and forsaken Scriptural teaching for the sake of security. But I wouldn't necessarily say they couldn't have any security precautions at all. I would say they should have rational security kept in perspective. That is, it shouldn't be an obsession and there should be more living by faith. Face it, no one can control everything in their lives. Like, I could go out and get hit by a car tomorrow. Or you could. Right?
Also, besides the Scriptural reasons, and besides the psychological ones (i.e., paranoia), I think there's also a justice issue. That is the mission shouldn't have had the right to treat it's own members the way they did just for the sake of security. In their system, where you had to just trust them on very limited knowledge, without questioning, and go along with everything. In that kind of a set up the individual is just an object, a thing that is controlled and acted upon but has no self-determination.
Anyway, let's go on.
***
This next section is mainly of interest in helping to understand the different social entities involved:
Like I say, this text mainly is helpful for defining the differences between socialization in professions, cultures, or organizations.
***
Market control requires information about prices, and the social requirements are the norms of reciprocity.
Bureaucracy control requires information about prices and rules, and the social requirements are norm of reciprocity and legitimate authority.
Clan control requires information about prices, rules and traditions, and the social requirements are norm reciprocity, legitimate authority, and shared values and beliefs.
***
It seems to me, too, that there could be a wide range of understanding as to what the "norm of reciprocity", "legitimate authority" and "shared values, beliefs" entail. For example, does reciprocity only encompass my at-work activities? If not, then what else does it include? Likewise, what type authority are we talking about and what is it authority over? Are we talking dictatorial authority? Are we talking dictatorial authority over my whole life? Then there's the issues of shared values, beliefs. What are these beliefs about and how all-encompassing are they? Maybe you can guess, if you've been following along at all, that the Vienna mission apparently took as much liberty as was possible in these "social requirements".
***
I've got this article all marked up and we've only just begun, but it's late and so I'm going to leave off for now.
***
This next article is:
Ouchi, William G. (1979, Sept.). A conceptual framework for the design of organizational control mechanisms. Management Science, 25(9), 833-848.
***
"This paper considers a more simple-minded view of organizational control stated in the following two questions: What are the mechanisms through which an organization can be managed so that it moves towards its objectives? How can the design of these mechanisms be improved, and what are the limits of each basic design?" (p. 833)
This seems straightforward enough. First, however, one needs to identify the objectives, I think, because that will make a difference in what kinds of controls to choose, right?
The objective of the mission basically, was to equip indigenous church leaders in Eastern Europe.
***
I'm skipping over market and bureaucratic mechanisms, because they don't provide anything helpful (in trying to understand the Vienna mission.
"Consider the foreman in the warehouse. His task is to oversee the work of pickers and packers. How is the warehouse manager to evaluate the work of the foreman? To some extent, he can rely on bureaucratic mechanisms such as output schedules, budgets, and inventory rules, but these in turn require surveillance. Given that the task of the foreman is significantly more subtle than that of the picker, the manager's task of bureaucratically supervising the foreman becomes very complex. However, if the manager is capable of selecting for promotion to foreman only that subset of workers who display a high internal commitment to these objectives, then his need for explicit surveillance and evaluation is reduced. In short, once the manager knows that they are trying to achieve the 'right' objectives, he can eliminate many costly forms of auditing and surveillance." (p. 836-7)
It might take a bit more by way of mental gymnastics to apply this to the Vienna mission context. But, since this text seems to start with the difficulties of oversight, I'll take that approach too. What would the difficulties of oversight have been for the Vienna mission?
Per me: I don't think I would have been that difficult to "oversee" in the usual sense of the term because it should be readily recognizable if I was filing everything wrong or making a lot of typos in my letters, for example. So from that standpoint a bureaucratic control of me should have sufficed. But the thing is that you have to add in the security issue.
Since the security issue was organization-wide (albeit with different positions have their own peculiar nuances), I'm going to consider the security issue in general.
How could the mission realistically make sure that its workers were complying with the security expectations (written and otherwise, spoken and otherwise)? One possibility would be to post cameras all over the building and having the evil military chaplain h.r. director (or his assistant) sit all day and watch the cameras. However, you might also want to get audio recordings, so there should be bugs in all the rooms and phones too, which would keep the evil h.r. director busy all day (unless he hadn't delegated camera duty to his assistant, in which case the assistant would monitor the bugs).
But then you still would have the issue of what happens when people leave the office. One possibility would be to just not let them leave the office, but keep them safely tucked away under close surveillance. And I suspect the theologians on staff would not have been sufficiently developed to mind these precautions at all, but would have just readily complied for the sake of security, which everyone knew was of utmost importance.
But the Austrian authorities might get suspicious if no one ever came out of the building, and then you have to deal with the schnitzel delivery guy... And heaven forbid someone from the States might come visiting.
No, so even if the theologians would have been okay with this set up, I have a sneaky suspicion it would have been problematic at some point in the process.
Another alternative would be to take a cue from the Soviets. They had something called an informant system in place, and this was so to one degree or another in all the Warsaw Pact countries. In this set up, what you would do is just recruit a few members of the organization to be snitches. And since no one would know who the snitches were, they'd be careful around any other staff members. And the organization could have a policy of everyone having to do everything with another staff member (maybe this is why the practice got started of women not being able to go to the restroom alone in public places - if you're not aware of this American custom it's just that women always go in droves to the restroom, such as at a restaurant).
The problem with this is that it would foster a climate of distrust, and the mission wouldn't go for that because it would make it hard to work together. Also, if anyone figured out who the snitches were they might find a way to do things in groups with no snitches amongst them. These are theologians, after all, and they're sometimes clever. You never know.
No, this text, I think provides about the only way possible to control the workers in the Vienna mission. But the thing is, as far as I'm concerned, just how much controlling should be done? How likely is it that people who have studied for their profession and then spent a year or more to raise support all just to work with the mission would become a traitor and betray the organization? And who would they betray the mission to, anyway? Their whole work was with believers in Communist countries, some of whom paid a heavy price for their faith - would the workers then go tell the Communists about the organization? I hardly think so!
But then there's the issue of Vienna being the hotbed of spies it was. So let's say that someone might accidentally tell a spy something about the mission. Does that mean that everyone should stay cloistered in their homes after work? Or maybe just hang out among themselves or maybe just with native English speakers?
The point is, how far are you going to take this? I've already written at some length about how the mission shouldn't have been so paranoid anyway and forsaken Scriptural teaching for the sake of security. But I wouldn't necessarily say they couldn't have any security precautions at all. I would say they should have rational security kept in perspective. That is, it shouldn't be an obsession and there should be more living by faith. Face it, no one can control everything in their lives. Like, I could go out and get hit by a car tomorrow. Or you could. Right?
Also, besides the Scriptural reasons, and besides the psychological ones (i.e., paranoia), I think there's also a justice issue. That is the mission shouldn't have had the right to treat it's own members the way they did just for the sake of security. In their system, where you had to just trust them on very limited knowledge, without questioning, and go along with everything. In that kind of a set up the individual is just an object, a thing that is controlled and acted upon but has no self-determination.
Anyway, let's go on.
***
This next section is mainly of interest in helping to understand the different social entities involved:
"When these socialization processes characterize groups such as physicians or nurses who occupy different organizations but with similar values, we refer to them as professions. When the socialization process refers to all of the citizens of a political unit, we refer to it as a culture. When it refers to the properties of a unique organization, we may refer to it as a clan. The functions of socialization are similar in professions, cultures, and clans, but our present interest centers on the clan." (p. 837)
Like I say, this text mainly is helpful for defining the differences between socialization in professions, cultures, or organizations.
***
"It is possible to arrange the three modes of control along each of two dimensions: the informational requirements necessary to operate each control type, and the social underpinnings necessary to operate each control type." (p. 837)I'll just sum up the table.
Market control requires information about prices, and the social requirements are the norms of reciprocity.
Bureaucracy control requires information about prices and rules, and the social requirements are norm of reciprocity and legitimate authority.
Clan control requires information about prices, rules and traditions, and the social requirements are norm reciprocity, legitimate authority, and shared values and beliefs.
***
"A Clan requires not only a norm of reciprocity and the idea of legitimate authority (often of the 'traditional' rather than the 'rational/legal' form), but also social agreement on a broad range of values and beliefs. Because the clan lacks the explicit price mechanism of the market and the explicit rules of the bureaucracy, it relies for its control upon a deep level of common agreement between members on what constitutes proper behavior, and it requires a high level of commitment on the part of each individual to those socially prescribed behaviors. Clearly, a clan is more demanding than either a market or a bureaucracy in terms of the social agreements which are prerequisite to its successful operation." (p. 838)The thing that I've been stumped on is how the mission could get its members to agree on all the things it demanded from them? Of course, I haven't definitively shown that everyone had the same rules to live by as me, but assuming they did, and I never did anything against the mission but that still wasn't enough, what were they willing to agree with the mission on that evidently went beyond what I was doing? (or else, if I didn't get the treatment I did because of my own actions, then why did I get the treatment I did by the mission?)
It seems to me, too, that there could be a wide range of understanding as to what the "norm of reciprocity", "legitimate authority" and "shared values, beliefs" entail. For example, does reciprocity only encompass my at-work activities? If not, then what else does it include? Likewise, what type authority are we talking about and what is it authority over? Are we talking dictatorial authority? Are we talking dictatorial authority over my whole life? Then there's the issues of shared values, beliefs. What are these beliefs about and how all-encompassing are they? Maybe you can guess, if you've been following along at all, that the Vienna mission apparently took as much liberty as was possible in these "social requirements".
***
I've got this article all marked up and we've only just begun, but it's late and so I'm going to leave off for now.
250. Reprieve: Freire & Buber
A few years ago I did a bit of studying comparing Martin Buber and Paolo Freire, both of whom have something to say about education. Part of what I found was regarding their use of pronouns, which has stuck with me, in both cases, as being a useful reminder in how to relate to other people. I was reminded of this in one of my recent posts, in which I said that the mission basically treated its members as objects without self-determination; certainly, I felt that way at least.
I won't go into a lot of detail here about this, except to draw it to your attention and apply it a bit to the Vienna mission.
Freire is concerned with hierarchical relationships and this comes out in his philosophical use of pronouns. For him, having an I-thou relationship indicates hierarchy and, as such, is bad or wrong. In contrast, an I-I relationship is more egalitarian and good or right. His frame of reference is the great disparity of wealth and poverty in Brazil in the 20th century.
Buber, on the other hand, is troubled by I-it relationships, wherein someone relates to the other as an object (like how I described the mission as treating its members) and as such is bad or wrong. On the other hand 'wordless unity' describes a valuation of the other person as a person, which includes an attempt to understand them and accept their position, while at the same time not necessarily agreeing with them (which might indicate treating oneself as an 'it'). Buber's frame of reference was the atrocities of Hitler's prison camps as a Jewish internee.
I think that what these two men have to say have is important. But I wouldn't say either serves as an exact template for my views on how people should be treated and related to.
Regarding Buber's understanding, I think that people should always be related to as "I's", although I think that there are times when I don't think it's enough to just allow the other person to have their views. (I haven't studied this in a while, so I could be overimplifying Buber's philosophy, however.) I'll just deal with the Christian to Christian and Christian to non-Christian relationships in my comments here. I think that there is good biblical backing for me in my understanding that the unbeliever must be allowed to make their own decision regarding Christ, for example, and also Christians would otherwise not believe they should be held to the same standards as Christians, anyway (although a lot of non-Christians act more Christ-like than some Christians). So this relationship would more or less mirror Buber's I-I relationship. However, Christian's are to hold each other accountable in a way not so with non-Christians, and, as such, can not accept the position that we should just accept another believer's position at face value. That is, we are supposed to compare it (and their actions) to Scripture and admonish one another in love (Colossians 3:16), where needed.
Regarding Freire's view, I think that there is some truth to this in how the Bible says we are to relate to one another both Christian to Christian and also Christian to non-Christian. That is (regarding the Christian to Christian relationship), we are not to view ourselves as higher than others (Romans 12:3) and we are to recognize our need for one another (I. Corinthians 12:14-26). Even in our relationship with unbelievers the "pride comes before a fall" (Proverbs 11:2) rule still applies. However, Christians are to give deference to church leaders (e.g., I Peter 5:5) and secular authorities (e.g., I Peter 2:15-25), although that deference is not unconditional, but is subject to any Scriptural limitations that might apply. (Also, note that the I Peter 5:5 does not say to obey in the case of being asked to do something that might be sin, just to obey whether your boss is kind or not.)
So, in general terms (with exceptions, as noted above), Christian relations should be as such:
Christian to Christian relations should be mostly one of mutual respect (Buber's "wordless unity") and valuation (Freire's I-thou). Exceptions are holding one another accountable (differs from Buber) and recognizing differences of responsibility (but subject to Scriptural scrutiny) (differs from Freire).
Christian to non-Christian relations should also be one mutual respect (Buber's "wordless unity") and valuation (Freire's I-thou). the exception is recognizing differences of responsibility (but subject to Scriptural scrutiny) (differs from Freire).
This is how I experienced the Vienna mission, in contrast:
Vis a vis Freire: I was viewed as a "thou" (in hierarchical terms) at the very bottom of the all-encompassing and very demanding hierarchy.
Vis a vis Buber: I was viewed as an "it" with virtually no say in anything, and anything and everything that I did say could be used by the mission to undermine my "I"-ness. So I was an it being acted upon by the mission with no self-determination voice, no voice at the table at all.
I'm not sure how others experienced the mission, but that's how I experienced it. I was, in short, an inconsequential object to the mission. At least that's how they treated me.
I won't go into a lot of detail here about this, except to draw it to your attention and apply it a bit to the Vienna mission.
Freire is concerned with hierarchical relationships and this comes out in his philosophical use of pronouns. For him, having an I-thou relationship indicates hierarchy and, as such, is bad or wrong. In contrast, an I-I relationship is more egalitarian and good or right. His frame of reference is the great disparity of wealth and poverty in Brazil in the 20th century.
Buber, on the other hand, is troubled by I-it relationships, wherein someone relates to the other as an object (like how I described the mission as treating its members) and as such is bad or wrong. On the other hand 'wordless unity' describes a valuation of the other person as a person, which includes an attempt to understand them and accept their position, while at the same time not necessarily agreeing with them (which might indicate treating oneself as an 'it'). Buber's frame of reference was the atrocities of Hitler's prison camps as a Jewish internee.
I think that what these two men have to say have is important. But I wouldn't say either serves as an exact template for my views on how people should be treated and related to.
Regarding Buber's understanding, I think that people should always be related to as "I's", although I think that there are times when I don't think it's enough to just allow the other person to have their views. (I haven't studied this in a while, so I could be overimplifying Buber's philosophy, however.) I'll just deal with the Christian to Christian and Christian to non-Christian relationships in my comments here. I think that there is good biblical backing for me in my understanding that the unbeliever must be allowed to make their own decision regarding Christ, for example, and also Christians would otherwise not believe they should be held to the same standards as Christians, anyway (although a lot of non-Christians act more Christ-like than some Christians). So this relationship would more or less mirror Buber's I-I relationship. However, Christian's are to hold each other accountable in a way not so with non-Christians, and, as such, can not accept the position that we should just accept another believer's position at face value. That is, we are supposed to compare it (and their actions) to Scripture and admonish one another in love (Colossians 3:16), where needed.
Regarding Freire's view, I think that there is some truth to this in how the Bible says we are to relate to one another both Christian to Christian and also Christian to non-Christian. That is (regarding the Christian to Christian relationship), we are not to view ourselves as higher than others (Romans 12:3) and we are to recognize our need for one another (I. Corinthians 12:14-26). Even in our relationship with unbelievers the "pride comes before a fall" (Proverbs 11:2) rule still applies. However, Christians are to give deference to church leaders (e.g., I Peter 5:5) and secular authorities (e.g., I Peter 2:15-25), although that deference is not unconditional, but is subject to any Scriptural limitations that might apply. (Also, note that the I Peter 5:5 does not say to obey in the case of being asked to do something that might be sin, just to obey whether your boss is kind or not.)
So, in general terms (with exceptions, as noted above), Christian relations should be as such:
Christian to Christian relations should be mostly one of mutual respect (Buber's "wordless unity") and valuation (Freire's I-thou). Exceptions are holding one another accountable (differs from Buber) and recognizing differences of responsibility (but subject to Scriptural scrutiny) (differs from Freire).
Christian to non-Christian relations should also be one mutual respect (Buber's "wordless unity") and valuation (Freire's I-thou). the exception is recognizing differences of responsibility (but subject to Scriptural scrutiny) (differs from Freire).
This is how I experienced the Vienna mission, in contrast:
Vis a vis Freire: I was viewed as a "thou" (in hierarchical terms) at the very bottom of the all-encompassing and very demanding hierarchy.
Vis a vis Buber: I was viewed as an "it" with virtually no say in anything, and anything and everything that I did say could be used by the mission to undermine my "I"-ness. So I was an it being acted upon by the mission with no self-determination voice, no voice at the table at all.
I'm not sure how others experienced the mission, but that's how I experienced it. I was, in short, an inconsequential object to the mission. At least that's how they treated me.
Saturday, April 16, 2011
249. Organizational Behavior File, Pt. 2 (Nadel, pt. 2/Duncan, pt. 1)
I got to thinking more about assimilation and it is true that while I lived in Russia I made a conscious decision for the "adjustment" approach to acculturation, if rejection, adjustment and assimilation are a sliding scale and the middle position weren't an option, I'd put myself somewhat more towards the assimilation side because of my aversion (mostly) towards Westerners while I lived there. I even spoke Russian with other English teachers and when I came home my English was always halting for a while until I got sort of broken in again.
***
Returning to the textual discussion...
Next the author goes on to give examples in which failing to perform in one area can disqualify one in another, sort of how if you fail to dress appropriately for a job interview you might not get the position.
It's possible I was penalized for something or the other in Vienna, but it never was clear what my options were or how to get there. At any rate, at a certain level it could certainly look like I was penalized by not being allowed to do the job for which I came there for. That is, a good part of the time I was in the position I wasn't doing much and then a lot of the other time I wasn't even in the position anyway because I was moved around so much.
Since the only thing I really understood was they wanted some kind of unquestioning submission that I couldn't give, I never really knew what giving them that submission would lead to. Here are some examples of what could realistically have happened just by "submitting" (assuming I could figure out the right way to submit):
1. I would get to keep my job
2. I would have the possibility of moving into women's ministry (under the condition I got my Th.M.)
3. I would feel strong-armed into doing something (submitting) against my will
4. The submitting would lead me to do things I would otherwise regret
5. The submitting would lead me into their way of thinking/logic, which I would also otherwise regret
6. I would become comfortable with their way of thinking and doing things and all would be nice and rosy
7. I would submit and have the rug pulled out from under me and be made to go back home because of my dad
8. I would submit and learn to appreciate the priority of protecting my dad over my having a ministry
9. I would submit and develop a healthy fear for my life (because of my dad) and want to go home out of fear
So, you see, not only did I not really know how to submit, but I didn't know what I was submitting to or why. On the surface, of course, I would be submitting to a "Christian mission" and the ostensible reason would be for the mission's "security." How that would pan out for me, though, and what that would mean for my life after submitting, I didn't really know. My selective naivety does have a limit and I'd already experienced enough just by the end of July (what I've already told you about) for my protective shields to go up.
***
Upon reading the text further it appears that the Vienna situation does not fit what this author intends. That is, he is talking about more or less automatic built-in consequences, whereas in Vienna I don't think that was so. That is, there was not natural consequence to, for example, my choosing to attend a German-speaking church. Rather, the administration decided (apparently) that that kind of activity was not suitable for what they wanted me to do. The author is talking about non person-specific consequences of actions. For this to fit in Vienna, for example, it would mean that anyone who attended a German-speaking church would have the same consequences as I might have faced for doing so. When I say "anyone," however, this could be limited to "any secretaries" or "any female staff," etc.
So this article is basically irrelevant, although I wouldn't say useful, because in discussing it I think I've identified some new factors or issues regarding my experiences with the mission.
***
This next article is quite different:
Duncan, Robert B. (1972). Characteristics of organizational environments and perceived environmental uncertainty. Administrative Science Quarterly, 17(3), 313-327.
This is a research article.
***
This study then involved asking 10 decision-making units from 3 companies (businesses) about what internal and external factors they take into account in their decision making. On the basis of the results of their answers the author came up with a list of components of the internal and external environments.
[Sorry it's hard to read.]
***
Let's see if I can identify some of the mission-specific environmental factors, using the list in this article (see above). I will be at a disadvantage for not knowing for sure what all of the factors might be, but maybe I know enough to make this a useful exercise. I'll be going down the list, item by item as in the image above.
Internal Environment
(1)
(A) Largely homogeneous in area of expertise & education level
(B) Mostly, I think, limited managerial skill, but not "technical skill", although there were exceptions, such as my secretarial skills (and one other secretary's also).
(C) Involvement and commitment are assumed because of organizational norms and the consequences of deviance
(D) Some differences in style, but nothing of major consequence, I think. Cohesion was so values that this wouldn't be allowed to be an issue.
(E) As far as I knew, this was not an issue, and if it was, I had lots of time on my hands that I could have helped out to fill in some gaps (according to my abilities, of course)
(2)
(A) I don't know that technology was a major issue, at least that I knew about.
(B) Interdependence among units was high, I think, and was complicated by geographical separation (with the publishing office in the US and some textbook translating being done "in-country" (i.e., in Eastern Europe).
(C) Not allowed (see (I) (D) above).
(D) Not allowed (see (I) (D) above).
(3)
(A) Not a problem.
(B) Not a problem (except with me, since I never was fully "integrated")
(C) This was complex because it involved the textbook and teaching components and had to be coordinated, often way in advance.
External environment
(4)
(A) Complex because of the E. Europe context.
(B) Complex because of the E. Europe context and how it affected the "students" and logistics of when and where to meet.
(5)
(A) I don't know about this. It would mainly be handled in the U.S. on the publishing side of operations.
(B) I don't know about this either, although I had delivered a light table to them when I was on the 1983 summer short-term ministry trip.
(C) I don't know about this either, as it would mostly be in the U.S. (other than standard office equipment).
(D) Complex mostly on the teaching end, as often there were guest instructors and sometimes other staff members who weren't on the regular ministry teams went on teaching trips, like my one trip of that nature.
(6)
(A) I don't think this was a problem, but I don't know for sure.
(B) Mostly irrelevant (competitors would be other national seminaries).
(7)
(A) Pertinent regarding the work being in communist countries mainly (i.e., U.S. and Austrian oversight wasn't that relevant other than basic registration and the like).
(B) Relevant in that the office in Vienna was a potential place of interest to communist interests and that the teaching and students were in countries unfriendly towards what we did.
(C) No trade unions - external ties like that would not likely be allowed, and in the context of the mission that would mean professional associations.
(8)
(A) Not that relevant, although the mission stayed pretty current regarding technology.
(B) In the sense that the organization was still writing its course materials (i.e. increasing its repertoire of courses and supporting materials) they did develop new "products" but not because of anything to do with "new technological advances..."
I've put in bold the items that seem to have been relatively complex in the Vienna mission. Looked at in this light, the organization doesn't come out quite as complex as I would initially have thought. What it seems to me, though, is that the mission had such tight control over the things it could control that that compensated for the greater complexity of the Eastern Europe (communist countries) component, which was where the complexity came in. This makes it look like maybe the mission's minimizing complexity where it could made it better able to deal with complexities it couldn't control, or at least couldn't control as much.
***
The next dimension is the "static-dynamic dimension."
The first sub-division looks at change in the environment, whereas the first one is about the staticity of which factors are considered, that is the list of factors changes, not the factors themselves. I'm not going to try even to address the second subdimension, but I'll take a stab at the first. Remember, I'm answering these questions as if it's the 1987-1989 time period I was with the mission. (The participants in this study used a 5 point Likert-style scale, but since I wasn't a decision-maker I'm not going to do that.)
Internal Environment
(1)
(A) Static
(B) Mostly static
(C) Static
(D) Static
(E) Static
(2)
(A) Static
(B) Static
(C) Static
(D) Static
(3)
(A) Static
(B) Moderately static
(C) Mostly static (Changes were additions - new courses - rather than changing anything already existing.)
External environment
(4)
(A) I'm not sure, but I'd put this more in the middle (between static and dynamic)
(B) Fairly static (Student groups changed some but the intent was to train up cohorts; new groups might be added, though.)
(5)
(A) I don't know.
(B) I don't know.
(C) I don't know.
(D) Mostly static
(6)
(A) Static, I think
(B) Static (i.e., no competitors, although there were some other in-country seminaries.)
(7)
(A) Static unless changes in E. Europe end
(B) Static
(C) Static (no such relationships)
(8)
(A) Mostly static
(B) Somewhat static (except for development of new courses)
From this standpoint it looks like there was a lot of stability, which, if I hadn't broken down like this I might not have realized. Of course, these dimensions come from the corporate world and may not match the types of factors the Vienna mission might have considered. Nevertheless, I think it does look like a helpful too in understanding the mission.
At this point I'm thinking that the stability was partly due to the nature of the work (textbook writing, publishing, low turnover because of workers coming from overseas, etc.), but partly also because of the culture of the organization. For example, the culture would influence the level of conflict ((2) (C) and (D)). Another factor might be the complexity of considering the 15 missions and also the in-country students, which would argue against the likelihood of a lot of internal change.
***
This is an interesting concept, and I think there's more to it than readily hits the eye. For example: organizations are groups of people and aside from the people comprising it it does not exist, although I think it is more than just the people themselves, but also their interactions, etc. So the group acts on its members and the members likewise act on the group (i.e., affect each other). But the thing is that the people create the norms and boundaries of the group, and the individuals' perceptions of the group affect that process, and these perceptions also affect the the boundary maintenance process. So could the norms, boundaries, etc. exist apart from individuals' perceptions?
The other thing I thought of in reading this statement is the dilemma about whether a tree falls in the forest if no one hears it fall. But I think this is different because the tree is not a social construct, whereas the group is. So perception is not related to the tree in the same way it would be to the group.
Anyway, the thing is that I was a member of the mission (more or less), so according to this statement, my perceptions might be worth considering. The issue in this statement, specifically, however, is how individual differences affect perceptions of organizational properties. Since I was a member of the mission (more or less) for some 2 years, I could conceivably have affected the "properties" of the organization, at least for the duration of my tenure with it. So we have a couple things going on here:
1) An organization has no properties aside from the way people perceive it.
2) Individual differences might affect perceptions of organizational properties.
Or another way to put it is:
Individual differences => Perceptions of organizational properties => Organizational Properties
Are you ready?
Individual differences: (I've discussed this at some length already, but here are some things that might have been unique about me.) European studies background; idealist philosophy; language skills; pre-existing understanding of the church in Eastern Europe and missions there, etc.
Perceptions of organizational properties: mission 1 is deception/security; no accountability; misuse of Scripture to rationalize whatever they want; unbiblical demands on members (e.g., total submission/no questioning); ministry itself is all right; etc.
Organizational Properties:
[Does this mean that whatever I attribute to the mission is true? This thought is quite liberating, let me tell you. I guess at the very least it could be true in a relative sort of way. But that's part of why I did this research, so that I could try to get past the narrow scope of my single-lens perceptions. So far, the mission still hasn't come out smelling like roses though, at least in my olfactory perception of it.]
Organizational Properties: untrusting, deceitful, unbiblical, worldly (in its methods) ... That's a start anyway.
I guess this makes it fairly clear how I might have left the mission in something less than on ideal terms.
***
That's it for this article. There are a lot more to come, though.
***
Returning to the textual discussion...
Next the author goes on to give examples in which failing to perform in one area can disqualify one in another, sort of how if you fail to dress appropriately for a job interview you might not get the position.
"Differently expressed, deviations from the socially approved conduct are penalized (not punished". The step from one to the other, though narrow, is unmistakable. We need to only think of the exclusion from sacramental offices of sinners or of the loss of civil rights threatening political criminals." (p. 268)
It's possible I was penalized for something or the other in Vienna, but it never was clear what my options were or how to get there. At any rate, at a certain level it could certainly look like I was penalized by not being allowed to do the job for which I came there for. That is, a good part of the time I was in the position I wasn't doing much and then a lot of the other time I wasn't even in the position anyway because I was moved around so much.
Since the only thing I really understood was they wanted some kind of unquestioning submission that I couldn't give, I never really knew what giving them that submission would lead to. Here are some examples of what could realistically have happened just by "submitting" (assuming I could figure out the right way to submit):
1. I would get to keep my job
2. I would have the possibility of moving into women's ministry (under the condition I got my Th.M.)
3. I would feel strong-armed into doing something (submitting) against my will
4. The submitting would lead me to do things I would otherwise regret
5. The submitting would lead me into their way of thinking/logic, which I would also otherwise regret
6. I would become comfortable with their way of thinking and doing things and all would be nice and rosy
7. I would submit and have the rug pulled out from under me and be made to go back home because of my dad
8. I would submit and learn to appreciate the priority of protecting my dad over my having a ministry
9. I would submit and develop a healthy fear for my life (because of my dad) and want to go home out of fear
So, you see, not only did I not really know how to submit, but I didn't know what I was submitting to or why. On the surface, of course, I would be submitting to a "Christian mission" and the ostensible reason would be for the mission's "security." How that would pan out for me, though, and what that would mean for my life after submitting, I didn't really know. My selective naivety does have a limit and I'd already experienced enough just by the end of July (what I've already told you about) for my protective shields to go up.
***
Upon reading the text further it appears that the Vienna situation does not fit what this author intends. That is, he is talking about more or less automatic built-in consequences, whereas in Vienna I don't think that was so. That is, there was not natural consequence to, for example, my choosing to attend a German-speaking church. Rather, the administration decided (apparently) that that kind of activity was not suitable for what they wanted me to do. The author is talking about non person-specific consequences of actions. For this to fit in Vienna, for example, it would mean that anyone who attended a German-speaking church would have the same consequences as I might have faced for doing so. When I say "anyone," however, this could be limited to "any secretaries" or "any female staff," etc.
So this article is basically irrelevant, although I wouldn't say useful, because in discussing it I think I've identified some new factors or issues regarding my experiences with the mission.
***
This next article is quite different:
Duncan, Robert B. (1972). Characteristics of organizational environments and perceived environmental uncertainty. Administrative Science Quarterly, 17(3), 313-327.
This is a research article.
***
"In the present analysis of environment is thought of as the totality of physical and social factors that are taken directly into consideration in the decision-making behavior of individuals in the organization.
If the environment is defined in this way, there are then factors within the boundaries of the organization or specific decision making units that must be considered as part of the environment. A differentiation is made, therefore, between the system's internal and external environment." (p. 314).
This study then involved asking 10 decision-making units from 3 companies (businesses) about what internal and external factors they take into account in their decision making. On the basis of the results of their answers the author came up with a list of components of the internal and external environments.
[Sorry it's hard to read.]
***
"The next step was identification of the environment's dimensions in order to make predictions about the kinds of environments in which different levels of perceived uncertainty are expected to exist...
The simple part of the simple-complex dimension deals with the degree to which the factors in the decision unit's environment are few in number and are similar to one another in that they are located in a few components. The complex phase indicates that the factors in the decision unit's environment are large in number." (p. 314-315)
Let's see if I can identify some of the mission-specific environmental factors, using the list in this article (see above). I will be at a disadvantage for not knowing for sure what all of the factors might be, but maybe I know enough to make this a useful exercise. I'll be going down the list, item by item as in the image above.
Internal Environment
(1)
(A) Largely homogeneous in area of expertise & education level
(B) Mostly, I think, limited managerial skill, but not "technical skill", although there were exceptions, such as my secretarial skills (and one other secretary's also).
(C) Involvement and commitment are assumed because of organizational norms and the consequences of deviance
(D) Some differences in style, but nothing of major consequence, I think. Cohesion was so values that this wouldn't be allowed to be an issue.
(E) As far as I knew, this was not an issue, and if it was, I had lots of time on my hands that I could have helped out to fill in some gaps (according to my abilities, of course)
(2)
(A) I don't know that technology was a major issue, at least that I knew about.
(B) Interdependence among units was high, I think, and was complicated by geographical separation (with the publishing office in the US and some textbook translating being done "in-country" (i.e., in Eastern Europe).
(C) Not allowed (see (I) (D) above).
(D) Not allowed (see (I) (D) above).
(3)
(A) Not a problem.
(B) Not a problem (except with me, since I never was fully "integrated")
(C) This was complex because it involved the textbook and teaching components and had to be coordinated, often way in advance.
External environment
(4)
(A) Complex because of the E. Europe context.
(B) Complex because of the E. Europe context and how it affected the "students" and logistics of when and where to meet.
(5)
(A) I don't know about this. It would mainly be handled in the U.S. on the publishing side of operations.
(B) I don't know about this either, although I had delivered a light table to them when I was on the 1983 summer short-term ministry trip.
(C) I don't know about this either, as it would mostly be in the U.S. (other than standard office equipment).
(D) Complex mostly on the teaching end, as often there were guest instructors and sometimes other staff members who weren't on the regular ministry teams went on teaching trips, like my one trip of that nature.
(6)
(A) I don't think this was a problem, but I don't know for sure.
(B) Mostly irrelevant (competitors would be other national seminaries).
(7)
(A) Pertinent regarding the work being in communist countries mainly (i.e., U.S. and Austrian oversight wasn't that relevant other than basic registration and the like).
(B) Relevant in that the office in Vienna was a potential place of interest to communist interests and that the teaching and students were in countries unfriendly towards what we did.
(C) No trade unions - external ties like that would not likely be allowed, and in the context of the mission that would mean professional associations.
(8)
(A) Not that relevant, although the mission stayed pretty current regarding technology.
(B) In the sense that the organization was still writing its course materials (i.e. increasing its repertoire of courses and supporting materials) they did develop new "products" but not because of anything to do with "new technological advances..."
I've put in bold the items that seem to have been relatively complex in the Vienna mission. Looked at in this light, the organization doesn't come out quite as complex as I would initially have thought. What it seems to me, though, is that the mission had such tight control over the things it could control that that compensated for the greater complexity of the Eastern Europe (communist countries) component, which was where the complexity came in. This makes it look like maybe the mission's minimizing complexity where it could made it better able to deal with complexities it couldn't control, or at least couldn't control as much.
***
The next dimension is the "static-dynamic dimension."
"The static-dynamic dimension indicates the degree to which the factors of the decision unit's internal and external environment remain basically the same over time or are in a continual process of change. It is composed of two subdimensions. The first focuses on the degree to which the factors identified by decision unit members in the unit's internal and/or external environment are stable, that is, remain the same over time...
The second subdimension of the static-dynamic dimension focuses on the frequency with which decision unit members take into consideration new and different internal and/or external factors in the decision-making process." (p. 316-317)
The first sub-division looks at change in the environment, whereas the first one is about the staticity of which factors are considered, that is the list of factors changes, not the factors themselves. I'm not going to try even to address the second subdimension, but I'll take a stab at the first. Remember, I'm answering these questions as if it's the 1987-1989 time period I was with the mission. (The participants in this study used a 5 point Likert-style scale, but since I wasn't a decision-maker I'm not going to do that.)
Internal Environment
(1)
(A) Static
(B) Mostly static
(C) Static
(D) Static
(E) Static
(2)
(A) Static
(B) Static
(C) Static
(D) Static
(3)
(A) Static
(B) Moderately static
(C) Mostly static (Changes were additions - new courses - rather than changing anything already existing.)
External environment
(4)
(A) I'm not sure, but I'd put this more in the middle (between static and dynamic)
(B) Fairly static (Student groups changed some but the intent was to train up cohorts; new groups might be added, though.)
(5)
(A) I don't know.
(B) I don't know.
(C) I don't know.
(D) Mostly static
(6)
(A) Static, I think
(B) Static (i.e., no competitors, although there were some other in-country seminaries.)
(7)
(A) Static unless changes in E. Europe end
(B) Static
(C) Static (no such relationships)
(8)
(A) Mostly static
(B) Somewhat static (except for development of new courses)
From this standpoint it looks like there was a lot of stability, which, if I hadn't broken down like this I might not have realized. Of course, these dimensions come from the corporate world and may not match the types of factors the Vienna mission might have considered. Nevertheless, I think it does look like a helpful too in understanding the mission.
At this point I'm thinking that the stability was partly due to the nature of the work (textbook writing, publishing, low turnover because of workers coming from overseas, etc.), but partly also because of the culture of the organization. For example, the culture would influence the level of conflict ((2) (C) and (D)). Another factor might be the complexity of considering the 15 missions and also the in-country students, which would argue against the likelihood of a lot of internal change.
***
"If the view that an organization has no properties aside from the way people perceive it (Hunt, 1968) is given some credence, we need to begin to identify more clearly how individual differences affect perceptions of organizational properties." (p. 325)
This is an interesting concept, and I think there's more to it than readily hits the eye. For example: organizations are groups of people and aside from the people comprising it it does not exist, although I think it is more than just the people themselves, but also their interactions, etc. So the group acts on its members and the members likewise act on the group (i.e., affect each other). But the thing is that the people create the norms and boundaries of the group, and the individuals' perceptions of the group affect that process, and these perceptions also affect the the boundary maintenance process. So could the norms, boundaries, etc. exist apart from individuals' perceptions?
The other thing I thought of in reading this statement is the dilemma about whether a tree falls in the forest if no one hears it fall. But I think this is different because the tree is not a social construct, whereas the group is. So perception is not related to the tree in the same way it would be to the group.
Anyway, the thing is that I was a member of the mission (more or less), so according to this statement, my perceptions might be worth considering. The issue in this statement, specifically, however, is how individual differences affect perceptions of organizational properties. Since I was a member of the mission (more or less) for some 2 years, I could conceivably have affected the "properties" of the organization, at least for the duration of my tenure with it. So we have a couple things going on here:
1) An organization has no properties aside from the way people perceive it.
2) Individual differences might affect perceptions of organizational properties.
Or another way to put it is:
Individual differences => Perceptions of organizational properties => Organizational Properties
Are you ready?
Individual differences: (I've discussed this at some length already, but here are some things that might have been unique about me.) European studies background; idealist philosophy; language skills; pre-existing understanding of the church in Eastern Europe and missions there, etc.
Perceptions of organizational properties: mission 1 is deception/security; no accountability; misuse of Scripture to rationalize whatever they want; unbiblical demands on members (e.g., total submission/no questioning); ministry itself is all right; etc.
Organizational Properties:
[Does this mean that whatever I attribute to the mission is true? This thought is quite liberating, let me tell you. I guess at the very least it could be true in a relative sort of way. But that's part of why I did this research, so that I could try to get past the narrow scope of my single-lens perceptions. So far, the mission still hasn't come out smelling like roses though, at least in my olfactory perception of it.]
Organizational Properties: untrusting, deceitful, unbiblical, worldly (in its methods) ... That's a start anyway.
I guess this makes it fairly clear how I might have left the mission in something less than on ideal terms.
***
That's it for this article. There are a lot more to come, though.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)