The section of Van Maanen and Schein’s reading that we read begins with the discussion of two (three actually) “responses”, or reactions that people (both new recruits and existing employees) within an organization may have while going through “socialization experiences”. The authors then discuss 6 sets of strategic “dimensions” that organizations consider when trying to influence what type of “response” an employee going through socialization may give.
When talking about “socialization experiences”,the authors also repeatedly mention the idea of “boundaries”, so I found it useful to first skim pages 22 and 24. Based on my reading, the authors explain that when a new recruit enters an organization (or when an existing employee rotates to a new division, or takes on a different position within his or her organization), he or she is essentially “crossing” a boundary. These boundaries could be hierarchical(for example, a promotion), functional (for example, becoming a respected consultant within a firm because of seniority and experience) or exclusionary (for example, joining a project team within an organization that has developed its own traditions and norms over time).
However, our assigned section of the reading is still about the likely “responses” of employees who are going through socialization (regardless of which boundary he or she might be crossing), and the set of strategic choices available to an organization interested in influencing the likely "response" of its employees.
The 3 responses are as follows:
Custodianship: Individuals who respond by taking a “custodial stance” are described to accept the organization’s “default” characteristics. These characteristics may range from the organization’s expectations of how the employee should go about his or her work to the organization’s culture and norms
Innovation - Content Innovation: Individuals who are said to take on an innovative approach may question the expectations and best practices that already exist in the organization. The individual is likely to go about his or her work by improving existing practices, looking for new ways of meeting goals, or in the most extreme case, entirely redefine his or her role (as seen below).
Innovation - Role Innovation: A more extreme version of Content Innovation
The authors then discuss in detail, 6 sets of dimensions that help organizations shape the type of response that an employee is likely to develop while going through socialization, either for a new recruit, or a promotion of an existing employee. I won’t summarize the actual dimensions here, but I found the authors overall conclusions quite reasonable. For example, the authors conclude that individuals are likely to take a job as is if the organization runs the individual through a clearly sequential socialization process, keeping the individual on his or her toes as to when they might make progress or exactly how they are being evaluated, grouping the individual with a mentor who shares the organization’s views and is essentially already taking a “custodian stance”, and requiring the individual to learn a new set of skills and develop a new identity that is perhaps commonly shared by the organization.
It would be interesting to look at our communities and think about how applicable or rather, to what extent these dimensions are actual strategic choices made by community leaders, moderators, or existing members within the community. Likewise, how similar are our e-communities to business organizations described by the authors?
Submitted by John Blair on Thu, 03/06/2008 - 00:32.
0
points
John Blair
It never ceases to amaze how long some of these authors take to say something that can be said in a much shorter manner. Granted, citing evidence and others work takes a lot of space, but still, are they getting paid by the word or something?
Enough ranting. While overly long I think, the authors present a very compelling theory as a take away. If you know what kind of people you want in your organization, then you should really pay attention to your indoctrination processes. Of course these are not full proof in their implementation and it's always best to not waste time with those that won't fit in anyway, but it's difficult to determine "fit" before pushing the socialization mechanism on the new recruit.
While I'm somewhat struggling with an application to online communities (with the exception of extreme types, hacker.org, hate groups, etc.), many of the examples listed are abundantly clear (Marine boot camp, military academies, med school) the type of socialization processes at play - and deliberately so.
In many ways, this class and the blogging activity is very much a socialization process the students are collectively going through - and which I trust is the intent desired by Prof. Resnick and GSI John.
It's formal in that we are all likely to "unlearn" (Paul & John, not my words, see page 49!) during the process introduced in the class and integrate / modify these lessons as we apply them to our own experiences.
It is very sequential in that we all are aware of the steps needed to complete the course and what the expectations are.
It's more fixed than variable in the context of grades, (and getting more so as we incorporate comments on our assignments into future assignments), since we are getting more information all the time on how to achieve a good grade.
It's more serial than disjuntive in that Paul and John - and some of us provide guidance on how to proceed or interpret new information or concepts.
And, it is clearly investiture as no one is seeking to break down and remold any of us in any particular image.
In closing, I'll paste the end of the reading, as I felt it was very profound and worthy of remembering.
"Organizational results are not simply the consequences of the work accomplished by people brought into the organization, rather, they are the consequences of the work these people accomplish after the organization itself has completed its work on them. Page 71"
I was frustrated by this otherwise great article's conclusion because socialization processes appear to ultimately represent tactics from all six dimensions, whether intentional or not. Yet Maanan and Schein avoided arguments for at least one dimension in each socialization process. I'll make a claim for each dimension they missed.
1) "A custodial response will be most likely to result from a socialization process which is (1) sequential, (2) variable, (3) serial, and (4) involved divestiture processes." I argue that it is most likely to occur by structuring socialization through collective and formal experiences because these methods enact constraints upon the newcomer. Group consensus will direct acclimation toward one extreme (custodial vs. role innovation) response, but will more likely skew toward the organizational mean for values and direct norms. Moreover, a formal introduction within a segregated environment will convey an organization's desired precepts.
2) "Content Innovation is most likely to occur through a socialization process which is collective, formal, random, fixed, and disjunctive." I argue that it is most likely to occur by encouraging investiture, like Role Innovation, because creative thinking is the result of solving problems in new ways. Thus if a newcomer conforms to his adopted organizations values, processes, and hierarchy, there is no room for brokering practices across communities. The high-risk involved with new methods of innovation can be translated and mitigated via formal procedures, though this means the newcomer would need to convince high-status and rank members to support his idea.
3) "Role innovation is… most likely to occur through a socialization process which is (1) individual, (2) informal, (3) random, (4) disjunctive, and (5) involves investiture processes." I argue that it is also fixed because a timetable to promotion will reduce anxiety and the incentive to conform. However, I understand why Maanan and Schein didn't make a claim because constraints that nullify status and role ascension are also more likely to reduce risk-taking incentives. People are less likely to excel beyond what's expected of them if their effort won't possibly lead to the advancement of their status or access to power and resources beyond their peers. (socialism,
communism...)
Our future careers may depend our ability to construct the following argument: Design choice X will achieve Y because Z. This article excels in the "because
Z" department (best practices + justification) whereas a few of our other readings haven't provided as much reasoning. (I'm looking at you, Powazek Chapter 8)
Basic Summary...
The section of Van Maanen and Schein’s reading that we read begins with the discussion of two (three actually) “responses”, or reactions that people (both new recruits and existing employees) within an organization may have while going through “socialization experiences”. The authors then discuss 6 sets of strategic “dimensions” that organizations consider when trying to influence what type of “response” an employee going through socialization may give.
When talking about “socialization experiences”,the authors also repeatedly mention the idea of “boundaries”, so I found it useful to first skim pages 22 and 24. Based on my reading, the authors explain that when a new recruit enters an organization (or when an existing employee rotates to a new division, or takes on a different position within his or her organization), he or she is essentially “crossing” a boundary. These boundaries could be hierarchical(for example, a promotion), functional (for example, becoming a respected consultant within a firm because of seniority and experience) or exclusionary (for example, joining a project team within an organization that has developed its own traditions and norms over time).
However, our assigned section of the reading is still about the likely “responses” of employees who are going through socialization (regardless of which boundary he or she might be crossing), and the set of strategic choices available to an organization interested in influencing the likely "response" of its employees.
The 3 responses are as follows:
The authors then discuss in detail, 6 sets of dimensions that help organizations shape the type of response that an employee is likely to develop while going through socialization, either for a new recruit, or a promotion of an existing employee. I won’t summarize the actual dimensions here, but I found the authors overall conclusions quite reasonable. For example, the authors conclude that individuals are likely to take a job as is if the organization runs the individual through a clearly sequential socialization process, keeping the individual on his or her toes as to when they might make progress or exactly how they are being evaluated, grouping the individual with a mentor who shares the organization’s views and is essentially already taking a “custodian stance”, and requiring the individual to learn a new set of skills and develop a new identity that is perhaps commonly shared by the organization.
It would be interesting to look at our communities and think about how applicable or rather, to what extent these dimensions are actual strategic choices made by community leaders, moderators, or existing members within the community. Likewise, how similar are our e-communities to business organizations described by the authors?
People processing is conditional......except when it's not
John Blair
It never ceases to amaze how long some of these authors take to say something that can be said in a much shorter manner. Granted, citing evidence and others work takes a lot of space, but still, are they getting paid by the word or something?
Enough ranting. While overly long I think, the authors present a very compelling theory as a take away. If you know what kind of people you want in your organization, then you should really pay attention to your indoctrination processes. Of course these are not full proof in their implementation and it's always best to not waste time with those that won't fit in anyway, but it's difficult to determine "fit" before pushing the socialization mechanism on the new recruit.
While I'm somewhat struggling with an application to online communities (with the exception of extreme types, hacker.org, hate groups, etc.), many of the examples listed are abundantly clear (Marine boot camp, military academies, med school) the type of socialization processes at play - and deliberately so.
In many ways, this class and the blogging activity is very much a socialization process the students are collectively going through - and which I trust is the intent desired by Prof. Resnick and GSI John.
It's formal in that we are all likely to "unlearn" (Paul & John, not my words, see page 49!) during the process introduced in the class and integrate / modify these lessons as we apply them to our own experiences.
It is very sequential in that we all are aware of the steps needed to complete the course and what the expectations are.
It's more fixed than variable in the context of grades, (and getting more so as we incorporate comments on our assignments into future assignments), since we are getting more information all the time on how to achieve a good grade.
It's more serial than disjuntive in that Paul and John - and some of us provide guidance on how to proceed or interpret new information or concepts.
And, it is clearly investiture as no one is seeking to break down and remold any of us in any particular image.
In closing, I'll paste the end of the reading, as I felt it was very profound and worthy of remembering.
"Organizational results are not simply the consequences of the work accomplished by people brought into the organization, rather, they are the consequences of the work these people accomplish after the organization itself has completed its work on them. Page 71"
Missing Conclusion
I was frustrated by this otherwise great article's conclusion because socialization processes appear to ultimately represent tactics from all six dimensions, whether intentional or not. Yet Maanan and Schein avoided arguments for at least one dimension in each socialization process. I'll make a claim for each dimension they missed.
1) "A custodial response will be most likely to result from a socialization process which is (1) sequential, (2) variable, (3) serial, and (4) involved divestiture processes." I argue that it is most likely to occur by structuring socialization through collective and formal experiences because these methods enact constraints upon the newcomer. Group consensus will direct acclimation toward one extreme (custodial vs. role innovation) response, but will more likely skew toward the organizational mean for values and direct norms. Moreover, a formal introduction within a segregated environment will convey an organization's desired precepts.
2) "Content Innovation is most likely to occur through a socialization process which is collective, formal, random, fixed, and disjunctive." I argue that it is most likely to occur by encouraging investiture, like Role Innovation, because creative thinking is the result of solving problems in new ways. Thus if a newcomer conforms to his adopted organizations values, processes, and hierarchy, there is no room for brokering practices across communities. The high-risk involved with new methods of innovation can be translated and mitigated via formal procedures, though this means the newcomer would need to convince high-status and rank members to support his idea.
3) "Role innovation is… most likely to occur through a socialization process which is (1) individual, (2) informal, (3) random, (4) disjunctive, and (5) involves investiture processes." I argue that it is also fixed because a timetable to promotion will reduce anxiety and the incentive to conform. However, I understand why Maanan and Schein didn't make a claim because constraints that nullify status and role ascension are also more likely to reduce risk-taking incentives. People are less likely to excel beyond what's expected of them if their effort won't possibly lead to the advancement of their status or access to power and resources beyond their peers. (socialism,
communism...)
Our future careers may depend our ability to construct the following argument: Design choice X will achieve Y because Z. This article excels in the "because
Z" department (best practices + justification) whereas a few of our other readings haven't provided as much reasoning. (I'm looking at you, Powazek Chapter 8)