Vis enkel innførsel

dc.contributor.authorRavn, Johan Elvemo
dc.contributor.authorAlias, Oier Imaz
dc.contributor.authorOrtega, Igor
dc.contributor.authorHaga, Trond Sanne
dc.contributor.authorGreenwood, Davydd J.
dc.date.accessioned2024-06-27T12:52:13Z
dc.date.available2024-06-27T12:52:13Z
dc.date.created2023-06-13T21:15:24Z
dc.date.issued2023
dc.identifier.citationInternational Journal of Action Research. 2023, 19 (1), 7-48.en_US
dc.identifier.issn1861-1303
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/11250/3136211
dc.description.abstractThis essay presents two case examples of the context and practices of industrial democracy: Norwegian industrial democracy exemplified with the Aker case and the Mondragon Cooperative Experience (a term Mondragon often uses to describe its whole structure and history). The comparison illustrates the necessity of combining general systems theory, the distinction between political and socio-technical participation, and the role of ethos, worldview, and heedfulness in understanding how these enterprises operate and manage ongoing challenges. Our central motive is to promote the expansion of organizational democracy within the global industrial system as a superior and more humane alternative to global neoliberal capitalism. These are not simple comparisons because these systems have different histories, contexts, and dynamics. In making the comparison, we show that the constant process of balancing and rebalancing political and socio-technical participation is a key dynamic in keeping such democratic systems viable. We also show that enterprise ethos and worldview, far from being an add-on or a “soft” dimension, is the bedrock on which such systems rely. After making this general presentation, we put these systems in motion to show how they address the challenges of downsizing and strategic planning. Downsizing and strategic planning show both systems’ ability to face unexpected events and effectively cope with their potential consequences. We conclude that the differences between the cases show there is no one right way to create democratic organizations, but that paths exist and remain open for many different versions of these more humane and successful industrial organizations so necessary for creating sustainable societies.en_US
dc.language.isoengen_US
dc.publisherBarbara Budrichen_US
dc.titleProductive pragmatism: Industrial democracy under neoliberal capitalist conditionsen_US
dc.title.alternativePragmatismo productivo: La democracía industrial frente a las condiciones del capitalism neoliberalen_US
dc.typePeer revieweden_US
dc.typeJournal articleen_US
dc.description.versionacceptedVersionen_US
dc.source.pagenumber7-48en_US
dc.source.volume19en_US
dc.source.journalInternational Journal of Action Researchen_US
dc.source.issue1en_US
dc.identifier.doi10.3224/ijar.v19i1.02
dc.identifier.cristin2154285
dc.relation.projectNorges forskningsråd: 309810en_US
cristin.ispublishedtrue
cristin.fulltextpostprint
cristin.qualitycode1


Tilhørende fil(er)

Thumbnail

Denne innførselen finnes i følgende samling(er)

Vis enkel innførsel