The fact that we can talk about long term trends also implies that
changes in work organisation are evolutionary rather than abrupt. A
tendency to look for “outstanding cases”, in particular in efforts to
promote new forms, tend to overshadow this point and make work
organization look like some kind of technology rather than
relationships between people. From an evolutionary perspective, what we
are today is a product of historical processes:
While the Nordic countries show a number of internal differences the
industrial relations systems have some common pillars:
They all saw the early emergence of broad union movements, generally
based on industries rather than crafts. This promoted a similar
organization on the employer side, leading to a strong element of
organization on industry level. The unions and employer associations
joined forces in national confederations.
This apparatus very much emerged out of a period of conflict. When
it was there, it turned out, however, to give new possibilities for
co-operation. It was, for instance, possible to develop a strong
central leadership, to make deals with the governments, and to avoid
most of the internal strife and struggles often associated with craft
based unionism.
Norway, for instance, passed, over a few years in the 1930s, from
one of the highest conflict levels in Europe to one of the lowest (1).
This was the context in which work organization became a recognised
theme. The pioneer was Sweden, the first of the Nordic countries to
embark on a process of strong industrialisation.
Elements of scientific management and other schools of thought on
efficient organization, already under strong development in the United
States, started to arrive at the shores of Sweden in the 1920s and 30s.
Contrary to the United States, where the institutional actors became
only briefly or sporadically involved in the discourse on work
organization, in Sweden work and rationalization became themes in the
discourse between employers and unions, successively to become a part
of the agreement system (2).
Denmark showed much the same pattern of economic development as
Sweden but did not create a comparative population of large firms, nor
did Norway and Finland. In addition, the two last countries were later
in economic take-off and growth. Corrected for differences in types of
enterprises and workplaces the institutional patterns developed in much
the same direction as in Sweden.
The fact that work organization as on the agenda did, however, not
imply that it was, in this early phase, turned in a “modern” direction.
Rather, the issue was implementation of Taylorism and related ideas.
The notion of alternative forms of work organization emerged in the
1950s, initially in research and academic debate.
The first effort to bring ideas like autonomy and learning to bear
on the roles of industrial workers occurred with a series of field
experiments in Norway in the 1960s. Main responsibility for the
experiments was taken by researchers, but in co-operation with the
labour market parties and financed by public sources.
The Norwegian initiative was, within a few years, followed by one in
Denmark and one in Sweden. These experiments triggered off similar
efforts in a number of other countries, such as Germany, Holland and
the United States.
In many ways these were the foundations of the modern discourse on
work organization. They did not only introduce the notion of
autonomy-based forms, but also the notion of tripartism as a key
element in driving a new development forwards. They left, however, a
major problem open: how to achieve scope, or mass, in the development.
How to go from one or a few workplaces to larger sectors, not to say
working life as a whole?
As this problem of dissemination was attacked, the whole work
organization agenda took a new turn. Successively, it became clear that
specific patterns of work organization – be it new or old ones – could
hardly be disseminated at all (3). What could be disseminated was
information about the importance of the issue and some perspectives and
tools that could be used by local actors if they decided to do
something about it. On this background the 1970s and 1980s saw the
emergence of a number of different initiatives that intended to
stimulate the interest in the work organization theme and provide
support to enterprises that wanted to develop new patterns. One example
was an agreement on workplace development between the Norwegian
Confederation of Business and Industry and the Confederation of Trade
Unions (4).
Another was the establishment of the Work Environment Fund in
Sweden, initially an initiative to develop the financial platform, but
successively undertaking a major role as organizer of tripartite
development programs.
In Denmark and Finland the development was largely characterised by
initiatives on enterprise level but often linked to the
union-management co-operation locally.
This period reached its peak in the early 1990s with the Work Life
Fund in Sweden. Based on returning the income from an anti-inflationary
tax levied on the enterprises during the heated latter 1980s, provided
that the enterprises created workplace development programs, the Fund
created 25 000 projects over a period of 5 years, at a total cost of
SEK 10 billion (5). While the program was quite successful in terms not
least of its ability to promote new forms of work organization it also
brought two shortcomings to the surface: First, a lack of relationships
– or networks – between enterprises that could enhance mutual learning
through exchange of experience across enterprises boundaries; second, a
lack of recognition on political level of the potential of development
programs as a tool in the transformation of working life.
Since the Work Life Fund was such a major initiative these two
problems appeared particularly clearly. In a somewhat less sharply
featured form they were, however, present in Norway as well, where the
labour market parties decided to launch industry-wide programs as well
as to seek a closer co-operation with public authorities and
bodies.
In the meantime Finland started its rapid climb towards Nordic
leadership in development processes. While the technology-based Nokia
success stands forth as the most well known example of Finnish
advances, there is an underlying reality in terms of a broad range of
measures, spanning from promotion of new forms of work organization to
the strengthening of regional development coalitions.
Tripartite co-operation is a cornerstone, mediated through a number
of channels where specific programs is one. The Finnish picture is
complex and much is based on the use of informal channels but at the
moment the idea of tripartism has its strongest foundation in Finland.
In all the countries much of the focus at the moment is just on how to
reconstruct the notion of tripartism against a background of new and
more network oriented innovation systems, stronger emphasis on regions
as economic entities and major shifts in what kinds of businesses and
enterprises are pushing the economic development.
The idea of a “Nordic model” of industrial relations emerged in the
post World War II period and has given rise to some discussion: is
there such a model and what is its characteristics? Insofar as we can
find some general characteristics they are on the process side rather
than on the structural.
As the issue of work organization is concerned the model has
achieved one thing: to keep the theme on the agenda and under
discuss-ion. Although there have been ups and downs and shifting
priorities it has never fully disappeared and often played a prominent
role. It is this dynamism that constitutes the prime outcome rather
than specific patterns of organization. The external evaluation of the
achievements of these societies varies and much critique has over the
years been directed at “the Nordic model”, in particular from the
conservative press in the Anglo-American countries.
Against this it can be argued that these small countries at the
periphery of the Western world are still doing it quite well; in fact,
they are at or close to the top on quite a number of statistics
pertaining to income and welfare. Work organisation is neither more nor
less than the way in which collective efforts in all spheres of society
are organised and the patterns applied in the Nordic countries so far
seem to have stood the test.
