Navigating the dynamic landscape of conflict and organizational development within a factory setting.
Jon Frode Blichfeldt
Participation and action research in a Norwegian context.
Turning a hostile environment around into a constructive one.
This note (or template) is from a joint project between IFIM and AFI, led by IFIM from 1987- 1989. It is based on a report by J.E. Karlsen and A. Svarva, in cooperation with J.F. Blichfeldt. AFI 7/90, IFIM, STF82 A90002. “Tapperiprosjekt i Vinmonopolet. Erfaringer og resultater fra omstilling i en industribedrift,” as well as on personal notes. ̈
Company context.
In 1939, Vinmonopolet was established as a legally defined public enterprise to regulate alcohol consumption in the Norwegian population. The enterprise had a national monopoly on importing, producing, and distributing wine and different spirits. Importing wine from Europe in bulk enabled negotiating reasonable prices and high-quality products. Imported wine and spirits were bottled locally by industrial facilities and wineries (or bottleries).
This action research project took place at Vinmonopolet’s production facility in Oslo. At that time, the company had a hostile work environment and was reported to the Labour Inspection Authority (LIA) for violating the Work Environment Act.
We initially encountered a hierarchically organized company with a high level of conflict and a series of strikes over the last few years. The internal communication and information systems were at a stalemate. Workers on the shop floor, the lowest hierarchical level, had specified tasks given and controlled by the supervisors at the next level. The shop floor workers had few opportunities to learn or take responsibility for their work processes. Additionally, systems of qualification and learning needed to be improved at all levels.
After several local inspections by the LIA, Vinmonopolet was asked to develop a plan to revise its internal organization in line with the regulations on the psychosocial environment. (§12). They were encouraged to seek external assistance for this process. Historically, the context for reporting to the LIA and thus starting a project was linked to revising the Work Environment Act of 1977. AFI had made fundamental contributions to the formulation of the act with guidelines. The contents of §12 are closely related to experiences from the Industrial Democracy Project and action research.
The primary conditions for acceptance at the outset were grounded in sociotechnical theory and action research. The academic references were not part of the offer, but prior experience at IFIM/AFI was a given. During the initial negotiations, some in management said, “We do not want job rotation through semi-autonomous workgroups.” And: “We do not want to be an experimental site for work democracy.” During the negotiations, no blueprints were provided beyond the general design of phases and steps.
When the project with the Vinmonopolet was announced, IFIM and AFI presented an offer, including a tentative plan. Some primary conditions were to be satisfied so that IFIM/AFI could take on the project:
1) The project should not dwell on past controversies but look forward to new ways to solve problems.
2) The project was to avoid taking on a character of rationalization, of downsizing staff.
3) Top management, the staff, and the organization should agree on the project. The development should be based on participation throughout, contributing to ownership and responsibility for experiences within the company.
The tentative plan included different phases for a project through three steps: 1) To establish shared conditions and formulate goals for a project. 2) Intervention: To design and organize workplace experiments. 3) To evaluate and disseminate experiences and knowledge throughout the enterprise.
IFIM/AFI and its plan were accepted by Vinmonopolet as external assistance, presenting the only bid received by the administration and the workers’ union.
The plan’s first step was to appoint a formal project organization. This was a tricky process with many controversies to overcome: who among the conflicting parties was to be represented may have been the most controversial issue. An interim steering group, firmly led by IFIM (Karlsen), eventually enabled the formation of a formal Steering group. The group should negotiate the scope, direction, and responsibility for the process step by step across different phases, with the next phase dependent on the outcome of the previous one.
The overall goals formulated by the formal Steering group included:
– Creating activities focused on improving the work organization and, thus, the overall psychosocial factors in the production division of the Vinmonopolet based on a socio-technical analysis. (The Winery)
– Developing organizational forms/methods/systems that could serve as templates for other divisions.
– Instituting a process based on the participation of all concerned (individuals, workers’ associations, shop stewards, management).
The next tricky question was how to appoint an internal head of the project, anchoring it to local responsibility and continuous follow-up. Eventually, a recently hired H&R officer was suggested, accepted, and appointed. She was a blank slate with no role in former enterprise conflicts. The process of developing a formal project organization lasted about three months.
My entry to the project was extraordinary. When IFIM and AFI negotiated a potential project, I was Head of AFI, having delegated our participation to a senior colleague who also represented AFI during the project’s first months. Eventually, his participation became so controversial that company representatives refused to accept him into the central team. (I never quite found out why). A substitute was unavailable on such short notice, so I took the turn myself. (My entrance might have been a dubious decision for Institute leadership and my workload at the time, but it was also personally rewarding). I did not participate in the central steering group (except for the first meeting after the change). However, Irgens Karlsen and Svarva of IFIM kept in close contact with it throughout the project. I also took on fieldwork and contacted the project’s internally appointed head.
Sociotechnical analysis.
The first phase of the first step included a sociotechnical analysis of the workplace. This was carried out as a joint effort by IFIM and AFI staff immediately after the formal project leadership was established, in October 87. Observations and interviews were conducted with all employees. The production process at the Vinmonopolet was very complex. At the start of the project, four modern assembly lines were set up for bottling, producing 25 million bottles per year. There was a workshop for tanking in large tanks, cleaning tanks between different brands to be bottled, conducting continuous temperature surveys, and eventually measuring the speed of the bottling lines. The bottling involved a workshop for receiving and storing bottles, one for cleaning bottles, and surveying the feeding of bottles to the assembly lines. The bottles were to be labeled, glued, and precisely placed before being stored on pallets for distribution to the market. The different workshops were closely interdependent for smooth working. Workers had responsibility for small, specific operations. Foremen oversaw the relationships between tasks and the daily and weekly production plans. Errors leading to halts in production were quite frequent for many reasons- technical, electrical, misunderstandings, or sloppiness.
Three working conferences, including staff at different levels, discussed these findings. (The number of conferences was due to the number of employees at the four lines—too many to handle at once.) All of the groups discussed 1) areas to be developed (improved??), 2) which areas should be given priority, and 3) suggested plans of practical action.
Three areas for development were highlighted: a) Better systems of qualification, b) Enriching the content of jobs, and c) Information and communication. Working with these three areas was considered as a preparation for “prøvedrift,” or testing an alternative work organization to be carried out at one of the assembly lines for a period of time. The sociotechnical analysis and the conferences were completed by the end of 1987.
The Qualification group for workers. (QWG)
Three workgroups were established (the composition also took some time) in May 88: one qualification group for workers (QWG), another for foremen (QFG), and a third one for the workshop receiving bottles (QBG) to be bottled. Based on the conference’s work, the groups discussed three areas for reorganization. To prepare for this process, the QBG group visited another company that had installed machinery similar to the one in Oslo. The QFG group got started somewhat late, delegating the qualifications layout to the Training department (which was represented in the group). The QWG group used its members’ work experiences as a point of departure.
According to the official report (p.44), the discussions in the Qualification group for workers accounted for a central part of project activities during the phase preparing for the period of an alternative organization. The first meeting of the group was February 1st, 88, and the last was February 29th, 89 (Official report, pp. 44 -50). The testing period started in March 89 and ended in December 89.
Working with this group was my primary field experience and responsibility. I never worked closely with the project’s Central Steering Group. A condensed version of this is available in my published report “Liv og læring….” ABM-media 2021. p.243-44. https://skriftserien.oslomet.no/index.php/skriftserien/article/view/715
In the QWL, antagonists shared the meeting table. The group included the Winery’s production manager, the shop steward, a representative from the foremen’s group, a representative from the central personnel management division, the soon-to-be head of the repair and maintenance shop, and me. During the year, we had nine extensive meetings. In between, small practical measures were taken in line with the discussion. In hindsight, the meetings might be grouped into three phases.
The first three meetings were used to clarify roles and codes of conduct within the group, overall goals, and a first mapping of the existing qualification systems. We agreed a) to a wide tolerance of language used during the meetings and b) to attempt to end each meeting with some shared agreement on what was achieved and what to work with next. c) as an external person, I should keep a low profile. I was not tasked with defining the agenda or leading the discussions, but rather to ask questions – and most importantly, take notes and write summaries of the meetings to be agreed upon by the group before being distributed in the formal project organization.
During these first three meetings, there were many high-tempered outbursts and accusations. We agreed that there was no need to report them. After all, we found sufficient areas of agreement worth sharing. (As a referent, I had some control over the information to be disseminated.)
I suggested that the next three meetings focus on concrete work task descriptions. We all needed practical descriptions to understand each person’s daily tasks. To achieve this, I organized a unique participatory process: In pairs A-B, participants first described the task of the others as perceived by themselves -A on the work of B and vice versa. Then, participants described their work as related to the description they had just heard. The other group members asked brief questions to clarify.
Everyone described daily tasks and how they solved problems, often in great detail. They got a picture of how others perceived their work. The descriptions did overlap to a large degree regarding the production tasks and work on the production lines. Management had some, but not a very accurate understanding of the assembly-line work, and assembly-line workers had some superficial knowledge of management tasks. I remember the Winery’s production manager exclaiming something like, after one of these meetings, “These guys.” (The workers with whom he had been in heavy conflicts) “are far more competent doing their jobs than I have understood.” During the process, he resigned, took on another job, and was replaced by a new production manager.
My approach to this project was inspired by earlier fieldwork experience from action research and a comment by Fred Emery the year before. When preparing for the memorial conference of Einar Thorsrud, Autumn 1986, we had a discussion and some beers in the evening. He demonstrated sociotechnical theory with a small figure drawn on a paper napkin: “It is all about pxp.” Later, I referred to this as a formula of a minimum organization: Two people, p and p, trying to understand and solve a task: x. which might be pretty simple or complex.
To understand task x, there is a need to observe and intervene from different perspectives: The “p” approaches understanding by looking at the “x” from various angles, such as the technical, economic, historical, judiciary, social, and also trying to take the perspective of the other, to understand his way of understanding – looking for priorities, interconnections, and interdependencies and finally, suggesting ways to try out viable and agreed-upon solutions for resolving tasks. To achieve something wished for or something unacceptable to avoid. (For me, this was just theory and method put to use – not by modeling or explaining it to anyone in the group at any moment).
During the last phase (the three previous meetings and the time in between), concrete suggestions for practical solutions and preparation for the test period were specified, and some were carried out with the help of other groups. This included developing shared indicators for production quantity and quality. Minor practical issues were solved along the way, such as a direct calling system between the people operating the bulk tanking system and the worker on the bottling assembly line, and securing on-time corrections when needed.
The group implemented some critical suggestions: they introduced a regular Monday morning meeting for all assembly-line workers and the line foreman. The agenda was twofold: first, to summarize experiences from the production over the last week; and second, to share information on production plans for the current week, including a rough distribution of tasks and responsibilities. The foreman (not on the QWG) presided over the meetings. Before the first meeting, I briefly discussed how to chair the meeting with him. However, during
this first meeting, the foreman forgot our discussion. He was briskly addressing what he took to be mistakes over the last week, naming individuals – in a way that was quite close to harassment. I observed how the workers (including the shop steward on the line and members of the QWG) shrank before my eyes like blown-out candles. After the meeting, I immediately asked the foreman and the shop steward, “Now what happened?” The shop steward said this was as if our meetings and preparations had not yet happened. The foreman seemed somewhat bewildered. The new role of chairing a meeting required some training and experience. A snap of a finger does not do it, and the foreman should be given a new chance. The group accepted this, and things went smoothly during the next few meetings.
The experience of describing content and specification of tasks in the QWG was taken a step further. It was discovered that the handbook of operations and machinery maintenance needed to be updated. Descriptions made by the operators might provide a sound basis for a new handbook. When unforeseen long stops in production appeared, the workers were not temporarily dismissed as they had been. Instead, they did the essential work of producing a new operational manual. In doing so, they documented and enhanced their competence, providing a basis for job enrichment. The workers suggested, decided on, and carried out this new work process without any contributions from me or the IFIM/AFI staff.
Part of my work was coaching the HR officer, who had been appointed local project leader and was new to the company. I did not tell her what to do, but we discussed the interactions between the working groups and the central steering group and the choices when handling problems.
Workshops to prepare the test assembly line were held in September 88 and January 89. Suggestions from the QWG and others were used. After the workshop, the QWG held its final meeting to clarify responsibilities for various tasks during the test period.
At the end of the test period, participants were surveyed and interviewed about their experience and the changes made. More than 70% of participants said their experiences were overall positive.
By the end of 1989, a conference evaluated the test period at one assembly line and the project as a whole. The new work processes were to be rolled out across the company.
The survey and the conference discussions indicated:
– That work had become more interesting
– That shop floor workers could carry out their work without detailed surveillance from management – That the system of qualification and learning had improved.
– That cooperation between workers improved.
– That contact and cooperation with management was better.
The supervisors were also positive. One said, “The result of the test project is that we who work at the Winery better understand each other; we have become more human. Thus, our group has learned to take on more responsibility and trust people” (report, p. xii).
Two incidents from the last conference validated the findings for me: all four assembly lines were present at the meetings. At the outset, after someone from the test line had presented some results, a worker from another line jumped to the podium. (He had just come back after a year’s leave). He used harsh, accusatory language about what he had just heard, emphasizing conflicts. (Like the chairing foreman on the first Monday meeting). At that point, one of his fellow workers pushed his shirt, pulled him down, and said, “It is not like this here anymore…”
When the group discussed disseminating experiences to other assembly lines, one of the test line’s participating workers explained the changes: “The different lines have somewhat different cultures. When using our findings, you should not only copy our solutions but also examine the processes leading up to them, ways to participate, and what to do. And then find your own solutions.”
The work of this group illustrated an incredible insight into action research, not from any action researcher but the participants themselves. It reminded me of a comment in a discussion with Einar Thorsrud several years earlier. He said something like: “One of our biggest mistakes we’ve made might have been to coin the concepts’ semi-autonomous work groups’ and ‘job rotation.” The concepts were quickly used by companies as recipes, to be decided and implemented overnight.
The Winery project was a slow, broadly participative process that began in a hostile work environment and ended in a productive, collaborative workplace. The QWG developed a better qualification system (an updated handbook/manual to be introduced to newcomers by those who had worked it out). The workers experienced job enrichment. They practiced practical communication and information skills by reviewing, describing, and discussing concrete tasks. Some simple technical systems for real-time information on production processes were introduced during their discussions.
This group met all three goals highlighted by the former working conferences and approved by the steering group. It is essential to state that these results were reached through discussions among those represented in the group. They owned the process and the results. My role was to ask simple, concrete questions and take notes, which were accepted by the participants before being handed to the local project leader and the steering group. The notes were short, practical, and “down to earth,” without academic paraphernalia or genuflections.