If workers were in charge: the promises and challenges of empowering coordination practices

Increased participation of workers is widely held to contribute to their autonomy, personal development and well-being. Case studies, however, tend to show disappointing or at least ambiguous results. This is often attributed... [ view full abstract ]

Increased participation of workers is widely held to contribute to their autonomy, personal development and well-being. Case studies, however, tend to show disappointing or at least ambiguous results. This is often attributed to the interference of remaining aspects of hierarchy and bureaucracy. On the basis of interviews with worker-owners in six small worker cooperatives, I will argue that the elimination of superordination and standardised rules as mechanisms of coordination is not a panacea. The relation between coordination, empowerment and well-being is complex. The paper demonstrates, first, that worker-owners mainly coordinate their activities through dialogic communication. It also shows how they arrive at producing the necessary alignment and responsibility. Turning subsequently to autonomy, personal development and well-being, the paper presents the mixed effects associated with three implications of dialogic coordination: (1) mutual adjustment, (2) reorientation of skills and attitudes, and (3) personal recognition and emotional involvement. Even if globally positively evaluated by the worker-owners, the paper shows that participation is inherently ambivalent. This is due to the double-edged nature of dialogic coordination and the sometimes contradictory effects on autonomy, personal development and well-being. The main findings can be summarized as follows: (1) the elimination of superordination and standardised rules is not tantamount to autonomy and standardised rules, (2) the elimination of superordination and standardised rules doesn’t unambiguously imply well-being, (3) Workers don’t necessarily want to eliminate all forms of superordination and standardised rules. Recognising the limits and drawbacks of participatory practices should contribute to taking a problem-solving approach to the assessment and further development of coordination solutions that are grounded in participation.