Dilemmas in building shared transformative agency

For several reasons, not least because of the information and communica­tions technological revolution, there is an increasing need for deep qualita­tive transformation in business activities involving the development and implementation of entirely new concepts. Traditionally this kind of change process has involved the top-down imposition of a pre-existing new model. This approach does not stimulate the local initiative or creative experimentation needed for carrying out complex transformations, howe­ver. There is therefore a need for an intervention method that allows for practitioners not only to apply a given new concept in transforming their activity, but also to analyze the need for change and to develop and implement a new concept in order to meet current challenges. This calls for the breaking away from given frames of action and the taking of initiatives to transform them collaboratively. The Change Laboratory is an intervention method specifically designed for prompting and supporting this kind of shared transformative agency. Many steps have to be taken before a work community evolves form independently acting individuals into a collective subject of sustained transformation effort. This article describes some of the major dilemmas involved in building shared transformative agency on the basis of experience in carrying out Change Laboratory interventions in various organizations. The possibility of creating cross- organizational col­laboration in developing a new concept for a certain type of activity is also discussed.

[1]  H. Rheinberger Toward a History of Epistemic Things: Synthesizing Proteins in the Test Tube , 1997 .

[2]  Hanna Toiviainen,et al.  Expansive learning as collaborative concept formation at work , 2005 .

[3]  C. Argyris Strategy, change, and defensive routines , 1985 .

[4]  W. Whyte,et al.  Participatory Action Research , 1989 .

[5]  E. Schein Process Consultation : Its Role in Organization Development , 1969 .

[6]  Karl Marx,et al.  capital: tique de l'e?conomie politique , 2004 .

[7]  F. Baum,et al.  Participatory action research , 2006, Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health.

[8]  H. Aitken Scientific Management in Action: Taylorism at Watertown Arsenal, 1908-1915 , 1985 .

[9]  A. N. Leont’ev,et al.  Activity, consciousness, and personality , 1978 .

[10]  M. Crossan The Knowledge-Creating Company: How Japanese Companies Create the Dynamics of Innovation , 1996 .

[11]  J. A. Litterer,et al.  Systematic Management: Design for Organizational Recoupling in American Manufacturing Firms , 1963, Business History Review.

[12]  Joseph T. Mahoney,et al.  The Evolution of a Manufacturing System at Toyota , 1999 .

[13]  藤本 隆宏,et al.  The evolution of a manufacturing system at Toyota , 1999 .

[14]  N. Rosenberg Technological Change in the Machine Tool Industry, 1840–1910 , 1963, The Journal of Economic History.

[15]  Morten Kyng,et al.  Design at Work , 1992 .

[16]  D. Laplane Thought and language. , 1992, Behavioural neurology.

[17]  Yrjö Engeström,et al.  Workplace Studies: From individual action to collective activity and back: developmental work research as an interventionist methodology , 2000 .

[18]  M. Cole,et al.  Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. L. S. Vygotsky. , 1978 .

[19]  L. Taylor,et al.  Human Agency in Social Cognitive Theory , 1989 .

[20]  Bjørn Gustavsen,et al.  Concept-Driven Development and the Organization of the Process of Change: An evaluation of the Swedish Working Life Fund , 1996 .

[21]  Y. Engeström,et al.  The change laboratory as a tool for transforming work , 1996 .

[22]  R. Miettinen,et al.  Epistemic Objects, Artefacts and Organizational Change , 2005 .

[23]  Y. Engeström,et al.  Perspectives on activity theory: Innovative learning in work teams: Analyzing cycles of knowledge creation in practice , 1999 .

[24]  Jaakko Virkkunen,et al.  Knowledge Management–the Second Generation: Creating Competencies with and Between Work Communities in the Compentence Laboratory , 2000 .

[25]  I. Nonaka,et al.  How Japanese Companies Create the Dynamics of Innovation , 1995 .

[26]  Ramchandran Jaikumar,et al.  From Filing and Fitting to Flexible Manufacturing: A Study in the Evolution of Process Control , 2005, Found. Trends Technol. Inf. Oper. Manag..

[27]  Claudio U. Ciborra,et al.  The labyrinths of Information , 2002 .

[28]  Jaakko Virkkunen,et al.  Transforming learning and knowledge creation on the shop floor , 2004 .

[29]  Peter Br√∂dner,et al.  A reflexive methodology of intervention , 2002 .

[30]  S. Barley,et al.  Design and devotion: Surges of rational and normative ideologies of control in managerial discourse. , 1992 .

[31]  R. Normann,et al.  Management for growth , 1977 .

[32]  Russell A. Eisenstat,et al.  The Critical Path to Corporate Renewal , 1990 .

[33]  Yrjö Engeström,et al.  DEVELOPMENT , MOVEMENT AND AGENCY : BREAKING AWAY INTO MYCORRHIZAE ACTIVITIES , 2006 .

[34]  J. Jasinski Disclosing New Worlds: Entrepreneurship, Democratic Action, And The Cultivation Of Solidarity. , 1998 .

[35]  Harvey A. Hornstein Process Consultation, Volume II: Some Lessons for Managers and Consultants , 1987 .

[36]  R. Paul Review of "The labyrinths of information: Challenging the wisdoms of systems" by Claudio Ciborra, Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK, 2002 , 2005 .

[37]  J. Mäkitalo,et al.  Work-related well-being in the transformation of nursing home work , 2005 .

[38]  P. Adler Towards Collaborative Interdependence : A Century of Change in the Organization of Work , 2004 .

[39]  J. Wertsch Vygotsky and the Social Formation of Mind , 1985 .

[40]  R. Wodak Disorders of discourse , 1996 .