3

Action Research in the Workplace:

the Socio-technical Perspective
WILLIAM PASMORE

C H A P T E R O U T L IN E

T h is c h a p te r tra ce s th e e v o lu tio n o f a c tio n re se a rch an d s o c io - te c h n ic a l syste m s th in k in g , d e m o n stra tin g

h o w the tw o c a m e to be lin k e d th ro u g h p e rso n s a n d p ra c tic e , a n d e x a m in in g the e m e rg e n t sy n e rg ie s p ro
d u ce d b y the u n io n . F in a lly , the fu tu re o f the a c tio n re se a rc h p a ra d ig m is a sse sse d , b ased on an a n a ly s is

v.

o f the c h a lle n g e s it fa c e s in sh iftin g the d o m in a n t p a ra d ig m in re se a rc h in stitu tio n s, o rg a n iz a tio n s an d

so c ie ty .

The w o rk p lac e is central to o u r existence. Hence,

it is not surprising that social scientists have
studied beh av io u r in the w o rk p lac e in depth. The
w o rk o f the socio-technical school (P asm o re, 1988;
Trist, 1981; W e is b o rd , 1987) b ro u g h t togeth er
L e w i n s approach to action research w ith B i o n s
(1946) theories ab out lcaderless groups, and von
B e rta la n ffy s (1950) w ork on system s thinking to
investigate and later intervene in a n u m b e r o f issues
pertaining to w o rk p lac e arran g e m en ts that could
increase both h u m an dignity and organizational
effectiveness.
Kurt Lewin, in his classic form ulation o f field
theory (L ew in, 1951), held that b e h a v io u r is influ
enced by its environm en t, the context within w h i c h
it occurs. Therefore, it seems worthwhile to begin our
exploration o f the confluence o f action research and
socio-technical system s thinking by understanding
the contexts w h i c h gave rise to Lcw iiTs w o r k on
action research and to the w ork o f m e m b e r s o f the
Tavistock Institute on socio-technical systems.

O rigins of Action Research

A lth o u g h there is rarely a single perso n w h o c an be
identified as the source o f a novel perspective,
credit for the earliest m o d e rn thinking about putting
science to use in addressing practical social p r o b
lems is often given to J ohn D e w e y , the A m e ric a n

p h ilo so p h er w h o wrote extensively about the need

to dem ocratize education. In his book, IIo w We
Think (1933), D e w e y identified five phases o f
reflective thinking: suggestion, intellectualization,
hypothesizing, reasoning and testing hypotheses in
action. The stim ulus for thinking (the suggestion)
w a s a practical problem o f co n ce rn to the scientist.
A fter thinking about the p ro b le m in o rd er to u n d e r
stand the d y n a m ic s at play, the researcher could
begin formulating hypotheses regarding the nature
o f cause and effect operating a m o n g variables that
shape the situation. R e a s o n in g c o m e s into play as
the researcher identifies and creates theories reg a rd
ing actions that can be taken to change the o u t
c o m e s o f the system by m an ip u la tin g the variables.
These theories are then tested through e x p e rim e n ta
tion and observation to determ ine i f the hypotheses
are c o n firm e d . For D e w e y , practical p r o b le m s
d e m a n d e d practical solutions. A solution to a
problem could only be regarded as viable w h e n it
w a s de m o n s tra te d to produce desired o u tc o m e s in
practice.
D e w e y urged educators to teach students h o w
to think, rather than teaching facts. He urged that
education should be m ade a more collaborative
process, in w h i c h students form ulated hypotheses,
w h ic h they could test in practice. In this w a y, he
believed, education w o u ld better prepare students
for life, w h ic h w o u ld present m a n y p ro b le m s for
w h ic h there were no textbook solutions. M orten

Action research in the w orkplace

m e th o d devised by Trist and M u rr a y is akin to w h a t

today we w o u ld call an a sse ssm e n t centre; c a n d i
dates w ere in te rv ie w e d by an interdisciplinary
team, o b se rv ed as they h an d le d sim ulated leader
ship challenges, and assessed by virtue o f paper and
pencil psychological tests. B i o n s lcaderlcss group
m e th o d w a s used to assess h o w the candidates
w o u ld m a n ag e interpersonal relations, an important
c o m p o n e n t o f the o f f ic e r s job. T o increase the flow
o f candidates, the researchers devised a regimental
nom in a tio n process, in w h i c h regim ents that were
in need o f leaders n o m in a te d can d id ate s from
a m o n g their ranks. In this w a y, m e n c h o s e n as lead
ers were assured the support o f those they w o u ld
c o m m a n d . The new m eth o d s were highly success
ful both in increasing the flow and quality o f c a n d i
dates. O th e r branches o f the military adopted the
p rocedu res shortly thereafter, as did the British
Civil Service following the war. O nce again, the
p o w e r o f action research in dealing w ith pressing
real issues had been dem onstrated.
F o llo w in g the w ar, Trist and his colleagues
turned their attention to matters o f national recov
ery. N o longer supported by military funding, the
w o r k o f the Tavistock group needed to becom e selfsustaining; there w a s a great deal o f pressure for
m e m b e r s o f the Institute to dem onstrate that their
w ork held practical relevance. T r i s t s historical
a cco u n t o f the early years o f the Institute (Trist and
M urray, 1990) m a k e s it clear that intellectual p r o
ductivity w a s born o f need. Despite failures and
miscalculations, the group persisted in advancing
its thinking throu gh practical e x p erim e n ts in real
organizations involving significant and pressing
problems. Trist could easily have joined a university
faculty after the w a r but w a s perhaps influenced by
L e w in in his desire to create an organization that
w o u ld stand b etw een aca d e m ia and organizations,
acting as a bridge b etw een the two rather than a
captive o f either. T avistock w o u ld be dedicated to
action research and it w ould place equal em phasis on
the a d v a n c e m e n t o f k n o w le d g e and the resolution
o f practical problems.
The next m ajo r project o f the T avistock Institute
w a s an observation o f coal-m ining practices (Trist
and B a m forth, 1951). Coal w a s in short supply
c o m p a re d to the grow ing national d e m a n d for coal
as a source o f e n erg y in the recovery o f the indus
trial sector. N e w m ethods, based upon a d v an c e s in
above-ground industrial engineering (conveyor belts,
Taylorism , j o b specialization) had been applied to
the m in es but had not yielded the results promised.
K en B a m fo rth , a fellow at the Institute, had k n o w l
edge o f m ines that used the n ew technology in
novel w a y s in order to produce better outcom es.
Trist w a s im m ed ia te ly interested and w ith the
support o f the British Coal Board, b e g an detailed
studies o f the differences in w ork arrangem en ts
u sed in h ig h -p r o d u c tiv ity and lo w -p ro d u c tiv ity

41

mines. U sin g painstaking ethnographic methods,

Trist began to formulate theories that w o u ld explain
the differences in outputs he observed. Interviewing
w o rk e rs after hours in p ubs and in their hom es, he
pieced together the tenets o f w h a t w o u ld later
b e co m e socio-tcchnical theory.
W o rk e rs in the highly productive, innovative
m in e s operated m ore as s e lf-m an ag in g groups.
T he ir leaders, w h e n c onfronte d w i t h the need to
e m p l o y n ew technology, turned to the w o r k e rs for
advice in h o w to im p lem e n t n ew m e th o d s rather
than following the strict advice o f industrial e n g i
neers w h o had never w o r k e d u n d e rg ro u n d and w h o
therefore d i d n t u nderstand the m yriad factors that
m ade coal m ining more challenging than a b o v e
ground production.
The miners devised system s that allowed them to
be m ulti-skille d and self-directing, rather than
highly specialized and d e p en d e n t upon external
leadership, as w a s the case in lowcr-productivity
mines. The multi-skilled, self-directing arrange
m e n t m ade it easier for the group to adjust to c o n
ditions as they evolved, rather than trying to fit a
m e c h a n ic a l process into c h a n g in g u n d e rg ro u n d
conditions. D r a w in g on system s thinking, Trist,
and later Flood (C h a p te r 10), w as able to provide
graphic evidence o f h o w system s m ust possess
requisite variety in o rd er to adapt to c h a n g in g exter
nal conditions (A shby, 1960). He w a s also able to
de m onstra te that the social system and the technical
system o f an organization operated in an inter
d e p e n d e n t fashion. B ecau se the basic technology in
use in the mines w a s the same, the differences in
perform ance could only be accounted for by the
w ork arrangem ents employed. T h ro u g h his ethno
graphic methods, Trist w a s able to deduce that the
social system s used in the more productive mines
were more consistent with the self-image o f the
miners and more able, in their view, to protect them
from the m a n y dangers that a c c o m p a n y w o rk under
ground. In contrast, in the low -perform ance mines,
w o rk e rs felt alienated from their work, trapped in a
system they could not influence, and constantly
e xp osed to risks o v e r w h i c h they had no control.
A n interesting finding w a s that the incidence o f
mental illness was much higher in the low-performing
m ines than in the h igher-perform ing mines. G iven
T rists earlier involvement in the use o f self-directing
groups to cope w ith mental illness in the military,
this finding d i d n t surprise Trist. B i o n s theories
o f groups explained that w h e n groups becom e
d e p e n d e n t u p o n leadership for guidance they dis
p lay u n h ealth y , basic a s s u m p t i o n behaviours,
such as fight/flight, pairing or dependency, all o f
w h i c h interfere w ith the g r o u p s abilities to d ia g
nose and deal constructively with its o w n issues
(Bion, 1946).
In the u n d e rg ro u n d situation, leaders could not
supply all o f the control necessary to guarantee

44

Groundings

o f coal); the level o f mechanization or autom ation;

unit o p e ra tio n s (steps that result in a p h y sic al
tra n s fo r m a tio n o f the product); the de g ree o f c e n
trality o f certain o p e ra tio n s c o m p a r e d to others;
r eq u ired m a i n te n a n c e o p e ra tio n s; s u p p ly o p e r a
tions; the spatial layout o f the o p e ra tio n and the
spread o f the p ro c e s s o v e r time; the im m e d ia te
physical w o r k setting; and the nature o f i n te rd e
p e n d e n c e a m o n g tasks. E a c h o f these d i m e n s io n s
has the potential to affect the nature o f roles and
role relationships, and hence the level o f p r o d u c
tivity and quality o f w o r k life o f the w o r k sy s te m
as a w hole .
The d im e n s io n s o f the social system, while less
precisely defined than the d im e n s io n s o f the techni
cal system, were said to include: tasks and task
i n t e r d e p e n d e n c i e s th at c o n s ti tu t e o c c u p a t i o n a l
roles; the grouping o f roles into team s around tasks;
the nature o f co-ordination and control; the effec
tiveness o f b o u n d a ry m an a g e m e n t; the degree o f
delegation o f responsibility; and the degree o f
reliance on the expertise o f w o rk e rs in m a k in g c o m
plex j u d g e m e n t s and decisions.
E m e r y argued that because organizations e m p lo y
w hole persons, it is im portant to p a y attention to
h u m a n needs bey o n d those required for the regular
p erfo rm a n ce o f tasks dictated by the technology.
His p s y c h o lo g ic a l r e q u i r e m e n t s for individuals
include: some control over the material and processes
o f the task; that the task itself be structured to induce
forces on the individual towards aiding its com ple
tion; that the task have som e variety and opportunity
for learning; and that the task be c o ntinuously inter
esting and meaningful.
E m e r y s parad ig m w a s in violent conflict w ith
the m aster/servant relationship that characterizes
m a n y workplaces. Instead, E m e r y con side re d the
creation o f a more sym m etrical relationship vitally
important, a relationship in w h i c h m a n a g e m e n t rec
ognizes that no w o rk can be a cc o m p lish ed without
w orkers, and therefore values their contributions to
de cision-m aking. Som e m a n a g e rs have m istaken
this concern for the influence o f w o rk e rs in decision
m a k in g to be a veiled form o f a d v o c a c y for c o m
m unism . In fact, E m e r y w a s a staunch supporter o f
free m arket econom ies. His p rim ary c o n ce rn w a s
with the effectiveness o f w ork systems, not with
w h o o w n e d them.
E m e r y also helped us to understand that the
continued extrem e fractionation o f w ork, best rep
resented by the a s se m b ly line, can and often does
e xceed that level o f fractionation w h i c h produces
o p tim a l results. T a k i n g a s y s te m s p ersp ectiv e,
E m e r y clarified that the fractionation o f w o rk c re
ates an inability to control the system as a whole,
rather than greater control, as a s su m e d by designers
o f the system. Because the system seldom operates
perfectly, even small p ro b le m s can create large s y s
temic impacts. In highly fractionated w o rk systems,

the single worker is powerless to correct the situation.

E a c h person is tied to the j o b or m achine and
c a n n o t change the technical system to com pen sate
for the disturbance. Instead, E m e r y p r o p o se d that
the basic unit for design o f socio-technical system s
m ust itself be a socio-technical unit and have the
characteristics o f an o p e n system. By this, he m eant
a small (8 -1 0 person) self-managing group o f workers
w ho, a m o n g the m e m b e r s o f the group, possess the
skills and authority to control the operation o f their
technology.
At a larger system level, the success o f each
group w o u ld d e p en d on the linkages a m o n g the
groups, and the logic o f control (in this case, selfcontrol) behind those linkages. Three principles o f
design e m e rg e d from this analysis: first, that the
best design for a productive system is one in w hich
each part o f the system e m b o d ie s the goals o f the
overall system; secondly, that the parts should be
s elf-m anaging to the point that they can cope with
p ro b le m s by rearranging their o w n use o f resources;
and thirdly, that m e m b e r s that m ak e up the parts o f
the system are multi-skilled in w a y s that allow them
to cope w ith anticipated needs to rearrange th e m
selves around p ro b le m s or opportunities that might
arise.
O f the three design principles, the second has
proven to be the m ost pivotal in distinguishing the
s o c i o - t e c h n i c a l s y s t e m s p a r a d i g m from o th e r
a p p ro a c h es to work. E m e r y distinguished betw een
organization designs that address the p r o b le m o f
adapting to p ro b le m s or change through either the
redundancy o f parts (each part/person is replaceable;
w h e n one fails, the other takes over) or through the
r e d u n d a n c y o f functions (aka, the second design
principle).
But far more than sim ply a llow ing people to be
more tim ely in their response to problems, E m ery
pointed out h o w o n ly the second design principle
permits adaptation to change, and hence fosters the
dem o c ra tiz a tio n o f w o r k through adaptive planning,
using highly participative methods. In organizations
d esigned on a r e d u n d a n c y o f parts, the limitations
o f individual jo b s m a k e s adaptation through learn
ing difficult. This insight has tre m e n d o u s im plica
tions for organizational inquiry and learning. Senge
and S c h a rm e r (C ha pte r 17) and Torbert (C ha pter 18)
also recognize that o ur thinking should be more
p rom inent about these topics.
Thus, p ro p o n en ts o f the socio-technical system s
p a ra d ig m p ro v e d that action research could indeed
lead to a d v a n c e m e n ts in theory as well as p roducing
positive and practical social change. M o re tradi
tional, tightly controlled research m eth o d s or more
purely theoretical approaches m a y have pro d u ced
significant learning as well; but there can be no
a rg u m e n t about the richness o f thought and the
applicability o f m ethods conceived by the Tavistock
pioneers using action research methods.

Action research in the w orkplace

45

post-industrial society. Both felt that h u m a n dignity

d e m a n d e d that people have a role in setting the c o n
ditions that influenced the quality o f their existence.
F r o m a theoretical persp e ctiv e, both grou ps
e m b r a c e d a form o f open sy ste m s theory, in w h ic h
the beh av io u r o f actors w a s d e te rm in ed not ju st by
their personalities but also by the e n v iro n m e n t or
context within w h i c h the b e h a v io u r w a s observed.
B oth v ie w e d in v o lv em e n t in d e cisio n -m ak in g as a
m e a n s to enrich understanding and c o m m it m e n t to
decisions, but m o re o v e r as a m e a n s to d e v e lo p m e n t
and growth. While each school had its unique
theories ( L e w i n s Field T h e o ry and M c G r e g o r s
T h e o ry X and T h e o ry Y, E m e r y s principles o f
w o rk design and E m e r y and T r i s t s causal texture
o f environm ents), the theories were never in c o m
patible. Indeed, the practical and theoretical contri
butions o f the tw o groups were so closely aligned
that it w o u ld be more sensible to describe them as
one school o f thought rather than two.

Emergent Synergies between AR and STS

The confluence o f L e w i n s action research school
and the T a v i s t o c k s socio-technical system s think
ing w a s hastened by the fact that L e w in and Trist
rem ain e d in close contact, as did m a n y other
m e m b e r s o f their groups. E a c h group w a s p ro
pelled forw ard by the need to invent m e th o d s and
theories that could address practical p ro b le m s o f
the day. B oth groups w ere also highly c o m m itte d
to a d v a n c in g scientific k n o w le d g e , pa rticularly
k n ow ledge that w o u ld enable organizations and
society to better themselves. A rough timeline o f
the events and ideas that shaped the history o f each
group is provided in Figure 3.1.
E ach group started its w o rk from the premise that
c h a n g e b e g in s w ith the i n v o l v e m e n t o f those
directly affected. Each group, as it experim ented
w ith change in groups and organizations, c am e to
see the need to address larger societal issues, requir
ing the evolution o f more com plex and inclusive
change technologies, including large-group inter
ventions. E ach cam e to believe that the predom inant
paradigm o f the time, w hich w a s based on expert
hierarchical control o f social systems, w o u ld never
prove adequate to face the challenges o f a modern,

Looking towards the Future

W h a t legacy have the pioneers o f action research
and socio-technical system s thinking left us, and

-------------------------------------------------------

Lewin at Cornell,
Iowa:
Continued
development of
action research,
field theory
Lippit leadership
studies
D ynam ic Theory
of Personality
1933: Lewin
leaves for the
U SA; meets
Trist at
Cambridge

Figure 3.1

Lewin joins McGregor

at MIT
Field Theory
(1951)
Unfreezing,
change, refreezing
Lippit work with
communities
Group dynam ics

M cGregor's
theory X ,Y
(1960)

The Lewin Action Research School

Arm y mental
casualties
O fficer selection
Resettlement
work
Self-leading
groups (Bion)
Participation in
inquiry
Coal studies

Lewin studies in
Berlin:
Individual versus
mechanized
farming
Zeigarnik effect
Textile worker
studies
Attraction to
unresolved issues

1920

Food rationing
studies
Ft a rwood
experiments
Minority relations
T-Groups, NTL
Force field
analysis

Coal studies paper

(Trist and Bamforth)
Indian weaving
(Rice)
Farm Union work
First search
conference
Characteristics of
socio-technical
systems (Emery)

Norwegian
Industrial
Dem ocracy
Organizational
Choice (1963)
STS diffusion
Social ecology
Causal texture
of environments

The Tavistock Socio-technical School

1933

1940

1950

The c o n flu e n c e of action research and so cio -te ch n ical system s thinking

1960

46

Groundings

w h a t challenges re m a in for us to tackle? Is there

im portant w o r k yet to be done?
Lew in died suddenly in 1947 at the age o f 57, at
the height o f his work. A t that time, he w a s deeply
c o n c e rn e d about o v e rc o m in g individualism, w hich
he view ed as a detrim ent to collaborative social
learning and action.
N e a r the end o f his life, Trist w a s disappointed
w ith the rate o f diffusion o f socio-technical systems
thinking. After nearly 50 years o f work, he recog
nized that the paradigm o f scientific m an a g e m e n t
c o n c e i v e d by T aylor, linked w i t h the controloriented systems o f bureaucratic m anagement w a s still
the dom inant form o f work organization. Democratic
m ethods o f m a n a g e m e n t were still encountering stiff
resistance, and even some successful demonstration
projects had shown signs o f regression in the face o f
traditional authoritarianism.
Both m en had dedicated their lives to the better
m e n t o f o rganiza tions and society through the
im p lem e n ta tio n o f action research and dem ocratic
d e cisio n -m a k in g methods. B oth were aware that
despite their best efforts, pow erful forces in society
continued to provide resistance to their teachings.
At this point, w h a t can w e say about the legacy they
have left behind?
L c w i n s w o r k sp a w n e d a n e w approach to both
inquiry and the m a n a g e m e n t o f change that has
e x p a n d e d its influence to applications that L e w in
could never have envisioned. The chapters in this
volum e arc perhaps the best testim ony to the breadth
o f action research applications and the continuing
interest in participative learning and d e c i s io n
making. W h o le fields (organization developm ent,
m a n a g e m e n t d e v e lo p m e n t, c o m m u n i t y d e v e l o p
ment, adult learning and global social change) have
e volved using m eth o d s based on L e w i n s thinking.
The im pact o f T r i s f s w o r k is m ost visible in the
m eth o d s o f participation that have been built into
d e cisio n -m a k in g in organizations and in the prolif
eration o f large-group interventions to address o r g a
nizational, c o m m u n it y and global issues. T o be
certain, m a n y individuals, organizations and c o m
m unities have benefited directly or indirectly from
the pioneering w ork o f these two founding giants.
F rom a scientific perspective, action research
methods arc more accepted by mainstream scientists,
especially in the study o f complex systemic p h e n o m
ena that do not lend th em selv e s easily to reduc tio n
i s t s methods. Field experim ents, e th n o g ra p h y and
case studies ap p ea r m u c h more frequently in social
science jo u rn a ls today than they did in 1947, w h e n
L e w in and Trist collaborated in founding the j o u r
nal H um an Relations in o rd er to have a publication
outlet for their work.
So there have been scientific a d v a n c e s and
impressive, lasting effects o f the action research
paradigm. But h o w should we assess its current
state? Despite their idealism, L e w in and Trist were

fundam entally realists. T h e ir w o rk w a s thoughtful

but practical and their a sse ssm e n t o f the state o f
action research today w o u ld p robably be the same.
In the 70 years since L e w in began to think about
action research as a tool for learning and change,
and in the 50 years since Trist began building upon
his ideas, expert-based, non-participatory m ethods
o f inquiry and change have rem ained the d o m ina nt
p a r a d i g m . W h e n a c t io n res e a r c h , o r g a n i z a t i o n
d ev elopm e nt, or participative m eth o d s o f c o m m u
nity d e v e l o p m e n t are invoked, they a lm ost alw ays
face scepticism, despite their impressive record o f
success. M o re often than not, w e continue to w i t
ness change driven from the top d ow n, by the few
w ith the p o w e r to control the m any, w ith o u t regard
to the potential benefits o f greater in v o lv e m e n t by
those w h o m ust im p le m e n t the new w a y o f operat
ing. W e continue to see failed efforts to improve
organizational perform ance or c o m m u n it y w e ll
being followed not by efforts to involve people in
learning w h a t w e n t w r o n g but instead by replacing
leaders w ith others w h o repeat the same process
o v e r and o v e r again.
In science, w e continue to find jo u rn a ls full o f
one-sided, reductionistic research, correlational stud
ies a m o n g a few variables, and fragm ented insights
offered in the prevailing genre o f separate fields
analysing parts o f complex social systems. Strategists,
social psychologists, industrial p sychologists and
operational researchers find little time to read each
o t h e r s w o rk and w h e n they do, m o re often than not
find reasons to deride w h a t they see. C u rric u lu m s o f
business schools, social w ork schools and public
policy schools are similarly fragmented, m aking
it difficult for the values inherent in action research
to e m e rg e p ow erfully from the din o f alternative
claim s to truth.
Yes, action research continues to exist and to be
w id e ly practised. B ut it also continues to be an
alternative paradigm , co m p e tin g for legitim acy in
the face o f the same traditional forces that forced
L e w in to flee Nazi G e r m a n y to pursue academ ic
freedom in the U S A . Those w ith p o w e r still use it
to overrule involvem ent in d e cisio n -m ak in g by
students, w o rk e rs and citizens w h e n e v e r they feel
threatened by the o u tc o m e s that in v o lv em e n t might
produce. In v o lv e m e n t and c h a o s are view ed as
closely linked by those w h o prefer to trust their o w n
j u d g e m e n t regarding w h a t is good for their classes,
their w o rk p la c e s or their com m unities. The m ajo r
ity o f im portant organizational decisions continue
to be m ade by e x p e r t s , m ost j o b s continue to be
d esigned w ith too m u c h specialization, and the fate
o f m ost c o m m u n itie s continues to be d ete rm in ed by
elected officials rather than by the people w hose
interests politicians purport to represent.
These challenges to action research demonstrate
that we are still firmly caught in the grasp o f tech
nological d e term in ism and scientific positivism.

Action research in the w orkplace

H u m a n needs continue to be seco n d a ry to technical

and e c o n o m ic a d v a n c e m e n t as m ea su re s o f the
progress o f society. I f this course o f events goes
unchallenged, its w a y o f thinking will block the
d e v e lo p m e n t o f solutions that could eventually shift
the d o m in a n t p ara d ig m to one w h i c h is more inclu
sive and egalitarian. T o challenge the dom inant view
will require a para d ig m shift that a cc o m p lish es the
following ten objectives effectively.
1

10

The n e w p a ra d ig m w o u ld elevate the quality o f

total h u m a n experience above m easu re s o f
e c o n o m ic progress as the p rim ary m easure for
the a d v a n c e m e n t o f society. M e a s u res o f e c o
nom ic progress w o u ld still be important, but
seco n d a ry and in service o f m easu re s o f the
quality o f h u m a n experience.
The n ew p a ra d ig m w o u ld devise w a y s o f
m akin g expert k n o w le d g e readily available to
those w h o need to d ra w u p o n it in o rd er to
m ake decisions that affect their systems.
The n e w p a ra d ig m w o u ld place the speed o f
learning and adaptation above costs and effi
ciencies as the ultimate m easures o f perfor
m ance o f a system.
The n ew para d ig m w o u ld elevate e n v i r o n m e n
tal and c o m m u n it y issues above the creation o f
w ealth as the p rim ary political concern. This
w o u ld rc-align societal goals w ith important
shared interests and put p o w e r in the hands o f
the m a n y rather than the few.
The n ew p a ra d ig m w o u ld restore h u m a n d ig
nity as an im portant criterion for evaluating
m e th o d s used in educational, organizational
and political systems.
The n e w paradigm w o u ld call for enhan c ed
diversity in scientific m eth o d s and w a y s o f
knowing. Positivism and rcductionism w ould
not be left behind; instead, more balance
w o u ld be given to multiple w a y s o f inquiring
into im portant societal problems.
The n ew p a ra d ig m w o u ld ensure that in fo rm a
tion systems, productive system s and political
system s are d esigned in accordance w ith the
unique needs o f those they serve and in such a
w a y as to locate control o v e r chan g e s in their
design to users rather than experts.
Since the boundaries o f organizations, c o m m u
nities and even countries are b e co m in g increas
ingly irrelevant, the n ew parad ig m w o u ld target
groups that share interests for intervention.
R e c o g n iz i n g that pe o p le w o r k i n g to g e th er
globally will becom e as im portant as people
w orking alone or locally, the new paradigm will
develop w a y s for people to utilize diversity
effectively.
The n e w p a ra d ig m w o u ld continue to explore
w a y s for organizations and societies to develop,
release and utilize the tre m e n d o u s capabilities

47

that arc currently trapped in people operating

w ith in rigid structures. Rigid structures w h ic h
are efficient in the short run are inherently
inefficient in adapting to change. Structures
th em selv e s m ust be e x a m in e d and re-invented
to free organizations and c o m m u n itie s from
self-imposed limitations on the speed and direc
tion o f their d e v e lo p m e n t while at the same
time devising m e th o d s to p revent a n arc h y and
chaos.
T a k e n together, these challenges pose a fo rm id a
ble challenge to action researchers. S eventy years
o f s u c c e s s f u l e x p e r i m e n t a t i o n , t h e o r i z i n g and
attempts to change the d o m in a n t paradigm through
practical dem onstrations, publications and e x h o rta
tion have failed to turn the tide. Y et, the a lte r n a
tive w o r ld that w o u ld be created by defaulting to
the current d o m in a n t paradigm is all too easy to
imagine. A fter 70 years o f trying, is there value in
c ontinuing to w o rk w ithin the action research p a ra
d ig m ? One m ust answ er, as L e w in and Trist did,
w ith a vision in m in d o f the future one w ish e s to
create.

References
Ackoff, R. (1974) Redesigning the Future: a Systems

Approach to Societal Problems. N e w York: W iley &

Sons.
Ashby, W. (1960) Design fo r a Brain. N e w York: W iley &
Sons.
BertalanlTy, L. (1950) The theory o f open systems in
physics and biology', Science , 3: 2 2 -9 .
Bion, W. (1946) The Leaderless Group Project', Bulletin

o f the Menninger Clinic , 10: 7 7 -8 1 .

Bridger, II. (1990) The Discovery o f the Therapeutic
Community: the Northfield Experiments. Philadelphia,
PA: The University o f Pennsylvania Press.
Coch, L. and French, J. (1948) Overcoming resistance to
change, Human Relations , 1: 5 1 2 -3 3 .
D ew ey , J. (1933) How We Think. N e w York: Heath.
Emery, F. (1 9 5 9 ) Characteristics o f Socio-technical

Systems. London: Tavistock Institute, Document #527.

Emery, F. and Trist, E. (1965) The causal texture o f
organizational environments, Human Relations , 18:
2 1 -3 1 .
Emery, F. and Frist, E. (1973) Towards a Social Ecology v

Contextual Appreciation o f the Future in the Present.

London: Plenum Press.
Emery, M. and Purser, R. (1996) The Search Conference.
San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
French, W. and Bell, C. (1984) Organization Devel

opment: Behavioral Science Interventions fo r Orga

nizational Improvement. E n g e lw o o d C liffs, NJ:
Prentice-I Iall.
Hill, P. (1971) Towards a New Philosophy o f Management.
N e w York: Barnes and Noble.

48

Groundings

Levin, M. and Greenwood, D. (2001) Pragmatic action

research and the struggle to transform universities into
learning com m unities, in P. Reason and H. Bradbury
(eds), Handbook o f Action Research: Participative
Inquiry and Practice. London: Sage Publications,
pp. 103-13
Lewin, K. (1951) Field Theory in Social Science: Selected

Theoretical Papers. N e w York: Harper & Row.

Marrow, A. (1969) The Practical Theorist. N e w York:
Basic Books.
McGregor, D. (1960) The Human Side o f Enterprise.
N e w York: McGraw-Hill.
Miller, E. (1975) Sociotechnical systems in weaving,
1953-1970: a follow-up study, Human Relations ,
28: 3 4 9 -8 6 .
Murray, H. (1990) The Transformation o f Selection Proce
dures: the War Office Selection Boards. Philadelphia,
PA: The University o f Pennsylvania Press.
Pasmore, W. (1988) Designing Effective Organizations:

the Sociotechnical Systems Perspective. N e w York:

W iley & Sons.
Rice, A. (1958) Productivity and Social Organization: the

Ahmedabad Experiment. London: Tavistock.

Trist, E. (1979) N e w directions o f hope: recent innovations

interconnecting organizational, industrial, community and
personal development, Regional Studies, 13: 439-51.

The Sociotechnical Perspective: the

Evolution o f Sociotechnical Systems as a Conceptual
Framework and as an Action Research Paradigm.

Trist, E. (1981)

N e w York: W iley & Sons.

Trist, E. and Bamforth, K. (1951) Som e social and
psychological consequences o f the Longwall Method
o f coal-getting, Human Relations , 4: 3-3 8 .
Trist, E., Higgin, G., Murray, H. and Pollock, A. (1963)

Organizational Choice: Capabilities o f Groups at the

Coal Face under Changing Technologies: the Loss,
Rediscovety and Transformation o f a Work Tradition.
London: Tavistock.
Trist, E. and Murray, H. (1990) Historical Overview: the

Foundation and Development o f the Tavistock Institute.

Philadelphia, PA: The University o f Pennsylvania
Press.
Walton, R. (1972) H ow to counter alienation in the
plant, Harvard Business Review , 50: 7 0 -8 1 .
W eisbord, M. ( 1 9 8 7 ) Productive
Francisco, C'A: Jossey-Bass.

Workplaces.

San