Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Organisation as development coalition

  • Published:
AI & SOCIETY Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The article provides a context for the discussion of development coalitions as a key feature of modern political and economic life. It traces the history of research programmes in work organisation over the past four decades, especially in North Western Europe, and challenges conventional views on the status of research in the social sciences.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Agersnap, F. (1974).Samarbejdsforsøg i jernindustrien. Copenhagen: Foreningen af Verkstedfunktionærer i Danmark/Centralorganisationen af Metalarbejdere i Danmark/Sammensludningen af Arbejdsgivere indenfor Jern- og Metallindustrien i Danmark.

  2. Argyris, C. (1957).Personality and organization: The conflict between the individual and the system. New York: Harper.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Argyris, C., Putnam, R. and Smith, D.M. (1987).Action science: concepts, methods and skills for research and intervention. San Fransisco: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Beinum, H. van and Vlist, van der (1979). QWL developments in Holland: an overview. In: International Council for Quality of Working Life (eds).Working on the quality of working life, Leiden: Nijhoff.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Bertalanffy, L. von (1950): The theory of open systems in physics and biology.Science, 111, 23–29.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Blauner, R. (1964).Alienation and freedom. Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Blichfeldt, J.F. (1975). Relations between school and the place of work.Acta Sociologica, 18, 4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Bolweg, J.F. (1976).Job design and industrial democracy: The case of Norway. Leiden: Nijhoff.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Bradfort, L.P., Gibb, J.R. and Benne, K.D. (eds) (1964).T-group theory and laboratory method. New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Burns, T. and Stalker, G.M. (1961).The management of innovation. London: Tavistock Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Chisholm, R. and Elden, M. (1993). Emerging varieties of action research.Human Relations, 46(2), 121–142.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Dorfman, H. (1957).Labor relations in Norway, Oslo: The Norwegian Joint Committee on Social Policy.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Duckles, M.M. et al (1977). Process of change at Bolivar.Journal of Applied Behavioural Science, 13(3), 387–399.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Edwards, R. (1979).Contested terrain: The transformation of the workplace in the twentieth century. New York: Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Ejnatten, F. van (1993).The paradigm that changed the workplace. Assen/Maastricht: van Gorcum.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Elden, M. (1979). Democratization and participative research in developing local theory.Journal of Occupational Behavior, 4(1), 21–33.

    MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  17. Emery, F.E. (1959). Characteristics of socio-technical systems. Tavistock Institute of Human Relations, Doc. 527.

  18. Emery, F.E. (1981).Systems thinking. Harmondsworth: Penguin.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Emery, F.E. and Oeser, O.A. (1958).Information, decision and action. Melbourne: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Emery, F.E. and Thorsrud, E. (1969).Form and content in industrial democracy. London: Tavistock Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Emery, F.E. and Thorsurd, E. (1976).Democracy at work. Leiden: Nijhoff.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Emery, F.E. and Trist, E.L. (1972).Towards a social ecology. Appreciations of the future in the present. New York: Plenum Press.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Engelstad, P.H. (1970).Teknologi og sosial forandring på arbeidsplassen. Oslo: Tanum.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Engelstad, P.H. (1996). The development organisation as communicative instrumentation. Experiences from the Karlstad program. In: Toulmin, S. and Gustavsen, B. (eds),Beyond theory. Changing organisations through participation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Engelstad, P.H. and Ødegaard, L.A. (1979). Participative redesign projects in Norway: Summarising the first five years of a strategy to democratize the design process in work organization. In: The Quality of Working Life Council (eds).Working with the quality of working life. Leiden: Nijhoff.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Ennals, R. and Gustavsen, B. (in prep). Work organisation and Europe as a development coalition.

  27. EPOC Research Group (1997).New forms of work organisation. Can Europe realise its potential? Loughlinstown: European Foundation.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Fals Borda, O. (1987). The application of participatory action research in Latin America.International Sociology, 2(4), 329–347.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Fricke, W. (1975).Arbeitsorganisation und Qualifikation. Bonn: Neue Gesellschaft.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Gillespie, R. (1991).Manufacturing knowledge. A history of the Hawthorne experiments. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  31. Greenwood, D. and Santos, J.L.G. (1992).Industrial democracy as a process: Participatory action research the the Fagor co-operative group ofMondragon. Assen/Maastricht: van Gorcum.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Gustavsen, B. (1981). Industrial democracy. In: Allardt, E. et al) eds.).Nordic democracy. Copenhagen: Det Danske Selskab.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Gustavsen, B. (1992).Dialogue and development, Assen/Maastricht: van Gorcum.

    Google Scholar 

  34. Gustavsen, B. (1993). Creating productive structures: The role of research and development. In: Naschold, F. et al.,Constructing the new industrial society. Assen/Maastricht: van Gorcum.

    Google Scholar 

  35. Gustavsen, B. (1996). Development and the social sciences-an uneasy relationship In: Toulmin, S. and Gustavsen, B. (Eds.)Beyond theory. Changing organisations through participation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

    Google Scholar 

  36. Gustavsen, B. and Engelstad, P.H. (1986). The design of conferences and the evolving role of democratic dialogue in changing working life.Human Relations, 39(2), 101–116.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Gustavsen, B. et al. (1996).Concept-driven development and the organization of the process of change. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

    Google Scholar 

  38. Gustavsen, B. and Hofmaier, B. (1997).Natverk som utvecklingsstrategi. Stockholm: SNS.

    Google Scholar 

  39. Gustavsen, B. and Hunnius, G. (1981).New patterns of work reform. The case of Norway. Olso: the University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  40. Habermas, J. (1984/1987)The theory of communicative action. London: Polity Press. I-II.

    Google Scholar 

  41. Hanssen-Bauer, J. (1998). Networking to learn in Nordvest-Forum. In: Gustavsen, B., Colbjørnsen, T. and Pålshaugen, Ø. (eds).Development coalitions in working life. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

    Google Scholar 

  42. Herbst, P.G. (1962).Autonomous group functioning and exploration in behaviour theory and measurement. London: Tavistock Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  43. Hill, P. (1971).Towards a new philosophy of management. London: Gower Press.

    Google Scholar 

  44. Isaacs, W. (1993). The dialogue program at the Center for Organizational Learning Work Note.

  45. Kristiansen, H.J.M. et al. (1992). TBL i HFB: Fiasko eller suksess? Prosjektforum, Universitetet i Oslo

  46. Lewin, K. (1948).Die Løsung Sozialer Konflikte. Bad Neuheim: I.M. Christian Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  47. Lysgaard, S. (1960).Arbeiderkollektivet. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget.

    Google Scholar 

  48. Mayo, E. (1933).The social problems of an industrial civilization. Boston: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  49. McCarthy, T. (1976).The critical theory of Jurgen Habermas. Cambridge, Mass. MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  50. McGregor, D. (1960).The human side of enterprise. New York: McGraw-Hill. NHO-LO (1990). The social process: Joint action program for enterprise development. Oslo: Confederation of Norwegian Business and Industry—The Norwegian Federation of Trade Unions Piore, M. and Sabel, C. (1983).Second industrial divide: Possibilities for prosperity. New York: Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  51. Pålshaugen, Ø. (1988). Wie kann eine Aktionsforschungsstrategie in die Praxis umgesetzt werden? Ein Beispiel aus der Norwegischen Automobilbranache. In: Fricke, W. und Wieland, J. (Hg.).Sozialwissenschaften und Industrielle Demokratie. Bonn: Neue Gesellschaft.

    Google Scholar 

  52. Pålshaugen, Ø. (1998).End of theory of organisation? Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Qvale, T.U. (1976). A Norwegian strategy for the democratisation of industryHuman Relations, 29(5).

  53. Reason, P. (1996). Reflections on the purposes of human inquiry.Qualitiative Irquiry, 2(1), 15–28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Roethlisberger, F.S. and Dickson, W.J. (1939).Management and the worker. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  55. Roggema, J. and Thorsrud, E. (1974).Et skip i utvikling. Oslo: Tanum. Sandberg, T. (1982).Work organization and autonomous groups. Lund: Gleerup.

    Google Scholar 

  56. Shotter, J. (1993).Conversational realities. New York: Sage

    Google Scholar 

  57. Susman, G. and Evered, R.D. (1978). An assessment of the scientific merits of action research.Administrative Science Quarterly, 23, 582–603.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. Toulmin, S. (1990).Cosmopolis: The hidden agenda of modernity. The University of Chicago Press.

  59. Trist, E.L. (1981).The evolution of socio-technical systems. A conceptual framework and an action research program. Toronto: Ontario Quality of Working Life Centre.

    Google Scholar 

  60. Trist, E.L. and Bamforth, K.W. (1951). Some social and psychological consequences of the longwall method of coal-getting,Human Relations 4, 3–38.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  61. Whyte, W.F. (ed) (1991).Participatory action research. London: Sage

    Google Scholar 

  62. Wilson, A.T.M. (1951). Two contrasted mining systems. In: Emery, F.E. (ed.):The emergence of a new paradigm of work. Canberra: Centre for Continuing Education, Australian National University.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Swedish National Institute for Working Life, SE-171 84, Solna, Sweden

    Bjorn Gustavsen

Authors
  1. Bjorn Gustavsen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Bjorn Gustavsen.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Gustavsen, B. Organisation as development coalition. AI & Soc 11, 177–201 (1997). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02812447

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02812447

Keywords

Search

Navigation