Abstract
This book focuses on the processes of change in organizations that involve both employers and employees. It does so from the perspective of action research, which requires a high degree of engagement by all members of a workplace organization.
Action research is a timely theme, as the Covid-19 pandemic increased the level of uncertainty of the international economic climate as well as within the relationships between employers and employees in each country.
The research reported in the book was conducted in several European countries (Britain, Norway, Spain and Sweden) and the U.S., thus including countries with different approaches to the commitment of societies and governments towards the wellbeing of their citizens, the commitment of employers towards their employees, and of the latter to the former. The studies that were reviewed in the book took place between the 1940s and the 1980s. Action research studies gained momentum in the U.S. and then became a significant form of organizational investigation in Europe. The book has two main parts. The first section starts with a conceptual component on participation in organizational change. The second portion moves to field studies and the lessons learned from them about shifting from self-managing groups to the co-generation of practical and theoretical change.
The case studies indicate the impact of the particularity of forms of organizational change in each country involved in the studies. Action researchers in the United States relied upon change-oriented social science; the United Kingdom's researchers focused upon socio-technical systems thinking; Norwegians invested in industrial democracy; Swedes and other Norwegians concentrated on democratic dialogue; and Spanish action researchers took part in pragmatic action research. The data from these varied studies indicate that action research led to increased productivity through better use of human resources, as well as improved working conditions. Introducing self-management groups appears to have created a better alignment between an individual employee's investment in a workplace and employer's commitment to that worker. Democratic dialogues expanded employees’ agency as citizens, as well as workers. All of the projects were proposed by the researchers and agreed upon by management, but the employees did not participate in the pre-application phase. This omission highlights the fact that this specific process of participation did not enable employees to be full partners.
The authors conceptualize on the basis of their data that there were four different foci in terms of participation expressed in the projects. These include participation as (1) involvement; (2) self-managing groups; (3) democratic dialogue; and (4) a co-generating source of knowledge. The authors’ specification of types of focused engagement is important because they signal that it is possible to predict in advance the specific impact of each focus.
Further analysis is provided of the conception of the action researchers’ ways of self-positioning, an aspect that all too often is missing from the analysis of action research projects. Some of them view themselves as professional experts in participatory action research who focus on data collection and analysis, but who may later in the project engage also in designing work processes for self-managing groups. In some of the projects, they become sparring partners when they comment on local conditions in which the workers do not see the researchers as having expertise in an area that would give weight to their views on a given topic. While the authors see this development as a move in the direction of a more equal participation, it seems to me that this type of development may jeopardise the development of participatory action research, as it is interpreted by the workers as an attempt by the researchers to be above them, rather than as partners in the process.
Action researchers are also facilitators in the democratic dialogue form of collaboration, who offer expertise in processes of collaboration, but not in their content. Finally, there are researchers who see their contribution in the co-generation of knowledge.
The issue of power within the position of the researchers is perceived by the authors as mostly exercising silent power, even though the researchers in the different projects do not express specific perceptions of power. Towards the end of the book, the authors indicate that the positioning of the researchers should be as partners who are not superior to the other partners. The authors claim that silent power is an issue ignored by the researchers, but, given that the aim of the researchers is to support a more participatory and equal workplace, no form of power should be ignored.
The book provides a useful and refreshing analysis of participatory approaches to organizational change. It is well organized in structure and written in a style aimed at researchers already interested in action research.
However, several perspectives are missing from the analysis. These include gender and ethnicity as factors likely to impact this process, as well as expectations of different groups of employees and employers about implementing collaboration in the process of such a change.
