Henry Naylor-Stead, who was not a member of a co-operative at the time, had contacted Altgen ... Martyn and Claudia... both members of the Chapel Street co-op... talking about the stuff that they do ...... Boston, MA: Porter Sargent, pp. 51â81.
Learning and Knowing Organisational Democracy: The Young Co-operators Network
Owen H. J. Powell
A thesis submitted to Bangor University in fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of MA in Management by Research
Bangor Business School Bangor University Wales, United Kingdom
September 2016 i
LEARNING & KNOWING ORGANISATIONAL DEMOCRACY:
The Young Co-operators Network
By Owen H. J. Powell
TABLE OF CONTENTS Table of Figures
iv
Table of Tables
iv
Acknowledgements
vi
0.0 Abstract 1.0 Introduction 1.1 Purpose of Study 1.2 Contribution to Knowledge 1.3 Structure of Thesis
vii 1 1 2 3
2.0 Literature Review 2.1 Introduction 2.2 Organisational Democracy 2.2.1 Worker Involvement & Participation 2.2.2 Worker Ownership 2.2.3 Collectivist-Democratic Organisations 2.2.4 Summary 2.3 Co-operatives 2.3.1 A Brief History 2.3.2 Defining & Distinguishing 2.3.3 Values & Principles 2.3.4 Issues & Constraints 2.3.5 Inter-co-operative Associations 2.3.6 Summary 2.4 Learning & Knowing 2.4.1 The Quality of Knowledge 2.4.2 Organisational Knowledge 2.4.3 Organisational Learning 2.4.4 Bridging the Knowledge and Learning Gap 2.4.5 Knowing 2.4.6 Learning 2.4.7 Learning & Knowing Co-operatives 2.4.8 Summary 2.5 Chapter Summary 2.6 Reflections: Literature Review
4 4 5 5 8 9 13 14 14 16 20 25 34 42 44 44 46 47 48 49 51 53 55 57 60
3.0 Methodology 3.1 Introduction 3.2 Philosophical Considerations 3.3 Research Approach 3.4 Research Design 3.4.1 Access 3.4.2 Ethics 3.4.3 Participants 3.4.4 Data Collection
63 63 64 65 69 70 71 72 73 ii
3.4.5 Data Analysis 3.5 Chapter Summary 3.6 Reflections: Methodology
75 79 80
4.0 Findings 4.1 Introduction 4.2 Initial Development 4.2.1 The Young Co-operators Prize 4.2.2 Training Weekend 4.2.3 A Network 4.2.4 The YCN 4.2.5 Summary 4.3 Participation 4.3.1 Issues & Challenges 4.3.2 Value & Benefits 4.3.3 Summary 4.4 Further Development 4.4.1 Activities 4.4.2 Interactions 4.4.3 Resources 4.4.4 Membership 4.4.5 Structure 4.4.6 Summary 4.5 Chapter Summary 4.5.1 Research Question 1 4.5.2 Research Question 2 4.5.3 Research Question 3
84 84 85 85 86 88 90 95 97 97 106 111 114 114 116 117 118 118 120 122 122 123 124
5.0 Discussion & Conclusion 5.1 Introduction 5.2 Discussion 5.2.1 Literature Recap 5.2.2 Issues & Constraints 5.2.3 Need for the YCN 5.2.4 Type of Co-operative Network 5.3 Implications 5.3.1 Academic 5.3.2 Co-operative Movement 5.3.3 The YCN 5.4 Limitations 5.5 Further Research 5.6 Conclusion
126 126 127 127 129 137 142 144 144 145 146 146 147 148
References
150
Glossary of Acronyms Names Terms
163 163 163
iii
TABLE OF FIGURES Figure 2.1: Structure of Literature Review (p.4) Figure 2.2: The Escalator of Participation (p.7) Figure 2.3: Range of Organisational Forms (p.10) Figure 2.4: Second and third tier inter-co-operative associations from the perspective of an independent UK worker co-operative (p. 37) Figure 2.5: Example of Complex Network - The Nova Scotia Co-operative Development System (p.41) Figure 3.1: The fourth model for analysing narrative material (p.76) Figure 3.2: Screen-grab of parent-nodes and child-nodes in NVivo 11 (p.77) Figure 5.1: Facets of need for the YCN (p.142)
TABLE OF TABLES Table 2.1: The multiple meanings of employee voice (p.6) Table 2.2: Comparing bureaucratic and collectivist-democratic forms of organisation (p.10) Table 2.3: Comparing Democracy 1.0 and 2.0 (p.11) Table 2.4: Democracy 1.0 and 2.0 at State, Community/City, and Organisational Scales of Analysis (p.12) Table 2.5: Six Broad Forms of Co-operative Organisation (p.17) Table 2.6: The 7 Co-operative Principles (p.19) Table 2.7: Constraints on collectivist-democracies (p.26) Table 2.8: Typology of Co-operative Networks (p.35) Table 2.9: Co-operative Networks in the Italian Economy (p.38) Table 2.10: Typology of Co-operative Networks - Novkovic & Holm (2012) combined with Menzani & Zamagni (2010) (p.39) Table 3.1: Participant list (p.73) Table 4.1: Issues & Challenges - Co-operative Movement - Extant Membership (p.98) Table.4.2: Issues & Challenges - Co-operative Movement - Involvement (p.99) Table 4.3: Issues & Challenges - Co-operative Movement - Access (p.99) Table 4.4: Issues & Challenges - Individual Co-operatives - Membership (p.100) iv
Table 4.5: Issues & Challenges - Individual Co-operatives - Structure (p.101) Table 4.6: Issues & Challenges - Individual Co-operatives - Resources (p.102) Table 4.7: Issues & Challenges - Individual Co-operatives - Democracy (p.103) Table 4.8: Issues & Challenges - Individual Co-operatives - Learning (p.104) Table 4.9: Value & Benefits - Practical - Co-operativism (p.106) Table 4.10: Value & Benefits - Practical - Learning (p.107) Table 4.11: Value & Benefits - Practical - Solutions (p.107) Table 4.12: Value & Benefits - Social / Emotional - Engagement (p.109) Table 4.13: Value & Benefits - Social / Emotional - Motivation (p.109) Table 4.14: Value & Benefits - Social / Emotional - Alignment (p.110)
v
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This thesis would not have been possible without the time, energy, and support of the members, present and past, of Altgen and the Young Co-operators Network, my thanks to all of you. I would also like to thank my supervisors, Dr Clair Doloriert and Professor Tony Dobbins, for sharing their experience, offering advice, and having faith in me. Finally, to my family and friends I say thank you for being there, being wonderful, keeping me on point when distractions were abound, and encouraging me when all seemed bleak.
vi
0.0 ABSTRACT Purpose - The purpose of this research is to explore and explain the need for the Young Co-operators Network (YCN). Three research questions are used to respond to this purpose: RQ.1 How did the community of practice develop? RQ.2 What are the factors influencing participation? RQ.3 How, or in what ways, might further development take place? Literature - The study is framed within literature regarding organisational democracy, co-operatives, and organisational learning and knowledge. It moves through these three areas, gradually developing its context before focusing on the literature enabling the case to be unpacked through appreciation of: the issues and constraints faced by co-operatives, extant research regarding inter-co-operative associations, and the social-process approach to organisational learning and knowing. Methodology - This is a single-case study, using nine semi-structured one-to-one interviews to generate subjective insights from participants directly involved with the case phenomenon. The insights generated are explored and dissected through a combination of deductive and inductive thematic coding. The findings are structured around the three research questions and presented according to each question's particular character. Findings - The research ultimately finds that the need for the YCN is based on three facets: sustaining the members, in terms of dealing with the issues and challenges they face; learning and knowing about co-operatives, co-operation, and participatory democracy; and growing in both scope and scale as co-operators, co-operatives, and as a network. Contribution - The academic contribution of this study focuses on three areas. Firstly, contributing to our understanding of the issues and challenges faced by co-operatives and co-operators. Secondly, furthering the conceptualisation of co-operative organisations as communities of practice, and of democratic participation as a form of non-canonical practice. Thirdly, adding the concept of networks of individual cooperators to the extant typologies of co-operative organisations, suggesting that through this structural shift the values of self-help and self-responsibility may be enhanced
and
the
quality
of
participatory
democracy
ameliorated. vii
1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 PURPOSE OF STUDY As collectivist-democratic organisations (Rothschild-Whitt 1979) worker cooperatives face a range of challenges to their survival and success. While many of these are associated with operating in an isomorphic environment, one that is not designed to support direct collective ownership and organisational democracy, at a more fundamental level their complex value- and principle-based nature requires time, energy, and commitment from their members who, regardless of their particular tasks and everyday responsibilities, play a participatory role in strategic and operational decisions. Inter-co-operative associations have been suggested to offer a means of overcoming some of these challenges as well as providing space for innovation and development of structures, governance, and processes (Smith 2001; Novkovic 2007; Soots et al. 2007; Menzani and Zamagni 2010; Novkovic and Holm 2012; Novkovic 2014; Rothschild 2016). The purpose of this study is to explore the formation and development of the Young Co-operators Network (YCN), a small network of individual co-operators from across the UK. The need for this organisational entity is identified through analysis of its formation, the factors influencing participation, and potential developments, all from the perspective of individual members. As such, the study will seek to respond to the following research questions: RQ.1
How did the YCN develop?
RQ.2
What are the factors influencing participation?
RQ.3
How, or in what ways, might further development take place?
The YCN is herein conceptualised and often referred to as a community of practice, this will be used to further exploration and explanation of the need for the YCN with respect to the findings and discussion presented in response to the research questions.
1
1.2 CONTRIBUTION TO KNOWLEDGE While a breadth of research exists into inter-co-operative associations and their potential as spaces for mutual support and innovation (Smith 2001; Novkovic 2007; Soots et al. 2007; Menzani and Zamagni 2010; Novkovic and Holm 2012; Mazzarol et al. 2013; Tanner 2013; Novkovic 2014), extant research has placed particular emphasis on the economic functions of inter-co-operative associations. Including but not limited to: horizontal and vertical financial, service, and supply-chain networks (Menzani and Zamagni 2010; Mazzarol et al. 2013), and the role of complex, multistakeholder networks in organisational and social innovation (Soots et al. 2007; Novkovic 2007; Novkovic and Holm 2012). Hartley (2014) conceptualised co-operatives as "learning spaces" (p.715), building on the notion of learning as being situated in social engagement and interaction (Lave and Wenger 1991; Brown and Duguid 1991; Wenger 1998; Wenger 2000; Brown and Duguid 2001). Hartley's work focused on learning within youth co-operatives and identified connections to networks as one of the key influences over collective learning dynamics within co-operatives. The present study seeks to develop this understanding by exploring the YCN as a learning space or community of practice, in line with the social-process approach to organisational learning and knowing (Chiva and Alegre 2005). Here, the network is given significance through its role as a space where co-operators, in particular young co-operators, might develop their explicit knowledge of co-operatives and tacit awareness of co-operating in collectivistdemocratic organisations. In addition, the study shows how such a community of practice can potentially increase members' resilience to the challenges of operating in a dissonant environment as well as providing opportunity to innovate on existing cooperative structures and practices with the concepts of the value- and principle-based co-operatives (Novkovic 2008), the collectivist-democratic organisation (RothschildWhitt 1979), and Democracy 2.0 (Rothschild 2016) in mind. Furthermore, the YCN being a network of individual co-operators as opposed to cooperatives is found to be important to its structure and the behaviour of members. This is highlighted as a form of co-operative network or association absent from extant typologies. Importantly, in exploring and explaining the need for the YCN this study highlights the importance of such entities to the future of the co-operative 2
movement and likewise the development of participatory organisational democracies in the modern economy.
1.3 STRUCTURE OF THESIS The thesis is comprised of five chapters. The present chapter (1.0 Introduction) provides an introduction to the study at hand, introducing the research purpose, research questions, and justifying its contribution to knowledge. The second chapter (2.0 Literature Review) reviews the extant literature through three sections: democratic organisations, co-operatives, and organisational learning and knowing. The third chapter (3.0 Methodology) reviews the research questions, introduces the case study, and details the research design with respect to: access, ethics, participants, data collection, and data analysis. The fourth chapter (4.0 Findings) presents and summarises the findings of the research. Finally, the fifth chapter (5.0 Discussion & Conclusion) discusses the findings in relation to the overall purpose of the study, reviews the implications and limitations of the research, makes suggestions for further research, and provides a succinct conclusion. The Literature Review (2.0), Methodology (3.0), and Findings (4.0) chapters are concluded with a chapter summary that aims to synthesise the central elements covered within the respective chapter. For ease of comprehension, following the main sections within the Literature Review (2.0) and Findings (4.0) a section summary is also provided. Furthermore, at the end of the Literature Review (2.0) and the Methodology (3.0) chapters a reflective section, dealing with the researcher's experiences writing and conducting the study, is included.
3
2.0 LITERATURE REVIEW 2.1 INTRODUCTION This study seeks to explore and explain the need for and purpose of the YCN, a small network of young co-operators in the UK, and is interested in understanding how the group developed (RQ.1), the factors influencing member participation (RQ.2), and how the network might develop further (RQ.3). The following chapter presents a review of literature relevant to the study. It is constructed in three sections designed to enable gradual understanding of the case. These can be viewed in terms of levels of analysis: the wider context (macro-level), the contextual particularities (meso-level), and the activity in focus (micro-level).
Figure 2.1: Structure of Literature Review
Macro-level 2.2 Organisational Democracy Meso-level 2.3 Co-operatives Micro-level 2.4 Learning & Knowing
Section 2.2 deals with the concept of organisational democracy, first introducing worker involvement and participation, then moving toward outlining organisational democracy, worker ownership, and the underlying assumptions associated with democratic systems. Section 2.3, by far the largest of the three, deals with co-operatives. Beginning with a brief history before introducing the forms of co-operative present in the modern economy, it subsequently moves to present the co-operative values and principles and examines their inter-relatedness. The challenges faced and issues posed by cooperation are then discussed, prior to the final sub-section which deals with inter-cooperative associations. 4
Section 2.4 first introduces organisational knowledge and organisational learning as two distinct fields of literature; this enables a number of key notions to be drawn out prior to them being dealt with in synthesis as the social-process approach to learning and knowing. Moving forward, the concepts of situated learning, legitimate peripheral participation, communities of practice, and the development non-canonical practices are discussed, framed in terms of organisational democracy and the co-operative movement.
2.2 ORGANISATIONAL DEMOCRACY This section seeks to contextualise co-operatives as organisational democracies through examination of the literature related to worker participation, management, and ownership, subsequently considering the forms democracy manifest within organisations. 2.2.1 WORKER INVOLVEMENT & PARTICIPATION Within the employment relations literature a myriad of terms have been used as a means of conveying the concept of workers or employees having some degree of delegation, consultation, involvement, power, or freedom within an organisation (Wilkinson et al. 2010 p.10 citing: Bar-Haim, 2002; Budd, 2004; Marchington and Wilkinson, 2005; Poole, 1986; Wilkinson 1998, 2008). In examining the meaning and purpose of employee voice, Dundon et al. (2004) identify four principle strands of thought: articulation of individual dissatisfaction, expression of collective organisation, contribution to management decision-making, demonstration of mutuality and co-operative relations. Furthermore, from Table 3.1 it is possible to see how different understandings of the term employee voice relate to varying purposes, mechanisms, and degrees of conflict or collaboration between employers and employees. Devised to encompass the range of participation mechanisms often perceived as being distinct, Wilkinson et al. (2014) offer a broad definition of participation as being, “…the ways and means through which employees attempt to have a say and potentially influence organizational affairs relating to issues that affect their work and the interests of managers and owners.” (p.5)
5
Table 2.1: The multiple meanings of employee voice (Source: Dundon et al. 2004 p.1152)
For ease of comprehension, herein worker involvement and participation (WIP) is henceforth applied as a means of embracing the range of extant terms such as employee voice, participation, engagement, and involvement. WIP has predominantly centred on an understanding of the worker as an employee of an investor-owned firm (IOF) and thus tends to inherently involve the employer-employee power dynamic, one that is not present within worker co-operatives due to the combination of worker ownership and control. However, this body of literature offers two important insights: firstly, in the forms and purposes of worker voice and secondly as an avenue into understanding the differences and relationship between worker involvement, participation, influence, and control. Marchington et al.'s (1992) "escalator of participation" (p.7-8) includes five degrees by which this range can be understood: information, communication, consultation, codetermination, and control (see Figure 2.2). It is worth noting that each of the steps is necessarily dependent on the previous (i.e. control requires information and communication in order to be effective). Bernstein (1976) offers a more nuanced, or dimensional, set of three measures for understanding and evaluating WIP. Firstly, the range of issues over which workers have some form of control; secondly, the degree of control held by the workers; thirdly, the organisational level at which the workers 6
exercise their control. These measures enable us to appreciate that in cases where workers are given control over work procedures, they may still have no control over wage setting, strategy, or the division of profits - the final say remaining in the hands of management. In turn, this allows us to "...consider the actual meaning and workings of participation and also to explain why, in a given case, participation in one arena may not be reflected in another." (Webb and Cheney 2014 p.78)
Figure 2.2: The Escalator of Participation (source: Marchington et al. 1992 p.7)
Cathcart (2013) views organisational democracy as "the pinnacle of the escalator of participation" (p.3), it being grounded in the assertion of the rights of the worker to have voice in decisions affecting them. A similar term, industrial democracy, was used by the Webbs (1902), who purported that "all men are equal, but also that, what concerns all should be decided by all" (p.8). While participation and voice can be applied to the broad spectrum of structures, mechanisms, routines, and practices of WIP they do not necessarily meet the conditions for organisational democracy (Foley and Polanyi 2006). Organisational democracy is more specifically understood to require a degree of control, as opposed to just influence, over decision-making on the part of workers (Dow 1993; Cheney 1995; Cathcart 2013). Foley and Polanyi (2006) elucidate that workplace (read: organisational) democracy exists when "...employees have some real control over organizational goal-setting and strategic planning, and can thus ensure that their own goals and objectives, rather than only those of the organization, can be met." (p.174) 7
2.2.2 WORKER OWNERSHIP While organisational democracy features a requirement for control on the part of workers it does not necessarily imply a requirement of ownership, its premise being that workers should have influence over that which affects them, it can be argued that the natural extension of organisational democracy is for workers to have a fair claim to the outcome of their labours, this radical approach to WIP has its origins in conflict-based thinking. As explicated by Johnstone and Ackers (2015), in contrast to the employee involvement and representative participation approaches, while the radical perspective similarly recognises the need for worker voice and participation it purports this is not achievable in conventional capitalist business organisations (IOFs), instead suggesting genuine worker voice and participation can only be attained when worker control is combined with ownership of the organisation. The work of Pierce et al. (2003) provides a useful overview of how our understanding of ownership has developed. From the assertion that civilised society is founded on the creation of mechanisms which protect an individual's right to claim something as their own (Rousseau 1950), to the construct of ownership as a "cognitive-affective state that characterizes the human condition" (Pierce et al. 2003 p.84). In neoclassical economics ownership is constructed of rights to residual returns, that is to have claim on the net income generated, and residual rights of control, that is to make decisions regarding the use of assets within the confines of the law (Hart 1993). Strauss (2006) suggests that it is this dyadic combination of direct participation (control) and financial participation (claims) that yields commitment and may in turn be "positively correlated with company success" (p.791). Etzioni's (1991) explication of the duality of ownership as being “part attitude, part object, part in the mind, part real” (p.466) is particularly potent when combined with Strauss's assertions. Congruently, in contemplating the advantages of labour management Vanek (1969) considers the combined ownership model as stimulating effort-maximisation, contrasting this with wage labour which is viewed as incentivising minimum required effort. Popular employee participation policies in IOFs, such as the distribution of shares through employee stock ownership plans (ESOPs) have been likened to worker ownership and thus are suggested to yield similar benefits with regards to commitment (Cathcart 2009). However, applying the definition of participation as 8
being “a process that allows employees to exercise some influence over their work and the conditions under which they work” (Heller et al. 1998 p.15) Strauss (2006) draws a distinction between involvement (passive) and influence (active). He goes on to suggest that financial participation schemes, such as ESOPs, fall into the former category and that without adequate direct involvement mechanisms may have "a very limited impact on performance" (2006 p.791), in part because they are simply reducing disincentive by improving the work environment as opposed to operating as an added incentive (Ben-ner and Jones 1995). From this we can understand control without ownership and ownership without control as being both incomplete in terms of content and insufficient in terms of affect. It is the combination of worker ownership and control that offers individual, group, community, and societal incentives including: job satisfaction, labour retention, workforce solidarity, economic efficiency, localised economic stability, as well as increased capacity for community revitalisation, wealth creation, and resilience (Hoover 2011; Gijselinckx 2012; Webb and Cheney 2014). 2.2.3 COLLECTIVIST-DEMOCRATIC ORGANISATIONS In her seminal article The Collectivist Organization: An Alternative to RationalBureaucratic Models Rothschild-Whitt (1979) describes an alternative conception of the organisation as a collectivist entity. Building on Weber's (1968) delineation of value-rational (or substantive rational) social action, in contrast to traditional, affectual, or instrumentally rational, wherein social action is founded on "belief in the value for its own sake... independent of its prospects of success" (Weber 1968 p.24) Rothschild-Whitt distinguished the collectivist-democratic organisation from the bureaucratic organisation along eight dimensions. These dimensions are: authority, rules, social control, social relations, recruitment and advancement, incentive structure, social stratification, and differentiation (see Table 2.2). It is essential to appreciate that, though there exists an interrelatedness between these characteristics, organisations may feature a combination of collectivist and bureaucratic characteristics - these models deal with extremes. Through this process of delineation, Rothschild-Whitt was able to create a continuum along which organisations could be placed (see Figure 2.3). 9
Table 2.2: Comparing the Bureaucratic and Collectivist-Democratic Organisation (Rothschild-Whitt 1979 p.519)
Figure 2.3: Range of organisational forms (Rothschild-Whitt 1979)
10
Weber himself thought the possibility of direct governance of society and the economy a naivety, if not an impossibility, and feared for the loss of individual autonomy, creativity, and moral purpose that the seemingly inevitable domination of bureaucracy would yield. However, in one of her more recent articles Rothschild (2016) opines that, "an authentically egalitarian and democratic alternative to hierarchy is not only possible, but is indeed proliferating in the modern and postmodern world" (p.8). Here, Rothschild moves beyond the distinction of collectivist-democratic organisations and deals with the premise of a wider collectivist- or co-operative-democratic logic, returning once again to Weber's
Table 2.3: Comparison of Democracy 1.0 and 2.0 (Rothschild 2016 p.16)
11
concept of substantive rational (value-rational) logic. This alternative logic centres on the principle of establishing mechanisms and structures for decision-making that embrace the voices of all members so that individuals may develop their own thinking about what they want, while the collective may discover the best decision possible through this consensus-seeking process. Rothschild terms this logic Democracy 2.0 and contrasts it against representative democracy, or Democracy 1.0. Rothschild offers a series of nine characteristics by which the two logics may be compared (see Table 2.3), furthering this notion by providing examples of each at state, community or city, and organisational levels (see Table 2.4). Table 2.4: Democracy 1.0 and 2.0 at State, Community/City, and Organisational Scales of Analysis (Rothschild 2016 p.17)
Rothschild highlights that it is highly unlikely for any organisation to be a pure form of either Democracy 1.0 or 2.0. Furthermore, the need for organisations to be empirically explored before anything more than a supposition can be made regarding their relative positioning to either juxtaposed position is emphasised (Rothschild 2016 p.17). There are likely to be organisations which appear to be entirely bureaucratic 12
and fit the framework of Democracy 1.0 yet through empirical study are found to feature characteristics associated with Democracy 2.0, just as there are likely to be collectivist-democratic organisations that for whatever reason fall back on the familiar norms of Democracy 1.0. 2.2.4 SUMMARY Organisational democracy is perhaps best understood as one extent of a continuum of worker participation, usefully expressed by Marchington et al.'s (1992) "Escalator of Participation" (Figure 2.2) which exhibits how worker involvement and participation (WIP) becomes more democratically significant as it moves from information, to communication, to consultation, to codetermination, and finally to control. It is likewise important to appreciate that organisational democracy necessarily features some degree of control (Dow 1993; Cheney 1995; Cathcart 2013), while involvement, participation, and voice may simply indicate some degree of involvement or influence, without the condition of control (Foley and Polanyi 2006). Beyond control, collective ownership further alters the economic relationship between workers and the organisation. As explicated by Hart (1993), in neoclassical economics ownership is constructed of rights to residual returns, i.e. the right to claim on the net income generated, and residual rights of control, i.e. right to make decisions regarding the use of assets. According to Strauss (2006) it is the dyadic combination of direct and financial participation on the part of workers which holds the potential for increasing commitment and the likelihood of organisational success. Via the introduction of the collectivist-democratic organisation (Rothschild-Whitt 1979) and the delineation of Democracy 1.0 (formal, representative-democracy) and Democracy 2.0 (participatory, collectivist-democracy) (Rothschild 2016) we have furthered the contextual framework through which the subject worker co-operatives and inter-co-operative community of practice may later be understood. This work also provides us with a means of recognising the nature of democracy within human structures, and perhaps more critically offers a lens through which to consider elements of what can be collectively termed the co-operative movement. Furthermore, it facilitates later understanding of the perceived issues, challenges, and value and benefits of participation identified by members. 13
2.3 CO-OPERATIVES This section introduces co-operatives and the wider co-operative movement. It is the largest of the three main sections of the Literature Review as it relates to the core theme of the thesis and explores the sheer extent of foundational knowledge involved with understanding the theoretical and practical world of co-operatives and cooperation. First, a brief history of co-operation is offered; the section then moves on to define and distinguish co-operatives in relation to other forms of organisations. Particular attention is paid to the interrelated framework of co-operative values and principles. The section then seeks to provide an overview of challenges associated with co-operative and collectivist-democratic organisation, along with related responses and counter-arguments. Prior to a section summary, consideration is given to research into inter-co-operative associations and networks, which is essential for eventual understanding of the need for the YCN and where it sits in relation to interco-operative organisations and the co-operative movement as a whole. 2.3.1 A BRIEF HISTORY The Fenwick Weavers' Society, established on March 14th 1761 in Fenwick, Scotland, is said to be the earliest recorded co-operative. Its purpose was to sell food, specifically oatmeal, at discount prices to the membership. However, the co-operative organisational model as it is recognised today originated in northern England in the mid-18th Century with The Rochdale Pioneers (ICA 2015b). The Pioneers were a group of cotton mill workers who, facing a combination of low wages and high prices for basic necessities, established the Rochdale Equitable Pioneers Society in order to pool their collective resources and obtain basic necessities at lower prices. Intrinsic to the Pioneers' organisation was the idea that consumers should be treated equitably, benefitting from their custom through a membership model by which they would share in the profits of and have a democratic say in the organisation (ICA 2015b). This was the birth of the consumer co-operative model, one of a number of different co-operative organisational formats present in today's global economy. In 1862, the creation of an independent credit union in Germany by Friedrich Wilhelm Raiffeisen and Franz Hermann Shultz-Delitsch heralded the arrival of financial co-operatives, variations of which now operate across the world providing 14
essential services to the continued growth of the co-operative movement (ICA 2015b). The founding of what is now the Mondragon Corporation likewise represents a significant moment in the history of the co-operative movement. Founded in 1956 by local priest José María Arizmendiarrieta in a small town in the Basque Country it is now the world's largest incorporated federation of worker co-operatives employing in excess of 80,000 people across operations in the financial, industrial, retail, and education sectors. The International Co-operative Alliance (ICA) estimates that co-operatives employ over 250 million people worldwide, have at least 1 billion members, and generate in excess of $2.2 trillion (USD) in turnover (ICA 2015a). Co-operatives operate globally in the following sectors of activity: agriculture and food industry, banking and financial services, insurance co-operatives and mutuals, wholesale and retail trade, other services, industry and utilities, health and social care, and other activities. In 2015, co-operatives contributed approximately £37 billion to the UK economy, an increase of 15% on contribution data from 2010 (Co-operatives UK 2015a). There are an estimated 6,796 co-operatives operating throughout the UK (England, Northern Ireland, Scotland, and Wales) with just under 15 million members, an increase of 16% since 2010. Data shows that 80% of co-operatives survive their first five years of trading in the UK economy, this figure stands in stark contrast when compared with the 41% five year survival rate amongst normal businesses (Co-operatives UK 2015b).
15
2.3.2 DEFINING & DISTINGUISHING Unlike IOFs, in co-operatives it is normal for ownership rights to be restricted to members and for limitations to be placed on rights to residual returns in that they are non-transferable, non-appreciable, and non-redeemable with benefits being distributed equally amongst the membership (Chaddad and Cook 2004). Co-operative organisations may likewise be differentiated from IOFs with regards to the associated distribution of benefits - in terms of the workers themselves spreading the benefits locally, and through the beneficial activities of co-operatives which are integrated into communities (Varghese et al. 2006). What matters in co-operatives is who the members are and what relationship they have to the organisation. Table 2.5 outlines a broad typology of co-operative that roughly encompasses all the forms likely to be encountered. We can see from this table that members may be workers, consumers, business owners, or co-operatives as individual entities. The focus of the study at hand is on variations of worker co-operatives, which offer members the opportunity for self-determination and equitable remuneration to workers. It is worth noting that this does not necessarily imply equality of pay; some worker co-operatives have member-agreed scales of pay, though often with a ratio in place limiting the difference between the lowest and highest pay bracket. Worker co-operatives, especially at small-to-medium scale, fit most closely with the notion of the collectivist-democratic organisation (Rothschild-Whitt 1979) and Democracy 2.0 (Rothschild 2016). To a certain extent worker co-operatives can be considered a pure form of cooperative, trading entities owned and operated by those who work in them, all of whom have an equal voice in decision-making and an equal share in the wealth produced. As a result of this, there is a tendency for high levels of participation within worker co-operatives, more so than in other co-operative entities (Cheney et al. 2014). In the past, worker co-operatives were most frequently found within food production (agriculture, fishing, localised food distribution), professional services, and smallscale fabrication, manufacturing, and construction industries (Cheney et al. 2014; citing: Dow 2003). More recently worker co-operatives have emerged across a range of service sectors including legal, financial, healthcare, and advertising.
16
Table 2.5: Six Broad Forms of Co-operative Organisation (Webb and Cheney 2014 p.69) TYPE DESCRIPTION Worker/Employee Those who work in the business which could be in any industry such as food, agriculture, retail sales of goods or services, social services, etc. This model would include collectives although most worker cooperatives would not function as collectives. Consumer Consumers of various commodities such as food, insurance, funerals, financial services including credit unions, housing, utilities such as electricity or gas, farm and garden supplies, travel services etc. This model includes mutuals. Small Business Producers of common products such as dairy farmer, fishers, motel owners, hardware or other retail stores, electricians, plumbers, family grocers providing themselves with shared services such as procurement, marketing, business expertise, government relations, etc. Solidarity These involve members who have an interdependent relationship (dairy workers and farmers, parents and day-care workers, social workers and clients, etc.) and form a co-operative with different classes of membership to work toward shared goals. Second/Third Members are co-operatives rather than individuals and there is often a Tier variation of the one-member-one-vote practice to reflect the varying individual membership level in member co-operatives. The International Co-operative Alliance is a clear example of a third-tier co-operative whose members are for the most part second-tier cooperatives. Community People from a community seeking to accomplish an ad hoc project or broad community improvement join together to achieve shared goals; for example, building a community hall or developing a plan for community renewal.
UK-based worker co-operatives are not restricted in terms of the legal form they adopt (e.g. companies, societies, and partnerships); this is due to the absence of any special co-operative legislation or regulations (Co-operatives UK 2012). However, this ambiguity does create confusion regarding the legal structure and regulatory requirements placed on different forms of worker co-operative. This study understands a worker co-operative as being an organisation that subscribes to the cooperative value and principle framework with a membership consisting exclusively of individuals who participate directly in its productive activities. This definition allows for the inclusion of freelancer co-operative consortiums, artist/cultural co-operatives, and co-operative societies. The International Co-operative Alliance (ICA) defines a co-operative as being 17
"...an autonomous association of persons united voluntarily to meet their common economic, social, and cultural needs and aspirations through a jointly owned and democratically-controlled enterprise." (ICA 2015c) While association is generally a commonality between all organisations in terms of being structures of individuals or groups, it is the nature of co-operative association that differentiates them from other organisations such as IOFs. Watkins (1986 p.18) conceives association as being central to co-operativism. Indeed, co-operatives form around needs or shared interests between groups of individuals willing to collaborate for collective, egalitarian benefit. Webb and Cheney (2014 p.67) further this cooperative difference, asserting there are four pillars of the co-operative business model which set co-operatives apart from other enterprises and organisations. These are listed in broad terms as being the 1purpose of the business, internationally accepted frameworks of 2values and 3principles, and a 4profound ethic of economic fairness or justice. As highlighted by Webb and Cheney, the co-operative difference may be most widely recognised as resting in the set of internationally agreed values and principles that are essentially the same today as those applied by the Rochdale Pioneers. Indeed, it is contended within the literature that it is the application, or rather the combination, of these values and principles that truly define and distinguish co-operatives from other forms of organisation (Münkner 1981; Watkins 1986; Novkovic 2008; Jussila 2013). The ICA (2015c) list the following values: self-help, self-responsibility, democracy, equality, equity, and solidarity along with seven principles (see Table 2.6). While these values and principles are useful for understanding the culture of cooperatives it is worth acknowledging that not all are legal requirements for incorporated co-operatives. Common capital ownership and democratic organisational control stand as the primary requirements for an organisation to be legally recognised as a co-operative. However, Novkovic (2008) suggests that it is increasingly common for co-operatives to seek full application of the ICA's framework of value and principles, following the lead of co-operatives that have achieved success (survival and competitiveness) through doing so. In some cases co-operatives adjust, break down, or expand the values and/or principles included in their governance framework. For example, Mondragon Corporacion Co-operativa (MCC) lists ten principles: 1Open 18
Admission, 2Democratic Organisation, 3Sovereignty of Labour, 4The instrumental and subordinate character of capital, 5Participatory Management, 6Payment solidarity, 7
Inter-co-operation, 8Social Transformation, 9Unievrsiality, and 10Education. Table.2.6: The 7 Co-operative Principles (adapted from: ICA 2015c) PRINCIPLE
DESCRIPTION
1. Voluntary and Open Membership
Co-operatives are voluntary organisations, open to all persons able to use their services and willing to accept the responsibilities of membership, without gender, social, racial, political or religious discrimination. Co-operatives are democratic organisations controlled by their members, who actively participate in setting their policies and making decisions. Men and women serving as elected representatives are accountable to the membership. In primary co-operatives members have equal voting rights (one member, one vote) and co-operatives at other levels are also organised in a democratic manner. Members contribute equitably to, and democratically control, the capital of their co-operative. At least part of that capital is usually the common property of the co-operative. Members usually receive limited compensation, if any, on capital subscribed as a condition of membership. Members allocate surpluses for any or all of the following purposes: developing their co-operative, possibly by setting up reserves, at least part of which would be indivisible; benefiting members in proportion to their transactions with the co-operative; and supporting other activities approved by the membership. Co-operatives are autonomous, self-help organisations controlled by their members. If they enter into agreements with other organisations, including governments, or raise capital from external sources, they do so on terms that ensure democratic control by their members and maintain their co-operative autonomy. Co-operatives provide education and training for their members, elected representatives, managers, and employees so they can contribute effectively to the development of their co-operatives. They inform the general public - particularly young people and opinion leaders - about the nature and benefits of co-operation. Co-operatives serve their members most effectively and strengthen the co-operative movement by working together through local, national, regional and international structures. Co-operatives work for the sustainable development of their communities through policies approved by their members.
2. Democratic Member Control
3. Member Economic Participation
4. Autonomy and Independence
5. Education, Training and Information
6. Co-operation among Cooperatives 7. Concern for Community
19
2.3.3 VALUES & PRINCIPLES This study views the central difference between co-operatives and other forms of organisational democracy and worker ownership as the framework of essentially homogenous values and principles ascribed and adhered to by co-operatives around the world. Explication of the inter-relatedness of the ICA's seven-principles is critical if one is to understand their role in making co-operatives such distinct entities. In this sub-section the ICA's framework of values and principles is integrated with a set of underlying "basic ideas... that have traditionally been seen as making up the cooperative model and defining the method of co-operation" (Jussila 2013 p.2). The exploration of this material is essential for appreciation of how co-operatives offer a distinct alternative to IOFs and the dominant form of capitalism. To begin, let us return to the concept of association included in the ICA's definition and emphasised by Watkins (1986). In line with the first principle of co-operation, voluntary and open membership (Principle 1), it is essential that this association involves voluntary membership, that is to say that individuals are not forced into association and that are free join or leave (Münkner 1981). The sense of individual liberty and freedom derived from voluntary association are viewed as being antecedental for the motivation to co-operate and contribute (Jussila 2013). Watkins (1986) asserts that this freedom should be extended to co-operatives not expecting members to conform to particular socio-cultural or political doctrines. The values of self-help, self-responsibility, and equality are present here; in terms of members being engaged in the association of their own accord, taking ownership (responsibility) for their association, and of the association being equal regardless of individual characteristics. The second and third principles of co-operation are democratic member control (Principle 2) and member economic participation (Principle 3); here we will consider them in tandem, as the two are seamless in the functioning of co-operative organisations. Indeed, it is helpful to first consider the latter before the former as it addresses the subject of the democratic control. The capital and assets of a cooperative are effectively owned by its membership, and as such the membership is responsible for the allocation of surpluses. It is therefore necessary for those members to participate in the economic activities of the co-operative; they do so through 20
democratic control mechanisms - predominantly a one-member-one-vote system in worker co-operatives. The indivisibility of the co-operative's collective property, in combination with open membership, represents an altruistic protection against violation of the association (Münkner 1981). There has been some assertion that democratic governance (Democracy 1.0), wherein members have an equal nominal share in the organisation but are not directly involved in control, fits in the co-operative context. However, Watkins (1986) argues the importance of a participative democratic method wherein all members are involved in decision-making (Democracy 2.0). Indeed, for co-operative organisations engendering a collectivist mindset, achieving informed consent to the common will, and developing a close connection between the self and the co-operative are suggested to be essential (Watkins 1986). Additionally, broad member participation is said to be a source of critical knowledge that enables co-operatives to be informed, responsive to their external environments, and thereby positioned to best serve their members' needs (Watkins 1986; Novkovic 2008; Jussila 2013). In member economic participation and democratic member control the values of equality, equity, and democracy are the most obviously present in terms of the equal share in both the collective wealth and organisational control. However, the values of self-help and self-responsibility are also of importance when considering the relationship between members and the cooperative; that is to say, involvement can be seen as being individually beneficial while also increasing the impetus to take responsibility and to be informed. This undertone of responsibility segues neatly into the need for accountability, which can be associated with a number of the principles and values of co-operation. Here the value of self-responsibility is perhaps the most obvious statement on the part of the ICA regarding the need for accountability in relation to both the self and the collective. While individuals possess freedom of choice, the choice to assume voluntary membership of a co-operative (Principle 1) involves the assumption of not only the associated rights but also of the responsibilities (Principles 2 and 3) necessary for the co-operative to function and survive (Jussila 2013). Accountability is likewise reinforced in the value of solidarity i.e. the sense of unity derived from equitable membership and interdependency. Furthermore, the responsibility and accountability of co-operatives and their members is extended in the principle of concern for the 21
community (Principle 7) to encompass the sustainable development of the system in which the organisation is embedded (Novkovic 2008; Jussila 2013). The principle of autonomy and independence (Principle 4) is overtly concerned with the maintenance of co-operative organisations' ability to remain autonomous and independent
from
non-co-operative
entities
(treaties,
states,
communities,
organisations) they may enter into agreements with or receive finance from. However, it may also be considered from another angle. As discussed previously, liberty and individual freedom are important within co-operatives yet must be recognised as having limitations placed on them by the co-operative membership structure; more specifically, the interdependence of mutually assistive behaviour it creates (Jussila 2013). According to Watkins (1986), liberty within co-operatives should be considered as freedom within members, that is to say that freedom of choice is limited to the availability of options of benefit to the co-operative and its members. This moves the discussion beyond the external relationships with non-co-operative entities and the internal relationships of co-operative members, leading us to consider the principle of co-operation among co-operatives (Principle 6) and the value of solidarity. Here, the concept of autonomy and independence can be related to the co-operative movement, the belief that survival and success can be attained through working in unison via local, regional, national, and international structures (Jussila 2013). Fairness is also a core tenant within co-operatives; indeed, it is arguably the very reason for their existence. In considering fairness it is appropriate to reference the principle of member economic participation (Principle 3) along with the values of self-help, democracy, equality, and equity (Jussila 2013). Co-operatives involve a contribution-benefit relationship, be it in terms of the division of surplus in proportion to transactions/inputs or in terms of the limited compensation for capital subscribed (if relevant). The values of self-help and equity are relevant here with respect to the idea that the more a member inputs (sacrifices) the more that member is supposed to get out (benefit) from membership (Novkovic 2008). In co-operative organisations, freeriding or social loafing, the shirking of obligations in the hopes of benefiting from the work of others (Latané et al. 1979), must be challenged due to the interdependency of individuals in the association. The value of self-help is relevant to this point as it infers the responsibility for individual contribution in order for collective and individual benefits to be reaped. 22
Thus we come to the issue of how contributions and returns are evaluated. In IOFs, economic results are transferred amongst owners through division based on "the extent of their contribution, as measured by the size of their shareholding" (Somerville 2007 p.7). In co-operatives, members are considered user-owners as opposed to investor-owners and therefore returns tend to come in the form of returns of transactions as opposed to returns on investment (Jussila 2013). Münkner (1981) views the transaction-based method of return combined with limited interest on share capital as being an effective means of dividing returns amongst members fairly and equitably. On the other hand, Watkins (1986) argues for a more expansive approach to turnover contributions by members, for example recognition of products/services purchased or sold and other potential differential costs/benefits in proportion to scale. Both Watkins (1986) and Münkner (1981) consider one of the central aspects of cooperation to be economy. Economy in the sense of results being measured against efforts and action being evaluated based on potential benefits (cost-benefit analysis). Jussila (2013) sees this perspective as having additional utility in placing the cooperative organisation in the "landscape of the market economy" (p.3). Through conceiving co-operatives in relation to economy, the need for efficiency emerges with respect to the delivery of benefits not only to those they serve, customers in the market, but also to their membership, in terms of providing benefits relative to available alternatives; indeed, these groups may be one and the same. Co-operatives should not therefore be viewed as non-competitive entities. Like other organisations operating the market they face both the need for external competitivity and internal efficiency. As such, they must apply the best methods of business administration and management (Münkner 1981). Watkins (1986) suggests that the inclusion of the concept of economy has further implications for co-operative cost versus reward decision-making with regards to social progress factors. The only principle not to have received attention thus far is that of education, training, and information (Principle 5). The premise of this principle is to encourage cooperatives to provide education and training to members in order to enable effective contribution to the development of the co-operative. It is also has an external focus concerning education and information provision to non-members about the "nature and benefits of co-operation" (ICA 2015c). This principle is far more significant than one may initially assume, as it can be viewed as embodying the values of co-operation, 23
increasing both individual and collective ability to self-help, assume responsibility, behave democratically, achieve equality, operate equitably, and function in solidarity. Additionally, it supports the other principles through: •
Externally promoting (evangelising) co-operative values and organisation (Principle 1)
•
Educating and training members to be able to participate in the democratic control process (Principle 2)
•
Developing members in order to improve individual and collective economic participation (Principle 3)
•
Building the internal capabilities and competencies to enable individual and collective autonomy and independence (Principle 4)
•
Facilitating co-operation and solidarity through information sharing and interco-operative support structures (Principle 6)
•
Engaging with the community to share information and engage in social development (Principle 7)
In relation to Principle 5, Watkins (1986) posits that co-operatives require three modes of expertise or types of knowledge and understanding. Firstly, technological knowledge of the processes and systems relevant in their sector: co-operatives must be able to be effective and efficient in order to benefit their members. Secondly, in order to be autonomous and independent (Principle 4) from external non-co-operative institutions co-operatives must actively support the development of the intellectual framing and applied principles of co-operative enterprise i.e. that co-operatives should offer financial and intellectual support to academic research. Thirdly, co-operatives require knowledge and understanding of the socio-economic context in which they operate. With this in mind educating, training, and informing (Principle 5) can be understood as activities absolutely critical to the successful functioning and lasting survival of co-operative enterprises. Novkovic (2008) argues in favour of value- and principle-based co-operatives, suggesting that their application supports the democratic mechanisms inherent in cooperatives and enables them to serve members' needs as well as "a number of economic, managerial, and social functions" (2008 p.2175). Flat governance and/or 24
managerial structures (where applicable) in combination with adherence to the values and principles of co-operation are said to be antecedental to participation, learning, networking, and self organisation, which in turn are components of social innovation (Novkovic 2008; citing: McElroy 2002). From this it is suggested that co-operatives may possess an organisational advantage, even competitive advantage, in the promotion of social entrepreneurship; even to the extent of using the phrase "laboratories for social innovation" (Novkovic 2008 p.2175). Furthermore, it is purported that as a result of being rooted in their social ecosystems co-operatives internalize market externalities and are driven toward undertaking actions, practices, and processes which fulfil social functions such as engaging in the fair trade supply chain, the employment and training of marginalised demographics, and provision of social services (or services to society) - doing so in spite of potentially significant associated costs. 2.3.4 ISSUES & CONSTRAINTS In seeking to understand what factors might influence member participation in cooperatives networks or associations such as the YCN (RQ.2) it is necessary to examine the range of issues raised in association with organisational democracy and worker ownership. This section attempts to provide an overview some of these problems, or challenges, and likewise to identify responses to these within the extant literature. Mirroring the analytical structure of the literature review, this sub-section deals with membership (micro), organisational (meso), and environmental (macro) issues. M EMBERSHIP
Rothschild-Whitt (1979) identified several membership-related constraints which affect and potentially limit the effectiveness and efficiency of collectivist-democratic organisations relative to their influence within bureaucratic organisations. These include: time cost, degree of homogeneity, emotional intensity, nondemocratic individuals, and individual differences (see Table 2.7).
25
Table 2.7: Constraints on Collectivist-Democracies (adapted from: Rothschild-Whitt 1979) CONSTRAINT DESCRIPTION Time Democracy takes time. There is a limit to how streamlined collectivist-democratic meetings may be. With practice, planning, and self-discipline, groups can lean to accomplish more in the time available. However, once a level of experience is reached further reduction in time given tends to detrimentally impact direct member control. Homogeneity Consensus is facilitated by group homogeneity; diversity incurs a social cost in terms of collectivist decision-making. As such, collectivist organisations tend to attract homogenous populations. Substantial and clear agreement on values, goals, and processes is necessary in order to ensure stability. Emotional The closer, more familial, relationships within collectivist Intensity organisations may yield greater satisfaction than the impersonal relations of bureaucracy but they are also more emotionally involved and this can generate unanticipated social costs. Furthermore, the intimacy of face-to-face decision-making can lead to issues becoming personalised. Nondemocratic As a result of socialisation, conditioning, or deeply held Individuals individualistic convictions, some people are not suited to participatory-democracy. This is in part due to the non-collectivist behaviour-shaping institutions that dominate education and wider society. There is only so much that can be done by a collectivist organisation to counter and/or avoid such individuals. Individual This relates to individual characteristics and how they play a role in Differences collectivist-democratic functioning. Within a single organisation there are likely to be individuals who are more articulate, more committed, more energetic, or more compassionate than others. These individuals may gain status within even an egalitarian organisation, potentially leading to tensions and instability. However, these individual competencies are inevitable and programmes such a job/task rotation can help to redistribute levels of influence.
Nilsson (2001) identifies four conditions that influence the likelihood and extent of issues arising in co-operative organisations. The first two conditions echo those of Rothschild-Whitt (1979): firstly, the extent of membership homogeneity, or heterogeneity, in relation to the range of differences or similarities amongst members; secondly, the degree of goal alignment between members and between members and the organisation with relation to achieving consensus. Nilsson's third condition raises a new issue, that of the relative financial and perceived value contributions by individual members. Collective ownership combined with democratic control requires 26
a sense of equality amongst members; this can be undermined where an individual or group that has contributed more in actual or perceived terms develops an increased sense of entitlement (or visa versa). Webb and Cheney (2014) highlight the case of Società Anonima Cooperativa Meccanici Imola (SACMI) in Northern Italy where during a particularly difficult financial period members were asked to increase their financial investment. However, only a small proportion of members made this increased contribution and it was subsequently decided that only those willing to put the cooperative ahead of their own financial wellbeing could be members. This is a somewhat extreme solution to disparities in member contribution and may indeed generate other concerns regarding the values and principles of the worker cooperative. Indeed, as of 2010, only 234 (3.9%) of the 6000-plus workers at SACMI were members. The fourth constraint highlighted by Nilsson is the degree of individual involvement in decision-making across the organisation. This links back to the delineation of Democracy 2.0 and Democracy 1.0 and the difference between participatory democracy and representative democracy. The general rule being that the more involved in decision-making the members are, the greater the level of commitment and extent of goal alignment attained. While this is perhaps less relevant to the case co-operatives explored in this thesis, when considering larger co-operatives it is understandable how more bureaucratic decision-making mechanisms closer to Democracy 1.0 might become prevalent. That said, even in smaller co-operatives it can be difficult to monitor involvement; there is always a risk of a small group, be they the founders or simply those with most time available to commit, unintentionally or intentionally wielding a dominant influence over decision-making. In considering contradictions in the democratic functioning of co-operatives, Varman and Chakrabarti (2004) first point to Gherardi and Masiero's (1987) explication of foundation and coalition worker co-operatives: this delineates co-operatives on the basis of raison d'être. While foundation co-operatives are developed around a set of common ideals shared by the membership, coalition co-operatives are primarily formed to meet economic needs/objectives. The implication here is that the purpose for which a co-operative is founded will shape its ongoing democratic functioning based on the intentions with which members approached its formation. The authors then build on this by introducing the longitudinal work of Hadley and Goldsmith 27
(1995) which identified motivating forces within common-ownership organisations, labelled: developers, coalitionists, and managerialists or convergers. Developers were a minority group, aligned with the ideological intentions of the organisational founders, viewing these as the basis upon which the organisation should move forward. Coalitionists were a majority group subdivided into three categories: minimalists, who expected little from the organisation; the satisfied, who felt their voice was heard and the organisation was operating democratically; and the critics, who were dissatisfied with the degree of participation but were unlikely to take steps to change the status quo. Lastly, there were the managerialists (convergers) who felt the organisation should be run akin to other 'mainstream' organisations (IOFs) and potentially seek to exert managerial discretion. This classification helps to understand the competing interests that may be found within collectivist-democratic worker cooperatives. Varman and Chakrabarti (2004) then introduce Meister's (1974) four-stage process of degeneration in worker co-operatives. This process begins with conflict between direct democracy and the badly developed economic function, leading to the application of conventional organisational principles (e.g. formalisation), or falling back from Democracy 2.0 to Democracy 1.0. This, it is suggested, eventually gives rise to the emergence of representative democracy, and culminating in full management control of the organisation. The authors subsequently explicate three theories of degeneration outcomes developed by Cornforth et al. (1988): constitutional degeneration, the result being control and/or ownership resting with a minority (often the founders); capitalist degeneration, the result of market forces leading to an alignment between the organisation and its capitalist environment; and internal degeneration, where there has been a failure of organisational mechanisms (e.g. discipline) and managerialists wrest ownership and/or control from the collective. Varman and Chakrabarti highlight that while Meister asserted that degeneration was inevitable, Cornforth et al. suggested that by institutionalising democracy through complex collective structures and managers performing the role of educators, degeneration could be overcome. In discussing why worker co-operatives can, and do, move away from a strong collectivist-democratic co-operative identity, Webb and Cheney (2014) apply the terms "goal displacement" and "mission drift" (citing Weber 1978; see also 28
Rothschild-Whitt 1979; Satow 1975). Their insights are here grouped into two sets. Firstly, those causes pertaining to engendering co-operativism within organisations i.e. poor or non-existent internal and external education and training programmes (contextualised for co-operatives); the absence of internal consensus around cooperative values and principles; limited research into the co-operative model and its functioning; and insufficient rewards (perceived or actual) for members and clients/customers. Secondly, those causes pertaining to the influence of the dominant, non-co-operative, socio-economic paradigm i.e. reliance on traditional management and the role of managers; the adoption of standard finance and accountancy practices; recruitment of skills and expertise from the external environment; competitive pressures from the market; and finally the use of capital with investor-owned behaviour and characteristics. This extensive list of reasons for the erosion of collectivist-democratic organisations begins to provide the groundwork for appreciating the need for solidarity and the existence of a supportive framework. It likewise feeds into the following two sets of issues and challenges faced by cooperatives. O RGANISATIONAL
Thompson's (2015) contribution regarding a social theory of the firm specifically focused towards worker co-operatives provides a useful platform from which to assess the dominant theories of the firm with the concept of collectivist-democratic organisations in mind. The mainstream, or traditional, understandings of the purpose and function of firms (read organisations) imply inefficiency of the co-operative model. Two perspectives dominate: the contract-based and the competence-based. These theories are seemingly irreconcilable, with attempts at integration treating either as being subordinate to the other (Riordan and Williamson 1985; Langlois 1992). On the one hand, contract-based theory posits the purpose of firms is to operate as locales of exchange for the minimisation of the market transaction costs associated with opportunistic behaviour resulting from asymmetric information (Coase 1937; Alchian and Demsetz 1972; Williamson 1975; 1985). The underlying assumption of contract-based theories is that of the economic or rational man, which stands juxtaposed to the idea of man as altruistically co-operative. What is of most import to 29
contract-based theory is the notion that information can, at least hypothetically, be traded. Building from this, the contract-based perspective views the firm as a nexus of contracts (e.g. Alchian and Demsetz 1972; Jensen and Meckling 1976 p.311; Fama and Jensen 1983 p.322) designed to overcome information asymmetries and achieve co-operation. On the other hand, competence-based theory views the firm's purpose as being a production locale for the development of capabilities through coordination. Here, the focus is on the productive, often tacit and sometimes not fully developed, knowledge found in groups and practical settings (Thompson 2015). Most critically, competencebased theories argue that this valuable productive knowledge is by no means tradable and is given value through being harnessed within collective context of the firm (read organisation), as opposed to the medium of market exchange (Knight 1921; Penrose 1959; Teece 1982; Teece 1986; Teece and Pisano 1994). Thus the firm, as a collective organisation of individuals, possesses emergent properties because the tacit knowledge productively applied and developed in context cannot be reduced to the knowledge of individuals combined therein (Dosi and Marengo 1994; Kogut and Zander 1992; Winter 1982 p.76). Foss (1993) opines that while competence-based theories correctly identify productive knowledge as being embedded in social and collective contexts, they do not explain the social component of the firm. Thus the competence-based firm is reduced to a pool of intangible resources (Penrose 1959) or a repository of productive knowledge (Winter 1988). Thompson (2015) essentially agrees with the competence-based view of the firm as being the development and application of productive knowledge, which is predominantly tacit and therefore untradeable. However, he argues that the competence-based perspective places excessive emphasis on coordination and fails, with the exception of an attempted integration by Nelson and Winter (1982), to acknowledge that co-operation is also essential to the functioning of the firm (Polanyi 1958; Polanyi 1966; Osterloh and Frey 2000; Nooteboom 2009). On the other hand, the surface-level co-operation present in contract-based theories - reliant on binding opportunistic and self-serving individuals - is insufficient for the purposes of developing and applying productive knowledge (Teece and Pisano 1994; Osterloh and Frey 2000; Thompson 2015). 30
Thompson (2015) thus poses the firm as "a social institution dedicated to production" (p.5), suggesting that it requires coordination and deep-level co-operation in order to function. This concept of deep-level co-operation can be understood by examining the behavioural modes extant in the interdependency of the cognitive and behavioural (relational) aspects of behaviour. There is the individualistic behavioural mode, inherent in contract-based theories, and the solidaristic behavioural mode. The latter is characterised by social relationships between substantively-motivated individuals* (Blau 1964 p.91; Simmel 1964 [1917]; Thompson 2015 p.5). While surface-level cooperation is facilitated by organisational structures (contracts) designed to bind individuals, deep-level co-operation is facilitated by organisational culture - a set of cognitive frames and social norms shared across the organisation (March and Simon 1958) - designed to enable solidaristic behaviour (Thompson 2015). Herein lies a confounding situation where a trade-off between structure (which is necessary for coordination but risks stimulating individualistic behaviours) and culture (which can engender solidaristic behaviour) exists. Thus there is a need for the combination of cultural contingency and structural consistency, that is to say that structure must be consistent with the cognitive frames, norms, and values of organisational culture. Contract- and competence-based theories both advocate hierarchical and bureaucratic organisational structures, although they differ in the rationale and consequentiality associated with hierarchy. Contract-based theories view hierarchy as being necessary for maintaining surfacelevel co-operation between opportunistic individuals with information asymmetries thus worker ownership/control is essentially disqualified on the grounds that nonworker ownership/control is essential for managerial hierarchies to achieve cooperation (see Jensen and Meckling 1979). This reasoning can be challenged on the basis that worker-ownership and control may be able to achieve surface-level cooperation due to a potentially lower incidence of information asymmetry and bureaucracy-related costs (Aoki 1984; Putterman 1984; Fitzroy and Kraft 1986). Furthermore, worker-ownership may contribute to engendering the solidaristic behaviour required for deep-level co-operation as well as distributing the productive benefits of this co-operation amongst decision-makers (members). This assertion is *
This links to Weber's (1968) substantive-rational or value-rational social action, previously applied by Rothschild (2016) in Section 2.2.3. 31
supported by studies finding co-operatives to feature higher levels of solidaristic antecedents (Estrin et al. 1987; Frolich et al. 1998; Gherardi and Masiero 1990). Indeed, Valentinov (2004) asserts that where deep-level co-operation is attained managerial hierarchies are not necessary to achieve surface-level co-operation. The need for supervision is also reduced in worker-owned organisations, and this can be partially explained via the concept of mutual monitoring, a phenomenon associated with substantive motivation amongst workers (Russell 1985; Weitzman and Kruse 1990; Bonin and Putterman 2001). Competence-based theories do not necessarily disqualify co-operatives. While the egalitarian character of worker-owned organisations can be critically assessed as being a barrier to the coordination of the complex division of labour deemed a requirement for engaging productive knowledge, in principle and in practice worker ownership and control does not necessitate functional equivalency or equal remuneration (Russell 1985; Ben-ner and Jones 1995; Vogt 1996 pp.40–41). Thompson (2015) goes so far as to suggest that through deep-level co-operation, cooperatives may be more favourably positioned to implement hierarchical structures and the complex division of labour for the sake of attaining coordination than are IOFs, due to their legitimisation of the structure via democratic ownership/control mechanisms (Ben-ner and Jones 1995; Russell 1985; Vogt 1996 pp.40–41). Thompson concludes his rebuttal of contract- and competence-based theories of the firm stating, "In short, cooperatives may have a unique advantage both in achieving deeplevel cooperation and in maintaining deep-level cooperation alongside the bureaucratic
organisational
structures
required
for
coordination."
(2015 p.10) E NVIRONMENTAL
Thompson (2015) purports that the prevailing institutional environment supresses cooperatives' ability to overcome the co-operation/coordination trade-off because it is geared, or designed, toward the prevailing mode of organisation i.e. capitalism (Putterman 1982; Everett and Minkler 1993). This institutional isomorphism
32
(DiMaggio and Powell 1983) is grounded in the structural/relational and cultural/cognitive facets of behaviour. The structural/relational facet relates to the institutional (legal, financial, education) bias in favour of the dominant paradigm and more importantly the barriers this creates with regards to the formation and success of co-operatives (Webb 1891; Webb and Webb 1920); recruitment of managers due to democratic context, lower pay, and reduced autonomy (Davis 2001; Chaves and Sajardo-Moreno 2004; Spear 2004); and the risks associated with bundling wealth into employment (Ben-ner 1984; Miyazaki 1984). The cultural/cognitive facet of institutional isomorphism is characterised by "pervasive behavior-shaping institutions" (Rothschild and Whitt 1986 p.67) that propagate the instrumental, transactional, and individualistic approach to economic participation (Pateman 1970; Blumberg 1973; Kanter 1977) while discouraging, even preventing, individuals from considering forming, managing, and/or working in cooperatives (Kanter 1972; Bowles and Gintis 1976; Everett and Minkler 1993). Furthermore, while bureaucracy and democracy are not mutually exclusive in cooperatives (Batstone 1983; Cornforth et al. 1988; Stryjan 1994; Cornforth 1995; Varman and Chakrabarti 2004; Hernandez 2006; Storey et al. 2014) problems can emerge when the day-to-day experiences of bureaucracy begin to undermine participation through systemic ambivalence, inexperience, apathy with regards to democratic processes and governance (Ben-ner 1984). Additional risks are associated with the tendency toward special treatment of managers (Meister 1984), expanding bureaucracy to the point of fundamentally changing the organisation (Rothschild and Whitt 1986 p.113), and increased trade-off issues emerging from general organisational expansion (Jones and Kalmi 2012). Varman and Chakrabarti (2004) identify a number of contributions toward understanding of this issue. Kleinman (1996) emphasises that recognition of and reflection on the patterns of domination and subordination which exist within "a society permeated by inequalities" (p.140) are particularly important to enabling democratic aspirations, while Bernstein (1982) suggests that effective worker control requires democratic consciousness and if lacking in this, individuals and organisations risk engendering compliant and passive behaviours. In the non-democratic context, 33
democratic consciousness requires more from power-holders and participants. Rothschild-Whitt and Lindenfeld (1982) highlighted the dearth of institutions providing opportunities to learn about democracy and, more importantly, democratic participation. There is a need for individuals to be provided with opportunities to learn how to participate in and experience participatory structures in order to diminish the effect of non-democratic contexts (Pateman 1970). Indeed, Varman and Chakrabarti conclude, in line with previously discussed assertions, that the non-collectivistdemocratic social and economic context is the primary contradiction of organisational democracy. Inter-co-operative associations are viewed as being a means of reducing the detrimental impact of institutional isomorphism, enabling the development of democratic consciousness and the confrontation of the challenges discussed herein. The structural/relational issues can be alleviated through the substitution of institutions, tailoring the services (e.g. financial) and training (e.g. management) provided to suit co-operatives (Ellerman 1982; Archibald and Neary 1983; Gui 1984; Basterretxea and Albizu 2010; Basterretxea and Albizu 2011; Webb and Cheney 2014). Likewise, the cultural/cognitive issues can be alleviated collectively through the creation of a common cultural environment which engenders deep-level cooperation (Sacchetti and Tortia 2015), and for individual co-operatives by reducing some of the strain of coordination. 2.3.5 INTER-CO-OPERATIVE ASSOCIATIONS This study seeks to explore and examine the creation of (RQ.1), factors influencing participation in (RQ.2), and potential future developments of (RQ.3) a co-operative community of practice, referred to in name as a network. Having explored the cooperative difference, with particular attention paid to the inter-related co-operative values and principles and the range of issues and constraints facing co-operatives and co-operation, we now move to the framework of organisations that make up the national and international co-operative movement in order to understand how these entities support individual co-operatives by facilitating inter-co-operative relations and activities. Inter-co-operative associations function at all the levels one would expect interorganisational networks to operate: internationally, sectorally, nationally, regionally, 34
and locally. Their purposes are likewise varied, including but not limited to, advocacy, lobbying, solidarity, business development, service and resource combination, supply chain extension, problem solving, and research. Indeed, co-operation among cooperatives is listed as one of the ICA's seven principles (Principle 6). Novkovic and Holm (2012) identify five different types of co-operative network, or inter-co-operative association. This typology (see Table 2.8) enables the classification of existing networks and furthers understanding of the function and place of a given network within the wider movement. They suggest that these networks provide much needed space for innovation, development, and the delivery of public good such as education. Table 2.8: Typology of Co-operative Networks (adapted from: Novkovic and Holm 2012 p.53) TYPE DESCRIPTION Co-operatives Co-operatives themselves can be viewed as networks of independent producers/members e.g. agriculture; crafts; artists Purpose/Problem Independent co-operative firms form inter-organisational networks Oriented for particular purpose e.g. second-tier co-operatives; co-operative federations Supply Chain Co-operatives form supply chain networks with other co-operatives e.g. fair trade chains Professional / Co-ops take membership in professional (or co-operative Development development) networks/associations to provide them with particular member services e.g. sectoral federations or regional associations/councils Complex Co-operatives form networks with other co-ops, individuals, Networks businesses or government agencies for a particular purpose, often outside of their core business. These are termed complex networks, indicating their multi-stakeholder character. Often, these complex networks are formed to provide a public good – e.g. education, R&D, healthcare or social care
In Webb and Cheney's (2014) overview of six types of co-operative (see Table 2.5) three forms of co-operative organisation can be classed as inter-co-operative networks, these may be linked with Novkovic and Holm's (2012) typology: small business, with shared services (Co-operatives); solidarity, shared goals between interdependent parties (Supply Chain); and second/third tier (Purpose/Problem Oriented and Professional / Development). 35
The most prominent of these forms of inter-cooperative association are the second and third tier organisations. Figure 2.4 exhibits a map, accompanied by brief explanations of those organisations relevant to a worker co-operative in the UK. These organisations serve a breadth of purposes and deliver a range services to co-operatives and other inter-co-operative associations internationally, regionally, nationally, and sectorally. Arguably their most critical role within the wider co-operative movement is advocacy and lobbying. Organisations such as the ICA and its sub-divisions may also be viewed as representing the totality of the co-operative movement. They are notably managed through representative bureaucratic systems and, despite promoting participatory-democracy, may be characterised as systems of Democracy 1.0. Mapping these organisations in relation to an independent worker co-operative serves as a means of developing the case context for the research at hand.
36
Figure 2.4: Second and third tier inter-co-operative associations from the perspective of an independent UK worker co-operative
37
There exists a body of research regarding co-operatives as networks of small businesses, co-operative or otherwise, such as Mazzarol et al.'s (2013) series of case studies on co-operatives as strategic networks of small firms in France and Australia. Indeed, their study sought to respond to a similar set of research questions to those of this thesis: 1. How do small firms derive value from an external relationship facilitated via a co-operative business model? 2. What are the risks involved in engaging in external relationships facilitated via a co-operative business model? 3. How do these relationships develop over time? However, while Mazzarol et al. (2013) deal primarily with small business, which are not necessarily operatives, entering into co-operative arrangements with a sizable number of similar businesses in order to benefit from economic aggregation the study at hand is interested in supportive networks of co-operatives or, more specifically, cooperators where there is less of an emphasis on economic collaboration.
Table 2.9: Co-operative networks in the Italian economy (Menzani and Zamagni 2010 p.5)
38
Menzani and Zamagni (2010) offer a further typology (see Table 2.9) of co-operative networks based on research conducted in the Italian economy where a number of large co-operative federations are present e.g. Legacorp, Confcooperative, AGCI, UNCI, Unicorp. This typology emphasises the purposive nature of the identified networks. Their horizontal, vertical, and complimentary networks extend the capabilities and competitive advantage of member co-operatives either through horizontally rationalising production to provide access to common services and sharing risks/opportunities; vertically extending the value chain to enable concentration of individual firm activities; or facilitating the complementary offer of aggregated goods and services. The financial support networks are singularly purposed towards addressing the availability of co-operative finance while the networks of networks reflect the second/third tier organisations identified by Webb and Cheney (2014). Novkovic (2014) usefully combines the framework created with Holm (2012) and combines it with Menzani and Zamagni's (2010) to show the alignment of the two taxonomies (see Table 2.10).
Table 2.10: Typology of Co-operative Networks - Novkovic & Holm (2012) combined with Menzani & Zamagni (2010) (in: Novkovic 2014)
39
The critical issue with these forms of inter-cooperative association is that they lean toward formal and bureaucratic structures, fitting with Rothschild's (2016) description of Democracy 1.0 as opposed to the participatory character of Democracy 2.0 (see Table 2.3). However, beyond the structural characteristics of the identified networks, Menzani and Zamagni deliver three potent conclusions. Firstly, individual cooperatives that may be efficient only in specific circumstances are not inferior because they rely on co-operative networks for survival. Secondly, co-operatives can reap distinct advantages from participation in networks by achieving critical mass in the market via economies of scale; the delivery of complex services via economies of scope; and by the development and exploitation of an adaptable coordinated market presence via the malleability of network structures. Thirdly, that there is a thickness to co-operatives networking in that it is more widely encompassing and more stratified than that found in capitalist organisation. On this third point, Menzani and Zamagni (2010) conclude that "For co-operatives, networking is not an opportunity among many others, but it is the normal way of operating as a result of their solidaristic dimension" (p.20) Another avenue of research into inter-co-operative networks is found in the work of Soots et al. (2007), examining a multi-stakeholder co-operative development network from a complex adaptive systems (CAS) perspective, and that of Novkovic and Holm (2012) who focused on their fifth type of co-operative network i.e. complex networks, likewise applying the CAS approach. CAS are able to generate innovation via a system of diverse yet interconnected independent actors; they are characterised by their adaptive capacity, ability to learn, decentralised decision-making, non-linearity, path dependency, and relational emphasis (Novkovic and Holm 2012 citing; Zimmerman et al. 1998). As an example, the multi-stakeholder CAS modelled by Soots et al. (2007) is displayed in Figure 2.5.
40
Figure 2.5: Example of Complex Network - The Nova Scotia Co-operative Development System (Soots et al. 2007 p.3)
This application of social network theory to co-operative networks is based on the understanding of co-operatives as hybrid organisations that rely on social interaction and market exchanges, as opposed to just the latter (Novkovic and Holm 2012). This, the authors suggest, is part-reason for co-operatives' ability to forge partnerships with stakeholders both within and without of the co-operative movement: the part-reason being the problem solving, as opposed to cost-minimisation, nature of co-operatives which is facilitated by their being underpinned by a homogenous set of values and principles, which therefore represents a genuine comparative advantage (Novkovic and Holm 2012). One key conclusion of Soots et al.'s (2007) research was the situated character of CAS; a co-operative development system such as the one found in Nova Scotia would necessarily be very different in another locality. Indeed, despite the multi-stakeholder (i.e. featuring non-co-operative actors) character of these CAS the research yields potentially applicable insights regarding the nature of co-operative networks not founded on the premise of market exchange. While market exchange may be an outcome of such networks, they are in fact geared toward the facilitation of social interaction, an activity that yields wider positive externalities. Indeed, Novkovic (2014) opines that the risk of isomorphism of co-operatives and IOFs along with pressure toward hierarchical bureaucratic arrangements resulting from the 41
influence of regulatory and market pressures in combination with institutional bias toward investor-ownership can be countered via the adaptive capabilities derived from the values and principles of co-operation, striving for participatory decision-making, and upholding the subordinate role of capital in relation to people. 2.3.6 SUMMARY In this section we have briefly reviewed the history of the co-operative movement and gained an overview of what defines and distinguishes co-operatives, specifically worker co-operatives, with the aim of contextualising the present study. Co-operatives are collectively owned and democratically controlled organisations that can be purposed toward meeting a diverse set of socio-economic needs. What makes cooperatives different from other models of worker/employee ownership is their shared set of values and principles (see Table 2.6). Many co-operatives are owned and operated by a range of stakeholders, often some combination of workers, managers, suppliers, clients, and customers. As such, it is possible for workers within consumer co-ops, for example, to not be members or, if members, to not have the degree of control that would preferably be associated with participatory-democracy (Democracy 2.0). In contrast, worker co-operatives are entirely owned and operated by their workers. They are in theory a form of absolute organisational democracy wherein ownership and control rest with those individuals directly involved in the productive activities of the organisation. Here, the norm is for a one worker, one vote system regardless of the extent of individual investment. That said, in practice even worker co-operatives can become stretched and bureaucratic; one of the most well-known cases of such a cooperative is the Mondragon Corporation, a federation of worker co-operatives (HerasSaizarbitoria 2014). We have examined the interrelationship between the co-operative values and principles, providing a sense of their holistic nature and inherent potential to create positive externalities for individuals, communities, society, and the economy. However, as explored in Section 2.3.5 co-operatives face a range of internal and external challenges to their survival and success. While some of these are associated with the internal complexities of collectivist-democracy, the main body of constraints 42
and challenges rests in what is widely referred to as the institutionally isomorphic environment, which favours investor-owned firms (IOFs). Through developing an understanding of some of the constraints and challenges faced by co-operatives we are able to appreciate why there may be a need for inter-cooperative associations. Indeed, a body of literature that deals with such associations or networks has been reviewed in Section 2.3.5. These networks assume a variety of different structures and serve an equally varied range of purposes for their constituents. Co-operatives are suggested to have an inherent advantage in creating and sustaining networks. This is attributed to their grounding in the co-operative values and principles, purposive character i.e. problem-oriented, and social focus i.e. subordinating capital before people. In turn, these understandings give rise to some appreciation of the factors influencing participation in inter-co-operative associations (RQ.2). A map of the second and third tier associations relevant to independent worker co-operatives in the UK (Figure 2.4) was included to provide additional context to the study.
43
2.4 LEARNING & KNOWING This study is purposed toward understanding the need for and development of a cooperative community of practice in the form of a network of co-operators. In seeking to develop the conceptualisation of co-operatives as learning spaces (Hartley 2014), this section first introduces the fields of organisational knowledge and organisational learning, subsequently moving toward their synthesis in the cognitive-possession and social-process approaches (Chiva and Alegre 2005). Next, the social-process approach is further examined with a focus on works developing from social constructionism, and reference is made herein to the material previously introduced regarding organisational democracy and co-operatives. The literature reviewed in this section provides the foundations for the conceptualisation of the YCN as a community of practice as a means of achieving a deeper appreciation for its purpose and function. 2.4.1 THE QUALITY OF KNOWLEDGE Siemens (2006) posits that knowledge can be described as being composed of two essential characteristics and one distinction. Characteristics •
That in itself knowledge describes or explains something
•
That knowledge can be applied to an action or process
Distinction •
That though all knowledge is information, it would be incorrect to assume that all information is knowledge
This distinction between information and knowledge is also made by Wiig (1993), who states that information “...consists of facts and data that are organised to describe a particular situation or condition” (p.xvi) whereas knowledge is characterised by the addition of “truth, beliefs, perspectives and concepts, judgements and expectations, methodologies, and know-how” (p.xvi) Likewise, Huber (1991) views uncertainty-reducing data as being information and knowledge as a more complex product, that of a learning process. 44
This juxtaposition within the understanding of knowledge and information is perhaps most clearly understood through Polanyi's (1966) explication of explicit and tacit knowledge. Kogut and Zander (1996) apply a similar bi-dimensional reasoning, describing knowledge as being comprised of know-what and know-how. Nonaka (Nonaka 1994; Nonaka and Takeuchi 1995) further developed Polanyi’s dimensions of knowledge, offering the following explanations: •
The explicit dimension of knowledge is formal and systematic, it can be expressed in words and numbers; be shared and communicated easily; converted into hard data, formulae, procedures, and principles (Nonaka and Takeuchi 1995).
•
The tacit dimension of knowledge is “something not easily visible or expressible… (sic. it) is highly personal and hard to formalize, making it difficult to share with others.” (Nonaka and Takeuchi 1995 p.8).
Furthermore, it is asserted that there are two dimensions to tacit knowledge, the technical and the cognitive (Nonaka and Takeuchi 1995). The technical dimension can be captured in the term know-how encompassing the informal skills, crafts and capabilities rooted in experience while the cognitive dimension is comprised of the engrained internal frameworks, schemata, beliefs and perceptions that shape individuals’ understanding of reality (what is) and vision of the future (what ought to be). There exist two distinct perspectives concerning knowledge and its constituent parts, these strategic approaches have been termed codification and personalisation (Doloriert and Whitworth 2011). The codification strategy is grounded in the positivist philosophical paradigm and applies the cognitivist epistemology (Von Krogh 1998). The codification strategy views knowledge as being explicit and, unsurprisingly, codified. The associated processes involve the transfer of information from people to code, to be stored in computers, data warehouses, search engines and the like in order for organisations to 45
maximise the potential of their knowledge assets (McAdam and Reid 2000; Hislop 2009). This perspective is closely related to that of hierarchical data which views data as raw numbers, information as processed data, and knowledge as authenticated information (Machlup 1980; Dretske 1981; Alavi and Leidner 2001). Knowledge codification strategies involve the externalisation and articulation (formal) of explicit knowledge base (Hansen et al. 1999). Information systems have played a prominent role in furthering these processes by facilitating retrieval, protection, distribution and application of knowledge (Alavi and Leidner 2001). Conversely, the personalisation (sometimes known as human capital) approach is grounded in the interpretivist philosophical paradigm and applies the constructivist epistemology. The personalisation strategy views knowledge as being tacit and therefore concentrated in the cognitive capabilities and technical frameworks of individuals. This places human interaction as the key to competitive advantage (Hansen et al. 1999), with knowledge being embedded in the minds of knowers as a fluid mix of frameworks, experience, values, principles, practices, relations and insights (Lave and Wenger 1991; Tsoukas 1996; Myers 1996; Davenport and Prusak 1998; Hansen et al. 1999; Cook and Brown 1999; Baskerville and Dulipovici 2006; Hislop 2009). The personalisation strategy is said to rely on a state or fact of knowing; with knowing being based on experience and learning (Schubert et al. 1998). The personalisation approach to knowledge strategy values and engages the tacit knowledge bound within an organisation's human capital (Bontis et al. 2000; Engström et al. 2003; Haesli and Boxall 2005; Cohen and Olsen 2015), rather than seeking to own knowledge by capturing it in repositories. This approach is therefore predicated on the motivation of individuals to participate (Zhou and Fink 2003). 2.4.2 ORGANISATIONAL KNOWLEDGE Despite the significant attention organisational knowledge has received, as Chiva and Alegre (2005) observe, the lines of exploration regarding organisational knowledge present a somewhat disordered and disjointed view due to the many approaches, classifications
(knowledge-based
view,
knowledge
management,
theory
of
organisational knowledge creation, etc.), and frameworks associated with the plethora of often contradictory theoretical perspectives. Early literature was primarily focused on an economic approach to knowledge (see Simon 1947; Penrose 1959; Hayek 1989) 46
and was later explored by researchers in the fields of strategic management and information technology (IT). However, social perspectives of organisational knowledge have since emerged. Chiva and Alegre (2005) suggest there exist four interpretations of organisational knowledge in the extant literature, with three (those of Nelson and Winter 1982; Nonaka 1994; Grant 1996) viewing knowledge as being perceptive and commodifiable and one (that of Spender 1996a) viewing knowledge as being socially constructed - presenting a process-oriented approach to its engagement. Thus, two broad approaches to knowledge can be identified: the first can be labelled perceptive or cognitive and the second constructionist or social (see Durand et al. 1996; Von Krogh 1998). As introduced in the preceding section, two approaches to the nature of knowledge can be explicated: the first viewing knowledge as a resource that can be possessed and commoditised (codification), the second viewing knowledge as something that is created through a process (personalisation) (see Blackler 1995; Spender 1996b; Cook and Brown 1999; Gherardi 2000; Gherardi and Nicolini 2000). Chiva and Alegre (2005) usefully combine these perspectives into pairings based on their epistemological and theoretical underpinnings, the cognitivepossession and the social-process. 2.4.3 ORGANISATIONAL LEARNING As with organisational knowledge, due to the variety of distinct approaches grounded in different ontological perspectives a single comprehensive theory of organisational learning does not exist and the creation of one may well be an "unrealistic aspiration" (Easterby-Smith 1997 p.1086). In moving toward a clearer definition of organisational learning a distinction was drawn between it and the learning organisation, the former being focused on understanding learning processes within organisations and the latter on the creation of the ideal learning-maximising organisation (Easterby-Smith 1997). Örtenblad (2001) crystallised this separation by identifying two further distinctions: firstly, that the learning organisation requires efforts whilst organisational learning exists without efforts; secondly, that the literature regarding the learning organisation is practice-based whilst the organisational learning literature is academic. However, emphasis placed on distinction appears to have "died down... as scholars began to make sense of the differences between communities of researchers and practitioners" (Easterby-Smith et al. 2000 p.786). Thus, a more cohesive approach to organisational 47
learning † can be adopted, embracing theoretical constructs from across the once divided literature. Within the extant literature two approaches to organisational learning dominate (see Cook and Yanow 1996; Easterby-Smith et al. 1998; Gherardi 1999; Easterby-Smith and Araujo 1999). The first can be described as cognitive (see Cyert and March 1963; March and Olsen 1975; Levitt and March 1988; Simon 1991), it is developed around theories of psychology and individual and tends towards the rationalist epistemology (Chiva and Alegre 2005). The second is a social perspective (Lave and Wenger 1991; Brown and Duguid 1991; Blacker 1993; Weick and Roberts 1993; Cook and Yanow 1996; Weick and Westley 1996; Gherardi et al. 1998), constructed around theories of sociology and social learning in congruence with the relational epistemology (Chiva and Alegre 2005). There is also the much less attended psychosocial approach (see Antonacopoulou 1998; Antonacopoulou 2000a; Antonacopoulou 2000b; Antonacopoulou 2001; Kayes 2002) that focuses on the relationship between individual and collective learning, examining the tensions and dilemmas faced in balancing individual (psychological) and organisational (social) priorities (Chiva and Alegre 2005) ‡. This approach is not pursued further within this study. 2.4.4 BRIDGING THE KNOWLEDGE AND LEARNING GAP As articulated by Easterby-Smith et al. (2000), theoretical exploration and development of organisational knowledge and organisational learning has been generally independent. Chiva and Alegre (2005) highlight that while some authors have acknowledged the importance of a connection between organisational knowledge and learning (Spender 1996b; Bertels and Savage 1998), very few have moved to deal with the two fields simultaneously (see Huber 1991; Andrews and Delahaye 2000; Bierly et al. 2000; Gherardi and Nicolini 2000) and fewer still have sought to actively link them (see Spender 1996b; Magalhaes 1998).
†
The term organisational learning, as opposed to the learning organisation, is henceforth used. This is a matter of preference primarily based on the prevalence of the selected term in the extant literature. ‡ The politics of learning is attended by the psychosocial approach with regards to the tensions between individual and collective goals (see Antonacopoulou 1998; 2000a; 2000b; 2001). 48
Chiva and Alegre (2005) combine the cognitive perspective of organisational learning with the cognitive-possession perspective of knowledge, adopting the latter label. Likewise, they combine the social perspective of organisational learning with the social-process perspective of knowledge, again adopting the latter label. Through these combined approaches they seek to unpack the "common unresolved issues" relating to the ontological and epistemological underpinnings of learning, knowledge, the relationship between them, and ultimately how these fit within the context of organisations (Chiva and Alegre 2005 pp.51–52). As Spender (1996b) indicates, the theories associated with the cognitive-possession perspective by and large present an independent, universalistic, treatment of knowledge and learning. Here, knowledge is viewed as a component of learning, and learning the method through which knowledge is acquired, grown, and changed (Duncan and Weiss 1979; Huber 1991). Conversely, the social-process perspective views learning as the development of context-bound, or situated, knowledge that emerges through participation in communities of practice and the development of individual and collective identities (Lave and Wenger 1991). Alternatively, this can be conceived as learning through being as opposed to learning through knowing (Gherardi 1999). The social-process perspective presents a more cohesive unified understanding of organisational knowledge and learning, or learning and knowing (Chiva and Alegre 2005). 2.4.5 KNOWING Social constructionist theories of organisational knowledge share the same underlying assumptions: that reality is socially constructed, that social interaction and discursive behaviour give rise to social constructions, and that social constructions are inherently pluralistic and diverse (Chiva and Alegre 2005). As such, they view knowledge as being situated within social interaction. These theories include the socio-cognitive approach posited by Daft and Weick (1984) and Smircich and Stubbart (1985), Gergen's social construction theory (1994), Von Krogh et al.'s
theory of self-
organising or "auto-poiesis" (1994), and Spender's (1996a) use of knowledge as the basis for a dynamic theory of organisation. Developing on Weick and Roberts (1993) reworking of Durkheimian theory by regarding emergent collective properties within social systems, Spender (1996b) uses 49
the concept of collective conscience to elucidate the nature of socialised individual knowledge, learning, and memory. The social constructionist perspective understands knowledge as a process of knowing (Cook and Brown 1999; Gherardi and Nicolini 2000). Cook and Brown (1999) use the word knowing to distinguish between the interpretivist epistemological dimension of knowledge in action and the positivist notion of knowledge being an object of possession. Indeed, with the use of the term knowing, much of the distinction between organisational learning and organisational knowledge disappears entirely (Chiva and Alegre 2005). Gherardi and Nicolini (2000) advance on this understanding, identifying five characteristics of knowing (knowledge):
1. It is situated in the system of ongoing practices 2. It is relational and mediated by artefacts 3. It is dynamic and provisional 4. It is always rooted in a context of interaction; 5. It acquired through participation.
In Greek, auto means self and poiesis means to produce or make understood, thus auto-poiesis can be conceived as self-production or self-understanding. The concept was popularised by biologists Maturana and Varela (1980; 1992) and views knowledge as the act of creating, or imposing meaning on, the world (reality). The underlying assumption here is that, contrary to the cognitive-possessive perspective, knowledge is not universal and that it is instead the outcome of a self-created understanding or interpretation of the world, and is thus subjectively constructed (Von Krogh et al. 1994). As such, knowledge is incarnated in the mind and body of individuals, and in the social systems constructed by groups or communities of individuals (Chiva and Alegre 2005). Vygotsky's (1962) activity theory conceives social experience as determining human conscience and psychological processes as being necessarily understood from a cultural standpoint. Thus, activity systems are analysed through the identification of material, social, and linguistic infrastructures that make knowledge possible. Spender (1996b) asserts that the central thesis of activity theory is that embedded activity 50
precedes the development of individual consciousness and that the focus of the Vygotskian activity model was on the flow of knowledge and consciousness from the explicit at the social level to the implicit at the individual level. Activity theory understands knowledge to be manifested in systems of language, technology, collaboration, and control; found in time and space in particular contexts; it is constantly being created and developed; and is purposed or directed towards an objective (Blackler 1995). One critical difference between most interpretations of Vygotsky's work, along with that of Nonaka and colleagues, and the theories of situated learning introduced in the following section is the issue of internalisation which is suggested by Lave and Wenger (1991) to inherently treat knowledge as being transferable from one unit to another and thus as a commodifiable resource. Spender (1996a), in line with Nonaka and Takeuchi (1995) and Nelson and Winter (1982), distinguishes between collective knowledge and individual knowledge, adopting an actor network approach (Callon 1986; Latour 1986). This approach views knowledge as being bound within networks of actors which are constructed of individuals, social entities (e.g. communities and organisations), cultural artefacts, and infrastructures. However, Spender still understands knowledge to be a process as opposed to a resource but differentiates between knowledge created by individuals and shared with the collective, and knowledge that exists as part of the social system. 2.4.6 LEARNING The social-process approach to learning emerged from Bandura's (1977) explication of individual learning taking place through observation of the outcomes or consequences of others' behaviour. The seminal work of Lave and Wenger (1991) regarding situated learning and legitimate peripheral participation crystallised learning as a process inherently contextualised within social relationships. Lave and Wenger's work, along with that of Brown and Duguid (1991), introduced a radical new angle from which to understand learning. Their social constructionist theory is based on the premise that individuals behave as social beings who participate in the construction of meaning, that is learning through their interactions with social systems, including organisations (Blacker 1993; Gherardi et al. 1998). Within the social-process theory of learning, three important perspectives have emerged in the literature (Easterby-Smith and Araujo 1999): that of learning as a 51
cultural process (Lave and Wenger 1991; Cook and Yanow 1996); learning as social construction (Brown and Duguid 1991); and learning as a political process (see Coopey 1994). Hofstede proposes that culture is "the collective programming of the human mind which distinguishes the members of one group from another" (1984 p.21). This definition resounds with Weick and Westley's (1996 p.442) suggestion that learning is inherent to culture, with knowledge being viewed as a something that can be introduced to culture and its artefacts. The consequence of learning as a cultural process is the affection of change within the culture and the resultant influence this has on individual behaviour (Chiva and Alegre 2005). Cook and Yanow (1996) present a meaning-oriented interpretation of cultural learning, viewing it as the acquisition, sustenance, and exchange of meaning within the collective. The importance of dialogue is emphasised by a number of authors, who view it as the central activity of collective learning (Isaacs, William 1993; Schein 1993; Oswick et al. 2000). Concurrently, Dixon (1997 p.25) opines that organisational learning is essentially the collective construction of meaning through dialogue. Furthermore she posits certain antecedents to its effectiveness; these are: equality of participation, tolerance of differing perspectives, the sharing of experience, and first-hand access to data. This understanding of organisational learning as a social construction relates again to the idea of establishing a common understanding within a given social setting based on the physical environment and the relationships and individual backgrounds present within the collective (Brown and Duguid 1991). The learning that occurs through social construction is bound within the setting and circumstances in which it takes place. For Brown and Duguid, this learning is a form of socialisation, or culturalisation, through which the skills and frameworks (tacit knowledge) necessary to behave and function as a member of the community of practice are engendered in the individual. This includes the development of what Brown and Duguid (1991) term non-canonical practice, skills and knowledge that can be viewed as situated workaround or techniques for overcoming difficulties in the face of impractical canonical practice, or how things are supposed to be done. The theory of situated learning, or contextually-bound learning, introduced by Lave and Wenger (1991) centres on this concept of communities of practice. In fact, this concept forms the basis for a specific 52
iteration of social learning theory (Fox 2000). Wenger (2000) describes communities of practice as "...the basic building blocks of a social learning system because they are the social ‘containers’ of the competences that make up such a system." (p.229) Communities of practice are comprised of a set of relationships between individuals informally connected by shared experience and/or the passion they hold for a common issue (Wenger and Snyder 2000) i.e. they are purposive or purpose-oriented. Unlike a formalised group or team, communities of practice are not necessarily orientated around an activity and are not necessarily permanent; they may be temporary and can change in nature and purpose depending on the social processes underpinning their existence (Chiva and Alegre 2005). To extend this concept into the ontological dimension, it is possible to conceive organisations as communities composed of, or even formed by, communities of practice (Brown and Duguid 1991). Treatment of politics within the cognitive-possession literature has viewed it as an externality to be controlled and ideally overcome in the process of learning and managing knowledge (Argyris 1986). However, in social learning theory politics is instead acknowledged and accepted as an inherent characteristic of social processes. It is accepted that there will always be disagreement to some degree between individuals where subjective interpretations are concerned (Coopey 1994). 2.4.7 LEARNING & KNOWING CO-OPERATIVES The reasoning behind the adoption of the constructionist social-process approach is founded in the seemingly natural alignment of the core concept that runs throughout collectivist-democratic organisations, Democracy 2.0, and the values- and principlesbased co-operative i.e. that of substantive-rationality, or value-rational social action (Weber 1968). These understandings provide ontological, in the form of social constructionism, and epistemological, in the interpretivist approach, congruence to the notion of situated learning and knowing. Hartley and Johnson (2013) assert that while there have been previous attempts at conceptualising learning in co-operatives (Macpherson 2002; Facer et al. 2011) there has been scant attention paid to the processes by which learning occurs and what outcomes these yield. They conceptualise co-operatives as learning spaces wherein the combination of explicit 53
knowledge, in terms of codified information relating to co-operatives e.g. technical manuals and legal structures, and tacit knowledge, in the form of shared experiential agreements or assumptions regarding practice, occurs (Hartley and Johnson 2013). This conceptualisation emerges from the work of Lave and Wenger (1991), which originally focused on analysing the learning processes observable within apprenticeships. They described all activity, and therefore learning, as being situated within the social world, in the lives of persons and in culture, which is by its very nature shared. Situated learning is further expanded with the complete (to be understood as a whole) notion of legitimate peripheral participation, a descriptor of engagement in social practice. Legitimacy references the nature of belonging, while peripherality deals with the nature of the participation as being located in the social world, where shifting locations, identities, and forms of membership abound (Lave and Wenger 1991 pp.33–36). These ideas are furthered by the concept of communities of practice which developed the understanding of the situatedness of the processes occurring between people working together or sharing experiences (Lave and Wenger 1991 p.42; Wenger 1998). Within a given co-operative, or between co-operators, the foundation for this collective learning process lies in the shared ideas, interests, and ongoing participatory experience. The work of Brown and Duguid (1991), which emphasises the development of identity within organisations conceptualised as communities of practice, adds the notions of canonical and non-canonical practice. Canonical practice denotes how operations, processes, systems, etc. should be done or how they should work whereas non-canonical practice denotes how participants actually do the work, perhaps in order to achieve results more efficiently or efficaciously, or indeed to overcome problems inherent in the canonical methodology. It is in the transmission of practice, in particular non-canonical practice, where social construction through narration (story telling) and collaboration give rise to the existence of an organisational community of practice. Wenger (1998), using the phrase "constellations of communities of practice" (p.127), and Brown and Duguid (2001), using the phrase "networks of practice" (p.206), express the transferability of the concept to the interorganisational realm, where overlapping identities and practices create situated instances of shared experience and know-how. These ideas lead toward the notion of situated learning taking place on multiple levels, between co-workers and between 54
experts and novices, and across organisational boundaries (Fuller and Unwin 2004; Fuller et al. 2004; Engeström 2004; Fuller et al. 2005). Indeed, it is within this level of social-process learning this study seeks to conduct its exploration. 2.4.8 SUMMARY This section has sought to provide an introduction and overview of the fields of organisational learning and organisational knowledge, adopting the social-process approach in order to appreciate both learning and knowing as active processes occurring and situated within social interaction and engagement. This proceeds towards the application of this literature in exploring and explaining the need for the YCN, which is the purpose of the study, as well as offering a platform from which to theoretically interpret the development of (RQ.1), member participation in (RQ.3), and suggested further developments to the YCN (RQ.3). We can understand from the literature that although knowledge cannot be defined, it can be characterised as in itself describing or explaining something and having an application to an action or process. Furthermore, a distinction is made between information, as data, and knowledge, as something more complex. Knowledge may also be perceived as possessing two dimensions: the explicit, or tangible, and the tacit, or intangible. While traditionally emphasis and favour has been placed on explicit knowledge, it is possible to suggest that tacit knowledge, because of its complex nature, can be posited as being perhaps more valuable because of its intangibility. Two approaches are found to underpin organisational learning and organisational knowledge. The social-process approach stands juxtaposed to that of the cognitivepossession approach. These perspectives are rooted in much deeper differences that permeate the social sciences, those arising from the ontological and epistemological levels. While the cognitive-possession approach favours explicit, codified, knowledge that can, at least supposedly, be commodified and measured, the social-process approach deals primarily in tacit knowledge, which is given value through its situated nature. The social-process approach is grounded in the social constructionist ontology and interpretivist epistemology, viewing reality as being bound within social interactions and shared frameworks such as culture and participatory processes.
55
Central concepts within the social-process approach to learning and knowing are those of situated learning, legitimate peripheral participation, the development of non-canonical practice within communities of practice, and the premise that such communities of activity can span organisational boundaries. Work by Hartley and Johnson (2013) and Hartley (2014) conceptualised co-operatives as learning spaces and explored learning within youth-focused co-operatives. While other research has sought to conceptualise learning in co-operatives, these attempts have not focused on the processes by which learning takes place and the outcomes these processes produce.
56
2.5 CHAPTER SUMMARY In this chapter the literature relevant to the purpose of the study, understanding the need for Young Co-operators Network (YCN), and associated research questions (see below) has been reviewed. The approach to the review sought to develop understanding by deconstructing the case using a macro, meso, micro system of analysis, the related themes being those of organisational democracy (Section 2.2), co-operatives (Section 2.3), and learning and knowing (Section 2.4). Through comprehension of the material contained in this chapter the case at hand, that of the YCN, will be analysed and interpreted later in the study (Chapters 4 and 5). To facilitate ease of understanding, the three sections of the literature review are summarised, albeit in a highly concentrated form, in this chapter summary.
RQ.1
How did the YCN develop?
RQ.2
What are the factors influencing participation?
RQ.3
How, or in what ways, might further development take place?
With the aim of contextualising co-operatives, and more specifically worker cooperatives, Section 2.2 first introduced the concepts of employee voice and participation, usefully embraced by the term worker involvement and participation (WIP). This was expanded upon using Marchington et al.'s (1992) "Escalator of Participation" (Figure 2.2) to facilitate understanding of organisational democracy as one extent of a continuum of WIP that moves from information, to communication, to consultation, to codetermination, and finally to control, with organisational democracy resting at the latter end. Indeed, organisational democracy necessarily features some degree of control. Moving beyond worker control, collective ownership further alters the economic relationship between workers and the organisation. Ownership is traditionally constructed of rights to residual returns and residual rights of control. According to Strauss (2006) it is the dyadic combination of direct control, i.e. organisational democracy, and financial participation on the part of workers which holds the potential for increasing commitment and the likelihood of organisational success. Finally, the contributions of Rothschild (1979; 2016) regarding the notions 57
of the collectivist-democratic organisation and Democracy 2.0 (participatory, collectivist-democracy), in contrast to the hierarchical-bureaucratic organisation and Democracy 1.0 (formal, representative democracy) respectively, are explored in order to further our understanding of the nature of democracy in organisational contexts. These delineations are important not only for understanding the co-operative difference contra investor-owned firms (IOFs) but also the nuanced variations of organisational democracy extant within the co-operative movement itself. Section 2.3 briefly reviewed the history of the co-operative movement, moving on to offer a detailed examination of the defining features of co-operatives. Specific focus was given to worker co-operatives, this broadly being the form of co-operative represented in the membership of the YCN. Co-operatives are understood as collectively owned and democratically controlled organisations purposed toward meeting socio-economic needs. The set of internationally agreed co-operative values and principles presented in Table 2.6 were given more detailed consideration in Section 2.3.3 wherein their interrelated character and importance to the sustainability and resilience of co-operatives was discussed. Although many co-operatives are owned and operated by a range of stakeholders - workers, managers, suppliers, clients, and customers - worker co-operatives are entirely owned and operated by their workers (those individuals directly involved in the productive activities of the organisation) and are therefore more proximal than their counterparts to the notions of collectivist-democratic organisation and Democracy 2.0. However, even worker cooperatives can become stretched and bureaucratic in response to the pressures of the external environment and the challenges of scale. Indeed, as reviewed in Section 2.3.4 all co-operatives face internal and external challenges to their survival and success. Although some of these are associated with the complexities of co-operation, most are related to the institutionally isomorphic environment that is biased towards IOFs and hierarchical bureaucracy. Section 2.3.5 explores what inter-co-operative associations exist, the forms they assume, and how these entities can support co-operatives in facing some of the aforementioned issues and constraints. Indeed, it is highlighted that research suggests co-operatives possess an inherent advantage in creating and sustaining networks because of their shared underpinning of values and principles, purposive character (problem-oriented), and social focus (subordinating capital before people). 58
Section 2.4, focused on surveying the literature related to learning and knowing, which is critical to conceptualising the YCN as a community of practice and thus comprehending its purpose, function, and development. After briefly exploring the quality of knowledge, introducing its explicit and tacit dimensions, and providing an overview of organisational learning and organisational knowledge the section proceeded to the synthesised perspectives explicated by Chiva and Alegre (2005), the cognitive-possession and the social-process approaches. These perspectives are rooted in much deeper differences arising from the ontological and epistemological levels. The cognitive-possession approach favours explicit, codified, knowledge that can, supposedly, be commodified and measured. Conversely, the social-process approach deals primarily in tacit knowledge, which is given value through its situated nature. The social-process approach (adopted in this study) is grounded in the social constructionist ontology and interpretivist epistemology, thus viewing reality as being bound within social interactions and shared frameworks, such as culture and shared processes. Within this approach organisational learning and organisational knowledge are interpreted as active process, hence the use of learning and knowing (as opposed to knowledge), that are virtually synonymous. Situated learning, legitimate peripheral participation, communities of practice, the development of non-canonical practice, and the premise of such communities of activity spanning organisational boundaries are identified as central concepts within this perspective and, more importantly, to this study. Finally, research by Hartley and Johnson (2013) and Hartley (2014) that conceptualised co-operatives as learning spaces is highlighted. As noted by Hartley (2014), while research has sought to conceptualise learning in co-operatives, these attempts have not focused on the processes by which learning takes place and the outcomes these processes produce. In totality, the literature review positions us to move forward with the comprehension necessary to facilitate appropriation and discussion of the findings in order to ultimately meet the study's purpose, understanding the need for the YCN through responding to three research questions regarding the development of (RQ.1), member participation in (RQ.3), and suggested further developments to (RQ.3) the YCN.
59
2.6 REFLECTIONS: LITERATURE REVIEW This literature review presents the output of a significant personal learning curve. Prior to undertaking the research my knowledge of co-operatives was limited to a general awareness of the underlying concept of collective ownership and democratic management. Likewise, in terms of organisational learning and knowledge my previous research focused on knowledge management and knowledge creation in relation to the introduction and development of social collaboration platforms. As such, from the outset I was acutely aware that I was on a personal journey of knowledge discovery; the implication of this being that the process of writing the literature review would be highly iterative and that some of the extant knowledge I encountered would be discounted or irrelevant by the end of the journey. Indeed, the interpretivist epistemological perspective and constructivist ontology which underpin the methodological approach to the study (see Section 3.2) inherently provide for a reflective and reflexive approach to developing the literature review in response to the case as insights emerge. Determining the focus of the study, and as such the content of the literature review, began with the desire to explore some aspect of co-operatives from the perspective of two fields of study, those of organisational knowledge or learning and employee/worker participation or voice. Therefore, while identifying a potential subject for the research my reading moved from these two areas into the realm of literature on the topic of co-operatives. As the opportunity to research the YCN emerged and the content of the case became clearer so too did the process of engaging with specific literature in order to respond to gaps in my own understanding and enable appreciation of the boarder context, specific context, and lens of analysis in relation to these layers of context. In terms of conducting the literature review, I relied primarily on Google Scholar and Web of Science for searching and identifying literature relating to keywords such as co-operatives, organisation, democracy, worker, networks, associations, knowledge, learning, and communities of practice in a variety of combinations. When seeking specific works or works from within a given journal I went directly to JSTOR and Elsevier's Science Direct, among others. In combination, I found these resources to be invaluable to the process of searching and reviewing the extant literature, though I 60
also relied on several books for access to key works not readily available online. I feel that unpacking or peeling the extant literature whilst simultaneously getting to grips with the case study lead to a continual process of appreciation, reflection, and reconsideration in terms of comprehending how new information fitted with (or within) the knowledge I had already obtained. In determining the guiding themes for the literature review, with respect to the content included in the final thesis, my central tenet was that the reader should be taken on a journey of knowledge discovery as close to my own as possible without covering entirely unnecessary or irrelevant material. This meant that the reader should first be able to appreciate the notion and nuances of organisational democracy before being introduced to the co-operative movement and worker co-operatives. Only then would it be worthwhile to consider the interplay between the co-operative values and principle, the issues and challenges facing co-operatives, and finally how inter-cooperative networks and associations have thus far been explored in the extant literature. Likewise, with regards to introducing the reader to the social-process approach to organisational learning and knowing I felt it first necessary to offer some insight into how we can understand knowledge and the independent fields of organisational learning and organisational knowledge before seeking to explore learning and knowing in combination and identifying the key understandings and concepts applied in the study. Three bodies of extant literature stand out as having been identified, explored, almost included, and subsequently discounted. Firstly, my initial intention was to place a greater emphasis on worker voice and participation. As my understanding of the YCN and its members developed it became clear that the emergent story was more focused on the role of the network as opposed to individual co-operators. Secondly, I was interested in the psychological effects of democratic control and ownership on worker participation and engagement in co-operatives and had begun reading further into this field. Again, my focus shifted in response to the case and also with regards to how far from my initial reading this avenue of exploration was leading me i.e. toward organisational psychology. Thirdly, with a desire to build on previous personal knowledge I was for some time committed to the idea of exploring the YCN in relation to its provision of the antecedents for knowledge sharing and creation. While this angle might still be of value for further study I felt that the case required a more 61
exploratory approach and thus pulled away from including this body of extant literature. It is also worthwhile noting that as the thesis developed some sections were reduced and condensed, this is particularly true in terms of the background information provided concerning co-operative, the wider co-operative movement, and the depth to which worker co-operatives were explored in contrast with other forms of co-operatives. Ultimately I feel that the layered approach adopted in this literature review effectively drills-down on the most relevant pieces knowledge and ensuring the building blocks are in place to facilitate complete appropriation of the knowledge by the reader.
62
3.0 METHODOLOGY 3.1 INTRODUCTION This chapter outlines, analyses, and justifies the overall methodology and research design of this study, including: the adopted philosophical position; research approach; research strategy; ethical and access considerations; data collection method used; and the process of data analysis. Its purpose is to provide detailed clarification of the methodological integrity of the research and how data collection and interpretation were carried out. Where possible, references are provided to appropriate sources, primarily textbooks on the topics of social research, qualitative research methods, case study research, participative observation, and interview techniques. To provide some context to the case, in late 2014 Altgen launched the Young Cooperators Prize (YCP) in partnership with Co-operatives UK. The project was designed to identify five UK-based young co-operatives that would benefit from additional financial support, training, and engagement opportunities. The winners of the prize were to receive £2,000 funding for their co-operatives along with a support package consisting of mentoring from experienced co-operators and a residential training weekend facilitated by the Altgen team. After the culmination of the prize and delivery of the training weekend, the decision was made to establish a network that would continue to provide support young co-operatives and co-operators. The purpose of this study is to explore and explain the need for this Young Cooperators Network (YCN), conceptualised as an inter-co-operative community of practice. The study achieves this purpose through analysis of the network's development, the factors influencing member participation, and potential future developments. In attending to this purpose, the study seeks to answer the three research questions identified below. RQ.1
How did the YCN develop?
RQ.2
What are the factors influencing participation?
RQ.3
How, or in what ways, might further development take place?
63
3.2 PHILOSOPHICAL CONSIDERATIONS The study is entirely qualitative and thus undisputedly sits within the realm of qualitative methodological assumptions, as opposed to those associated with quantitative methodology. Qualitative and quantitative research are fundamentally distinct because, generally, the former seeks to achieve deeper contextual understanding of phenomena, whereas the latter seeks to measure the extent of phenomena. Thus, the research assumes that reality is subjectively constructed through the processes of perception and interpretation by human beings who are continuously making sense of the world around them. In this realm of social research science is inductive, by no means value-free, and the aim is to interpret social life in order to discover meaning and ultimately develop understanding (Sarantakos 2013 p.43). In terms of philosophical paradigm, or set of propositions that comprise an overarching worldview, if the research were to be aligned with a grand theory it would be that of symbolic interactionism. In this paradigm meaning gives shape to, and dynamically changes, social life; likewise, the physical world is likewise given significance through being meaningfully interpreted by human actors (Sarantakos 2013 p.43). Concurrently, the research sits with the constructivist ontology; this position challenges the traditional objectivist ontological assumptions regarding the pre-determined categorisation of organisation, culture, and society. Instead, constructivism understands these to be produced through processes or social interaction and accepts them as being in a perpetual state of change, whether or not this is humanly perceivable in a given instant (Bryman 2012 p.33). The construction of meaning occurs on both the individual and collective levels and is supported by structures such as society, culture, and education, and these collective interpretations of reality are developed through processes that engender collective meaning, such as socialisation (Sarantakos 2013 p.39). In line with the above, the epistemological alignment of this work is interpretivist, as opposed to positivist or realist. This epistemology, or theory relating to the measure of acceptable knowledge (Bryman 2012), has grown from the work of writers and researchers critical of the application of scientific (positivist) methods to study the social world. Interpretivism is said to have its origins in the Weberian sociological 64
concept of Verstehen (understanding), which is likewise interested in subjective meanings. The interpretivist epistemology is concerned with the theory and the method of the exploration and explanation of human interaction, also known as hermeneutics i.e. the seeking of an empathic understanding of human action (Bryman 2012). Qualitative research of this nature can go beyond identifying the subjective meanings to be found in given context and seek to explore the processes by which construction or production of meaning occurs (Sarantakos 2013).
3.3 RESEARCH APPROACH This section describes the approach adopted by the researcher in seeking to meet the overall purpose and stated research questions. Furthermore, it serves the purpose of validating the philosophical and methodological congruence of the project. In brief, this study can be described as an explanatory ethnographic case study utilising semistructured interviews in order to uncover insights relating to the YCN. These interviews build on an understanding initially developed through two overt participative instances. The term ethnography possesses a certain duality within modern social research (Bryman 2012). In the past ethnography was used to indicate a form of social anthropological research wherein a specific group, or ethnos, (such as tribe or community) was studied by a researcher over an extensive period of time in order to explore and understand their culture and behaviours. However, in more recent times the term has developed to be virtually synonymous with in-depth qualitative research, in particular methods of participant observation (Bryman 2012 p.431). In this case, this duality is arguably relevant on both accounts. Firstly, that the research is focused on a group with a particular set of characteristics engaged in the formation and development of community that relates to said unifying characteristics (that is, they are all individuals who have ascribed to the co-operatives principles and values and have recently embarked on the journey of creating a co-operative enterprise). Secondly, that the study involved a form of participant observation in order to develop rich understanding and facilitate sense making. A useful distinction can be made between the application of the noun ethnography and the adjective ethnographic in terms of delineating between an overall methodological approach and a means of
65
partially describing the character of a study; with the latter being most appropriate in this instance. A case study strategy may be understood as, “...doing research which involves an empirical investigation of a particular contemporary phenomenon within a real life context using multiple
sources
of evidence.” (Robson 2002 p.178) While exploratory case studies seeks to understand what is happening (overall purpose), explanatory case studies seek to understand how and/or why a particular phenomenon occurs. However, these parameters are not limiting in terms of the research questions used to achieve the overall purpose i.e. asking what are the factors influencing participation (RQ.2) builds toward understanding why there is a need for the YCN. As Yin (2012) notes, given the research takes place in real-world setting, the explanations generated can be complex and may cover an extended period of time, as opposed to being cross-sectional. It is these conditions that make a case study method more applicable than perhaps an experiment or survey, because it enables a greater degree of proximity to the subject. Beyond the depth offered by case studies, there are a number of other advantages: firstly, that they generate first-hand information from natural settings; secondly, that they allow for the application of a variety of methods and sources of information. Furthermore, case studies enable the development of long-term contacts and relationships that inform and shape personal experiences in the fields. Their focus on direct life experiences means case studies can produce information that holistically covers the whole unit as opposed to only small aspects of it (Sarantakos 2013). However, case studies do attract criticism, the relevance of which is somewhat determined by the philosophical stance of the research and researcher. The most obvious of these is that due to their focus on a single social phenomenon it is difficult to produce verifiable inductive generalisations. Likewise, because the findings are produced through the subjective interpretations of the researcher and participants, there is little assurance of objectivity, validity and reliability. This series of methodological concerns hails from the positivist philosophical paradigm and epistemological perspectives, a brief response to these issues is presented below. In line with the previous concerns, the issue of the researcher only having limited access 66
to the field, and thus only capturing a portion of the subjective information available, is present; there is little a researcher can do to navigate this particular issue, other than to try to engage with what information is available in as profound a manner as possible (Sarantakos 2013). Finally, the problem of research bias, or participant bias due to the presence of the researcher, is ever problematic within such qualitative methodologies. The primary solution to this issue is for the researcher to make as accurate a record as possible of all interactions with participants and take steps to be clear as to how their involvement may have affected the case results. To respond to those positivist criticisms referenced above; for quantitative research the validity and reliability of data and research methods are the marks of quality and trustworthiness. Qualitative research faces similar challenges. Though they are often applied, it is argued that the criteria employed for assessing the quality of quantitative research are unsuited to the realm of qualitative methodology (Hammersley 2007). Lincoln and Guba (1985) propose a set of criteria for establishing the quality, or trustworthiness, of qualitative research. Their criteria has four facets: credibility, i.e. that confidence can be held in the truthfulness of the findings; transferability, i.e. that the findings are applicable to other contexts; dependability, i.e. that the methodology could be repeated (not that the results would be expected to be the same); and confirmability, i.e. that the research was conducted in a neutral manner which avoided researcher bias. In this research steps were taken to meet these criteria as much as possible, most notably in the provision of a clear methodology and ensuring the primary research was conducted in an appropriate ethical manner. In declining order of intensity of participative involvement, the types of participant observation are as follows: covert full membership, overt full membership (as employed in this case study), participating observer, partially participating observer, minimally participating observer, non-participating observer with interaction (Bryman 2012 pp.441–444). While covert full membership involves the researcher's status being unknown to the rest of the participants, thus generating a range of ethical issues, overt full membership involves the researcher declaring their status and role as a researcher from the outset of the study. Otherwise, the two forms of participant observation are similar in that the researcher assumes the roles of group member, engages with the group for a length of time (in this case a period of 6 months), and assumes responsibilities within the group (Bryman 2012 p.441). The advantages of 67
such participative research are that it sensitises the ethnographic researcher to the most important issues and helps them familiarise themselves with the environment, the values present, and the extant norms of language and behaviour (Rubin and Rubin 2012). Furthermore, it provides opportunity to build a relationship and rapport with the participants, potentially helping the researcher elicit more truthful subjective responses from participants once research questioning commences. While it was initially intended for participant observation to play a central role in generating the findings of the research, following the two interactions with the group the researcher determined to instead rely on interviews to generate the main body of findings for the study. However, this does not discount the importance of the two instances of direct observation and participation - some reflection on this is included in Section 3.6. Interviews are an important tool for qualitative research, coming as they do in a number of forms including focus groups, internet/email interviews, casual conversations, and semi-structured/unstructured interviews. Rubin and Rubin (2012 p.29) highlight that all of these forms of qualitative interviews share three underlying characteristics. Firstly, they search for rich and detailed information (as opposed to say binary outputs) in the form of experiences, narratives, and stories. Secondly, the interviewer does not provide specific answer categories, the questions being openended and thus leave the structure and content of response up to the interviewee. Thirdly, the questions asked are not fixed which is to say that the researcher may responsively change the structure, content, or phrasing of questions as they feel necessary. Qualitative interviews tend to assume the primacy of the respondent, be flexible in structure and duration, and involve the interviewer adopting a subjective and ethical approach that requires proximity to the subject (Sarantakos 2013 p.281). The researcher felt that for this study one-to-one semi-structured interviews would provide the most effective means of capturing meaningful insights from key participants, further consideration of this method is included in Section 3.4.4 and likewise in Section 3.6.
68
3.4 RESEARCH DESIGN This section builds on the previous outline of the research approach, explaining in more detail the technicalities of the research including description of how access was obtained, sampling and participants, data collection, and data analysis. Concurrently with the research philosophy and overall approach, the research was designed using the principles of continuous, flexible, and adaptable design. Rubin and Rubin (2012 p.42) outline these principles, suggesting that continuous means the study and methodology may be redesigned throughout the project; flexible means that new information may be explored as insights emerge which change or shape the meaning of the project; and adaptable means that the project is responsive to the unexpected. These principles fit with the premise of inductive constructivism that sits at the heart of this research project. In essence, the reader should understand that the researcher approached this project with only a notional idea as to what may be found and how best to research it. Indeed, prior to the first instance of participant observation the researcher was unfamiliar and had little knowledge of the context. The design of the case study can be understood using Yin's (2012 pp.6–10) three steps of case study design: identifying and defining the case, determining which type of case it will be, and whether or not to incorporate theory. A case is some form of bounded entity such as an individual, an organisation, or an event; however, the boundaries between the case and its situated environment may be somewhat blurred. In this study, the case is the formation and development of the YCN, the boundaries here are more of less clear, the actors involved are identifiable and, the context in which related interactions take place can be easily delineated. There are four types of case study from which to choose, and these are best understood as a 2x2 matrix: 1.1single-case design with a holistic approach (single unit of analysis); 1.2Single-case design with an embedded case approach (multiple units of analysis); 2.1multiple-case design with a holistic approach; and 2.2multiple-case design with an embedded case approach. Here, a single-case design with the holistic approach fit best as all of the data collection methods moved toward a singular conceptual and temporal point; the YCN at the time the individual interviews were conducted. Theory can help shape and complete, even provide, research questions, case selection, decisions regarding data collection, and how data is analysed (Yin 69
2012). While the use of theory in these design activities can provide direction to the project and assist in framing the overall work, it carries the risk of limiting the researcher's ability to make discoveries. Indeed, this study has not sought to provide a set of hypotheses, apply a positivist approach to research design, nor to present its primary function as testing a theory. Instead, the study uses the literature to illuminate the case subject and seeks to generate useful, thought-provoking insights through this process. 3.4.1 ACCESS In late November 2015 having determined to research co-operatives, the researcher contacted an acquaintance who had been directly involved in establishing Altgen, the organisation central to the development of the YCN. At this time, the researcher was unaware of the formation of the YCN and had only been aware of the activities of Altgen and the outcome of the Young Co-operators Prize through reading articles online. The intention at this stage was simply to find out what potential there might be to conduct research involving, or directly relating to, Altgen. The response received was wholly positive and it was suggested that the researcher send over a more detailed description of the proposed area of research. In December 2015, with agreement from supervisors, the researcher sent an email offering details of a potential research project and what it would involve, and what might be its benefits for Altgen and other participating organisations. The response was once again positive and an informal invitation to become involved in some as yet undetermined way a new project, the YCN, was received. It was suggested that the researcher attend a planned weekend event in London sometime in January/February 2016. The researcher sent a further email in early January to try to establish a more concrete arrangement and details of the proposed event. By mid-January 2016, the researcher was becoming increasingly concerned that the potential case would not come through as there had been no communication from the broker, or gatekeeper i.e. a person who controls access to the organisation and makes the decision as to whether or not to give the researcher access (Saunders et al. 2009). Briefly, it seemed likely that the opportunity might have passed. However, shortly after the researcher had begun to voice concern with his supervisory team, further communication was received from the broker explaining that the event had been moved to February and 70
more details would follow. In late January the details of the event were confirmed, although not by the original broker but by another individual. This essentially marked a shift in the role of broker for the duration of the project. With the details of the event confirmed and an invitation to an access opportunity, the next step was data collection. The first participative instance in February 2016 began with a social event, this provided an opportunity to meet participants in a relaxed atmosphere and introduce the idea of the research. However, when the group sat down to begin the first session the next morning it was evident that most of those involved were not aware there would be a researcher present. This potential problem was mitigated via the distribution of participant information sheets before asking for participant consent. It was also clear that the invitation of the initial broker/gatekeeper carried weight and value within the group and the members were highly receptive to the idea of a researcher being involved and, as such, assuming an overt and participative role. Following the decision to use interviews as the primary method of data collection it was necessary to negotiate access to individual members of the YCN. This process can be relatively straightforward; indeed, several members came forward following the first general email sent out to all of those involved. However, it can also be a challenging task in terms of negotiating around the schedules of busy individuals or simply obtaining a clear answer as to whether someone is willing to be interviewed or not. Some reflections on this process are included in Section 3.6. 3.4.2 ETHICS The general rules of social research in terms of ethics and accountability were adhered to throughout this research project. Most importantly, the research has ensured that no harm, physical, mental, or legal, has come to participants. This includes taking steps to ensure comments involving individuals from outside the study have been omitted, redacted, or replaced with a pseudonym. The welfare of participants, both individuals and organisations, is of utmost importance to the researcher. In accordance with Bangor University’s Research Ethics Policy (Bangor Univeristy 2015) informed consent was requested and obtained from all participants. Due to the nature of the research participant consent forms featured an opt-in (as opposed to opt71
out) option for allowing participant names and job titles to be used in the research. Individual information sheets and consent forms were disseminated during the first interaction and the completed forms to be immediately collected. In the one case where a participant had not been present when consent was obtained from the group, the forms were sent and returned electronically. At the beginning of each interview verbal acknowledgement of having read the information sheet and signed the consent form was obtained. Furthermore, an opportunity to ask or express questions or concerns was provided. In more general terms, such as those outlined by Rubin and Rubin (2012 pp.85–90), the researcher sought to show respect to the participants, honour any promises made, avoid pressuring participants to participate in the research or to continue with an interview if they did not wish to. As a responsible research project, some names have been intentionally omitted from direct quotations and steps have been taken to ensure participants will not be at risk as a result of the research. Likewise, unsuitable language has also been censored from the project. Where omissions or censorship were necessary, efforts have been made to avoid losing the sense or meaning of insights. Indeed, an additional benefit of using the analytical method applied to RQ.2 and RQ.3 (see Section 3.4.5) was that the findings became anonymous; this is useful particularly when participants have offered frank insights into issues, challenges, and, sometimes, criticisms. 3.4.3 PARTICIPANTS Purposive sampling was applied due to the limited group of individuals involved in the case context. Participation in the research was entirely voluntary and the opportunity to be interviewed was offered to all members present at the first instance of researcher engagement. A total of nine participants were interviewed (see Table 3.1); although they do not make up the entire membership of the YCN for the purposes of the study only their respective organisations are detailed herein. Full consent for disclosure of names, job titles, and organisations was obtained at the outset of the project.
72
Table 3.1: Participant list Name
Position
Co-operative
Constance Laisné
Founding member
Altgen
Henry Naylor-Stead
Member (since May 2016)
Altgen
James Andrew-Smith
Founding member
London Student (Co-op)
Claudia Bowler
Founding member
Chapel Street Studio
Martyn Johnston
Founding member
Chapel Street Studio
Ieva Padagaitė
Founding member
Blake House
Member
Altgen (since May 2016)
Simon Ball
Founding member
Blake House
Jonny Gordon-Farleigh
Editor
Stir to Action
Dan Sofer
Founding member
Founders & Coders
3.4.4 DATA COLLECTION As outlined in Section 3.3, in this study primary data was collected using individual interviews. Nine semi-structured participant interviews form the backbone of the research: these offer individual, subjective, insights in response to the subject and themes in focus. The interviews were conducted on an individual basis in order to ensure the opinions, beliefs, and feelings elicited from each participant were their own (Saunders et al. 2009). As noted in Section 3.4.1, access to the interview participants was possible following two instances of direct participant engagement; the first in February 2016 in London at Altgen's shared working space, and the second in May 2016 in Stoke-on-Trent at the Worker Co-operative Weekend organised by Co-operatives UK. The method employed here can be classified as direct observation; this focuses on human actions, physical environments, and instances of social interaction, or real-world events (Yin 2012 p.11). These two instances helped the researcher develop a deeper understanding of the research context. The researcher made notes during these participative instances, relating to the content of the discussions and the manner in which the interactions took place. This process is in line with advice offered by Bryman (2012 pp.447–451) 73
who advocates that ethnographic researchers should take notes, however brief, after seeing or hearing something of interest. The notes assisted the researcher in conceptualising the research, preparing the literature review, and inductively developing the research questions and interview guide. The interviews carried out in this study can be most accurately described as flexible yet semi-structured (Bryman 2012 p.472), as opposed to entirely unstructured. The interviews can be described as being responsive; this is a style of interviewing that behaves similarly to an everyday conversation and feels natural to both the participant and researcher. Responsive interviews are different from everyday conversations in that they are recorded, are focused towards an overall subject, may be guided by a series of themes, and one participant (the researcher) is set on eliciting detail, depth, vividness, nuance, and richness in the other participant's responses (Rubin and Rubin 2012 pp.96–106). A conversational or interview guide is an essential tool to achieving results from flexible, responsive, interviews (Bryman 2012 pp.472–473; Rubin and Rubin 2012 p.125). Within this study the researcher's guide focused on the following areas: •
Individual/organisational involvement with the YCN
•
Perceived value/benefits associated with engaging with the YCN
•
Issues faced by the participant's co-operative and in relation to the YCN
•
Experiences of inter-co-operative engagement
•
Experiences of decision-making processes in co-operatives and the YCN
These themes were not presented in any specific order nor intentionally phrased in a standardised format. Generally, the interviews began with some iteration of a question asking for a brief narrative as to how the individual cooperator or co-operative was involved with the creation of the YCN. From that point onwards the researcher asked follow-up questions and introduced new themes as and when appropriate. The researcher made annotations on a sheet of paper as the interviews progressed; these sometimes related to key aspects of participant responses but were more often related to where, in terms of subject matter, the interview had been and still needed to go. This method of tracking was important particularly in longer interviews where there is often a risk of missing a key area or becoming side-tracked.
74
Due to the interviews taking place following a number of previous interactions with the participants, very little time was used to ask questions to which the researcher already knew the answer. The time available was used as effectively as possible to try and elicit either new or reframed insights regarding the case at hand. A tendency on the part of interviewees to focus on their own co-operatives and co-operative experience outside the YCN led to the researcher occasionally having to realign the conversational thread or encourage the participant to try and relate insights back to the YCN. The interviews were conducted between June and August 2016 using a variety of audio- and video-enabled online communication platforms: Skype, Google Hangouts, and FaceTime. This was because of time constraints during the participating instances; the geographical distance between the participants and researcher; and the convenience these platforms confer to both the participants and the researcher. Using such technology means the interviews can take place whenever both parties are willing and available which makes it much easier to organise. While in the past there may have been issues related to the consistency of connection, this is today much less of an issue. The interviews were audio recorded on two devices, a laptop (using QuickTime Player) and a mobile phone (using the Apple Voice Memos application), to ensure the data was successfully captured and less likely to be accidentally lost. The audio files were then transferred to a single location on the laptop, deleted from other locations, and backed-up to an encrypted external hard-drive. 3.4.5 DATA ANALYSIS Blom and Nygren (2010) highlight the work of Ricœur (1976; 1981) regarding textual interpretation and narrative analysis. Ricœur delineated two approaches to analysing texts: understanding and explaining. On the one hand, explaining involves sorting out the interlaced actions and movements within a text with the aim of uncovering its internal relations via structural analysis. While on the other hand, understanding is concerned finding sense in the whole chain of seemingly fragmented meanings in a synthesised manner. According to Ricœur both approaches are facets of the superior concept of interpretation - the dialectic relationship between explanation and understanding. This relationship involves the movement from understanding to explanation and from 75
explanation to comprehension, viewed by Ricœur as being a more sophisticated form of understanding. Initial understanding is a naïve (open) grasp of the text, or texts, as a whole while later in the analytical process understanding (as comprehension) is more advanced and nuanced. Between these two levels of understanding lies the critical explanatory process of structural analysis. The outcome of this overall analytical journey is appropriation, where a developed understanding, including future possibilities, is attained by the reader (Blom and Nygren 2010). This heuristic concept extends the process of interpretative analysis to the point of consumption, embracing the totality of the research project; from the literature review, in which a knowledge context is constructed; to the findings, wherein comprehensible material is presented via the combination of naïve understanding and structural analysis; and finally to the discussion and conclusion, where the findings are contextualised in the knowledge presented in the literature review.
Figure 3.1: The fourth model for analysing narrative material (Blom and Nygren 2010 p.36)
A
B
Developing on Ricœur's perspective of interpretation and analysis, Blom and Nygren (2010) introduce four models for the analysis of narrative material. These are useful because they provide a means of visualising what is otherwise an intangible and seemingly instinctive process of applying a combination of naïve understanding and explanatory structural analysis (in the form of thematic coding) in order to achieve comprehension and ultimately appropriation of meaning. Here, their fourth model 76
(Figure 3.1) of narrative analysis is used to illustrate the analytical process undertaken by the researcher. This model is suited to the case because it deals with material where all the participants are being asked to reflect on the same experience (that of involvement with the YCN) and thus their individual stories can be regarded as being part of a single, wider, narrative. Within the model exhibited in Figure 3.1 each narrative is naïvely read - in this case firstly through the process of transcription and secondly as complete texts - with the researcher making some memoranda or rough notes about underlying themes and ideas. The narratives are then put together to form a single grand narrative that is then structurally analysed. Where the model falls short is that there seems to be an unavoidable deductive heuristic relationship between the outcome of the naïve readings (marked A) and the approach to structural analysis (marked B), although the model does express that both the naïve understanding and structural analysis play a role in delivering comprehension and thus enabling appropriation. Ultimately, Blom and Nygren's (2010) conceptual model effectively provides a structure by which to appreciate the analytical process applied herein.
Figure 3.2: Screen-grab of parent-nodes and child-nodes in NVivo 11
77
In digitally aggregating the texts and conducting structural analysis the researcher employed the NVivo 11 software suite. This software enables transcripts to be coded with parent nodes or primary themes, which may in turn have their own child nodes or sub-themes (see Figure 3.2). As such, having worked through each transcript identifying a broad theme, such as Issues & Solutions, the researcher was then able to examine just the quotes related to this theme and further break down the data using layers of secondary and tertiary thematic coding to enable a greater depth of understanding and explanation. Furthermore, NVivo makes the process of applying multiple codes to a particular insight and later readjustment of coding a straightforward task. With the research questions in mind, what became apparent to the researcher was the notion that in order to effectively respond to the research questions the findings would need to be presented in different ways. While the first research question (RQ.1 How did the community of practice develop?) seemed to demand a highly explanatory approach i.e. a reflective history from the perspective of the participants, the second (RQ.2 What are the factors influencing participation?) and third (RQ.3 How, or in what ways, might further development take place?) research questions demanded a more exploratory approach. Thus the analysis of the findings in response to RQ.1 relied more on utilising direct quotes to support a narrative based on the holistic naïve understanding while the findings in response RQ.2 utilise structural analysis to break down the participant narratives and present them in a tabular format for ease of comprehension (in Chapter 4) and appropriation (in Chapter 5). This process involved using the primary themes (parent nodes) and secondary theme (child nodes) to then create a set of tertiary themes. This final stage of analysis was conducted manually; the researcher read through the related extractions from NVivo, produced a set of bullet points and then proceeded to inductively produce a set of tertiary themes finding commonalities and generating a simple set of codes. The analysis and response to RQ.3 uses a further method of presenting the participant insights; it adopts a researcher-lead narrative approach and structures the findings around five inductive themes.
78
3.5 CHAPTER SUMMARY In this chapter the methodological character of the research has been described and considered. In brief, it is a qualitative, ethnographic, exploratory, case study that assumes a constructivist ontology and interpretivist epistemology in approaching the phenomenon at hand. This means it searches for meaning in the subjective interpretations of reality elicited from participants, along with the researcher's own subjective interpretation of the data through the process of developing a naïve understanding and conducting explanatory structural thematic analysis to achieve comprehension and facilitate appropriation that is contextualised understanding of new knowledge through the application of extant knowledge. The study is based on a series of nine semi-structured interviews with participants directly involved in the social phenomenon in focus. It is purposed towards understanding the need for the Young Co-operators Network (YCN and seeks to facilitate this understanding through asking three research questions:
RQ.1
How did the YCN develop?
RQ.2
What are the factors influencing participation?
RQ.3
How, or in what ways, might further development take place?
Access was obtained through personal connections and the researcher spent time developing a meaningful rapport with the participants through two instances of direct participation. Absolute care has been taken by the researcher to protect the participants and the research in terms of ethical considerations. Following two instances of direct observation participants were purposively selected for the semistructured interviews, which form the backbone of this study. Nine interviews were carried out using audio- and video-enabled electronic communications platforms. The interviews were audio-recorded and later transcribed by the researcher. Thematic analysis was conducted using NVivo 11 software in combination with manual coding. The interpretative process involved with responding to the research questions fits closely with a narrative analysis approach described by Blom and Nygren (2010) 79
wherein after an initial naïve reading of each narrative the material is treated in a holistic manner that is appropriate when dealing with accounts relating to a singular phenomenon or chain of events. Through this analytical process the researcher was able to select suitable means of presenting the findings in relation to the different research questions. While the first research question is responded to in a manner best described as a descriptive narrative supported by direct quotes from participants, the second and third questions suited an approach whereby the narratives were deconstructed using a more intensive structural analysis.
3.6 REFLECTIONS: METHODOLOGY Writing, and subsequently revising, the methodology chapter as the study progressed offered the opportunity for me to consider in more depth the qualitative research process itself and how it fits within the context of the broader social science. In adopting an interpretivist qualitative methodology a range of issues or contentions emerge with respect to the manner in which the work is given value. For me the value derived from undertaking qualitative research is in the richness, depth, and texture of understanding that come through engaging oneself in a given social phenomenon. This stands juxtaposed to the central tenets of positivist methodology with the clearest dichotomy
being
that
quantitative
studies
seek
generalisability
through
representativeness while qualitative studies seek to illuminate a particular case or set of cases for their own inherent worth. In the research approach (detailed in Section 3.3) I make reference to the concept of ethnography, or rather ethnographic research. With its aim of understanding a particular group or community this approach arguably sits at the heart of qualitative methodology. Though the term has broadened from its earlier connotation, as an approach to studying unknown or little-understood cultures, and is now applicable to research focusing on group of persons that share some looser characteristic or experience, it remains strongly associated with the method of participant observation. Indeed, when I embarked on this research project I had the intention of drawing findings from the two instances in which I engaged with and observed the participants but later became overwhelmed by the sheer amount of observations I had made and confused as to my own role within the interactions. This lead me to move away from drawing findings from my field notes and conclude that interviews would form the 80
primary source for my findings, rather than acting as a means of enriching observations made in the field. However, this does not mean my notes became entirely irrelevant; they still played a key role in enabling me to develop the study in terms of the literature I engaged with, how I prepared for the interviews, how I approached the findings, and influenced my thinking in terms of the discussion and conclusion. This experience of ethnographic research has taught me two key lessons: firstly, that a clear and systematic approach to note-taking must be adopted and maintained from the outset of the study; secondly, that it is easy to lose sight of the role of the researcher when directly engaging with participants in an intense and immersive fashion. To expand on this latter point briefly, while I would not go so far as to say I went native (a term commonly used to denote the risk of going too far toward becoming a member of the community in focus) I certainly feel that I became distracted by my involvement in what was going on around me. Recovering from this to ensure I conducted thorough interviews was critical to the ultimate success of this study. At least in my experience, when conducting interviews it is significantly easier to achieve and maintain the objective distance necessary to be an effective researcher. Carrying out the interviews using online platforms such as Skype, Google Hangouts, and FaceTime makes the data collection process more convenient in terms of time, associated costs, and the flexibility conferred to both the participants and interviewer. Increasingly reliable connections mean that problems with the audio or video feeds are relatively infrequent. For example, only in one interview did connectivity issues seriously hamper progress; this was because the participant was unexpectedly in a very remote location. However, goodwill and patience on the part of the participant, and myself, meant that we were able to complete the interview. It is worth noting that I found it useful to record the point of conversation at the time of disconnection in order to quickly re-enter the conversation when the connection was re-established. I would be interested to understand more as to what might be lost by not conducting the interviews in person and it remains unclear as to whether participants are more or less willing to share insights over an electronic medium. For example, it is possible that being able to be in the comfort of their home without the researcher being there in person might enable them to relax more so than if the researcher was there as a guest. I feel that because there was a pre-existing rapport between the participants and 81
myself the risk of detachment or distrust may have been mitigated, if the relationship had not been previously established then perhaps the participants might have been less open. Using video as opposed to solely audio may have played a more important role than I realised, while I was only recording the audio output it seemed that participants placed importance on being able to see me physically responding or reacting to what they were saying; though this was only noticeable when there were issues with the video connection. With regards to data analysis, the use of NVivo 11 in combination with manual analysis seemed to work well. Once the transcripts were complete and loaded into NVivo the process of creating nodes as I moved through the texts and subsequently being able to easily rename, reshuffle, and realign the nodes as further insights emerged make the experience of exploring the data rather enjoyable. Enjoyable in that I was not having to muddle through various sheets of paper, nodes lists, and memos; instead I could focus on finding the meanings and considering how the pieces might fit together. As noted earlier (Section 3.4.5), at the final stage of analysis I nevertheless returned to conducting manual analysis in order to feel my way through the filtered insights. When deciding how to present the findings an important decision presented itself. Though I had obtained informed consent from the participants there was still the temptation to fictionalise or anonymise the case and the participants. This would have made it possible to use direct quotes throughout the findings and further reduced potential risk to participants. There are two reasons for my decision to not fictionalise the study; firstly, that there is no other case quite like this one; and secondly, that being open about the case and the participants might increase the credibility of the work. This decision meant that when presenting the narrative of how the YCN came to be (see Section 4.2) it was possible to tell the story with insights clearly attributed to the individuals involved at various stages. However, it also meant that when presenting potentially more contentious insights I had to revise my method of presentation or risk putting participants in difficult situations. This is most obviously relevant to the issues and challenges faced by young co-operators (Section 4.3.1) but also in terms of the insights shared regarding further developments to the network; the former posting external risks and the latter risking internal conflict. Therefore, I opted to apply a different approach to the findings associated with each research question; 82
as rationalised in Section 3.4.5. Though this may reduce some of the connection the reader might potentially develop to the case and the participants, I feel that this mixed set of approaches to presenting the findings manages to effectively convey the key insights and meanings, limits risk to the participants, and maintains the study's credibility.
83
4.0 FINDINGS 4.1 INTRODUCTION This chapter deals with the qualitative data generated from the study, using insights from one-to-one interviews conducted with nine members of the YCN between June and August 2016. The chapter is constructed around the three research questions: the initial development or formation of the YCN (RQ.1), the perceived value or factors influencing participation (RQ.2), and what further developments members view as being important (RQ.3). The reasoning for this approach is that it facilitates structured response to the research questions in the following chapter (5.0 Discussion & Conclusion) in combination with the literature reviewed in Chapter 2.0 (Literature Review) in order to fulfil the fundamental purpose of the study, which is to understand the need for or purpose of the YCN. As described in the research design (Section 3.4), the insights are presented slightly differently in each section, seeking an analytical best fit between the research question and primary source material. Section 4.2 provides an explanatory response to RQ.1. It sets out the context of the case and is thus largely descriptive in content. Direct quotes are used to construct the narrative of the YCP, the residential training weekend attended by the winners of the prize, and how the initial development of the YCN occurred. Section 4.3 provides an exploratory response to RQ.2. It seeks to understand the factors influencing participation in the YCN using two avenues of exploration: the issues and challenges facing young co-operatives and the perceived value and benefits of participation in the YCN. The analysis applies three layers of thematic coding to interpret the material relevant to each area. Section 4.4 takes a third approach to exploring the future development of the YCN, presenting a narrative synthesis of insights structured around five areas of development: activities, interactions, resources, membership, and structure. Within each area, specific developments are highlighted and expanded upon to generate a holistic projection.
84
4.2 INITIAL DEVELOPMENT This section presents findings related to RQ.1 "How did the community of practice develop?" It provides a contextual narrative for the case, beginning with the intentions behind the Young Co-operators Prize (YCP) and moving toward the emergence and development of the Young Co-operators Network (YCN). 4.2.1 THE YOUNG CO-OPERATORS PRIZE The narrative relating to the YCN's initial development begins with Altgen, a not-forprofit organisation formed by Constance Laisné and Rhiannon Colvin circa 2013 in response to their own socio-economic circumstances. "...it started with our personal stories of being in terrible precarious work situations where we were working for free, or we were back working in cafés... or we were doing unpaid internships... I had an experience as a freelance that was terrible... and Rhiannon was queuing for the same unpaid job amongst two hundred other young people for charity... for the charity sector... and competing against our generation in the most precarious way..." - Constance Laisné, Altgen
Their search for an alternative solution to the problems facing themselves and other young people led them to the co-operative model. In co-operatives they saw an opportunity to both empower young people and to attract new blood to a movement in need of revitalisation. The attraction was particularly strong in relation to the cooperative values and principles, which they saw as offering a radical challenge to the dominant influence of self-serving competition. Each having heard about cooperatives independently, one in Spain and one in London, they approached Cooperatives UK with the intention of finding a means of becoming involved in engaging young people with the co-operative movement. "...we knocked on the door... to Co-operatives UK, which is the federation of cooperatives in the UK... saying that the young generation needs this radical alternative to reclaim our economy through building our own workplaces... through setting up workers co-ops..." - Constance Laisné, Altgen
85
The proposal developed into what was to become the YCP project. This programme of engagement was constructed around three core objectives: inspire, facilitate, and support. With financial backing from Co-operatives UK, Altgen organised an action plan involving a year and half of engagement with the younger generation (primarily university graduates) about the relevance of co-operatives to them and the problems they were facing. At the end of this, the goal was to kick-start five young cooperatives with a combination of finance, training, and mentoring. In combination with a concerted social media campaign, Altgen partnered with fifteen universities across the UK in order to run workshops and participate in careers fairs. Furthermore, they also delivered presentations and attended conferences; both for the purpose of communicating with young people and opening dialogue with the existing co-operative movement. "...every time there was a relevant title we were just showing our faces... and we ran workshops around why the co-operative structure makes so much sense to the young generation and to the current context with work and our economy and how to set up your co-op business so we... I think we ran 50... 40 workshops in universities and in total we engaged 5000 graduates..." - Constance Laisné, Altgen
Thirty-three groups of young people applied for the prize, many of whom had met Altgen through the engagement campaign and had been inspired to propose and develop their collective ideas into co-operative projects or businesses. In early 2015 the winners were announced: London Student (student newspaper), Chapel Street Studio (print and design consortium), Founders and Coders (a programming school and freelancer collective), Ceramics Co-op (artist-run ceramics and sculpture workshop), and Dialogue (co-working space provider). 4.2.2 TRAINING WEEKEND In May 2015 the prize-winners attended the four-day training and mentoring residential organised by Altgen, coinciding with Co-operatives UK's annual Worker Co-op Weekend. James Andrew-Smith, of London Student, remembers being asked in the first session why they wanted to be a co-operative, yet for many of those involved in the reestablishment of London Student the co-operative world was unknown, 86
"When we went we didn't know the difference between a worker and a consumer coop... we were... we were completely new to it..." - James Andrew-Smith, London Student
The practical side of the programme was structured around a series of workshops dealing with the central aspects of co-operation and starting a co-operative business; this included mentoring about structures, legal frameworks, and finance. "...what that provided was a quite well-delivered crash course in how to be a good coop member. So we started with what it means to organise and make decisions democratically and what is a co-op and what does the word co-operative actually mean... and then also included things like... we did a three hour session on co-op finance... so that's really what was really helpful to us..." - Martyn Johnston, Chapel Street Studio
There was a sense of inclusivity amongst the group from the outset. Blake House filmmakers' co-operative had applied for, but was not one of the five co-operatives to win the YCP; however, they were in attendance at the Worker Co-operative Weekend and were invited into the group of young people participating in the workshops. "...we met all the people from the Young Co-operatives (Co-operators) Prize there and they were saying... you know, why don't you come... you know, join our programme because it might be useful for you because you've just joined the movement..." - Ieva Padagaitė, Blake House
Beyond the workshops, which participants found to be of critical importance, those who attended emphasise the value of the social opportunities the weekend offered in terms of networking and building friendships. This was compounded by a sense of solidarity in the shared aspirations of the group toward the ideals of democracy, equality, and ethical working; in turn, this helped to diminish the sense of isolation that comes with operating against the grain of the dominant paradigm. "We felt a little bit isolated in you know... as in, the way the world works and a little bit crazy so when we went there we were like, ok... there are more people thinking this way and feeling the same about the realities of work and had similar experiences in previous employment and they all kind of sought similar solutions to their problems by setting up co-operatives... and that for me was very powerful... to see 87
other people going through similar economic challenges, cultural challenges, social challenges... and you know coming up with similar solutions to their problems and then getting together and sharing these solutions..." - Ieva Padagaitė, Blake House
Participants echoed each other’s sentiments regarding the efficacy of the weekend in terms of its practical element. Being able to return to their respective co-operatives with a deeper knowledge prepared them for making key decisions further down the line. "The stuff that was most important when we came back was you know... how in principle this is going to work... how are we going to register, whether we want to be a you know a worker co-op, or a consumer co-op, or a co-operative society, or... a company limited by guarantee, whatever it is... and it's kind of like, we have a kind of set of options now, we can be open-minded about it but this is what's kind of readymade if we want to go down these routes..." - James Andrew-Smith, London Student
For others, the weekend helped to solidify understanding of their own co-operatives and provided reassurance about decisions they had already made or had planned to make. "That entire weekend was probably the single most important time for us as a co-op... because it gave us... well actually, what was really nice was that it reaffirmed that what we were doing was working and that we'd done things right... and that was down to Constance and Rhiannon at the time... doing Altgen..." - Claudia Bowler, Chapel Street Studio
4.2.3 A NETWORK Constance Laisné explains that over the course of Altgen's activities their advocacy for young people, concerted interest in value- and principle-based co-operatives, and focus on the sustainability of co-operatives in terms of the environment and communities attracted the attention of the international co-operative movement. This lead to Altgen being invited to speak at the International Summit of Co-operatives in Quebec (October, 2014) where they met other young co-operators and began the process of forming the Young European Co-operators Network (YECN). The impetus for this network was a widely shared perception that the younger generation of co88
operators need to repair the perceived mistakes of the older generation and to create a co-operative movement that presents a radical alternative to the dominant socioeconomic paradigm. However, over the course of two gatherings, one in Paris and one in Bologna, it became apparent that in order to create a European-level network there first needed to be national young co-operators networks. Formal networks supported by national co-operative associations and federations were present in a few European countries, notably Italy and France, while in others, such as the UK and the Netherlands, such networks were non-existent. Given this, prior to the YCP training weekend Altgen had formed the intention to encourage the creation of a national network of young co-operators or young cooperatives in the UK, although it was by no means certain that the prize-winners would agree. Indeed, there were concerns from some of those present about taking on additional commitments when they were for the most part all in the early stages of creating new businesses that demanded their attention - both in terms of energy and financial resources. "...one of the outcomes that Constance and Rhiannon aimed to achieve from the weekend was to establish a network... and it seemed to me that that was already... they already had that in mind before the weekend started... and by the time we'd done the whole introduction to learning all about co-operatives... day one and two... day three was right, we want to start a network... How can we do it? Are people up for that?" - Martyn Johnston, Chapel Street Studio "When they first suggested YCN it was... ummm... there was a kind of like... intake of breath from everyone... the idea of being part of something and suddenly taking on a whole new... expense... was a bit scary and they weren't sure what they could get out of it I think... so I think there was a bit of... I think they... got a bit of opposition there..." - James Andrew-Smith, London Student
The group participated in a workshop focused on considering the idea of an inter-cooperative network in terms of how it might work and what would make it valuable. Consensus was reached that in principle the idea of forming a network was worthwhile and that it would be helpful to those involved.
89
"I think a lot of us connected to it... a lot of us said, you know, we don't want this to be the last time we all see each other... and the last time we all work together... so loads of us put our emails down..." - James Andrew-Smith, London Student
4.2.4 THE YCN In the eighteen months since the training residential in Oxford there have been three gatherings of the YCN: in Bradford, London, and Stoke-on-Trent. B RADFORD
The first gathering of the Young Co-operators Network (YCN) was held in November 2015 in Bradford at the space then operated by Chapel Street Studios. "What we ended up with from that weekend (Oxford) was that yes, we do want to start a young co-operators network and we need to meet again... so... because we had a space, we offered that space and that kind of kept things going basically... from what was a one-off it ended up... you know, we managed to gather a group of people again six months on..." - Martyn Johnston, Chapel Street Studio
The gathering attracted new participants. London Student made a conscious decision to send a different group of members who had joined the co-operative project more recently. "...it was three people who had kind of mixed views of co-ops... one of whom was really, really keen on the idea of kind of London Student being a co-op and being kind of like a... quite a radical thing in the way it does... you know organises itself and the other two... I have to say one was really very sceptical when he left and one other person... I think she was kind of keen but also not sure..." - James Andrew-Smith, London Student
They found that the YCN away weekend had a transformative effect on those who attended, with all three returning more informed and in support of the idea of running London Student as a co-operative. This increased alignment laid the foundations for them to hold their first annual general meeting (AGM) where they were able to take crucial steps toward becoming an incorporated co-operative.
90
Henry Naylor-Stead, who was not a member of a co-operative at the time, had contacted Altgen to express his interest in learning more about co-operatives and the co-operative movement. He says of his experience, "I remember in November... when these discussions were fairly nascent... hearing Martyn and Claudia... both members of the Chapel Street co-op... talking about the stuff that they do in their secondary rules... gave me a hell of a lot of insight into the way that... especially for them... because their experience is quite unique as a consortium... it was really, really useful to talk about the way that they delegate roles and the way that they practice voting..." - Henry Naylor-Stead, now of Altgen
The gathering in Bradford focused on the formation of the YCN beyond the limited consideration it had been given in the workshop six months earlier. Simon Ball (Blake House) recalls that the group had the assistance of an external facilitator who helped them understand what a network was, what kind of network the group wanted to create, and what this meant in terms of membership structure options. However, it was also tooled for community-building and time was given to development of the group in terms of inter-personal relations. An interesting and important shift took place at this early phase of development, while the groups at the training weekend in Oxford had been directly associated with cooperatives i.e. those that had won the YCP (plus Blake House), here the YCN emerged as a network of individual co-operators. "Obviously there were so many people involved in it to start with... and then due to the nature of various co-ops and how their structure works we've almost come out of that as individuals to join the YCN as something that we're probably more personally involved in, rather than the entire co-op." - Claudia Bowler, Chapel Street Studio
This adjustment meant that rather than all members of a worker co-operative having to reach a consensus about whether or not to be a member of the YCN, individual cooperators could self-select to be part of the network without implicating their entire co-operative. This changes the nature of the network from being a network of cooperatives to being a network of co-operators. Claudia Bowler perceived this to have yielded positive outcomes. 91
"...that inclusiveness for individuals then to come in (to the YCN) from different aspects, from different co-ops, and even from many co-ops that weren't even involved with that (the YCP) to start with... and it's just grown quite significantly and wonderfully... into something completely different and also very tangible from that initial conversation..." - Claudia Bowler, Chapel Street L ONDON
The second gathering of the YCN was the first instance of the researcher directly participating with the group. It was held in London in February 2016, coinciding with the launch of Altgen's new workspace. While some of the individuals who had been at the events in Oxford and in Bradford were absent, there were new additions to the group. Jonny Gordon Farleigh, the editor of Stir Magazine, and Dan Sofer, the founder of Founders and Coders, were notable new additions to the group. Facilitated again by Altgen, the two-days were constructed around a series of key discussion themes that had been identified as essential for moving the development of the YCN into its next phase. These themes were: Physical Gatherings, Digital Presence, Organisation of Labour and Democratic Structure, Politics, and Me, My Co-op, and YCN. Discussion and decision making was structured around the aforementioned themes and a pattern of individual idea sharing, open discussion, consensus building, and finally proposal selection was adopted; a process that had been created by Ieva Padagaitė (Blake House) prior to the gathering. "The process of decision making... I made up a week before the meeting... I drew on a poster saying that we're going to first discuss issues then you know... everyone will go round and say their ideas... have a brainstorm... then narrow it down into ideas to take forward and vote on them... so in a way it's a... it really depends on the... I think we're quite adaptive... so I think we don't have strict ways of working... we adapt to the situations, and work out what works best..." - Ieva Padagaitė, Blake House
This method of participatory discourse and decision-making appealed to the other members, allowing as it did time for consideration of individual ideas whilst also making space for consensus to be formed and individual ideas to be reformed in response. 92
"For me... the decision making by consensus approach that we use in the YCN... and the practised democracy... is something that I've not seen since the Occupy student movement back when they tripled the fees in 2011... and back then I thought it was a bit cliché because it felt like we were all voting but there was still a very pronounced locus of power among the more politically knowledgeable, or the more gregarious among that movement... whereas seeing democracy being practised in the YCN was very enlightening because I felt that I actually was empowered as a member of the network..." - Henry Naylor-Stead, now of Altgen
Altgen were at this stage interested in finding a way of stepping away from facilitating the YCN and enabling it to operate as its own distinct entity - this would require more input in terms of time and resources from a wider body of members. "Well, we have facilitated and we have... you know... we have made it happen... and each session was planned by Altgen in the past and we spent a huge amount of time making this happen even if no-one realises it in a way and I think being busy in our work lives we need a dedicated body that can... that really gets it and can facilitate for us to come together and make the most out of it because we have a limited amount of time... and we have a limited amount of head space..." - Constance Laisné, Altgen
The sense of the general response to this from the members, a combination of understanding and optimism as to how the YCN could move forward from this juncture, is perhaps best articulated by Jonny Gordon-Farleigh: "I think broadening out yeah... the kind of... the membership and the role the membership plays is really important. I guess you have to say it had to start with Altgen and to use a great phrase, they have to legislate themselves out of power... which they will do gradually as a kind of handover process to the network... but of course someone did have to initiate it, someone did have to make the initial proposal and I don't think we should find that problematic... you know, everything's not going to come from everyone all the time. Some people will suggest things, some people will initiate things... it's a question of how we successfully share power after founders say, 'Hey, here's an idea... we will put this on but from there on we can gradually take a back seat and allow the rest of the members to take over from there...' and I think we're just in the process of doing that." - Jonny Gordon-Farleigh, Stir to Action 93
S TOKE - ON -T RENT
The most recent gathering of the YCN was held in May 2016 in conjunction with the Workers Co-operative Weekend 2016 at a campsite near Stoke-on-Trent. Once again, though some of those present in London were not present, others who had been involved with the gathering in Bradford and some who had not previously been involved were in attendance. The gathering in Stoke-on-Trent was never intended to be of the same intensity or scope as Bradford or London, the nature of the event and involvement of several YCN members in delivering workshops over the weekend meant that focused activity towards the development was somewhat limited. However, the underlying need to organise and develop the YCN meant that those members present did spend time between workshops focusing on four areas that were identified as requiring further attention: membership, interactions (communication), gatherings, and funding (finance). What became apparent through this process was that as long as the YCN is dependent on individuals contributing their spare time to its management, key decisions would have to be made when physical gatherings took place while other less significant decisions (or decisions where consensus could be easily reached) were possible to make through communication channels or via the Loomio platform. "I think that we started out like you say... very much thrashing out... and it's been a very organic process because every one of us has come to realise these big huge topics and sort of thrown them out there... and needs to realise that they need to be broken down... and recently... at the last one... we did quite well in that we broke it down into smaller working groups and I think that's the key to being productive... understanding that we are dealing with a huge beast and to just take one slice at a time and set a couple of people on one slice... and a couple of people on the other..." - Claudia Bowler, Chapel Street Studio
94
4.2.5 SUMMARY In Section 4.2 the findings relating to the first research question - RQ.1 How did the community of practice develop? - have been presented, with explanatory analysis being conducted using a narrative approach involving a combination of researchernarration and direct quotes from participant. This question is important because it helps us understand the context of the case and its story thus far. Descriptive narratives such as this are useful explanations for building comprehension and appreciation of the present circumstances and decisions facing the organisation through the reflections of the participants involved. From these findings we can understand that the Young Co-operators Prize (YCP), and in turn the Young Co-operators Network (YCN), arose from the notion that cooperatives present a potential solution to some of the socio-economic challenges currently facing young people in the UK, combined with a perceived lack of engagement of young people by the co-operative movement. A small co-operative education organisation, Altgen, with support from Co-operatives UK, the national federation of co-operatives, moved to rectify this situation by constructing a programme of engagement designed to inspire, facilitate, and support. The YCP programme culminated in five co-operatives winning a prize consisting of a cash injection and a residential training weekend. In part influenced by the formation of a Young European Co-operators Network (YECN), on the last day of the training residential Altgen proposed the formation of a network of young co-operators in the UK. Despite some hesitation, those in attendance reached a consensus to form the beginnings of a network and to organise a further gathering. This initial willingness to form a network was largely based on the social bonds that had formed over the weekend, along with the recognition that the solidaristic benefits of a network might support the co-operatives through their development. An inclusive and open culture meant that at future gatherings of the YCN there have been new participants as well as from other co-operatives and individuals interested in becoming involved in the co-operative world. The enthusiasm for co-operativism engendered through these gatherings was evidently valuable to those in attendance. A key development at this early stage was the move away from being a network of co95
operatives to being a network of individual co-operators; this was primarily a response to the varying degree of interest in the network within the membership of individual co-operatives. The outcome of this shift is that membership of and participation in the network is entirely based on self-selection and self-motivation. Decision-making by consensus emerged as being an important feature in the development of the YCN, enabling members to feel empowered and engaged. Following Altgen's decision to step back from a facilitative role in the YCN, the membership face a number of key decisions regarding what value they seek to get out of continued participation and how the network will develop in terms of purpose and/or function.
96
4.3 PARTICIPATION This section presents findings in response to RQ.2 What are the factors influencing participation? The analysis is two-fold: firstly in relation to the perceived issues and challenges facing young co-operatives, and secondly in terms of the perceived value and benefits of participation in the YCN. In combination, these two sets of factors are seen to cover the range of antecedents influencing participation. While Section 4.2 was highly explanatory in nature and suited to presentation in a narrative manner, this section is more exploratory. The analysis reflects this in being presented in a tabular format using three levels of thematic coding to manage the data, as described in the Research Design (see 3.4.4 Data Analysis). 4.3.1 ISSUES & CHALLENGES When exploring the issues and challenges faced by young co-operators and cooperatives two secondary themes emerged; those that relate to the wider co-operative movement and those that relate to individual co-operatives. T HE C O - OPERATIVE M OVEMENT
From the aggregated issues and challenges associated with the co-operative movement three tertiary themes were identified: the extant membership (Table 4.1), involvement (Table 4.2), and access (Table 4.3). The summary of insights exhibited in Table 4.1 deal with the perceived issues participants identify within the wider UK co-operative movement. Essentially, these can be condensed to three key points: a lack of understanding of the needs of young co-operatives, a drift from the core values and principles of co-operation, and a frustration with how the co-operative movement has developed, or failed to develop, in response to the external environment.
97
Table 4.1: Issues & Challenges - Co-operative Movement - Extant Membership
Issues & Challenges
Co-operative Movement
Extant Membership
• • •
• •
•
• •
•
•
An aging movement struggling to connect with younger people Lack of generosity from larger co-operatives toward worker co-operative start-ups Failure or unwillingness to acknowledge or recognise that significant financial support for young co-operatives is required Falls back on industrial providence society identity; this does not embrace changes in our economy and society There has been stagnation in the scope and diversity of the co-operative movement and thus an inability to move toward a full-circle co-operative economy Many workplace innovations over the last decade have had nothing to do with the co-operative movement, nor have they been integrated into the co-operative model e.g. shorter working days, experimenting with break timings, production and productivity innovations Need to integrate new values and new ways of working A dissonance in the DNA of the movement - a sense that there has been a drift away from the co-operative values and principles in order to survive in the capitalist system It can be difficult to function in a participatory, consensus-based, manner when representative structures, practising tokenistic democracy, are in dominance Piling money in the bank or participating in charitable behaviour (outside of the co-operative movement) is harmful and does not uphold Principle 6
Table 4.2 presents the issues pertaining to involvement of young co-operators and cooperatives in the co-operative movement. While there appears to be a desire to engage young people in the movement, there is a perceived gap between this desire and the understanding necessary to communicate the potential of co-operativism in terms of solving the social and economic problems they (young people) face. Furthermore, in congruence with the financial issues raised in Table 4.1 there is the feeling that adequate resources are not being put in place when and where opportunity and energy exist to involve the younger generation.
98
Involvement
Co-operative Movement
Issues & Challenges
Table 4.2: Issues & Challenges - Co-operative Movement - Involvement • • •
•
•
The movement does try to engage young people Getting young people to show up is a challenge in itself, requiring money, time, and effort Making the co-operative movement viable for young people requires making it more relevant and allowing it to be reinvented There is a need to better understand the problems facing young people and to show how the co-operative movement provides solutions Where there is energy to generate involvement, adequate resources must be put in place or provided
Table 4.3 explores the perceived issues and challenges associated with access to the co-operative movement. The visibility or presence of co-operatives is the first of these. It was suggested that for young people living in areas without an obvious co-operative presence or from outside the social circles in which awareness of co-operativism exists, it can be difficult to find information about or gain experience of the cooperative movement and co-operatives. Furthermore, participants identified complexities associated with establishing, structuring, and incorporating a cooperative as being key barriers to entry. Developing on this issue, the lack of a suitable ecosystem for facilitating the co-operative user-journey was highlighted i.e. the availability of an integrated system for advice and practical support at every stage of co-operative development. Table 4.3: Issues & Challenges - Co-operative Movement - Access
Access
Co-operative Movement
Issues & Challenges
•
• •
•
The somewhat hidden nature of the co-operative economy makes it difficult to access unless there is a worker cooperative in your local area or you enter through one of the larger producer or consumer co-operatives Registering/incorporating as a co-operative is complex and potentially expensive The process of starting a co-operative in terms of structure and legal requirements is daunting and unwieldy without previous experience or guidance The co-operative user journey is disjointed, unhelpful, and there is no ecosystem of/for co-operative experience
99
I NDIVIDUAL C O - OPERATIVES
Within the issues and challenges associated with individual co-operatives five tertiary themes emerged: membership (Table 4.4), structure (Table 4.5), resources (Table 4.6), democracy (Table 4.7), and learning (Table 4.8). Table 4.4: Issues & Challenges - Individual Co-operatives - Membership •
Individual Co-operatives
Issues & Challenges
Membership
•
• • • • •
• • • • •
Keeping members engaged as the organisation develops - not leaving them behind Managing initial hyper-engagement to mitigate the arc of member involvement wherein interest declines and there can be a risk of disintegration Coping with high member turnover Preparing for the on-boarding of non-founding members Avoiding overload of new or potential members with information Avoiding overload of the co-operative with new or potential members Determining what is expected of members while the cooperative is still developing - responsibilities and level of commitment Managing conflicts and disagreements Managing expectations of members Dealing with issues such as mental health The problem of perceived/actual inequity in individual contributions - effort and time Perceived correlation between extent of individual member participation and degree of individual power within cooperative
In terms of the issues and challenges faced by individual young co-operatives, one of the most prominent themes was that of membership: these insights are presented in Table 4.4. Engaging members and maintaining levels of engagement was of critical importance to participants, and this was true of both co-operatives currently operating with several members and those preparing to on-board new members in the near future, either as full members or as part of a tiered membership system. Further concerns were raised in relation to expectations placed on members, particularly new members, in terms of responsibilities and level of commitment, extent of participation in decision-making and financial contributions. Managing expectations, conflicts, and disagreements was also a central problem for new co-operatives, exacerbated by the 100
young people involved often having limited experience of coping with such issues in organisational contexts, particularly on an equal and egalitarian basis. This leads into the challenge of dealing with the unanticipated human resource issues such as the mental health and wellbeing of members, highlighting the need for supportive infrastructures external to the individual co-operative start-ups. Finally, the seemingly unavoidable issue of perceived effort inequity is pointed to as being an underlying and ongoing difficulty, an issue further heightened by insights suggesting a relationship between increased individual involvement and individual decision-making power. Table 4.5: Issues & Challenges - Individual Co-operatives - Structure
Structures
Individual Co-operatives
Issues & Challenges
•
•
•
• • •
The lack of a clear route or system for setting up a cooperative (or different forms of co-operative) - too many decisions to be made early on Opting for co-operative model but yet to make it work for the members; is it better to develop a structure and make it cooperative or to build a structure that is a co-operative? Finding an organisational structure that works for the business and the individual members - sticky enough to maintain commitment Constructing a cohesive collective identity and building a community Ensuring the structure is adaptive enough to deal with more/less members and perhaps different types of member Open structures can lead to non-member exploitation, selfexploitation, and member alienation
Table 4.5 exhibits key insights relating to the tertiary theme of structure in terms of the issues and challenges faced by young co-operatives and co-operators. One of the key challenges here relates to the absence of a clear pathway or system for establishing a co-operative, in terms of types of business, structure of the business, legal requirements, constitutions, and financing. Another challenge associated with establishing co-operatives concerns whether it is more efficacious to develop a structure that works for its members and make it co-operative, or to structure a cooperative that works for its members; the point being that developing a co-operative project out of a sense of idealism may be found lacking in function. This ties in to the need for structures and processes that enable members to easily become, and encourage them to remain, engaged with the co-operative. Developing a co-operative 101
identity amongst members as well as ensuring structures were flexible were also issues raised in terms of the resilience of young co-operatives. Finally, the risks associated with having permeable or open structures where non-members become involved in the co-operative was highlighted, the most critical being exploitation of or self-exploitation by non-members; but also the problem of these non-members alienating full members within the co-operative. Table 4.6: Issues & Challenges - Individual Co-operatives - Resources
Resources
Individual Co-operatives
Issues & Challenges
• •
• • • • • •
Knowledge of co-operative legal frameworks, structures, requirements, and processes Availability of skills and administrative ability to start a business and operate it democratically (the duality of cooperatives) Understanding financial planning Lack of clear, concise, useful information about starting and operating a co-operative Complexity of financing co-operative start-ups Availability of start-up capital, seeds need soil - but not loss of ownership and control Overlap of individual skills and capabilities (purpose) within a small company Maintaining drive - energy, motivation, commitment
The resource related issues and challenges (Table 4.6) encompass resources of both a tangible and intangible nature. A central issue here is the duality of co-operatives, first as businesses and secondly as democratic organisations. While this duality can function seamlessly, it has the potential to generate a range of difficulties for young co-operators trying to establish a start-up and also to acquire the tacit understanding of how to operate firstly as a business and secondly as a participatory democracy. This is compounded by a perceived dearth of clear, concise, explicit knowledge relating to the mechanisms, processes, and frameworks associated with establishing and maintaining a co-operative entity. Another issue is the perceived unavailability of accessible start-up capital suited for worker co-operatives - this is identified as one of the key barriers to entry for worker co-operative start-ups. Additional challenges include the balancing of skills and abilities within co-operatives, so as to avoid unnecessary overlap yet still remaining an open and inclusive organisation, and also 102
that of maintaining motivation and enthusiasm (here interpreted as an emotional resource) for both the co-operative model and the business in general. Table 4.7: Issues & Challenges - Individual Co-operatives - Democracy
Democracy
Individual Co-operatives
Issues & Challenges
• •
• • • • • • • •
The complexity of participatory democracy; how you treat people and how day to day operations are managed Varying levels of interest in the democratic aspect of the organisation; disinterest does not necessarily indicate lack of commitment or engagement Concerns regarding the efficacy and efficiency of democratic processes; people just want to get on with their jobs Running meetings in a democratic, fair, and effective manner Reconciling close votes (e.g. 48/52) without damaging the organisation Democratic processes becoming tokenistic - voting as a nod to democracy Balancing consensus decisions with voted decisions Integrating systems such as Loomio into decision-making processes Risk of systems such as Loomio - members get used to not having to be there The importance of interaction amongst members in physical spaces
Participants highlighted a number of issues that relate to the theme of democracy (see Table 4.7). Interpersonal relations, or how to socialise and work with others, in democratic environments was identified as being a challenge because of the need for behavioural adjustment on the part of members. Variation in the degree of interest members have in being a co-operative, or more specifically in the democratic functioning of co-operatives, was seen to be problematic; participants expressed difficulties in balancing this with overall individual commitment and engagement. This in turn feeds into the problem of managing the mixed feelings of members regarding the effectiveness and efficacy of democratic mechanisms and processes. Meetings were also highlighted as presenting challenges for young co-operators in terms of ensuring they are fair, democratic, and most importantly effective. Furthermore, reconciling differences of opinion when an issue is voted on with a narrow majority is a rare yet worrisome challenge, particularly with regards to how the collective moves forward after such a close vote on an issue which members feel strongly about. These two issues are likewise connected to that of democratic 103
mechanisms becoming tokenistic; a feeling that can emerge when either it seems members are always in agreement regardless, or if the outcome is felt to be inevitable and voting becomes simply a nod to the democratic nature of the organisation. One solution to this, which in itself can raise its own challenges, is understanding and determining when consensus agreement is appropriate and when voting is necessary. Integrating democracy-supporting technology, such as Loomio, into the co-operative's decision-making process raises other issues, primarily in terms of ensuring members become involved in the platform so that decisions made through it are valid and meaningful. However, it was also suggested that the successful introduction of such decision-making digital platforms carries the risk of members becoming complacent with regards to attending and/or engaging in meetings in person. Table 4.8: Issues & Challenges - Individual Co-operatives - Learning
Learning
Individual Co-operatives
Issues & Challenges
• • • • • • •
Suffering the 'hierarchical hangover' - the process of unlearning hierarchy Capturing and/or sharing learning as it occurs - to balance knowledge of members Collectively figuring it out as you go along while still trying to run a sustainable and competitive business Finding time and space to think about how to be democratic Engendering co-operative values and principles Developing a distinct organisational entity around the cooperative model Meeting the demands of educating, training, and informing (Principle 5) as a small business with limited resources unable to deliver internally but expensive to send members on external courses
A fifth theme to have emerged from the manual analysis of issues and challenges associated with individual co-operatives is that of learning (see Table 4.8). Overcoming, or unlearning, the behaviours and modes of thinking associated with hierarchical organisation was perceived to be of importance to successful co-operation; this was particularly apparent when dealing with members who had previous experience of the type of work but in a hierarchical setting because their understanding of the work process, which remained the same, was situated in that former structure, leading to an understandable dissonance in behaviour and process. Capturing and/or sharing learning so as to keep members informed in order for 104
decision-making to be possible was likewise recognised as a challenge for new cooperatives. Again, the issue of figuring out how to be a co-operative whilst also running a business emerges in this theme with regards to members going through an individual and collective learning process. It was suggested there was a need for finding time and space to think, collectively and individually, about how to be democratic. This feeds into the perceived challenges associated with engendering cooperative values and principles and constructing a distinct identity or organisational culture around the co-operative model. Finally, the difficulties faced by new cooperatives in meeting the need for educating, training, and informing members (Principle 5) were highlighted, with the co-operatives being too small to deliver this internally but external training being perceived as expensive.
105
4.3.2 VALUE & BENEFITS The perceived value and benefits associated with the YCN fall into two distinct thematic groups, the Practical and the Social / Emotional. P RACTICAL
Within the Practical thematic grouping, three sub-themes emerged during analysis: Co-operativism, Learning, and Solutions.
Co-operativism
Practical
Value & Benefits
Table 4.9: Value & Benefits - Practical - Co-operativism • • • • • • • • •
An access route into the co-operative movement and the opportunities within Gaining an awareness of other co-operatives Developing co-operative identity Practising the co-operative values and principles Relevant to young people seeking participatory structures Providing infrastructure and support to young co-operatives Members are predisposed to democratic engagement Politically important Providing a platform from which to challenge existing movement to innovate and develop
Table 4.9 explores the insights associated with the tertiary theme of co-operativism. It was suggested that the YCN offers an accessible route into the co-operative movement for those interested in starting, or becoming a member of, a co-operative. It enables members to gain an awareness and appreciation of other co-operatives; develop their own co-operative identity; and provides a space for practising, or putting into practice, the co-operative values and principles in order to ameliorate tacit understanding of their functioning. It is likewise viewed as a being relevant to young people seeking a more participatory form of democracy, in particular due to the membership consisting of individuals predisposed to democratic engagement. Additionally, the political importance of the YCN was emphasised, not least in terms of offering a platform for constructively challenging the wider co-operative movement.
106
Practical
Value & Benefits
Learning
Table 4.10: Value & Benefits - Practical - Learning • • •
• • • • • • •
A physical and mental holding space Sympathetic peer network Knowledge and lived experience of others in terms of the practicalities of roles and decision-making, also referred to as a shared wealth of experience Community of learning and knowledge exchange Accelerating learning through engaging with diversity Cross-pollination Space for trying new structures along with ways of working and learning collectively Unpacking the complexity of co-operatives Developing practical skills such as managing meetings and participating in discussions through active learning Delivery of workshops, particularly useful for co-operatives in early development
The tertiary theme of learning (see Table 4.10) notably includes the conceptualisation of the YCN as a physical and mental holding space for co-operators to engage with the issues and challenges they are facing within their co-operatives. This is furthered by reference to it as a sympathetic peer network consisting of individuals in similar situations facing similar issues. Indeed, the collective knowledge and lived experience of the membership is viewed as being perhaps the most valuable practical resource available to members. It was suggested that diversity within network, in terms of the backgrounds of individual members, enhances the capacity for the network to operate as a learning space; particularly with respect to the cross-pollination of ideas and processes. The YCN is viewed as a space for considering and experimenting with new co-operatives structures and with ways of collectively learning. The development of practical, applicable skills through participation is also identified as a core benefit; with members able to carry skills and experiences from the network over to their own co-operative projects.
Solutions
Practical
Value & Benefits
Table 4.11: Value & Benefits - Practical - Solutions • • • • •
Advice and input on problems - help making better decisions Collaborating on projects (scale and scope) Developing inter-co-operative trade Secondary and tertiary access to new clients and opportunities Fast, flexible, and adaptable in terms of member needs and collective aims 107
The third tertiary thematic grouping associated with the practical value and benefits of the YCN is solutions. Linking to the benefits raised under the theme of learning, participants emphasised the utility of the network in terms of providing a space to gain input on issues facing them and their co-operatives, confidentially if necessary. The potential of the YCN for creating opportunities to collaborate and trade between members was also identified; while collaborative projects were in the pipeline, mutual references to potential clients had already created economic gains for some members. The flexibility and adaptability of the network in terms of meeting member needs was likewise regarded as a central benefit, mainly with regards to easily being able to call on free support and advice. S OCIAL / E MOTIONAL
Within the Social / Emotional thematic grouping, three sub-themes emerged: Engagement, Motivation, and Alignment. The insights associated with the social / emotional value and benefits in terms of engagement are exhibited in Table 4.12. As noted in Section 4.2.3, one of the key motivators behind participants' interest in forming a network was the sense of a social bond formed amongst the group at the YCP residential training weekend. This motivator remains central to continued involvement in the YCN with participants identifying a friendly, supportive, and perceptibly co-operative atmosphere within the group. Participants also alluded to the sense that within the YCN there was a special attitude towards dealing with people, one that aligned with their attraction to the ideals of co-operativism. Another related benefit is the feeling of being genuinely engaged and engaged with when interacting with fellow members. The connections between members of the YCN were viewed as being both a form of friendship and business relationship, with participants seeing this as a powerful combination that provided a unique sense of connection. As a result of this connectedness, the YCN was said to be an open mental and emotional space - something to be valued in a business environment where very often individuals and organisations feel closed and shut-off.
108
Engagement
Social / Emotional
Value & Benefits
Table 4.12: Value & Benefits - Social / Emotional - Engagement • • • • • •
Friendly, supportive, atmosphere with an obvious feeling of co-operation A different attitude toward dealing with people To feel engaged and engaged with Meaningful friendships combined with business relationships Sense of togetherness or connectedness An open space in a world that can very easily be closed or shut-off
In Table 4.13 insights relating to the tertiary theme of motivation are presented. Participants suggested that the YCN helped them keep going (i.e. be motivated) through peer-to-peer emotional support and reassurance that the co-operative model is feasible, viable, and sustainable. Help and advice from people going through the same challenging journey and the reductive impact this had on the sense of isolation that comes with working against the dominant economic paradigm was also deemed of critical value. Motivation was also felt to come from the YCN being a source of encouragement and collective energy. Inclusivity and openness were likewise articulated as being antecedental to motivation and part of the interrelated benefits associated with continued participation.
Motivation
Social / Emotional
Value & Benefits
Table 4.13: Value & Benefits - Social / Emotional - Motivation • • • • • •
Peer-to-peer support Reassurance that the co-operative model is viable and sustainable Help and advice from people with experience Reduced sense of isolation that comes with opting for an alternative economic solution Encouragement and collective energy Inclusive and open environment
A number of insights suggested an alignment amongst the membership as a theme (see Table 4.14). Within this notion, the shared interest in democratic organisational structures and practices was identified as being an essential facet of the benefits offered by the YCN. Likewise, the sense of being part of something bigger, a project 109
on a grander scale involving actors across the country, was felt by members to be of value. The principled approach to democracy found in the YCN was also appealing to members. The notion of alignment extends to the similarity in members' circumstances i.e. their stage in life, stage in business experience, as well as generally negative experiences of the economy outside of co-operativism and of course the mutuality in the response to these stimuli i.e. the forming of co-operatives. While the membership is by no means entirely homogenous, there appears to be an accord as to a certain way of approaching the world, a shared understanding that is difficult to find in other areas of life, such as with friends or family, and difficult to find time to consider without a structure that enables them to do so.
Social / Emotional
Value & Benefits
Alignment
Table 4.14: Value & Benefits - Social / Emotional - Alignment • • • • • • •
People who share an interest in democratic organisational structures and practices Being part of a national project or cause, awareness of people operating across the country A principled approach to democracy Similar stage in life and individual co-operative journeys Often a shared, negative, experience of the dominant socioeconomic paradigm Reached similar solution to macro (societal and economic) problems A shared understanding that one does not find with friends or family, a place where people are genuinely interested in your co-operative journey and can empathise
110
4.3.3 SUMMARY In Section 4.3 the findings in response to the second research question - RQ.2 What are the factors influencing participation? - have been presented, using three levels of thematic analysis in order to unpack and enable comprehension of the participant insights. The question has been responded to through two avenues, the first looking at perceived issues and challenges facing young co-operators and the second at the value and benefits associated with participation in the YCN. The perceived issues and challenges impacting young co-operators were analysed using two secondary themes, those associated with the co-operative movement and those associated with individual co-operatives. Within the secondary theme of the co-operative movement three tertiary themes were explored. Firstly, issues and challenges relating to the extant membership of the cooperative movement, wherein the central quandaries were: not fully understanding or responding to the needs of co-operative start-ups; a perceived drift from the cooperative values and principles; and the sense that in order to survive in the external environment hierarchical bureaucracy has become commonplace. Secondly, issues and challenges relating to involvement (of young people) in the co-operative movement, wherein the central quandaries were: the ability to communicate the benefits of co-operativism to young people; and the lack of adequate resources in place for involving and supporting young co-operators. Thirdly, issues and challenges relating to access (by young people) to the co-operative movement, wherein the central quandaries were: the hiddenness or perceived lack of presence of cooperatives in society and the economy; the complexities associated with forming and developing co-operatives; and the lack of a supportive ecosystem for facilitating the user journey into co-operativism. Within the secondary theme of individual co-operatives five tertiary themes were explored. Firstly, issues and challenges relating to membership, wherein the central quandaries were: initial and continued engagement of members; the on-boarding of new members; the responsibility and commitment requirements placed on members; managing disagreements/conflicts and reconciling differences; perceived inequity of individual input. Secondly, issues and challenges relating to structure, wherein the central quandaries were: the complexities of establishing new co-operatives; 111
searching for and settling on a structure that works for the membership; developing an accessible structure to enable engagement; constructing a sense of identity and community; ensuring structural flexibility; the risks of open/closed structures respectively. Thirdly, issues and challenges relating to resources, wherein the central quandaries were: coping with the duality of co-operatives as businesses but also as democratic organisations, in terms of tacit skills and experience; perceived lack of accessible explicit information regarding establishing and developing co-operatives; access to start-up and development capital designed for worker co-operatives; balancing individual skills within small co-operatives; maintaining energy and drive (emotional resources). Fourthly, issues and challenges relating to democracy, wherein the central quandaries were: behaving democratically (equality and equity); managing varying levels of interest in the democratic aspect of co-operatives; ensuring that participatory democracy is efficient/efficacious; running meetings fairly and effectively; avoiding tokenistic democratic processes; integrating and managing digital decision-making platforms. Fifthly, issues and challenges relating to learning, wherein the central quandaries were: unlearning hierarchy (dealing with the hierarchical hangover); ensuring members are adequately informed; learning to be a co-operative and a business simultaneously; the need for space to think about how to be a co-operative/co-operator; engendering the co-operative values and principles; and providing essential education and training to existing and new members. The perceived value and benefits of participation in the YCN were likewise analysed using two secondary themes, the practical and the social / emotional. Within the secondary theme of practical value and benefits three tertiary themes were explored. Firstly, co-operativism, wherein the central value and benefits were: the YCN as an access route into co-operatives and co-operativism; awareness of the wider co-operative movement; experience practising co-operative values and principles; better understanding of co-operatives; participatory democracy relevant to young cooperators; the democratic predisposition of the membership; and the YCN as a platform for constructively challenging the co-operative movement. Secondly, learning, wherein the central value and benefits were: the YCN as a mental and physical space for learning; the availability of shared knowledge and experience; the diversity of the types of co-operatives involved; opportunity for cross-pollination; experimentation with structures and ways of doing things; developing hard and soft 112
skills. Thirdly, solutions, wherein the central value and benefits were: collective problem solving; collaboration and access to secondary/tertiary clients; and the flexibility/adaptability of the YCN itself. Likewise, within the secondary theme of social / emotional value and benefits three tertiary themes were explored. Firstly, engagement, wherein the central value and benefits were: the supportive and inclusive atmosphere; development of meaningful friendships and business relationships; genuine sense of being engaged and engaged with; the YCN as an open space. Secondly, motivation, wherein the central value and benefits were: reassurance of the viability and sustainability of co-operatives; reduced sense of socio-economic and psychological isolation; mutual encouragement; and drawing on collective energy. Thirdly, alignment, wherein the central value and benefits were: shared interest and enthusiasm for participatory democracy; the sense of being part of something bigger; a collective world-view based on similar experiences, problems, and solutions. What emerges from these findings is the understanding that participation in the YCN is driven by a combination of practical and social / emotional benefits that address some of the issues and challenges faced by young co-operators. While the YCN is not held to be a panacea for all of the perceived issues and challenges identified with regards to the co-operative movement and individual co-operatives, it appears to be a space or platform where young co-operators are able to collectively approach and potentially tackle said issues and challenges.
113
4.4 FURTHER DEVELOPMENT The final section of this chapter corresponds to the third research question - RQ.3 How, or in what ways, might further development take place? Within the primary theme of further development four secondary themes emerged: value and benefits, engagement, structure, and processes. However, in isolation these themes presented a disjointed comprehension of the desired developments suggested by participants. Therefore, the themes were restructured through further manual analysis into five categories, or areas, of YCN development: activities, interactions, resources, membership, and structure. Participants indicated the overall aim of these developments as being the realisation of the YCN as an ecosystem capable of providing the support necessary for young co-operatives and co-operators. 4.4.1 ACTIVITIES In terms of the activities of the YCN, developments were highlighted in six areas: peer-to-peer support, workshops and training, gatherings, engaging the wider movement, economic collaboration, and political advocacy. The capacity to effectively deliver peer-to-peer support and mentoring was suggested to be a key area for immediate development. Participants suggested that the YCN might create groups of perhaps four to six members based on geographic location or area of business operation and apply a format for how these groups would engage. The format need not be original, it could be replicated from other business-support groups, but participants were certain that it should be simple, clear, and, most importantly, deliver value. These groups could potentially meet on a more regular basis than the YCN, perhaps fortnightly or monthly. Building on the workshops and training delivered at the YCP training weekend, participants saw value in providing further opportunities for business development. These could be delivered internally by members with experience and skills in areas such as finance and legal frameworks or by external experts from the wider cooperative movement. However, participants were clear that for these to be useful they would have to move toward supporting co-operatives past their first or second year of operation, potentially focusing on the process of attracting and integrating new
114
members into worker co-operatives or more advanced skills for accounting, finance, and project management. There existed a desire to further develop the YCN gatherings themselves. Whether these continue at the current rate of three to four gatherings annually or reduce in frequency to one or two, participants indicated a desire to construct the content around themes of relevance and interest as well as co-producing events to coincide with the gatherings that might attract external participants. This diversification of the content was influenced by an awareness that to make the gatherings worthwhile they needed to not only deal with YCN-related business but also be engaging and valuable to participants. Further suggestions included attending external events, organising meals, visiting other co-operatives. As with the peer-to-peer support function the need for a clear and replicable format was highlighted. In terms of activity in relation to the wider co-operative movement, it was suggested that a valuable opportunity exists in finding a means of connecting YCN members with experienced co-operators, potentially through creating a business and cooperation mentoring programme, as a means of overcoming some of the challenges faced by young co-operators. In more general terms, greater involvement with the extant movement through attending and participating in events and conferences was seen as a path toward promotion of the network, learning opportunities, and advocacy of the needs of young co-operators. Likewise, participants suggested co-organising events, creating partnerships, and collaborating with wider movement in order to integrate the YCN into the movement and leverage the capacities of larger organisations and inter-co-operative networks. Furthermore, participants identified a need to develop engagement with young co-operatives and co-operators beyond the UK, in Europe specifically but also internationally, in order to contribute to a broader directional shift toward participatory democracy and the involvement of young people in the global co-operative movement. There was a desire amongst the members to find opportunities to collaborate on projects with the intention of building capacity for economies of scale and scope. This potential development was seen as moving the YCN towards being a network offering business value beyond that of learning and support, i.e. one that engages in direct economic activity, albeit through its members. It was not clear whether this 115
collaborative behaviour would actually be facilitated through the YCN as an organisational entity or would be something members organise independently between themselves. Regardless, this development has the potential, should it happen, to dramatically change the nature of relationships between members. Participants were keen to see the YCN used as platform to push the co-operative movement to innovate, adapt, and adopt ways of supporting young co-operatives. This need for the engagement of young people with the movement was after all the impetus for the YCP and led to the formation of the YCN itself. Furthermore, the desire was expressed to see the YCN eventually acting as a user-platform for advocacy and political lobbying, applying its networked-voice to attract greater attention to the economic potential of the co-operative movement, the needs of co-operative start-ups, and the benefits of co-operation and participatory democracy in the workplace. 4.4.2 INTERACTIONS The theme of interaction emerged from participant insights relating to the approach to participation as the YCN develops. Three areas of interest are discussed here: sustaining and building engagement, formalising processes, and managing development. There is recognition of the need to generate sustained engagement on the part of current participants, and to be ready to engage any new members. Participants emphasised that engagement should be built around keeping the YCN's social aspects convivial and collegial, while still taking care of necessary decisions. Likewise, the importance of continued emphasis on the emotional side of the YCN in terms of support, mutual aid, praise, and encouragement was highlighted. Furthermore, the key to engagement was identified as engendering participatory democracy across the YCN's range of activities and interactions. The thinking behind this can be expressed as; more control and more say leads to more participation. At the heart of this engenderment of participatory democracy, and therefore engagement, is an active effort to be inclusive as opposed to exclusive. Likewise, ensuring that there remains a programme of regular physical interactions, regardless of other developments, is viewed as being central to member engagement.
116
In terms of formalising the YCN participants pointed to the need to be clear about members' expectations. To this end it was suggested that a means of auditing value expectations and delivery to ensure members are getting what they need or want out of the YCN. Agreeing on and sticking to a regularly used set of communication channels such as instant messaging, emails, forums, etc. - was suggested to be an important step toward being a sustainable network and to avoid leaving people behind. Developing clear guidelines for determining when consensus or voting is the appropriate decision-making mechanism was likewise suggested to be important for future interactions. In line with this, if democratic decision-making platforms such as Loomio were to be used regularly, participants suggest there would need to be a method of making sure members know how to participate, when to participate, and how to move contentious issues to a vote at the next gathering. Participants made several comments about how development should be approached in order to avoid losing sight of, or worse the ability to deliver, the value currently derived by members. These were: keeping all processes, new or old, simple, clear, and effective; ensuring all projects and initiatives were powered through self-selection; making plans and making them happen; remaining adaptable, i.e. avoiding processes and structures becoming locked-in; and taking the time needed. 4.4.3 RESOURCES The development of resources, internal and external, by the membership of the YCN was identified as being important. Internally, participants expressed the potential for recording and retaining some of the conversations and discussions taking place in the network, this extended to how and why given decisions are made and what the outcomes of these decisions are. Likewise, capturing hard data in terms of member engagement at gatherings, workshops, peerto-peer sessions, and problem-solving clinics was suggested as being a necessary development, particularly if the membership is to expand significantly. However, as noted in the previous section, participants recognised the risks of recording and capturing too much information or prioritising these activities over natural member interaction, and emphasis was placed on the YCN remaining flexible.
117
Part of the desire amongst participants in relation to resource development is focused on capturing, producing, and disseminating content in terms of tools, resources, and storytelling i.e. building a repository of explicit and tacit knowledge (experienced). This was furthered by the idea of creating an online presence for the network. One that expresses the relevance of co-operatives to young people, provides relevant and more importantly accessible information, and invites participation. The intention behind such resources would be to inspire young people to form or join co-operatives and to provide access to supportive materials. 4.4.4 MEMBERSHIP Membership development of the YCN was an important theme for participants. In considering the expansion of the membership three groups were identified. Firstly, young people, or young co-operators, already involved in co-operatives, particularly work co-operatives, across the UK; this was recognised as being essential if the YCN is to truly represent young people within and without of the co-operative movement. Secondly, reaching out to young people, primarily graduates, not presently aware of or engaged with the co-operative movement, by showing them the relevance and benefits of co-operation and providing them with the resources necessary to facilitate setting up new co-operatives or becoming members of existing ones. It was suggested that the YCN could use the geographic distribution of its membership to reach this audience, potentially paying members to take time out of work to attend local careers fairs and run workshops. Thirdly, the existing precariat i.e. those presently engaged in precarious work, such as freelancers who could establish or join co-operative structures the like of Chapel Street Studio, likewise by showing them the ways cooperatives can directly and indirectly benefit them. 4.4.5 STRUCTURE Developments pertaining to the structure of the network embrace many of those indicated within the previous four areas. The overall aim for the structure, in creating the desired ecosystem, was perceived to be one that is flexible and inclusive i.e. a structure of communities within communities or cells within an organism. Participants suggested these smaller groups could be organised regionally or potentially be even more localised with each operating semi-autonomously and meeting more regularly than the whole YCN, thus potentially facilitating the aforementioned the peer-to-peer 118
groups. In order to eventually achieve this organisational model participants indicated that the present YCN should create a well-defined structure that works for the members and their needs and has the potential to be easily replicated, thus facilitating the process of mitosis necessary to produce the desired organism-like structure. Most importantly to the participants, the structural development of the YCN must be userfriendly, as straightforward as possible, easy to use, and possess obvious member benefits. Participants indicated that in the immediate future the structure of the YCN might create some form of tiered membership that enables gradual, self-selecting, on boarding of new members. Furthermore, they suggested that the structure should account for the co-operative journey and the individual development of members, taking into account that as co-operatives become more established they may require less from the YCN. Indeed, these individuals, having benefitted from membership, might potentially assume mentoring roles. A structural concept that reflected this notion of stages of the co-operative journey was that of cohorts of members based on individual experience. This concept appreciates the situated or contextualised nature of the learning process and enables value to be targeted more effectively e.g. workshops for those co-operators who are going through the incorporation process, and workshops for more mature young co-operators whose businesses are preparing to expand or are facing more advanced challenges. Regardless of how the structure of the YCN develops, participants were clear that growth needed to be carefully managed in order to ensure sustainability and continued delivery of value and benefits because the structure must always facilitate and deliver value to individual members and their businesses.
119
4.4.6 SUMMARY In this final section of the research findings we have explored and where possible explained the participant insights in relation to further development of the YCN, directed toward responding to RQ.3 How, or in what ways, might further development take place? The findings are presented in a narrative manner, divided into five main areas of development: activities, interactions, resources, membership, and structure. Overall, what can be understood from the findings is an intention within the extant membership of the YCN, or at least within the group of participants interviewed for this study, to not only expand the scale of the YCN in terms of more members but also to scale its capacity to engage with, support, and develop young co-operators. Development of the YCN's activities focuses on six areas: building a framework for peer-to-peer learning and support; improving the content of gatherings; increasing engagement with the wider movement; creating opportunities for economic collaboration; and the longer-term goal of political advocacy and lobbying. With regards to interactions, potential developments were suggested in three areas: firstly, in sustaining and building internal engagement; secondly, in formalising processes in terms of understanding member expectations, facilitating communication, and enabling decision-making; and thirdly, in managing the actual development of the YCN so it remains simple, accessible, and relevant. Resource development was perceived to be important, both internally and externally. Internally this development consisted of: capturing learning, decisions, and hard data. Externally, this development included: information, tools, and an online presence purposed toward inspiring and supporting potential young co-operators. Growing the YCN in terms of membership appeared to be inherently accepted by all participants, although caution was expressed in terms of the speed at which this expansion might take place. As such, with regards to member development three target audiences were identified: firstly, those young people already involve with cooperatives; secondly, young people - such as graduates; and thirdly, existing members of the precariat - those individuals and groups already operating in precarious forms of work that would benefit from forming or joining co-operatives.
120
Structural development is central to enabling and embracing the totality of the participants' projected developments. The long-term aim for the structure of the YCN was perceived to be that of an ecosystem, perhaps better understood as an organism consisting of cells operating across the UK to inspire and support young people, young co-operators, and the co-operative movement. The key to this overall development was suggested to be keeping the basic structure simple, accessible, effective, and beneficial. In the short- to medium-term participants envisaged the YCN adopting a tiered membership system to reduce the weight of information and responsibility placed on new members and structurally reflecting levels of experience, potentially using a cohort system. However, the underlying insight regarding structural development was that growth should be carefully managed and that the network should always focus first on delivering business value to its members, because co-operatives are businesses after all.
121
4.5 CHAPTER SUMMARY The purpose of this study is to understand the need for the Young Co-operators Network (YCN), conceptualised herein as a community of practice. In this chapter the research findings associated with each of the three research questions (see below), designed to meet the purpose of the study, have been presented. The approach taken toward presentation of the findings related to each research question has varied, adapting to the character of the questions, the nature of the data, and also the sensitivity of the findings in terms of the study's ethical responsibility to the participants. RQ.1
How did the YCN develop?
RQ.2
What are the factors influencing participation?
RQ.3
How, or in what ways, might further development take place?
4.5.1 RESEARCH QUESTION 1 In Section 4.2 the findings related to the first research question regarding the initial development of the YCN were delivered in an explanatory format using researchergenerated narrative material supported by direct quotes from the participants. The findings follow the creation and development of the YCN in chronological order, first explaining that Altgen worked with Co-operatives UK to organise and facilitate the Young Co-operators Prize (YCP) in response to a need for engaging young people in the co-operative movement. This was motivated by Altgen's perception of the potential for the co-operative model to provide solutions to some of the socioeconomic challenges facing young people and also a perceived inability or failure, on the part of the extant movement, to successfully engage with young people. The YCP involved approximately a year of engagement with at least 5,000 young people, primarily graduates, from across the UK. It culminated in the delivery of a residential training weekend and a cash injection of £2,000 for five young cooperatives. In the meantime, young people within the international co-operative movement, including the members of Altgen, had established the Young European Co-operators Network (YECN). Inspired and motivated by the YECN, Altgen 122
proposed to those at the YCP residential training weekend that they create a UK network of young co-operators to provide solidarity and support for their cooperatives. Despite some initial worries, many of those in attendance agreed to form a network, primarily on the basis of the social bonds formed over that weekend but also because they could perceive other emergent benefits. The YCN has since had two formal gatherings, in Bradford (November 2015) and London (February 2016), along with one less formal gathering at the Worker Cooperative Weekend in Stoke-on-Trent (May 2016). It has come through these an inclusive network of individual co-operators, as opposed to co-operatives, that values participatory democracy through consensus-based decision-making combined with formal voting. 4.5.2 RESEARCH QUESTION 2 In Section 4.3 the findings related to the second research question regarding the factors influencing participation in the YCN. The findings were delivered in an exploratory format, using three levels of thematic analysis to break down the primary source material and deliver the insights in a comprehensible manner. First, we explored the perceived issues and challenges associated with the co-operative movement and those faced by individual co-operatives. Secondly, we explored the perceived value and benefits associated with the YCN using two dimensions, the practical and the social / emotional. Within the co-operative movement, the key issues and challenges were associated with the extant membership, involvement (of young people), and access (to the movement). For individual co-operatives, the issues and challenges identified revolved around membership, structure, resources, democracy, and learning. The practical value and benefits associated with participation in the YCN related to co-operativism, learning, and solutions. The social / emotional value and benefits were associated with engagement, motivation, and alignment. It would seem that the value and benefits identified by the participants would, on their own, adequately answer the research question, However, in combination with the perceived issues and challenges what emerges is the understanding of the YCN as a collective means of responding to, if not solving, a range of the issues faced by young 123
co-operators, both in relation to their individual co-operatives and with respect to gaps in the provisioning of the co-operative movement. 4.5.3 RESEARCH QUESTION 3 In Section 4.4 the focus moved to exploring and explaining how, or in what ways further developments to the YCN might take place. The findings were presented in a researcher-narrative format, with participant insights having been synthesised using a combination of deconstruction in NVivo and further manual analysis when it became apparent that the initial analysis (which had applied the themes of: value and benefits, engagement, structure, and processes) made presentation of the overall projection incoherent. Thus, five revised areas of development were identified within participant responses: activities, interactions, resources, membership, and structure. Although emphasis varied across participants through these themes it remains possible to interpret a cohesive projection for the future development of the YCN. Firstly, developments were suggested in terms of activities. These were aimed toward: peer-to-peer support and mentoring; workshops and training; gatherings; engagement with the wider movement (UK and beyond); economic collaboration; and political advocacy and lobbying. Secondly, three aspects of development with regards to interactions: sustaining and building engagement; formalising processes; and managing development. Thirdly, participants indicated a desire for the development of internal and external resources. In terms of internal resources there was suggested to be a need for capturing and sharing learning; decision-making processes and content; and hard data regarding member engagement events, gatherings, clinics, and discussions. External resource development was indicated to be desirable in the provision of tools and resources to inspire and support young co-operators, potentially through the creation of an online presence (website, social media, etc.). Fourthly, developments in terms of membership focused on the engagement of three target audiences: young people already involved in co-operatives or establishing cooperatives; young people not yet engaged in the co-operatives movement, such as graduates; and the young precariat, those individuals or groups currently working in precarious forms of employment such as freelancers. Fifthly, structural development embraced the totality of the other projected areas of development. The long-term aim for the YCN was suggested to be the creation of an ecosystem based on a simple, 124
accessible, organism-like model that facilitated sustained engagement between members, is attractive to new members, and, most importantly, delivers individual and business value to those involved. In the short-term there was interest in the potential of a tiered membership systems and a structuration of membership as cohorts, reflecting the experience of individuals and their stage in the co-operative user journey; this was viewed as being important to facilitating targeted value and benefits delivery.
125
5.0 DISCUSSION & CONCLUSION 5.1 INTRODUCTION The purpose of this study was to understand the need for the Young Co-operators Network (YCN), conceptualised herein as a co-operative community of practice. In seeking to achieve this purpose three research questions were identified: RQ.1
How did the YCN develop?
RQ.2
What are the factors influencing participation?
RQ.3
How, or in what ways, might further development take place?
In the previous chapter, analysis and interpretation of primary source material enabled findings in response to each of the three research questions to be presented, first in detail and then in a summarised format. In this final chapter the thesis is brought to its conclusion. In Section 5.2 the findings presented in Chapter 4 are discussed with reference to the literature reviewed in Chapter 2. This includes a recap of the literature, exploration of the connections between the issues and challenges presented in the literature review and those emergent in the findings, discussion of the three facets identified as forming the need for the YCN, and consideration of the YCN in relation to the extant typologies of inter-co-operative associations. Section 5.3 presents the implications of the research in terms of its impact on scholarly knowledge, the YCN, and the wider co-operative movement. Section 5.4 offers reflection on the limitations of this study. Section 5.5 includes some thoughts and suggestions as to how the research could be improved or expanded, and what future research this study highlights as being important. The chapter ends with a conclusion (Section 5.6), which briefly summarises the outcome of the study and brings the thesis to a close.
126
5.2 DISCUSSION The following discussion will ultimately seek to resolve to the purpose of this study, which is to understand the need for, or purpose of, the YCN. Following a brief recap of the key points in the literature review, the connections between the issues and challenges identified in the findings and the issues and constraints drawn from the literature are examined using the membership, organisational, and environmental levels. The discussion then moves to explain the need for the YCN through combined exploration of the issues and challenges identified by participants, the value and benefits derived from participation, and the insights related to its further development. Finally, the YCN is considered in relation to the typologies of inter-co-operative associations and networks identified in the extant literature. 5.2.1 LITERATURE RECAP The literature review was presented using three topical areas of exploration: organisational democracy, co-operatives, and learning and knowing. The first two sections provide an introduction to and overview of co-operatives as a form of organisational democracy, setting the context into which to place participants' insights and in turn the YCN. The third section of the literature review regarding organisational learning and knowing, provides a lens through which to explore some of the findings and helps respond to the purpose of the study. Taking the general content of the first two sections in hand, worker co-operatives can be understood as collectively owned and controlled organisational democracies tending toward the collectivist-democratic form of organisation described by Rothschild-Whitt (1979) and predisposed to the form of direct participatory decisionmaking delineated by Rothschild (2016) as Democracy 2.0. Furthermore, worker cooperatives, and for that matter co-operatives in general, are associations of individuals purposed toward meeting a specific, or range of, socio-economic need(s). Arguably the most defining feature of co-operatives is the set of internationally agreed cooperative values and principles (Münkner 1981; Watkins 1986; Novkovic 2008; Jussila 2013). This interrelated and interdependent framework creates a cohesiveness and degree of homogeneity throughout the co-operative movement that is important for understanding why co-operatives are suggested to present enhanced level of socio127
economic sustainability and flexibility relative to their investor-owned counterparts (Webb and Cheney 2014). However, we also came to appreciate that even worker co-operatives can become stretched and bureaucratic. Furthermore, co-operatives are acknowledged as facing a range of other potential challenges. While some of these are associated with the complexities of co-operation, many are related to the institutionally isomorphic environment that is biased towards investor-owned firms and hierarchical bureaucracy. Inter-co-operative associations are recognised as offering solutions and support to cooperatives in dealing with some of these issues and constraints. Indeed, it is suggested that co-operatives possess an inherent advantage in creating and sustaining networks because of their shared underpinning of values and principles; their purposive, problem-oriented, character; and their social focus in terms of subordinating capital before people (Menzani and Zamagni 2010). The third section of the literature review explored the literature related to organisational learning and knowing. In moving towards an understanding of the social-process approach delineated by Chiva and Alegre (2005) the section first examined how we can understand the notion, or quality, of knowledge, explaining the explicit and tacit dimensions of knowledge (Polanyi 1966; Nonaka 1994; Nonaka and Takeuchi 1995) and how these relate to the codification and personalisation perspectives regarding organisational knowledge. Some background to the fields of organisational knowledge and organisation learning was provided before introducing the cognitive-possession and social-process approaches as a means of bridging the two fields. We came to appreciate how the social-process approach provides a more cohesive understanding of organisational knowledge and learning, and that through the heuristic switch of knowledge to knowing the distinction between it and learning becomes almost non-existent. Under the headings of knowing and learning a number of key theories were introduced prior to an exploration of the literature with respect to co-operatives. Furthermore, a congruence was highlighted between the underlying ontological and epistemological considerations of the social-process approach to organisational learning and knowing and those attributed to the notions of the collectivist-democratic organisation, Democracy 2.0, and the values- and principles128
based co-operative i.e. social-constructionism and Interpretivism embodied in substantive-rational or value-rational action. The work of Hartley and Johnson (2013) and Hartley (2014) conceptualised co-operatives as learning spaces wherein the combination of explicit knowledge, in terms of codified information relating to cooperatives e.g. technical manuals and legal structures, and tacit knowledge, in the form of shared experiential agreements or assumptions regarding practice, occurs. This conceptualisation is based on the work Lave and Wenger (1991) regarding situated learning, legitimate peripheral participation, and communities of practice, along with that of Brown and Duguid (1991), which developed on the notion of communities of practice and augmented it with those of canonical and non-canonical practice. While originally focused on communities within organisations, later work by Wenger (1998) and Brown and Duguid (2001) suggested the transferability of the concept to the inter-organisational realm, where overlapping identities and practices create situated instances of shared experience and know-how taking place on multiple levels, between co-workers and between experts and novices, and across organisational boundaries (Fuller and Unwin 2004; Fuller et al. 2004; Engeström 2004; Fuller et al. 2005). 5.2.2 ISSUES & CONSTRAINTS Here the findings of this study associated with issues and challenges identified by participants will be explored in relation to the issues and constraints presented in Section 2.3.4. The literature review presents these issues and constraints on three levels: membership, organisational, and environmental. M EMBERSHIP
In terms of membership issues and constraints, the list of factors drawn from Rothschild-Whitt
(1979)
includes:
time,
homogeneity,
emotional
intensity,
nondemocratic individuals, individual differences. Two further factors are identified by Nilsson (2001), these are financial and perceived value contributions and individual involvement in decision-making. The findings associated with these issues and constraints are those presented in the issues and challenges facing individual cooperatives (see Section 4.3.1).
129
Time may be considered a constraint acting upon the issues and challenges relating to structure including: the complexities of establishing a new co-operative, finding and agreeing on a structure that works, accessible and engaging, trade-off between open/closed structures, and ensuring flexibility. Likewise, it appears again in the tertiary theme of democracy with regards to ensuring democratic processes are efficient/efficacious and running meetings fairly and effectively. Time also constrains learning in terms of understanding how to be a co-operative and a business simultaneously and the need for space to think about being a co-operative/co-operator. Homogeneity emerges as a problem with regards to membership, in terms of attracting and on-boarding new members, and resources, in the challenge of balancing skills within small co-operatives. Emotional intensity can be identified as a factor in the tertiary theme of membership, such as the responsibility and commitment requirements placed on members, and ensuring the initial and continued engagement of members. Likewise, it plays a role in the structural issue of constructing a sense of collective identity and resource challenge of maintaining energy and drive. Considering nondemocratic individuals and individual differences in tandem we can see how these factors emerge in the tertiary theme of membership, with regards to managing disagreements/conflicts and reconciling differences. These factors also relate to democracy, in terms of behaving democratically (equality and equity, emphasising the former) and managing varying levels of interest in democratic side of co-operatives. Furthermore, the challenge of nondemocratic individuals factors in the theme of learning with respect to unlearning hierarchy (dealing with the hierarchical hangover) and engendering the co-operative values and principles. Individual involvement in decision-making can be linked with the issues and challenges associated with: democracy, in terms of running meetings fairly and effectively and avoiding tokenistic democratic processes; and learning, with regards to ensuring members are adequately informed, providing essential education and training to existing and new members. Finally, the challenge of dealing with variance in financial and perceived value contributions emerges in the themes of membership, as perceived inequity of 130
individual input, and democracy, in the need to behave democratically (equality and equity, emphasising the latter). In considering the notion of mission drift or goal displacement drawn from Webb and Cheney (2014) we can likewise identify similarities between their list of causal factors and the issues and challenges identified by participants. Let us first consider the group of factors associated with engendering co-operativism within organisations. The external facet of poor or non-existent internal and external education and training programmes can be related to the following tertiary themes associated with the co-operative movement: extant membership (not responding to the needs of cooperative start-ups), involvement (communicating the benefits of co-operativism to young people and lack of adequate resources in terms of education, information, and training in place for young co-operators), access (hiddenness or perceived lack of presence of co-operatives in society and the economy, complexities associated with forming and developing co-operatives, and the lack of a supportive ecosystem for facilitating the user journey into co-operativism). The perceived lack of accessible explicit information regarding establishing and developing co-operatives identified within the tertiary theme of resources in terms of issues and challenges associated with individual co-operatives further supports the external aspect of this factor. In terms of insights relating to the internal facet of this causal factor, the tertiary theme of learning within the issues and challenges associated with individual co-operatives offers several relevant insights, such as: unlearning hierarchy (dealing with the hierarchical hangover), ensuring members are adequately informed, learning to be a co-operative and business simultaneously, and the need for providing essential education and training to existing and new members. Moving forward to the absence of internal consensus around co-operative values and principles, within the issues and challenges associated with the co-operative movement a number of relevant insights can be found in the tertiary theme of extant membership in terms of a perceived drift from the co-operative values and principles and the sense that in order to survive in the external environment bureaucracy has become commonplace. Likewise, within the issues and challenges associated with individual co-operatives related insights can be identified within two tertiary themes. Firstly, democracy with regards to managing varying levels of interest in the 131
democratic aspect of co-operatives and avoiding tokenistic democratic processes. Secondly, learning with respect to the challenge of engendering the co-operative values and principles. In relation to the factors of insufficient rewards (perceived or actual) for members and clients/customers, within the issues and challenges associated with individual cooperatives the tertiary theme of membership offers one relevant insight; the challenge of dealing with perceived inequity of individual input. No relevant insights from this study could be identified in relation to the factor of limited research into the co-operative model and its functioning but it is possible to suggest that through the participants willingness to engage in this research project there may indeed be recognition of the need to support practice with academic research. The second group of factors identified from Webb and Cheney (2014) relate to the influence of the dominant, non-co-operative, socio-economic paradigm. Several of the factors identified in this group are not relevant to the subjects of this study, this includes: managerial issues, in terms of a reliance on traditional management and the role of managers; accountancy issues, with regards to the adoption of standard finance and accountancy practices; and human resource issues, with respect to the recruitment of skills and expertise from the external environment. It is possible the reason for this is that these three causal factors of mission drift in co-operatives are likely to be more relevant to established, perhaps larger, organisations. However, two factors within this grouping are supported by participant insights. Firstly, in relation to competitive pressures from the market the tertiary theme of extant membership within the issues and challenges associated with the co-operative movement participants expressed the sense that in order to survive in the external environment bureaucracy has become commonplace (within the wider movement). Secondly, in terms of the use of capital with investor-owned behaviour and characteristics two insights emerge as being relevant. Within the issues and challenges associated with the co-operative movement one of the issues identified in the tertiary theme of involvement was the lack of adequate resources (financial) in place for involving and supporting young co-operators. Likewise, in relation to the 132
tertiary theme of resources within the issues and challenges associated with individual co-operatives participants raised the lack of access to start-up and development capital designed for worker co-operatives as a key problem. This set of factors associated with mission drift and goal displacement begin to introduce some of the issues and constraints identified with respect to the organisational and environmental levels, discussion of which follows. O RGANISATIONAL
In terms of the organisational issues and constraints facing co-operatives the literature review explored the work of Thompson (2015) in which he proposes a social theory of the firm, contrasting this with the dominant contract- and competence-based theories. The social theory of the firm aligns with the Weberian (1968) notion of substantive- or value-rational action associated with the collectivist-democratic organisation (Rothschild-Whitt 1979), Democracy 2.0 (Rothschild 2016), and the social-process approach to organisational learning and knowing (Chiva and Alegre 2005). Thompson (2015) posits the firm as "a social institution dedicated to production" (p.5) and suggests that in order to function it requires a combination of co-ordination and deep-level co-operation. While co-ordination is the product of organisational structure, deep-level co-operation is the product of organisational culture; it being characterised by the solidaristic behavioural mode engendered in the relationships between substantively-motivated individuals (Blau 1964 p.91; Simmel 1964 [1917]; Thompson 2015 p.5). As such, Thompson indicates that within co-operatives the central challenge of organisation lies in achieving structural consistency and cultural contingency. Thompson's discussion of implementing hierarchies and the complex division of labour suggests his work is directed toward co-operative organisations applying bureaucratic or formal-representative organisational structures, in line with the notion of Democracy 1.0. However, the challenge of achieving structural consistency, a functional structure that enables coordination, and cultural contingency, successfully engendering co-operativism to reap the benefits of deep-level co-operation, is indeed reflected in the issues and challenges identified by participants in this study. 133
Firstly, in relation to structural consistency within the issues and challenges facing individual co-operatives a number of insights are pertinent. Perhaps most obviously, the tertiary theme of structure offers that in seeking structural consistency cooperators face challenges in terms of: the complexities of establishing new cooperatives, searching for and settling on a structure that works for the membership, developing a structure that is accessible and facilitates engagement, and building a structure that enables a sense of identity and community. Likewise, in the tertiary theme of resources we can see how coping with the duality of co-operatives as businesses and democratic organisations in terms of tacit skills and experience, along with the perceived lack of explicit information regarding establishing and developing co-operatives are factors which might detrimentally affect coordination. Furthermore, within the tertiary theme of democracy the need for ensuring democratic decision making processes are fair, efficient, and effective can be related to the need for structural consistency in coordination mechanisms. Secondly, with respect to the need for cultural contingency in order to achieve cooperation a further set of insights from the issues and challenges facing individual cooperatives are relevant. Within the tertiary theme of membership the responsibility and commitment requirements placed on individual members and finding ways of dealing with perceived inequities in terms of individual input are both relatable to the development of a co-operative culture. Perhaps the most obvious of tertiary themes in terms of culture within worker co-operatives is that of democracy where the following insights may be identified: behaving democratically (equality and equity), managing varying levels of interest in the democratic aspect of the co-operative, and avoiding tokenistic democratic processes. The tertiary theme of learning likewise offers three insights relevant to developing cultural contingency: unlearning hierarchy (dealing with the hierarchical hangover), engendering the co-operative values and principles, and providing essential education and training to existing and new members. What this suggests is that worker co-operatives, as social institutions dedicated to production, and their co-operator members, as substantively-motivated actors, face the challenge of balancing structural consistency and cultural contingency in order to achieve coordination and deep-level co-operation and benefit from the solidaristic behavioural mode. 134
E NVIRONMENTAL
In considering the issues and constraints impacting co-operative on the environmental level the central notion presented in the literature review, and indeed in the work of Thompson (2015), is that of the institutional isomorphism that prevails across the economy and society (DiMaggio and Powell 1983). This dominant socio-economic paradigm can be understood as consisting of the structural/relational and the cultural/cognitive facets. The former relates to the legal, financial, and educational institutions which buttress the dominant paradigm and impose barriers to the formation and success of co-operatives (Webb 1891; Webb and Webb 1920). The latter relates to the propagation of the instrumental, transactional, and individualistic approach (Pateman 1970; Blumberg 1973; Kanter 1977) and the simultaneous discouragement of individuals from forming, managing, and working in co-operatives by said institutions (Kanter 1972; Bowles and Gintis 1976; Everett and Minkler 1993). A further set of contributions toward understanding of the challenges posed by the institutionally isomorphic environment were drawn from the work of Varman and Chakrabarti (2004) in relation to the development of a democratic consciousness. Firstly, the need for co-operators to recognise and reflect upon the patterns of domination, subordination, and inequality inherent in the extant paradigm (Kleinman 1996). Secondly, that effective worker control necessitates a democratic awareness on the part of individuals in order to mitigate the risk of compliant and passive behaviours (Bernstein 1982). Thirdly, that the dearth of institutions providing opportunities to learn about democracy and democratic participation means that it is essential for co-operators to be provided with said opportunities through other means in order to diminish the effect of the non-democratic and non-participatory dominant socio-economic paradigm (Pateman 1970; Rothschild-Whitt and Lindenfeld 1982). In reflecting on the findings associated with issues and challenges we can once again find a number of relevant insights. Many of these have already been considered in relation to membership and organisational issues and constraints, it is thus necessary to appreciate how the insights offered by participants can be associated with and understood in relation to the various levels. In terms of issues and challenges associated with the co-operative movement, insights related to the environmental considerations identified in the literature can be found in 135
all three of the tertiary themes. Within the theme of extant membership the following insights may be considered: a perceived drift from the co-operative values and principles, and the sense that in order to survive in the external environment hierarchical bureaucracy has become commonplace. In the theme of involvement communicating the benefits of co-operativism to young people and a lack of adequate resources in place for involving and supporting young co-operators are both relevant on the environmental level. With regards to access to the co-operative movement we can identify the hiddenness, or perceived lack of presence, of co-operatives in society and the economy, the complexities associated with forming and developing cooperatives, and the lack of a supportive ecosystem for facilitating the user journey into co-operativism as being symptomatic of the institutionally isomorphic socioeconomic context. In terms of issues and challenges associated with individual co-operatives the complexities of establishing new co-operatives identified in the tertiary theme of structure is once again relevant. Within the theme of resources the challenge of coping with the duality of co-operatives as businesses but also as democratic organisations, a perceived lack of accessible explicit information regarding establishing and developing co-operatives, and access to start-up and development capital designed for worker co-operatives may all be connected to the structural/relational and cultural/cognitive forces of an environment biased toward the dominant socio-economic paradigm. Likewise, the same can be said for the issues of behaving democratically, ensuring that participatory democracy remains efficient/efficacious, and avoiding tokenistic democratic processes; which are identified in the tertiary theme of democracy. The insights grouped in tertiary theme of learning are also relevant to the environmental-level issues and constraints identified in the literature, including: unlearning hierarchy (dealing with the hierarchical hangover), learning to be a co-operative and a business simultaneously, the need for space to think about how to be a co-operative/co-operator, and providing essential education and training to existing and new members.
136
5.2.3 NEED FOR THE YCN Having considered the issues and challenges identified by participants in relation to the extant literature, it is now possible to explain the purpose of the YCN based on the findings of this study and thus to respond to the question at the heart of this thesis. When we ask how the YCN came to be (RQ.1) what emerges in the findings is that it is first necessary to appreciate the impetus for the Young Co-operators Prize (YCP). Altgen initiated the YCP programme in response to two perceived problems: firstly, the untapped potential for co-operatives to solve important socio-economic issues faced by young people (environmental); and secondly, a perceived dearth of young people engaging with the co-operative movement in the UK (membership and organisational). At the same time, within the wider co-operative context young cooperatives and co-operators, including Altgen, were seeking a means of having a greater and more unified voice in the global co-operative movement. This led to the formation of the Young European Co-operators Network (YECN) and eventually to Altgen questioning why there was no association or network for young co-operators in the UK. At the culmination of the YCP residential training weekend, that would otherwise have been the end of the programme, Altgen proposed that those present form such a network. From the findings we understand that, despite some initial hesitation, members agreed to this primarily because of the social bonds that had formed during the learning experience they had just undertaken. S USTAINING
Moving this notion of social bonds being central to participation in the YCN forward it is first worthwhile considering the issues and challenges facing individual cooperatives, in particular the tertiary themes and membership and democracy. Through the three tertiary themes associated with social / emotional value and benefits, those of engagement, motivation, and alignment, it is possible to appreciate how the social aspect of participation the YCN might enable young co-operators to be more resilient to these challenges. Firstly, with regards to feeling engaged and engaged with in an open-minded atmosphere, juxtaposed to that of the dissonant institutionally isomorphic environment in which they and their co-operatives are normally functioning (see tertiary theme of 137
engagement). Secondly, in terms of being motivated and energised by the encouragement, support, and inclusivity of the YCN along with an overall sense of not being isolated (see tertiary theme of motivation). And thirdly, the sense of similarity and kinship with regards to the shared nature of the problems faces, solutions found, and experiences experienced through the process of forming and developing worker co-operatives (see tertiary theme of alignment). Thus the first suggested facet of need for the YCN is identified as sustaining. This links with the notion of the solidaristic behavioural mode, characterised and facilitated
by
the
relationships
between
substantively-motivated individuals
(Thompson 2015). Furthermore, it suggests that one of the functions of participation in the YCN is that it helps co-operators develop their experience of cultural contingency in relation to their experience of participatory democracy and cooperativism, therefore enabling deep-level co-operation. L EARNING & K NOWING
When we consider the perceived issues and challenges facing individual cooperatives and co-operators in combination with the practical value and benefits respondents associated with participation in the YCN (RQ.2) a further appreciation of the need for the YCN can be reached. This is of the YCN as a space of engagement where explicit knowledge or information relating to co-operatives may be accessed and where learning through the sharing of tacit knowledge in the form of experience and collective problem solving occurs. These activities appear to mitigate the issues associated with on the one hand engaging with a complex, expansive, and what is perceived to be a user-unfriendly body of information; and, on the other, becoming situated in the fluid body of experience related to operating in value and principle based co-operatives that fit the collectivist-democratic model of organisations and undertake decisions through participatory mechanisms (Democracy 2.0). Indeed, this research posits that when co-operators refer to the co-operative journey they are alluding to a highly contextualised learning process, the content of which is not readily available in the institutionally isomorphic environment yet is essential for young co-operatives and co-operators to be able to effectively develop sustainable businesses that can rival non-co-operative start-ups and deliver greater individual and social value in the process. 138
It is here that we may apply the conceptualisation of the YCN as a community of practice, building on the work of Hartley and Johnson (2013) and Hartley (2014), a space external to individual co-operatives where young co-operators experience situated learning through peer-to-peer legitimate peripheral participation (Lave and Wenger 1991). In this conceptualisation, the process of learning and knowing entailed by or through the co-operative journey can be understood as involving non-canonical practice (Brown and Duguid 1991); that is, non-canonical in terms of firstly being contra the dominant paradigm of the economy, but also in relation to it being situated in the experiences and practices of young co-operators who are seeking ways of responding to their unique socio-economic contexts and of engendering participatory approaches to democratic governance of business entities, organisational democracy. Thus we may also begin to understand the need for the YCN through the support offered in dealing with some of the issues and challenges faced by individual cooperatives (membership, structure, resources, democracy, and learning). This is furthered by its ability to provide additional opportunities for collectively or independently engaging with more experienced practitioners through involvement with the wider co-operative community, dealing with some of the perceived issues and challenges associated with the co-operative movement (extant membership, involvement, and access), and the delivery of workshops and training. It is essentially a vehicle for socialisation or culturalisation into the world of co-operatives; not necessarily in terms of replicating the extant character of co-operatives but rather providing the tools, resources, and interactions required for innovation and development to take place. Furthering this idea, it is posited that the YCN is not only a space facilitating learning processes but also of an active, process-like state of knowing wherein participants are collectively experiencing extant knowledge as well as creating new knowledge. Thus the second suggested facet of need for the YCN is identified as learning and knowing. This facet can be related to the notion of developing a democratic awareness or consciousness in order to reduce the risk of compliant and passive behaviours, redress the dearth of institutions providing opportunities to learn about democracy and democratic participation, and ultimately diminish the effect of the non-democratic and 139
non-participatory dominant socio-economic paradigm (Pateman 1970; Bernstein 1982; Rothschild-Whitt and Lindenfeld 1982). Furthermore, it can be connected with the need to counter the cultural/cognitive facet of the institutionally isomorphic environment in terms of learning how to form, manage, and work in co-operatives (Kanter 1972; Bowles and Gintis 1976; Everett and Minkler 1993; Thompson 2015). G ROWING
The evolution, or development, of the YCN thus far has featured one highly noteworthy shift, the move from being a network of co-operatives to being a network of individual co-operators. While this resulted from varying degrees of interest in the network among members of the co-operatives participating in the YCP programme, it is now understood as being central to the participatory form of democracy (Democracy 2.0) so important to the YCN's members in terms of self-selection and the co-operative values of self-help and self-responsibility. Furthermore, the benefit of individual participation in terms of facilitating equal and egalitarian consensus-based decision-making is an important factor that supports this form of membership. Here a further link may be drawn with the Thompson's (2015) social theory of the firm in terms of the YCN helping co-operators develop an awareness of democratic behaviour, mechanisms, and processes that enable structural consistency, which is critical to achieving coordination within their co-operatives. Further development of the YCN (RQ.3) was ultimately explored and explained using five inductive themes: activities, interactions, resources, membership, and structure. While participants were clear in their intentions to expand the scale, in terms of membership, and scope, in terms of range of activities or potential value and benefits, there existed an awareness of the necessity for avoiding loss of relevance or value and benefit delivery in the process, i.e. those characteristics held most dear to the membership. As such, much of the proposed structural development in terms of scale in particular was embedded in the premise of creating sub-groups, or cells, that would replicate structures and processes in order to avoid expansion degenerative to the inclusivity, familiarity, and participatory nature of the network. This interplays with Varman and Chakrabarti's (2004) overview of first Meister's (1974) and subsequently Cornforth et al.'s (1988) theses of co-operative degeneration.
140
Indeed, participants were emphatic regarding the need to ensure the relevance of the YCN and its related content to both current and future participants. This emerged in terms of the development of the YCN activities with regards to making the network meaningful to more developed co-operatives and co-operators who have moved through the first or second year of running a co-operative and carried on into the types of members the YCN seeks to attract as well as the proposed structure in terms of cohorts. Participants recognised that this necessitated actively searching for ways in which the YCN could remain relevant to them and likewise for ways they can be relevant to or involved in it; be this through capturing and disseminating information (explicit knowledge) of finding ways of communicating their experience and skills (tacit knowledge), potentially by assuming the roles of facilitators and mentors in regional cells, peer-to-peer groups, and workshops. Thus the third suggested facet of need for the YCN is identified as growing. This desire to build the capacities and capabilities of the YCN in order to service the needs of members can be linked with the need to counter the structural/relational facet of the institutionally isomorphic environment in terms of self-constructing alternative institutions which align with organisational democracy and worker ownership (Webb 1891; Webb and Webb 1920). C OMBINED M ODEL
The purpose of or need for the YCN can thus be understood as being comprised of three facets: sustaining, learning and knowing, and growing. Sustaining, because it provides young co-operators, and as such co-operatives, with the practical capacities and social/emotional resources necessary to be resilient to the issues, constraints, and challenges they face. Learning and knowing, because it operates as a physical and mental space for the process of understanding, comprehension, and appropriation essential for effectively functioning and existing as co-operators. Growing, because the members hold the relevance of the YCN as being of utmost importance in all considerations relating to expansion of scale and scope. This three-facet model is exhibited in Figure 5.1.
141
Figure 5.1: Facets of need for the YCN
5.2.4 TYPE OF CO-OPERATIVE NETWORK Having understood the purpose of the YCN, it is worthwhile to consider it in relation to the typologies of co-operative organisations (Webb and Cheney 2014) and of interco-operative networks or associations (Menzani and Zamagni 2010; Novkovic and Holm 2012; Novkovic 2014) reviewed in Section 2.3.5. Webb and Cheney's (2014) typology of co-operative organisation identifies six forms (see Table 2.5), the YCN fits closest with the description of second/third tier organisations yet differs in that its membership consists of individual co-operators as opposed to co-operatives. This is likewise true with regards to Menzani and Zamagni's (2010) typology of Italian co-operative networks, which identifies five forms of network (see Table 2.9). Here, the YCN fits most closely with their network of networks model in terms of the key characteristics yet differs further in that it features a participatory-democratic as opposed to a formal-representative governance mechanism.
142
The YCN possesses similarities with three of the forms of inter-co-operative network identified by Novkovic and Holm (2012): purpose/problem oriented, professional / development, and complex networks (see Table 2.8). However, in contrast to YCN their purpose/problem oriented networks are primarily focused toward second-tier associations and federations; their professional / development networks are predominantly service focused; and their complex networks are specifically focused toward objectives or tasks aimed at delivering public good. It is difficult to draw further comparison as clear specifications of membership and governance formats or structures are not provided in this typology, though it can be assumed the notion of membership consisting of individual co-operators is not incorporated. An important observation made by Novkovic and Holm (2012) is that co-operatives themselves can be considered as networks of independent actors. This is carried forward to Novkovic's (2014) synthesis of the typologies from Menzani and Zamagni (2010) and Novkovic and Holm (2012) in which her description of the purpose for network formation with regards to co-operatives as networks of independent actors is arguably the closest extant description to the form assumed by the YCN (see Table 2.10). Novkovic describes this purpose as being, "Forming a co-operative industrial democracy; social and economic justice; network governance; economic and social benefits" (Novkovic 2014 p.88). Likewise, the fourth type of co-operative network described in this table, sectoral networks; co-operative development networks; cooperative federations / leagues (regional, national, international), moves toward a closer alignment with several of the functions of the YCN in terms of supporting the co-operative movement, advocacy, and co-operative development. We can understand from these comparisons of the YCN with the extant typologies presented in the literature review that its distinguishing characteristics are those of a membership consisting of individual co-operators and the intentional shift away from a representative governance structure, toward a participatory, consensus-based, mechanism; described by Rothschild (2016) as Democracy 2.0.
143
5.3 IMPLICATIONS The implications of this research are threefold: firstly, in terms of its contribution to scholarly, or academic, knowledge; secondly, in terms of its practical implications for the co-operative movement; and thirdly, in terms of practical implications for the YCN itself. 5.3.1 ACADEMIC The discussion first turns to the connections between the issues and constraints identified in the extant literature and those derived from the insights offered by participants. On each of the levels of analysis, membership, organisational, and environmental, it was possible to identify a number of similarities that seemingly confirm the issues highlighted in the literature. Interestingly, the trade-off between cooperation and coordination, or structural consistency and cultural contingency, raised by Thompson (2015) was found to be relevant to the worker co-operative members interviewed; suggesting that even within smaller, highly participatory, organisational democracies the trade off poses a challenge to their functioning. The insights elicited with respect to the issues and challenges faced by young co-operators may yet be found to have further benefits to academic, and indeed practical, responses to worker co-operative development in the UK and beyond. However, those relating to the role of management within co-operatives, the implementation of hierarchies, and the complex division of labour were not relevant to issues and challenges identified by participants, presumably due to the scale and type of co-operative included in this study. The study's central offering lies in furthering of the conceptualisation of co-operatives and inter-co-operative associations as communities of practice (Hartley and Johnson 2013; Hartley 2014). Indeed, the study suggests that participation is this community of practice reinforces the resilience of co-operators in terms of coping with the issues and challenges they face and developing themselves and their organisations. This conceptualisation is furthered by the notion of co-operation, co-operativism, and participatory democracy as forms of non-canonical practice within democratic organisations.
In this case, non-canonical practice that may be learned in part
through participation in a network that functions as a community of practice, 144
facilitating legitimate peripheral participation and thus the process of situated learning. The study also suggests that the members of the YCN have benefitted from the shift from being a network of co-operatives to a network of individual co-operators, the implication bring that this shift in membership structure enhances the values of selfhelp and self-responsibility along with the quality of participatory democracy. This shift in the membership structure of the network leads to the identification of a gap within the extant typologies of inter-co-operative associations and organisations (Menzani and Zamagni 2010; Novkovic and Holm 2012; Novkovic 2014; Webb and Cheney 2014), with the YCN being distinguishable from other forms by its membership structure, governance, and purpose; as a space of learning. 5.3.2 CO-OPERATIVE MOVEMENT The findings of this study also have implications for the wider co-operative movement in the UK. Of critical importance is recognition of the potential power of cooperatives and co-operation for solving some of the socio-economic challenges facing the younger generation. Likewise, there is a clear desire amongst those involved to become engaged with, and engage others in, the co-operative movement. However, it is also apparent that change and affirmative action are necessary in order to make this engagement efficient, efficacious, and ultimately effective. This involves the increased direct involvement of young people, existing young co-operators, in the cooperative movement along with making co-operatives and the process of establishing co-operatives more available and accessible to the young people. The Young Co-operators Prize appears to have been an effective means of moving toward answering these opportunities but the emergence and need for the YCN suggests there was not already the infrastructure present to carry this forward. The YCN therefore represents a significant opportunity for the UK co-operative movement to engage with young people, better understand the issues and challenges facing young co-operators, and responsively support their co-operative journey. While the YCN presents an extension of the co-operative ecosystem that may ultimately challenge, and raise the expectations placed upon, existing co-operatives and inter-cooperative associations with regards not only to the co-operative values and principles but also in terms of systemic participatory democracy (Democracy 2.0). 145
5.3.3 THE YCN In terms of implications for the YCN, the study provides an opportunity to firstly reflect the development of the network through appreciation of the reasons for its formation, the motivating factors of initial participation, and how it has evolved over the course of its first year. Understanding the factors influencing participation, in terms of the issues and challenges facing the members and the value and benefits derived from participation in the network, may help to clarify and thus develop upon the core functions of the network. While understanding what members already feel they gain from engagement is useful, awareness of the potential issues and challenges not yet being addressed or serviced offers opportunity for the YCN to develop means of addressing, or advocating in response to, said challenges. The study likewise has implications for the YCN in terms of the synthesis of future developments and associated caveats suggested by, or perceived to be important to, participants. At the centre of participants' considerations for future development the central tenet appears to be not losing sight of the value and benefits delivered to existing and future members. Beyond this caution, the potential for the YCN to become an ecosystem or infrastructure for the development of young co-operators and co-operatives is evident.
5.4 LIMITATIONS The study is somewhat limited because of the nascent character of the YCN, and as a cross-sectional case study it does not show how member perceptions of issues and challenges or value and benefits may change over time, or how reflections on collective and individual development might evolve. The number of participants engaged is another potential criticism of the work; while insights from a majority of members were successfully captured, it may have been useful to collect data from newer members and also from those co-operators who opted not to be involved with the network. This would have provided more angles from which to illuminate and understand the YCN from alternative perspectives.
146
Likewise, interviews with actors involved with the YCP such as those from Cooperatives UK or the workshop leaders from the residential weekend might have strengthened the findings. Furthermore, the extent of analysis could have potentially been more rigorous had interview probes been used to focus on specific areas where comparisons with frameworks of, for example, issues and constraints facing co-operatives from Rothschild-Whitt (1979) and Nilsson (2001). Finally, there is the potential for criticism that no quantitative measures of development progress or business sustainability were used to show that membership of the YCN had or has a tangible impact on competitiveness versus non-member cooperatives or comparable non-co-operative start-ups, though conducting such analysis would have been outside the remit of the study.
5.5 FURTHER RESEARCH Additional research regarding the YCN could focus on internal processes such as consensus decisions, managing contentious decisions, or the way a peer-to-peer learning is developed. Likewise, it would be interesting to explore power dynamics in such a participatory organisation and how this may or may not be related to theories associated with co-operatives themselves. The different legal and membership structures of the associated young co-operatives would also likely yield deeper insights into member engagement. Further cross-sectional studies, or one longitudinal study, of the YCN examining changing perceptions of issues and challenges, value and benefits, and desired developments would also be beneficial to augmenting the understandings achieved thus far. Research focussing on co-operative networks beyond the YCN might expand the focus to young co-operators internationally, perhaps starting with the Young European Co-operators Network (YECN), and applying a similar methodological approach to exploring the factors influencing participation in co-operatives or interco-operative associations. It would likewise be interesting to further develop the conceptualisation of cooperatives and inter-co-operative associations as communities of practice, and 147
likewise of co-operation and participatory democracy as forms of non-canonical practice in relation to the institutionally isomorphic environment. This could be achieved by analysing the processes of educating, training, and informing (Principle 5) within co-operatives and inter-co-operative associations.
5.6 CONCLUSION In seeking to understand the need for, or purpose of, the Young Co-operators Network (YCN) this study has sought to explore where the YCN came from (RQ.1), the factors influencing member participation (RQ.2), and how it might develop in the future (RQ.3). In approaching this case study an extensive body of research was presented and reviewed, this focused on the areas of organisational democracy, co-operatives, and organisational learning and knowing. Through this review process an understanding and appreciation of worker co-operatives as purpose-oriented, collectivist-democratic forms of organisational democracy founded on a common set of six values and seven principles. The literature review explored the issues and constraints faced by cooperatives in terms of membership, organisational, and environmental issues; finding that many of the issues faced by co-operatives result from the structural/relational and cultural/cognitive facets of the institutionally isomorphic environment. These issues are suggested to give rise to the need for inter-co-operative associations and networks, the review explored extant typologies of these organisations as well as providing a map of the second/third tier association relevant to a UK-based worker co-operative. The social-process approach to organisational learning and knowing was then presented, in contrast to the cognitive-possession approach, and several key theories associated with this approach were identified, including those of Lave and Wenger (1991) and Brown and Duguid (1991). Lastly, the review highlighted the work of Hartley and Johnson (2013) and Hartley (2014) in which the notion of cooperatives being conceptualised as communities of practice was introduced. In order to collect participant insights for the case study, nine semi-structured interviews were conducted with members of the YCN; the resultant transcripts were then thematically analysed. The findings of this process are presented in Chapter 4, with the insights structured around each of the three research questions. These 148
findings, while useful in their own right, are then discussed in relation to the literature in order to develop on existing knowledge and identify novelties in the study. What has ultimately emerged from this process is the understanding that the need for the YCN is comprised of three facets. Firstly, that it helps in terms of sustaining and increasing the resilience of members in dealing with the perceived issues and challenges faced by young co-operators. Secondly, that it operates as a space of learning and knowing, a community of practice, where the members share knowledge and experience in order to develop as individual co-operators and develop their cooperatives. Thirdly, by growing in terms of scope and scale members view the YCN as being able to deliver further value and benefits as they move through their cooperative user-journeys while likewise being able to provide increased value and benefits to those new to co-operatives and the co-operative movement. Furthermore, through understanding these facets of the need for the YCN we are able to appreciate some of the gaps within the existing co-operative movement, the challenges facing individual co-operatives, and ultimately the ways in which engaging in a participatory, consensus-seeking, network of individual co-operators can benefit and improve the experience of those searching for equal and egalitarian alternatives to the dominant socio-economic paradigm. The study carries with it implications not just for the YCN and its constituent members but, perhaps more importantly, for the wider co-operative movement in the UK. It has likewise sought to impact scholarly understanding of co-operativism as a form of non-canonical practice and the conceptualisation of co-operative organisations as communities of practice, as well as adding to the taxonomy of inter-co-operative organisations by introducing networks of individual co-operators as opposed to co-operatives; an addition that alone warrants further research into its potential implications for enhancing participatory democracy based on the values of self-help and self-responsibility.
149
REFERENCES Alavi, M. and Leidner, D.E. 2001. Review: Knowledge Management and Knowledge Management Systems: Conceptual Foundations and Research Issues. MIS Quarterly 25(1), pp. 107–136. Alchian, A.A. and Demsetz, H. 1972. Production, Information Costs, and Economic Organization. The American Economic Review 62(5), pp. 777–795. Andrews, K.M. and Delahaye, B.L. 2000. Influences on Knowledge Processes in Organizational Learning: The Psychosocial Filter. Journal of Management Studies 37(6), pp. 797–810. Antonacopoulou, E.P. 1998. Developing Learning Managers within Learning Organizations. In: Easterby-Smith, M., Araujo, L., and Burgoyne, J. eds. Organizational Learning: Developments in Theory and Practice. London, UK: Sage. Antonacopoulou, E.P. 2000a. Employee Development through self-development in three retail banks. Personnel Review 29(4), pp. 491–508. Antonacopoulou, E.P. 2000b. Reconciling Individual and Organisation Development: Issues in the Retail Banking Sector. In: Rainbird, H. ed. Training in the Workplace. Basingstoke, Macmillan, pp. 39–57. Antonacopoulou, E.P. 2001. The paradoxical nature of the relationship between training and learning. Journal of Managment Studies 38(3), pp. 327–350. Aoki, M. 1984. The co-operative game theory of the firm. Oxford, UK: Clarendon. Archibald, G.C. and Neary, H.M. 1983. Achieving Pareto-efficient outcomes in the labourmanaged firm. Vancouver: University of British Columbia, Department of Economics. Argyris, C. 1986. Reinforcing organizational defensive routines: An unintended human resources activity. Human Resource Management 25(4), pp. 541–555. Bandura, A. 1977. Self-efficacy: Toward a Unifying Theory of Behavioral Change. Psychological review 84(2), pp. 191–215. Bangor Univeristy 2015. Research Ethics Policy [Online]. Available http://www.bangor.ac.uk/planning/ResEthics.php.en [Accessed: 1 March 2015].
at:
Baskerville, R. and Dulipovici, A. 2006. The theoretical foundations of knowledge management. Knowledge Management Research & Practice 4, pp. 83–105. Basterretxea, I. and Albizu, E. 2011. Does Training Policy Help to Attract, Retain, and Develop Valuable Human Resources? Analysis from the Mondragon Case. Advances in the Economic Analysis of Participatory and Labor-Managed Firms 12, pp. 231–260. Basterretxea, I. and Albizu, E. 2010. Management training as a source of perceived competitive advantage: The Mondragon Cooperative Group case. Economic and Industrial Democracy 32(2), pp. 199–222. Batstone, E. 1983. Organization and orientation: A life cycle model of French cooperatives. Economic & Industrial Democracy 4(2), pp. 139–161. Ben-ner, A. 1984. On the stability of the cooperative type of organization. Journal of Comparative Economics 8, pp. 247–260. 150
Ben-ner, A. and Jones, D.C. 1995. Employee Participation, Ownership, and Productivity: A Theoretical Framework. Industrial Relations 34(4), pp. 532–554. Bernstein, P. 1982. Necessary elements for effective worker participation in decision-making. In: Lindenfeld, F. and Rothschild-Whitt, J. eds. Workplace democracy and social change. Boston, MA: Porter Sargent, pp. 51–81. Bernstein, P. 1976. Necessary Elements for Effective Worker Participation in Decision Making. Journal of Economic Issues 10(2), pp. 490–522. Bertels, T. and Savage, C.M. 1998. Tough Questions on Knowledge Management. In: G. Von Krogh, Roos, J., and Kleine, D. eds. Knowing Firms. Understanding, Managing and Measuring Knowledge. London, UK: SAGE Publications, pp. 7–25. Bierly, P.E., Kessler, E.H. and Christensen, E.W. 2000. Organizational learning, knowledge and wisdom. Journal of Organizational Change Management 13(6), pp. 595–618. Blacker, F. 1993. Knowledge and the Theory of Organizations: Organizations As Activity Systems and the Reframing of Management. Journal of Management Studies 30(6), pp. 863– 884. Blackler, F. 1995. Knowledge, Knowledge Work and Organizations: An Overview and Interpretation. Organization Studies 16(6), pp. 1021–1046. Blau, P. 1964. Exchange and power in social life. New York, NY: Wiley. Blom, B. and Nygren, L. 2010. Analysing written narratives: considerations on the ‘codetotality problems’. Nordic Journal of Social Research 1, pp. 24–43. Blumberg, P. 1973. Industrial democracy. New York, NY: Schocken. Bonin, J. and Putterman, L. 2001. Economics of cooperation and the labour-managed economy. London, UK: Routledge. Bontis, N., Keow, W.C.C. and Richardson, S. 2000. Intellectual capital and business performance in Malaysian industries. Journal of Intellectual Capital 1(1), pp. 85–100. Bowles, S. and Gintis, G. 1976. Schooling in capitalist America: Educational reform and the contradictions of economic life. New York, NY: Basic Books. Brown, J.S. and Duguid, P. 2001. Knowledge and Organization: A Social-Practice Perspective. Organization Science 12(2), pp. 198–213. Brown, J.S. and Duguid, P. 1991. Organizational Learning and Communities-of-Practice: Toward a Unified View of Working. Organization Science 2(1), pp. 40–57. Bryman, A. 2012. Social Research Methods. 4th ed. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Callon, M. 1986. Some Elements of a Sociology of Translation: Domestication of the Scallops and the Fishermen of St Brieuc Bay. In: Law, J. ed. Power, Action and Belief: A New Sociology of Knowledge. London, UK: Routledge & Kegan Paul. Cathcart, A. 2013. Directing democracy: Competing interests and contested terrain in the John Lewis Partnership. Journal of Industrial Relations 0(0), pp. 1–20. Cathcart, A. 2009. Directing Democracy: The case of the John Lewis Partnership. University of Leicester. Chaddad, F.R. and Cook, M.L. 2004. Understanding New Cooperative Models: An 151
Ownership-Control Rights Typology. Review of Agricultural Economics 26(3), pp. 348–360. Chaves, R. and Sajardo-Moreno, A. 2004. Social Economy Managers: Between Values and Entrenchment. Annals of Public and Cooperative Economics 75(1), pp. 139–161. Cheney, G. 1995. Democracy in the workplace: Theory and practice from the perspective of communication. Journal of Applied Communication Research 23, pp. 167–200. Cheney, G., Santa Cruz, I., Peredo, A.M. and Nazareno, E. 2014. Worker cooperatives as an organizational alternative: Challenges, achievements and promise in business governance and ownership. Organization 21(5), pp. 591–603. Chiva, R. and Alegre, J. 2005. Organizational Learning and Organizational Knowledge: Towards the Integration of Two Approaches Abstract. Management Learning 36(1), pp. 49– 68. Co-operatives UK 2015a. The co-operative economy 2015: an ownership agenda for Britain [Online]. Available at: http://www.uk.coop/economy2015/uk-co-operative-economy-2015report [Accessed: 15 January 2016]. Co-operatives UK 2015b. The co-operative economy 2015: An ownership agenda for Britain. Manchester. Co-operatives UK 2012. The Worker Co-operative Code. Manchester. Coase, R.H. 1937. The Nature of the Firm. Economica 4(16), pp. 386–405. Cohen, J.F. and Olsen, K. 2015. Knowledge management capabilities and firm performance: A test of universalistic, contingency and complementarity perspectives. Expert Systems with Applications 42(3), pp. 1178–1188. Cook, S. and Yanow, D. 1996. Culture and Organizational Learning. In: Cohen, M. and Sproull, L. eds. Organizational Learning. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications. Cook, S.D.N. and Brown, J.S. 1999. Bridging Epistemologies: The Generative Dance Between Organizational Knowledge and Organizational Knowing. Organization Science 10, pp. 381–400. Coopey, J. 1994. Power, politics and ideology. In: Burgoyne, J., Pedler, M., and Boydell, T. eds. Towards the learning company: Concepts and practices. London, UK: McGraw-Hill. Cornforth, C. 1995. Patterns of co-operative management: Beyond the degeneration thesis. Economic and Industrial Democracy 16(February), pp. 487–523. Cornforth, C., Thomas, A., Spear, R.G. and Lewis, J.M. 1988. Developing successful worker co-ops. London, UK: Sage. Cyert, R.M. and March, J.G. 1963. A Behavioral Theory of the Firm. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Blackwell. Daft, R.L. and Weick, K.E. 1984. Toward a Model of Organizations as Interpretation Systems. The Academy of Management Review 9(2), pp. 284–295. Davenport, T.H. and Prusak, L. 1998. Working Knowledge: How Organizations Manage What They Know. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business School Press. Davis, P. 2001. The Governance of Co-operatives under Competitive Conditions: Issues, Processes and Culture. Corporate Governance: The international journal of business and 152
society 1(4), pp. 28–39. DiMaggio, P.J. and Powell, W.W. 1983. The Iron Cage Revisited: Institutional Isomorphism and Collective Rationality in Organizational Fields. American Sociological Review 48(2), pp. 147–160. Dixon, N.M. 1997. The Hallways of Learning. Organizational Dynamics 25(4), pp. 23–34. Doloriert, C. and Whitworth, K. 2011. A case study of knowledge management in the ‘back office’ of two English football clubs. The Learning Organization 18(6), pp. 422–437. Dosi, G. and Marengo, L. 1994. Some elements of an evolutionary theory of organizational competences. In: England, R. W. ed. Evolutionary concepts in contemporary economics. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press, pp. 157–178. Dow, G. 1993. What do we know about social democracy? Economic & Industrial Democracy 14, pp. 11–48. Dow, G.K. 2003. Governing the Firm: Workers’ Control in Theory and Practice. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Dretske, F. 1981. Knowledge and the Flow of Information. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Duncan, R.B. and Weiss, A. 1979. Organizational Investigations: Implications for Organizational Design. In: Staw, B. ed. Research in Organizational Behavior. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press, pp. 75–123. Dundon, T., Wilkinson, A., Marchington, M. and Ackers, P. 2004. The meanings and purpose of employee voice. The International Journal of Human Resource Management 15(6), pp. 1149–1170. Durand, T., Mounoud, E. and Ramanantsoa, B. 1996. Uncovering strategic assumptions: Understanding managers’ ability to build representations. European Management Journal 14(4), pp. 389–398. Easterby-Smith, M. 1997. Disciplines of Organizational Learning: Contributions and Critiques. Human Relations 50(9), pp. 1085–1113. Easterby-Smith, M. and Araujo, L. 1999. Organizational Learning: Current Debates and Opportunities. In: Easterby-Smith, M., Burgoyne, J., and Araujo, L. eds. Organizational Learning and the Learning Organization. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications. Easterby-Smith, M., Crossan, M.M. and Nicolini, D. 2000. Organizational Learning: Debates past, present and future. Journal of Management Studies 37(6), pp. 783–796. Easterby-Smith, M., Snell, R. and Gherardi, S. 1998. Organizational Learning: Diverging Communities of Practice? Management Learning 29(3), pp. 259–72. Ellerman, D.P. 1982. The socialization of entrepreneurship: The Empresarial division of the Caja Laboral Popular. Somerville, MA: Industrial Cooperative Association. Engeström, Y. 2004. The new generation of expertise: seven theses. In: Rainbird, H., Fuller, A., and Munro, A. eds. Workplace Learning in Context. London, UK: Routledge, pp. 145– 165. Engström, T.E.J., Westnes, P. and Westnes, S.F. 2003. Evaluating intellectual capital in the hotel industry. Journal of Intellectual Capital 4(3), pp. 287–303.
153
Estrin, S., Jones, D.C. and Svejnar, J. 1987. The productivity effects of worker participation: Producer cooperatives in western economies. Journal of Comparative Economics 11, pp. 40– 61. Etzioni, A. 1991. The socio-economics of property. Journal of Social Behaviour and Personality 6, pp. 465–468. Everett, M.J. and Minkler, A.P. 1993. Evolution and organisational choice in nineteenthcentury Britain. Cambridge Journal of Economics 17(1), pp. 51–62. Facer, K., Thorpe, J. and Shaw, L. 2011. Co-operative Education and Schools: An old idea for new times? In: The BERA Conference. London, UK. Fama, E.F. and Jensen, M.C. 1983. Separation of Ownership and Control. The Journal of Law & Economics 26(2), pp. 301–325. Fitzroy, F.R. and Kraft, K. 1986. Profitability and Profit-Sharing. The Journal of Industrial Economics 35(2), pp. 113–130. Foley, J.R. and Polanyi, M. 2006. Workplace Democracy: Why Bother? Economic and Industrial Democracy 27(1), pp. 173–191. Foss, N.J. 1993. Theories of the firm: contractual and competence perspectives. Journal of Evolutionary Economics 3, pp. 127–144. Fox, S. 2000. Communities Of Practice, Foucault And Actor-Network Therory. Journal of Management Studies 37(6), pp. 853–868. Frolich, N., Godard, J., Oppenheimer, J.A. and Strake, F.A. 1998. Employee versus Conventionally-Owned and Controlled Firms: An Experimental Analysis. Managerial and Decision Economics 19(4), pp. 311–326. Fuller, A., Hodkinson, H., Hodkinson, P. and Unwin, L. 2005. Learning as peripheral participation in communities of practice: a reassessment of key concepts in workplace learning. British Educational Research Journal 31(1), pp. 49–68. Available at: http://www.tandfonline.com.ezproxy.lancs.ac.uk/doi/abs/10.1080/0141192052000310029. Fuller, A., Munro, A. and Rainbird, H. eds. 2004. Introduction and overview. In: Workplace Learning in Context. London, UK: Routledge, pp. 1–18. Fuller, A. and Unwin, L. 2004. Expansive learning environments: Integrating organizational and personal development. In: Munro, H., Rainbird, A., and Fuller, A. eds. Workplace Learning in Context. London, UK: Routledge, pp. 126–144. Gergen, K.J. 1994. Toward Transformation in Social Knowledge. New York, NY: SAGE Publications. Gherardi, S. 1999. Learning as Problem-driven or Learning in the Face of Mystery? Organization Studies 20(1), pp. 101–124. Gherardi, S. 2000. Practice-based Theorizing on Learning and Knowing in Organizations. Organization 7(2), pp. 211–223. Gherardi, S. and Masiero, A. 1990. Solidarity as a networking skill and a trust relation: Its implications for cooperative development. Economic & Industrial Democracy 11(4), pp. 553– 574. Gherardi, S. and Masiero, A. 1987. The impact of organisational culture in life cycle and 154
decision-making processes in newborn cooperatives. Economic and Industrial Democracy 8, pp. 327–347. Gherardi, S. and Nicolini, D. 2000. To Transfer is to Transform: The Circulation of Safety Knowledge. Organization 7(2), pp. 329–348. Gherardi, S., Nicolini, D. and Odello, F. 1998. Toward a Social Understanding of How People Learn in Organizations: The Notion of Situated Curriculum. Management Learning 29(3), pp. 273–297. Gijselinckx, C. 2012. Cooperative Answers to Societal Challenges: 9 Insights from 2 x 9 Cases. In: Brassard, M.-J. and Molina, E. eds. The amazing power of cooperatives. Texts selected from the international call for paper proposals. Cooperatives Summit Quebec 2012. Quebec, pp. 403–418. Grant, R.M. 1996. Toward a knoweldge-based theory of the firm. Strategic Management Journal 17, pp. 109–122. Gui, B. 1984. Basque versus Illyrian labor-managed firms: The problem of property rights. Journal of Comparative Economics 8(2), pp. 168–181. Hadley, R. and Goldsmith, M. 1995. Development or convergence? Change and stability in a common ownership firm over three decades: 1960–89. Economic and Industrial Democracy 16(2), pp. 167–199. Haesli, A. and Boxall, P. 2005. When knowledge management meets HR strategy: an exploration of personalization-retention and codification-recruitment configurations. The International Journal of Human Resource Management 16(11), pp. 1955–1975. Hammersley, M. 2007. The issue of quality in qualitative research. International Journal of Research & Method in Education 30(3), pp. 287–305. Hansen, M., Nohria, N. and Tierney, T. 1999. What’s your strategy for managing knowledge? Harvard Business Review 77(2), p. 106. Hart, O. 1993. Incomplete contracts and the theory of the firm. In: Williamson, O. and Winter, S. eds. The nature of the firm. New York, NY: Oxford University Press, pp. 138–158. Hartley, S. 2014. Collective learning in youth-focused co-operatives in Lesotho and Uganda. Journal of International Development 26, pp. 713–730. Hartley, S. and Johnson, H. 2013. Learning to Co-operate: Youth Engagement with the Cooperative Revival in Africa. European Journal of Development Research, pp. 1–16. Hayek, F.A. von 1989. The Pretence of Knowledge. The American Economic Review 79(6), pp. 3–7. Heller, F., Pusic, E., Strauss, G. and Wilpert, B. 1998. Organizational Participation: Myth and Reality. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Heras-Saizarbitoria, I. 2014. The ties that bind? Exploring the basic principles of workerowned organizations in practice. Organization 21(5), pp. 645–665. Hernandez, S. 2006. Striving for Control: Democracy and Oligarchy at a Mexican Cooperative. Economic and Industrial Democracy 27(1), pp. 105–135. Hislop, D. 2009. KM in Organizations: A Critical Introduction. 2nd ed. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. 155
Hofstede, G. 1984. Culture’s consequences: International differences in work-related values. London, UK: Sage. Hoover, M. 2011. Worker Cooperative Curriculum [Online]. Available at: https://cooperativecurriculum.wikispaces.com/file/view/WorkerCoops-Hoover.pdf/223482506/WorkerCoopsHoover.pdf [Accessed: 7 May 2016]. Huber, G.P. 1991. Organizational Learning: The Contibuting Processes and the Literatures. Organization Science 2(1), pp. 88–115. ICA 2015a. Facts and figures [Online]. Available at: http://ica.coop/en/facts-and-figures [Accessed: 15 January 2016]. ICA 2015b. History of the co-operative movement [Online]. Available at: http://ica.coop/en/whats-co-op/history-co-operative-movement [Accessed: 15 January 2016]. ICA 2015c. What is a co-operative? [Online]. Available at: http://ica.coop/en/what-cooperative [Accessed: 16 January 2016]. Isaacs, William, N. 1993. Taking flight: Dialogue, collective thinking, and organizational learning. Organizational Dynamics 22(2), pp. 24–39. Jensen, C. and Meckling, H. 1976. Theory of the Firm: Managerial Behavior, Agency Costs and Ownership Structure. Journal of Financial Economics 3, pp. 305–360. Jensen, M.C. and Meckling, W.H. 1979. Rights and Production Functions: An Application to Labour-Managed Firms and Codetermination. The Journal of Business 52(4), pp. 469–506. Johnstone, S. and Ackers, P. 2015. Employee voice: The key question for contemporary employment relations. In: Johnstone, S. and Ackers, P. eds. Finding a Voice at Work? New Perspectives on Employment Relations. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, pp. 1–17. Jones, D. and Kalmi, P. 2012. Economies of Scale versus Participation: A Co-operative Dilemma? Journal of Entrepreneurial and Organizational Diversity 1(1), pp. 37–64. Jussila, I. 2013. The Journal of Co-operative Organization and Management (JCOM). Journal of Co-operative Organization and Management 1(1), pp. 1–5. Kanter, R.M. 1972. Commitment and community. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Kanter, R.M. 1977. Men and women of the corporation. New York, NY: Basic Books. Kayes, D.C. 2002. Experiential Learning and Its Critics: Preserving the Role of Experience in Management Learning and Education. Academy of Management Learning and Education 1(2), pp. 137–149. Kleinman, S. 1996. Opposing ambitions: Gender and identity in an alternative organization. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Knight, F.H. 1921. Risk, uncertainty, and profit. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin. Kogut, B. and Zander, U. 1992. Knowledge of the Firm, Combinative Capabilities, and the Replication of Technology. Organization Science 3(3), pp. 383–397. Kogut, B. and Zander, U. 1996. What Firms Do? Coordinating, Identity, and Learning. Organization Science 7(5), pp. 502–518. Von Krogh, G. 1998. Care in Knowledge Creation. California Management Review 40(3), pp. 133–153. 156
Von Krogh, G., Roos, J. and Slocum, K. 1994. An essay on corporate epistemology. Strategic Management Journal 15(Summer), pp. 53–71. Langlois, R.N. 1992. Transaction-cost economics in real time. Industrial & Corporate Change 1(1), pp. 99–127. Latané, B., Williams, K. and Harkins, S. 1979. Many Hands Make Light the Work: The Causes and Consequences of Social Loafing. Journal of Peronality and Social Psychology 37(6), pp. 822–832. Latour, B. 1986. The Power of Association. In: Law, J. ed. Power, Action and Belief: A New Sociology of Knowledge. London, UK: Routledge & Kegan Paul. Lave, J. and Wenger, E. 1991. Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Levitt, B. and March, J.G. 1988. Organizational Learning. Annual Review of Sociology 14, pp. 319–340. Lincoln, Y.S. and Guba, E.G. 1985. Naturalistic Inquiry. Newbury Park, CA: SAGE Publications. Machlup, F. 1980. Knowledge: Its Creation, Distribution, and Economic Significance, Volume I. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Macpherson, I. 2002. Encouraging Associative Intelligence: Co‐operatives, Shared Learning and Responsible Citizenship Ian. In: Plenary Presentation for IASCE Conference. Manchester, UK: IASCE, pp. 1–18. Magalhaes, R. 1998. Organizational Knowledge and Learning. In: Von Krogh, G., Roos, J., and Kleine, D. eds. Knowing Firms. Understanding, Managing and Measuring Knowledge. pp. 87–122. March, J.G. and Olsen, J.P. 1975. The uncertainty of the past: organizational learning under ambiguity. European Journal of Political Research 3, pp. 147–171. March, J.G. and Simon, H.A. 1958. Organizations. Oxford, UK: Wiley. Marchington, M., Goodman, J., Wilkinson, A. and Ackers, P. 1992. New developments in employee involvement. Manchester, UK. Maturana, H. and Varela, F. 1980. Autopoiesis and Cognition: The Realization of the Living. London, UK: Reidl. Maturana, H. and Varela, F. 1992. The Tree of Knowledge. Boston, MA: Shambhala. Mazzarol, T., Limnios, E.M. and Reboud, S. 2013. Co-operatives as a strategic network of small firms: Case studies from Australian and French co-operatives. Journal of Co-operative Organization and Management 1(1), pp. 27–40. McAdam, R. and Reid, R. 2000. A comparison of public and private sector perceptions and use of knowledge management. Journal of European Industrial Training 24(6), pp. 317–29. McElroy, M.W. 2002. Social innovation capital. Journal of Intellectual Capital 3(1), pp. 30– 39. Meister, A. 1974. La participation dans les associations. Paris, FR: Editions Ouvrières. 157
Meister, A. 1984. Participation, associations, development, and change. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction. Menzani, T. and Zamagni, V. 2010. Cooperative Networks in the Italian Economy. Enterprise and Society 11(1), pp. 98–127. Miyazaki, H. 1984. On Success and Dissolution of the Labor-managed Firm in the Capitalist Economy. Journal of Political Economy 92(5), pp. 909–931. Münkner, H.-H. 1981. Co-operative principles and co-operative law. Marburg/Lahn. Myers, P.S. 1996. Knowledge management and organizational design: an introduction. In: Myers, P. S. ed. Knowledge Management and Organizational Design. Boston, MA: Butterworth-Heinemann, pp. 1–6. Nelson, R.R. and Winter, S.G. 1982. An evolutionary theory of economic change. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Nilsson, J. 2001. Organisational principles for co-operative firms. Scandinavian Journal of Management 17(3), pp. 329–356. Nonaka, I. 1994. Dynamic Theory Knowledge of Organizational Creation. Organization Science 5(1), pp. 14–37. Nonaka, I. and Takeuchi, H. 1995. The Knowledge-Creating Company. New York: Oxford University Press. Nooteboom, B. 2009. A cognitive theory of the firm: Learning, governance and dynamic capabilities. London, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing. Novkovic, S. 2014. Co-operative networks, adaptability and organizational innovations. In: Gijselinckx, C., Zhao, L., and Novkovic, S. eds. Co-operative Innovations in China and the West. London, UK: Palgrave Macmillan. Novkovic, S. 2008. Defining the co-operative difference. Journal of Socio-Economics 37(6), pp. 2168–2177. Novkovic, S. 2007. R&D, Innovation and Networking: Strategies for Cooperative Survival. Advances in the Economic Analysis of Participatory and Labor-Managed Firms 10, pp. 205– 232. Novkovic, S. and Holm, W. 2012. Co-operative networks as a source of organizational innovation. The International Journal of Co-operative Management 6(1.1), pp. 51–60. Örtenblad, A. 2001. On differences between organizational learning and learning organization. The Learning Organization 8(3), pp. 125–133. Osterloh, M. and Frey, B.S. 2000. Motivation, Knowledge Transfer, and Organizational Forms. Organization Science 11(5), pp. 538–550. Oswick, C., Anthony, P., Keenoy, T. and Iain L. Mangham 2000. A dialogic analysis of organizational learning. Journal of Management Studies 37(6), pp. 887–901. Pateman, C. 1970. Participation and democratic theory. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Penrose, E.T. 1959. The Theory of the Growth of the Firm. New York, NY: John Wiley. Pierce, J.L., Kostova, T. and Dirks, K.T. 2003. The state of psychological ownership: 158
Integrating and extending a century of research. Review of General Psychology 7(1), pp. 84– 107. Polanyi, M. 1958. Personal knowledge: Towards a post-critical philosophy. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Polanyi, M. 1966. The Tacit Dimension. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul. Putterman, L. 1984. On some recent explanations of why capital hires labor. Economic Inquiry 22(2), pp. 171–187. Putterman, L. 1982. Some Behavioural Perspectives on the Dominance of Hierarchical Over Democratic Forms of Enterprise. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization 3, pp. 139–160. Ricœur, P. 1981. Hermeneutics and the Human Sciences: Essays on Language, Action and Interpretation. Thompson, J. B. ed. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Ricœur, P. 1976. Interpretation Theory: Discourse and the Surplus of Meaning. Fort Worth, TX: Christina University Press. Riordan, M.H. and Williamson, O.E. 1985. Asset specificity and economic organization. International Journal of Industrial Organization 3(4), pp. 365–378. Robson, C. 2002. Real World Research. Oxford: Blackwell. Rothschild-Whitt, J. 1979. The Collectivist Organization: An Alternative to RationalBureaucratic Models. American Sociological Review 44(4), pp. 509–527. Rothschild-Whitt, J. and Lindenfeld, F. 1982. Reshaping work: Prospects and problems of workplace democracy. In: Lindenfeld, F. and Rothschild-Whitt, J. eds. Workplace democracy and social change. Boston, MA: Porter Sargent, pp. 1–18. Rothschild, J. 2016. The Logic of A Co-Operative Economy and Democracy 2.0: Recovering the Possibilities for Autonomy, Creativity, Solidarity, and Common Purpose. Sociological Quarterly 57, pp. 7–35. Rothschild, J. and Whitt, J.A. 1986. The cooperative workplace: Potentials and dilemmas of organisational democracy and participation. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Rousseau, J.J. 1950. The Social Contract. In: G.D.H. Cole, Trans. (Original work published 1762). New York, NY: Dutton. Rubin, H.J. and Rubin, I.S. 2012. Qualitative Interviewing: The Art of Hearing Data. 3rd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications. Russell, R. 1985. Employee ownership and internal governance. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization 6, pp. 217–241. Sacchetti, S. and Tortia, E. 2015. The Extended Governance of Cooperative Firms: Inter-Firm Coordination and Consistency of Values. Annals of Public and Cooperative Economics 87(1), pp. 93–116. Sarantakos, S. 2013. Social Research. 4th ed. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan. Satow, R.L. 1975. Value-Rational Authority and Professional Organizations: Weber’s Missing Type. Administrative Science Quarterly 20(4), pp. 526–531. Saunders, M., Lewis, P. and Thornhill, A. 2009. Research Methods for Business Students. 5th 159
ed. Harlow: Pearson. Schein, E.H. 1993. On Dialogue, Culture, and Organizational Learning. Organizational Dynamics 22(Summer), pp. 40–51. Schubert, P., Lincke, D. and Schmid, B. 1998. A Global Knowledge Medium as a Virtual Community: The NetAcademy Concept. In: Hoadley, E. and Benbasat, I. eds. Proceedings of the Fourth Americas Conference on Information Systems. Baltimore, MD, pp. 618–620. Siemens, G. 2006. Knowing and Knowledge. Creative Commons. Simmel, G. 1964. The Sociology of Georg Simmel. [1917]. Wolff, K. ed. Glencoe, IL: Free Press. Simon, H.A. 1947. Administrative Behaviour. New York, NY: Macmillan. Simon, H.A. 1991. Bounded Rationality and Organizational Learning. Organization Science 2(1, Special Issue: Organizational Learning: Papers in Honor of (and by) James G. March (1991)), pp. 125–134. Smircich, L. and Stubbart, C. 1985. Strategic Management in an Enacted World. The Academy of Management Review 10(4), pp. 724–736. Smith, S.C. 2001. Blooming Together or Wilting Alone? Network Externalities and Mondragón and La Lega Co-operative Networks. UN University WIDER. Somerville, P. 2007. Co-operative Identity. Journal of Co-operative Studies 40(1), pp. 5–17. Soots, L.K., Perry, S. and Cowan, J. 2007. Supporting Innovative Co-operative Development: The Case of the Nova Scotia Co-operative Development System. Spear, R. 2004. Governance in Democratic Member-Based Organisations. Annals of Public and Cooperative Economics 75(1), pp. 33–59. Spender, J.C. 1996a. Making Knowledge the Basis of a Dynamic Theory of the Firm. Strategic Management Journal 17(Special Issue: Knowledge and the Firm (Winter, 1996)), pp. 45–62. Spender, J.C. 1996b. Organizational knowledge, learning and memory: three concepts in search of a theory. Journal of Organizational Change Management 9(1), pp. 63–78. Storey, J., Basterretxea, I. and Salaman, G. 2014. Managing and resisting ‘degeneration’ in employee-owned businesses: A comparative study of two large retailers in Spain and the United Kingdom. Organization 21(5), pp. 626–644. Strauss, G. 2006. Worker Participation: Some Under-Considered Issues. Industrial Relations 45(4), pp. 778–803. Stryjan, Y. 1994. Understanding cooperatives: The reproduction perspective. Annals of Public & Cooperative Economics 65(1), pp. 59–80. Tanner, R.A. 2013. Worker Owned Cooperatives and the Ecosystems that Support Them. Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Teece, D.J. 1986. Profiting from technological innovation: Implications for integration, collaboration, licensing and public policy. Research Policy 15, pp. 285–305. Teece, D.J. 1982. Towards an economic theory of the multiproduct firm. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization 3, pp. 39–63. 160
Teece, D.J. and Pisano, G. 1994. The Dynamic Capabilities of Firms: an Introduction. Industrial and Corporate Change 3(3), pp. 537–556. Thompson, S. 2015. Towards a social theory of the firm: Worker cooperatives reconsidered. Journal of Co-operative Organization and Management 3, pp. 3–13. Tsoukas, H. 1996. The firm as a distributed knowledge sytem: A constructionist approach. Strategic Management Journal 17(Winter Special Issue), pp. 11–25. Valentinov, V. 2004. Toward a social capital theory of cooperative organisation. Journal of Cooperative studies 37(3), pp. 5–20. Vanek, J. 1969. Decentralization Under Workers’ Management: A Theoretical Appraisal. The American Economic Review 59(5), pp. 1006–1014. Varghese, J., Krogman, N.T., Beckley, T.M. and Nadeau, S. 2006. Critical Analysis of the Relationship between Local Ownership and Community Resiliency. Rural Sociology 71(3), pp. 505–527. Varman, R. and Chakrabarti, M. 2004. Contradictions of Democracy in a Workers’ Cooperative. Organization Studies 25(2), pp. 183–208. Vogt, W. 1996. Capitalist versus liberal firm and economy: Outline of a theory. In: Pagano, U. and Rowthorn, R. E. eds. Democracy and efficiency in the economic enterprise. London, UK: Routledge, pp. 39–63. Vygotsky, L.S. 1962. Thought and Language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Watkins, W.P. 1986. Cooperative principles: Today and tomorrow. Manchester, UK: Holyoake Books. Webb, B. 1891. The Co-operative Movement in Great Britain. London, UK: Swan Sonnenschein & Co. Webb, S.J. and Webb, B. 1902. Industrial Democracy. London, UK: Longmans, Green & Co. Webb, S.J. and Webb, B.P. 1920. A constitution for the socialist commonwealth of Great Britain. London, UK: Longmans Green & Co. Webb, T. and Cheney, G. 2014. Worker-owned-and-governed co-operatives and the wider cooperative movement: Challenges and opportunities within and beyond the global economic crisis. In: Parker, M., Cheney, G., Fournier, V., and Land, C. eds. The Routledge Companion to Alternative Organization. London, UK: Routledge, pp. 64–88. Weber, M. 1968. Economy and Society. Roth, G. and Wittich, C. eds. New York, NY: Bedminster Press. Weber, M. 1978. Economy and Society. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. Weick, K.E. and Roberts, K.H. 1993. Collective Mind in Organizations: Heedful Interrelating on Flight Decks. Administrative Science Quarterly 38(3), pp. 357–381. Weick, K.E. and Westley, F. 1996. Organizational Learning: Affirming an Oxymoron. In: Clegg, S. R., Hardy, C., and Nord, W. R. eds. Handbook of Organizational Studies. London, UK: Sage. Weitzman, M. and Kruse, D. 1990. Profit sharing and productivity. In: Blinder, A. S. ed. Paying for productivity: A look at the evidence. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press, 161
pp. 95–141. Wenger, E. 1998. Communities of Practice - Learning Meaning and Identity. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Wenger, E. 2000. Communities of practice and Social Learning Systems. Organization 7(2), pp. 225–246. Wenger, E.C. and Snyder, W.M. 2000. Communities of Practice: The Organizational Frontier. Harvard Business Review 78, pp. 139–145. Wiig, K. 1993. Knowledge Management Foundations – Thinking about Thinking – How People and Organizations Create, Represent and Use Knowledge. Arlington, TX: Schema Press. Wilkinson, A., Dundon, T., Donaghey, J. and Freeman, R.B. 2014. Employee voice: charting new terrain. In: Wilkinson, A., Dundon, T., Donaghey, J., and Freeman, R. B. eds. Handbook of Research on Employee Voice. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing, pp. 3–16. Wilkinson, A., Gollan, P.J., Marchington, M. and Lewin, D. 2010. Conceptualizing Employee Participation in Organizations. In: Wilkinson, A., Gollan, P. J., Marchington, M., and Lewin, D. eds. The Oxford Handbook of Participation in Organizations. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 3–25. Williamson, O.E. 1975. Markets and hierarchies: Analysis and antitrust implications. New York, NY: Free Press. Williamson, O.E. 1985. The economic institutions of capitalism. New York, NY: Free Press. Winter, S.G. 1982. An essay on the theory of production. In: Hymans, S. H. ed. Economics and the world around it. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press, pp. 55–91. Winter, S.G. 1988. On Coase, Competence, and the Corporation. Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization 4(1), pp. 163–180. Yin, R.K. 2012. Applications of Case Study Research. 3rd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications. Zhou, A.Z. and Fink, D. 2003. The intellectual capital web: A systematic linking of intellectual capital and knowledge management. Journal of Intellectual Capital 4(1), pp. 34– 48. Zimmerman, B., Lindberg, C. and Pisek, P. 1998. A Complexity Science Primer: What is Complexity Science and Why Should I Learn About It? Adapted From: Edgeware: Lessons From Complexity Science for Health Care Leaders. Dallas, TX: VHA Inc.
162
GLOSSARY OF ACRONYMS NAMES CICOPA - International Organisation of Industrial, Artisanal and Service Producers' Co-operatives ICA - International Co-operative Alliance SACMI - Società Anonima Cooperativa Meccanici Imola YCN - Young Co-operators Network YCP - Young Co-operators Prize YECN - Young European Co-operators Network
TERMS AGM - Annual General Meeting CAS - Complex Adaptive Systems CoP - Community of Practice ESOP - Employee Stock Ownership Plan IOF - Investor-owned Firm RQ - Research Question WIP - Worker Involvement and Participation
163
