Anders Siig Andersen, Associate Professor, Ph.d. &
Janne Gleerup, Research Assistant
Department of Educational Research
Roskilde University
Paper for the ESREA Research Network on Working Life and Learning Conference: Working – Life and Democracy
18. – 20. October, 2005
University of Lower Silesia AAE
Wroclau, Poland
Modernisation of the public sector and work place democracy.
Introduction
From a historical perspective the Danish public sector is a product of the Social Democratic Party and the labour movement’s vision of a welfare society. Its development gathered speed during the 1960s and 1970s but from the end of the 1970s, however, the welfare model was already criticised for being too expensive, bureaucratic and inefficient. An extensive restructuring process entitled modernisation was therefore initiated with the purpose of rationalising and increasing the efficiency of the public service production. During the past 20 years, a gradual implementation of novel financial and organisational models has taken place inspired by a number of development and management concepts. Moreover, new information technology, management approaches, strategies for staff development as well as salary policies have all been implemented. The modernisation process has had far-reaching consequences for the function and service production of public organisations as well as for their employees whose working lives change in the implementation of – and the interplay between – different aims and means involved in the process.
The term modernisation is what discursive theorists refer to as a floating signifier. The concept of modernisation encompasses positive connotations pointing forward as well as indicating innovative thinking and thus stands in contrast to terms such as “inflexibility” and “the past”. The concept of modernisation furthermore implies a necessary and up-to-date development project that everyone should be in accordance with – or at least find difficult to renounce. The content of the public modernisation process is, however, ambiguous and complex and the process constitutes a broad arena for political fights over aims and means in the Danish welfare model as well as working conditions for the staff in the public sector[1]. Initiatives are implemented based on broader societal processes of change; according to the motives of changing governments; via different (and sometimes conflicting) development and management concepts; as well as on the basis of negotiations between public employers and labour organisations.
Despite the political complexity in terms of aims and means inherent in the modernisation process, it is possible to point at various inspirational sources that thoroughly mark the initiatives. This entails in part “severe” control concepts such as the so-called New Public Management concept (NPM), which to a large extent has characterised the transitions within the public modernisation. The reasoning and recommendations of this concept are characterised by the attempt to implement organisational, management and salary policies that stem from the private labour market. It also involves the influence of more “soft” development oriented concepts such as the Human Resource Management tradition (HRM). This encompasses a management approach, where the aim is to develop and intensify the use of human resources possessed by the work force. The access to these resources is sought through novel organisations of work and through strategic staff policies in order to advance employees’ sense of responsibility as well as identification with the work place.
Over and beyond such management inspirations, the labour movement has furthermore taken on an offensive role as an actor in the modernisation process. Via a gradual change of perspectives and strategies in the direction of a more decentral and individual handling of the interests of their members, the labour movement has attempted to collaborate with public employers in relation to modernisation policies. The collaboration has for instance instigated a decentralisation of the agreement system as well as the implementation of individual salary agreements within the public sector. Furthermore, it has put staff development on the agenda of modernisation politics. This comprises the incorporation of parts of the labour movement’s strategy for The Developing Work (TDW) into official, public staff policies.
Through a number of research and development projects, we have investigated how the public modernisation process, alter staff members’ opportunities for learning and influence in their work places. We have applied a participatory perspective in specific case studies. That means that we have explored how the changes are experienced and handled by the employees and managers at different work places[2]. As it will appear in this paper, we believe that an outset in the practical experiences of employees may contribute to a more multi-faceted understanding of the changes within public organisations that are caused by the modernisation process. This understanding stands in contrast to the one, which forms the basis of those management concepts, that typically inspire modernisation politics. These theories and concepts are seldom developed or adjusted in dialogic interplay with the specific work experiences of employees and proposals for changes coming from this perspective. In stead, they are characterised by context independency and normativity prescribing recommendations.
Studies into the modernisation process that have the purpose of supporting the implementation of these concepts – and which are often carried out by private consultancy firms – are to a large extent associated with the rationalisation forms and perspectives of the very same concepts. This involves a risk of marginalising experiences that are not comprised by the concepts. From the perspective of modernisation rationales, the work values and experiences of employees may through the practical implementation of the modernisation be seen as “disturbances” and “resistance” when they do not immediately match or play along with the rationales that form the basis of the concepts. Through a participant oriented outlook, we attempt to promote a change of analytical perspective from intentionally normative to practically concrete characteristics of the implementation of modernisation politics.
When the relatively abstract and context independent modernisation concepts – often implemented in the public organisations through a top-down approach – are supplemented or challenged by a participant perspective, it initiates the articulation and analysis of interesting experiences of and views on the modernisation. These experiences and viewpoints paint a more complex picture of the ways in which modernisation initiatives alter working life, including an insight into how and why employees may develop – more or less of their own accord – both defensive and more offensive strategies in relation to new initiatives.
Some of the modernisation concepts as well as the labour movement’s strategy are characterised by recommendations towards decentralisation, increased involvement of staff members and augmented self-control. These recommendations seem to encompass increased democratisation. Likewise, our studies of the impact of the modernisation process on public work places show that the modernisation processes is in practice accompanied by learning processes that develop increased self-regulation and reflexivity. Such potentials are generally considered contributions to democratisation and civilisation processes. Concurrently with this, our studies also depict that the modernisation initiatives in their practical implementation in many ways appear to hinder the democratisation processes at the work places. The fact that this is relatively overlooked in terms of research as well as the public debate further instigates our consideration for the impact of the modernisation processes on the democracy at work places.
In continuation of the above, the aim of this paper is first of all to elucidate the features of the modernisation that seem to impede the translation of strategies and initiatives into democratic processes. Secondly, it is our aim to give voice to some of the employee experiences that are currently marginalised in the modernisation process. Thirdly, we wish to raise the question of whether the modernisation initiatives could be put into practice in a more participant oriented and democracy promoting way if the labour movement to a larger degree based its development of strategies as to the handling of interests on the experiences of their members.
Labour movement and work place democracy
An important element in the struggle of the labour movement has been the promotion of members’ opportunities for influence. Through direct as well as indirect attacks on management rights, the labour movement has to some extent succeeded in increasing the influence of its organisation and its members. The debate over democracy and working life is therefore not new. Ever since the first agreements between the Danish labour market parties more than 100 years ago, the labour movement has strived to develop and realise various forms of democratisation initiatives. The methods have included strikes, demands for collective agreements and involvement in management decisions on the level of work places with a central collaboration agreement from 1947 as the starting point for a number of agreements on the representative influence of shop stewards as well as occupational health and safety stewards. In the more radical parts of the labour movement, the perspective has been a thorough democratisation of the societal production. In the 1970s, for instance, this took the form of socialist scenarios for the realisation of industrial and economic democracy (Lassen, 1999). Later on, it has involved more indirect democratisation forms such as employees’ gradual overtaking of property rights through employee fonds and through the effort to secure staff representatives on the executive boards of companies (Knudsen, 2000).
Since the end of the 1980s, the labour movement has to an increasing degree focused on providing members with a more developing working life through new and further opportunities for personal and professional development as well as increasing influence and responsibility in the individual work place. The tendency is manifested in the labour movement’s strategy for The Developing Work (LO, 1991). This strategy is an offensive contribution to the modernisation debate with a particular orientation towards the quality of staff members’ working life. Throughout many years, Hvid and Møller from Roskilde University have studied TDW and the opportunity to base the concept on an integrative oriented strategy, and they describe the general content of this strategy as follows:
“The developing work is an integrative oriented strategy, which comprises both greater opportunities for development, influence and responsibility for staff members as well as a development of the company in terms of greater social consideration, better competitive power and better products” (Hvid & Møller, 1999:23)[3].
The integrative orientation encompassed in the perspective of TDW strategy means that it does not comprise a traditional wage earner perspective of interests. In a much more far-reaching manner, TDW strives to build bridges between the interests of the management and the staff members at individual work places. With an emphasis on the potentials inherent in a close and trustworthy collaboration on common goals, TDW presents a softening of the gap that exists between the roles as employer and manager, for instance, in relation to the division of tasks and responsibilities. This furthermore aims at increasing participation and responsibility for staff members. Despite the integrative orientation, Hvid and Møller points out that TDW must contain a conflict perspective, whereby the concept may be differentiated from a number of more novel production and management concepts that emphasise consensus to a larger degree. The TDW concept presupposes that differences in interests are a natural premise for collaboration within organisations. Conflicting interest should not be erased but may through collaboration qualify constructive exploitation in the development dynamics of the organisations (Hvid & Møller, 1999).
In contrast to a long line of novel management concepts, TDW ideally involves a “bottom-up” perspective where employees are perceived to be the driving force in relation to the formulation of development scenarios and the alteration of practice. In the public sphere this should take place by allowing employees to develop ideas that take into consideration the wishes of the citizens; which will strengthen their involvement in the welfare production; will be preventive and proactive – including the responsibility for pointing out areas that may be rationalised. The idea is for the employee to contribute with important experiences through increased responsibility and participation and thus strengthen their position as developing actors in the modernisation process (Hvid & Møller, 1992: 140).
When the labour movement developed TDW during the early 1990s, the aim was amongst other things to establish an offensive counterpart to other new production concepts. The purpose of this furthermore being to oppose the deregulating and individualistic facets of these concepts and thereby the risk of a marginalisation of the labour movement’s influence as a defender of collective interests. Despite the fact that the labour movement retains the right to and the role as a central collective negotiator in relation to members’ salary and work conditions, the development of strategies and structures for the handling of interests is meanwhile characterised by features of decentralisation and individualisation. These features are expressed – in collaboration with employers – through changes in the structure of the Danish agreement system; a change that is often referred to as centralised decentralisation[4] by labour market researchers (Madsen, 2004).
The decentralisation means that the labour movement to an increasing degree seeks to achieve influence via local agreements. This tendency is manifested through the orientation of TDW project towards the improvement of members’ representative and direct influence on areas such as work planning, career opportunities as well as opportunities for development and education. The argument is furthermore that this influence may enhance the employability of the members, that is, their job opportunities on a job market that changes all the time. Moreover, the decentralisation greatly affects pay agreements since the process also involves a gradual acceptance and promotion of individual salary systems. It is therefore the aim through local and individual forms of agreement to further a more differentiated and flexible handling of interests where the members of their own accord may achieve direct influence on salary and work conditions on the work place.
The gradual strategic change of perspective in the labour movement may also be caused by the fact that the labour movement wishes to oppose the wave of individualisation that has been greatly thematised in research and in the public debate throughout the last couple of decades. The individualisation has often been interpreted as a threat to the collective orientation and has to some extent been associated with the decreasing affiliation to the labour movement. In the attempt to challenge potential negative consequences of the individualisation, the labour movement seeks to integrate the individual and the societal in a new integrative strategy through the implementation of TDW.
The TDW strategy operates with a concept of sustainability, which reaches beyond the individual work performance and the individual work place. The concept of sustainability seeks to thematise “usefulness” in a larger societal perspective by encouraging ongoing reflections on the social as well as environmental consequences of production forms and products. The orientation towards sustainability is attached to the aim of developing a new form of solidarity that, on the one hand, provides the individual with opportunities for control of his own development and, on the other hand, supports the sustainment and further development of a sense of responsibility for the community.
Put together, the ideals of TDW presuppose that the work is organised so that the individual staff member may exert a certain degree of self-determination, may identify with colleagues, the work place and citizens and finally that the employee may experience a connection between his work performance and its societal function. In other words, this means that the individual should experience his work performance as a useful contribution to the collective production and thereby become motivated towards an orientation to quality as well as a sense of responsibility in a broader societal perspective (Hvid & Møller, 1992; Navrberg, 1999).
The labour movement’s strategy of The Developing Work can be interpreted in terms of a practical political attempt of an up-to-date reformulation of the democratisation project under influence of the given conditions of the surrounding world.
TDW as an analytical democratisation optics in relation to the public democratisation process
In the following, we apply an overall determination of TDW’s democratisation potentials as an analytical optics in relation to the public democratisation process. The determination of the democratisation perspective may logically be rooted in TDW, because the strategy seeks to integrate the consideration for the individual’s self-determination; the individual’s participation in collective decision-making processes at the work place; as well as the consideration for the individual’s participation in local communities and the societyas a whole. The strategy is thereby in principle oriented towards three central dimensions in the discussion of the nature of democracy since the French revolution, that is, freedom, equality and fraternity – or expressed with concepts closer to modern discourses: self-determination (as an individual perspective), participation (as an internal organisational perspective) and solidarity (as a community and society oriented perspective) (Klafki, 2001).
We specify the analytical optics as follows:
Freedom of speech– conditions for self-government
With such an analytical optics as its starting point, self-determination refers to the individual employee’s right to and conditions for achieving personal experiences, forming own points of views and being free to articulate these in critical dialogue with the surrounding world. Across the case studies that we have carried out, we choose to focus on the terms for free creation of opinion and freedom of speech.
One man one vote– conditions forparticipation
Participation can be translated into a question of the right to and conditions for participation in democratic decision-making processes. We choose here to focus on structures for the distribution of power and influence, premises for access to democratic participation including conditions for access to information, and influence as well as other rules for the collective democratic interaction in decision-making processes.