EUROPEAN JOURNAL OFORGANIZATIONAL

WORK AND ORGANIZATIONAL

LEARNINGPSYCHOLOGY, 2000, 9 (2), 177–188
AND PARTICIPATION 177

Organizational learning and participation:

Some critical reflections from a
relational perspective
Robert Holmberg
Change @ Work and Department of Psychology, Lund University, Sweden

This article is a discussion of how ideas regarding organizational learning tend to

be popularized and presented in a normative way as prescriptions for “the learning
organization”. These ideas are discussed with respect to their stance in relation to
political practices and decision practices in organizations. It is argued that,
although the image of the learning organization is attractive to practitioners and
seems to be conducive to participative working arrangements, it may be
detrimental to participation and dialogue in the long run. It is suggested that some
of these problems can be understood and dealt with through the introduction of a
relational perspective based upon projects of self-formation and participation.

THE RISE OF ORGANIZATIONAL LEARNING

The problems of management ideas such as Total Quality Management (TQM),
Business Process Reengineering (BPR), and Kaizen have been discussed from
different points of view (Hackman & Wageman, 1995; Reger, Gustafsson,
Demarie, & Mullane, 1994, Yong & Wilkinson, 1999). From a managerial
perspective, that is, a perspective that does not problematize the objectives of
management (McCabe, Knights, Kerfoot, Morgan, & Wilmott, 1998), there has
been concern for the effectiveness of TQM and the relatively common problems
of implementation. From a related, but more socially oriented perspective, there
has been concern about whether TQM, as it is practised, is a reasonable way to
create motivation, teamwork, customer-orientation, and performance Argyris,
1994; Hackman & Wageman, 1995).
During the 1990s, there was growing dissatisfaction with some of the basic
assumptions that seem to govern most approaches to organizational change. It
has been argued that many of the concepts mentioned earlier (TQM, BPR, etc.)

Requests for reprints should be addressed to R. Holmberg, Change @ Work and

Department of Psychology, Paradisgatan 5, Lund University, 223 50 Lund, Sweden.
Email: robert.holmberg@psychology.lu.se
© 2000 Psychology Press Ltd
http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals/pp/1359432X.html
178 HOLMBERG

can be described as programmatic strategies (Beer, Eisenstat, & Spector, 1990;

Hart, 1999). Programmatic strategies are characterized by imitation, imported
methods, top-down decision-making, expert problem-solving, emphasis on
planning, limited focus, small number of tools, and reliance on formalized tools
for change (Hart, 1999).
In contrast to the programmatic strategies, Hart (1999) and others draw on
concepts such as organizational learning (Argyris, Putnam, & McLain Smith,
Nonaka, 1994; Senge, 1991), corporate renewal (Beer et al., 1990), and
experiences from the Scandinavian tradition of action research, workplace
participation through self-managed groups, dialogue strategies for change, etc.
(Gustavsen, 1996). As an alternative to the programmatic strategies, they present
what they call a learning strategy. This is characterized by: being driven by
visions, strategic dialogue, broad definitions of problems, top-down and bottom-
up decision-making, empowerment, involvement by large numbers of
employees, and successive broadening and application of a wide variety of tools
for facilitating change (Hart, 1999).
The idea of “learning strategies” is a part of the general interest in
organizational learning that has evolved during the last 15 years (Popper &
Lipshitz, 1998). Edmondson (1996) suggests that what is common in texts about
organizational learning is that it: “gives rise to a cognitive approach, in which
individuals’ beliefs and insights are viewed as critical influences on
organizational effectiveness” (p. 571). In her article, she describes three schools
of research and practice that claim to work with organizational learning. She
describes and compares the contributions of Edgar Schein, Peter Senge, and
Chris Argyris and discusses their respective interpretations of organizational
learning. Schein has directed attention towards organizational culture (Schein,
1991, 1993), Senge focuses on organizations as systems and the relations
between system dynamics and mental models (Senge, 1991, 1994). Argyris
studies the interplay between individual reasoning, interpersonal relations, and
organisational patterns that either stimulate or inhibit problem-solving and
learning (Argyris, 1994; Argyris et al., 1985; Argyris, & Schön, 1996).

Cultural assumptions that inhibit learning

Schein emphasizes the importance of cultural patterns in the form of artefacts,
values, and basic assumptions. Obstacles to learning are, according to Schein,
often to be found in the taken-for-granted and shared basic assumptions that have
evolved over the organization’s lifetime (the experience and personal style of the
founder, or other key persons, is often a significant contribution to these
assumptions). One of the major challenges is to get different sub-cultures to
communicate in an effective way. The key to success is to create a better
understanding of the underlying assumptions that govern behaviour. This
 ORGANIZATIONAL LEARNING AND PARTICIPATION 179
process has many parallels with the creation of insight that constitutes the aim of
psychoanalysis.

System dynamics, mental models, and organization design

Senge is interested in the organization as a system and claims that it can be
analysed in the same way as natural and technical systems. One of the lessons
learned from the discipline of systems dynamics is that people focus more on the
symptoms than on the underlying causes. One reason for this is that cause and
effect are often separated in both time and space. According to Senge, the
obstacles to effectiveness are to be found in structural arrangements that are
dysfunctional in relation to the underlying dynamics of a certain problem or
activity. Senge’s approach is based on bringing together researchers and
decision-makers from the organization in a process of collaborative inquiry into
the problems, then subsequently developing models and simulations of the
system. Senge emphasizes that it is necessary for decision-makers to learn about
their mental models of the systems and to be able to get out of cognitive traps
such as trying to blame the world around them. In order to gain acceptance for the
new way of thinking about the organization, Senge points out that people in the
organization need to be involved in working with model-building. One of the
aims is to understand how one’s own thinking (i.e. mental models) contributes to
ineffectiveness.

Action theories and defensive reasoning

Argyris is interested in the individual and organizational theories/models that
govern how actors design their actions. Argyris is of the opinion that lasting
change has to be achieved through a change in the reasoning processes of
individuals and in the reasoning processes shared in the organization. He
describes this change as a move from defensive values (stay in control, achieve
your purpose, maximize winning, minimize losing, be rational) to more open
values (valid information, informed choice, and vigilant monitoring of
implementation to detect and correct errors). Argyris intervenes through
participating in meetings and decision-making. He actively confronts and
engages defensive reasoning and personally demonstrates and teaches how to
reason in a more open and constructive way.

A RELATIONAL PERSPECTIVE ON
ORGANIZING AND LEARNING
Gergen and Thatchenkery (1996) describe how the accelerating questioning of
beliefs in the rational agent, empirical knowledge, and the function of language
as a representation of reality led to a post-modern turn in the social sciences. This
development has also affected organizational psychology. The traditional
180 HOLMBERG

domination of a neo-positivistic, experimentally oriented conception of

organizational psychology had positioned psychology (or rather organizational
behaviour—OB) as a managerial technology or sub-discipline, especially in its
relation to management philosophies such as TQM (Steffy & Grimes, 1992). The
philosophical and ideological assumptions underlying this position have been
problematized in a number of contributions. The critique draws both on the so-
called “linguistic turn” of social science and contributions from philosophy and
critical theory (Alvesson & Deetz, 1996; Dachler & Hosking, 1995; Gergen &
Thatchenkery, 1996; Hosking & Morley, 1991). According to these writers,
persons and organizations can be seen as social constructions, whose nature is
negotiated and renegotiated through interpersonal interaction within social
contexts/communities. Recent developments with relevance to this perspective
are discursive psychology (Harré & Gillett, 1995), discourse analysis (Potter,
1996), and cultural psychology (Bruner, 1997).
There seems to be some convergence in the growing interest in talk and
communication as essential features in the analysis of organizing (Blackler,
1993; Ford & Ford, 1995; Weick, 1995). Processes of change thus depend upon
what kind of talk is generated, and the effects of talk on the interaction between
actors: “Producing intentional change, then, is a matter of deliberately bringing
into existence, through communication, a new reality or set of social structure”
(Ford & Ford, 1995, p. 542). The criteria for generative, communicative or
vigilant forms of talk vary from Habermas’s notions of consensus to Lyotard’s
more ironic and playful forms of disagreement. Dachler and Hosking (1995), and
students of group psychology (e.g., West, 1996), emphasize the role of
reflexivity, i.e. the ability to momentarily turn back on one’s own thinking and
beliefs and position in a specific context. Dachler and Hosking (1995) describe a
form of reflexivity when they argue that: “besides the content questions raised in
discussions, possible differences in understandings of self, others and
relationships, need to be explicitly addressed and negotiated” (p. 15). They
explicitly point out that a common framework for communication can be
established through what they refer to as multiloguing about: “the taken for
granted assumptions about self, other and relationship” (p. 16).
These processes of social construction can be understood as the unfolding of
narratives that create meaning by relating text to context. Meaningful
conversation is, however, dependent on the mutual construction of an
interpretative context that consists of a number of narratives that act as a common
context or source of reference for the participants. What follows from this
perspective is that knowledge is not representations (mental models) in people’s
heads. Thus, meaning cannot be defined unilaterally by anybody. In a discussion
of leadership, networking, and negotiation, Dachler and Hosking (1995) contrast
the dominating masculine and individualistic narratives in the field of
management with alternatives that draw on more feminine or relational ways of
organizing. They argue that a more caring, collective, and sharing approach to
 ORGANIZATIONAL LEARNING AND PARTICIPATION 181
leadership would be helpful. Rather than seeing networking and negotiating as a
unilateral way of gaining knowledge and power through contacts, they suggest
that it is possible to see these processes as reciprocal relations characterized by
dialogue and a continuing redefinition of text and context.
A relational perspective on organizational learning is sceptical to the
possibility of exploring the validity of mental models or inner representations, as
such. Any formulations of thoughts and assumptions have to be understood in the
context of ongoing conversation and relations. Whereas more traditional
approaches to organizational learning emphasizes the interplay between the outer
world and how this is represented in the minds of actors in ways that lead to more
or less effective behaviour, a relational understanding is an opportunity to focus
on processes in which both the actor and the world around him or her are created
in ways that either expand or contract the space of possible action. The focus on
processes of interaction, conversation, narrating, dialoguing, and multiloguing
helps us to ask questions about the qualities of this dialogue, such as who and
what is given a voice, what is included, and what is excluded. Learning has thus
to be seen as a reciprocal process in which the establishing of a certain basis for
action is a collaborative effort that necessarily has to develop in relation to all
those who can be seen as stakeholders in a certain issue.
One of the benefits of a relational perspective may be that it paves the way for
a critical attitude: “In a relational perspective questioning, and so making
explicit, the taken for granted narratives is central and opens up the possibility for
radical change as contrasted with what otherwise would turn out to be more of the
same” (Dachler & Hosking, 1995, p. 13). Therefore, a relational perspective on
organizing involves the formation of an alternative epistemological position and
critical stance towards managerialism in combination with a quest for alternative
ways of organizing, and managing. A quest that includes numerous strategies for
giving voice to men and women, positions and practices that tend to be excluded
from traditional models of management.

THE CONSEQUENCES OF DIFFERENT PERSPECTIVES ON

ORGANIZATIONAL LEARNING
Scheins’s, Senge’s, and Argyris’ versions of organizational learning are
appealing in a number of ways. They account for quite frequent problems and, in
different ways, they also show how problems can be explained and corrected
through the application of principles and methods. They provide a rhetoric of
organizational reality, which is appealing because it connects the large-scale
processes (such as organizational change) with microprocesses or even so-called
inner processes (thinking, understanding). The relational perspective has some
similarities to the insistence on reflection, dialogue, and the value of scrutinizing
the mental models or theories that govern action on individual and organizational
levels described by Argyris, Senge, and Schein. This similarity seems, however,
182 HOLMBERG

Political practices
Expression processes

(strategy) (involvement)

Decision practices Co-determination and

Domination and control co-ordination

(consent) (participation)

Constitutive processes

Figure 1. A typology of interaction based on two dimensions concerning decision practices

(domination and control versus co-determination and co-ordination) and political practices
(expression processes versus constitutive processes. From Transforming Communication,
Transforming Business: Building responsive and responsible workplaces (p. 100), by S. Deetz
(1995), Hampton, NJ: Hampton Press Inc. Copyright © 1995 Hampton Press Inc. Reprinted with
permission.

to be quite superficial. Although Argyris, for instance, is interested in human

interaction and its consequences, he does not seem to believe that individuals, as
such, are constituted through processes of social construction.
The consequences of applying these different notions of organizational
learning may be discussed within a framework offered by Deetz (1992, 1995).
Deetz is concerned with establishing processes of communication in the
workplace that allow for participation and engagement in communicative
relations that are productive rather than unproductive. “Productive relations
happen as the fixed self/other/world configuration gives over to conflictual,
tension-filled antagonisms out of which objects are differentiated and
redifferentiated and preconceptions are given over to new conceptions” (1995,
p. 91). “Domination occurs when a particular moment of articulation of self-
other-world relation is frozen or fixed, so that the singular world holds sway over
the plurality. In these cases interaction is more reproductive than productive”
(p. 91).
 ORGANIZATIONAL LEARNING AND PARTICIPATION 183
Dialogic communication is based on an understanding of communication as
signifying creation and self-other-world constitution, whereas communication as
a form of expression suggests that identities, thoughts, and meanings are formed
in advance and merely transported between the subjects. Deetz links this
dimension to a dimension of decision practices where domination and control are
at one extreme and co-determination and co-ordination are at the other. The
combination of these two dimensions results in four ideal types of interaction in
organizations (Figure 1). These are: strategy, which implies an open ambition to
control motivation, attitudes, and action with rewards, propaganda, and coercion;
and involvement , which implies a reliance on the better argument and expertise—
“Information is widely distributed though the processes of information formation
are rarely explored” (Deetz, 1995, p. 100). Consent is a more indirect way to
achieve dominance and control, often being characterized by “ideological
formations, common-sense, routines and standard practices, naturalisation, and
discipline in Foucault’s sense” (p. 100). The fourth kind of interaction is
participation , which “is based on giving voice to difference, negotiation of
values and decisional premises, and the production of new integrative positions”
(p. 100).

Strategy versus involvement

The perspectives on learning that are discussed in this article are probably a
reflection of general patterns of change that affect working practices,
organizations, living conditions, and society at large throughout the world.
Popular management literature, as well as organization studies and sociology,
abounds with descriptions of how fundamental changes transform our society on
a global scale. The shift from programmatic strategies of change towards
learning strategies and theories about organizational learning may be one
example of a move away from a traditional industrial paradigm towards a greater
sensitivity to the conditions of knowledge-intensive production. It seems
plausible to conclude that, whereas programmatic strategies could be useful as
ways of creating order through strategic action and control in quite traditional
organizations, the new patterns of production need to be modelled on other
principles. Concepts and methods related to theories about organizational
learning fit well as an ideal, or a source of ideas and tools, for creating order and
(self)-discipline under conditions of continuous change.
Thus, a possible conclusion is that in the industrial society, the major tension
existed between processes of strategy (as seen in management practices such as
planning, giving orders, controlling, rewarding) and processes of involvement
(worker representation in decision-making, team-based organizations). Deetz
(1995) describes for instance how: “empowerment plans, quality circles, self-
directed teams, and so forth, are better seen as involvement rather than
participation plans. They increase the expression, but do not necessarily increase
184 HOLMBERG

the representation. They create a discussion forum without giving “voice”

p. 104). The major tension in the “learning society” or the post-industrial society
may, however, be between processes of consent (as seen in the development of
certain norms, values, and inspirational images, such as “a strong corporate
culture”, “the learning organization” or “the free agent”, and processes of
participation, which call for a process of questioning the taken-for-granted ways
of representing work, organizations, and identities.

Consent versus participation

In spite of their differences, Senge, Schein, Argyris contribute to a certain image
of organizational learning. This image can be seen as a way to: provide plausible
explanatory frameworks for managerial predicaments, create integrative stories,
re-establish beliefs in rationality, depict organizations as natural entities
characterized by consensus, and provide an image of organizations as interesting
places for individuals to be in, places where they can learn, create, and grow.
Writers such as Senge, Schein, and Argyris make the individual profoundly
interesting. The focus on learning tends to stimulate a process of curiosity
regarding the inner lives of people, their mental models, experience, and their
ability to reflect. This is a process of individualization and psychologization that
makes organizational life at large more interesting (i.e., it is presented as a
romantic drama where individuals are involved in a quest for better knowledge,
self-fulfilment, and quality). It also allows for a wide variety of practices for
selecting, training, and organizing people so that they become better learners. Of
course, these improvement practices are available to the individual so he or she
can measure and improve his or her abilities as a learning agent in the learning
organization (Townley, 1993, 1995). This process creates an area for knowledge
and power in organizations that was previously quite private and uncolonized.
Self-monitoring and introspection in order to gain self-knowledge are
integrated elements of management development and other HRM practices
(Townley, 1995). Townley argues that these practices, such as 360-degree
appraisal, create a form of self-awareness that is focused on inner characteristics,
needs and a search for a true self. Thus, the notion of self-awareness is related to
practices that help to establish an image of people as individuals, separated from
their contexts.
Schein, Argyris, and Senge lead us to see people as designers of their actions,
as rational problem-solvers who, in order to become more efficient, have to
reflect upon or analyse their mental models and theories in order to grasp the
complexities of the world around them. Organization members also have to be
constantly vigilant and open in order to reorientate themselves in a flux of
continuous change (Weick & Quinn, 1999). Many of these strivings are
presented in the form of advice in managerial “life-style” magazines such as Fast
Company. The contemporary celebration of the so-called “new economy” and
 ORGANIZATIONAL LEARNING AND PARTICIPATION 185
the entrepreneurial culture of “free agents” are some arenas in which the ideas
about organizational learning can act as a source of knowledge of oneself and
interpretations of and solutions to a wide array of management problems.
Certain ideas about organizational learning can thus be understood as part of a
managerial project for reproducing consent through discursive closure (by
systematically excluding alternative interpretations, experiences, conflicts, etc.
from the discourse) (Deetz, 1992). This probably means that the use of these
ideas in practical, work-related situations will always be affected by ideological
themes. Organization members will be encouraged to enquire and communicate
(in order to improve processes and redesign themselves into fully fledged
knowledge workers), but suddenly they will learn that it is not OK to enquire
about certain things, and certainly not about the rules that govern which enquiry
is allowed and which one is not. It is impossible (or at least perceived as irrational
and counterproductive) to say no to “learning”. The popular belief is that learning
is inherently good and rational. It seems to be difficult to find a position from
which it is possible to articulate a legitimate critique of practices that are
supposed to stimulate organizational learning, since it is meant to be beneficial to
everybody.
The discussion of communication and decision practices is helpful, in that it
provides a clearer idea regarding the consequences of a relational perspective on
organizational learning. A relational perspective paves the way for participation
in Deetz’s (1995) sense, since it is focusing on relating as a constitutive process.
Many management practices tend to create situations that favour reproductive
relations that effectively exclude opportunities for participation. The ideas
regarding multilogue, reflexivity, and questioning the taken-for-granted may be
steps towards productive relations that provide a space for “conflictual, tension-
filled antagonisms” (Deetz, 1995, p. 91). Self-awareness seems to be a process
that leads in the direction of reproductive relations, Townley (1995) suggests that
self-formation may be a more constructive alternative. Self-formation is different
from self-awareness in that it is directed outwards with focus on one’s conduct in
relation to others. It encompasses noticing how one acts and relates to situations
in the perspective of rights rather than needs. “The recognition of rights implies
the recognition of duties and introduces the notion of reciprocity and the
collective nature of action. This reorientation recognizes that we each have
rights. We are not bundles of needs requiring motivation (merit pay) and
feedback (annual appraisal). Rather, we are participating subjects, equally active
in creating processes that require managing” (Townley, 1995, p. 285).

CONCLUSIONS
Many contemporary organizations try to apply learning strategies in their way of
organizing. This trend may have some positive outcomes, such as a greater
concern for different interpretations, concern for communication, empowerment,
186 HOLMBERG

dialogue, etc. However, at the same time (as this article has shown), it is
important to realise that ideas about organizational learning also has a capacity to
undermine the potential for participation. Thus, our discussion has moved from
concern over the proper way of managing change (programmatic strategies of
dominance and control) and organizational learning (consent and involvement)
to a search for more participative ways (negotiative constitution or multilogue)
(Dachler & Hosking, 1995). “Corporate culture” is an image of organizational
life that was popular during the 1980s. Willmott (1993) described how
“corporate culturism aspires to extend the terrain of instrumentally rational
action by developing monocultures in which conditions for the development of
value-rational action, where individuals struggle to assess the meaning and worth
of a range of competing value-standpoints, is systematically eroded” (p. 518). If
“corporate culture” was a broad vision or philosophy regarding how to nurture
consent and exclude the possibility of dialogue, choice, and participation, ideas
and practices related to organizational learning could be described as delicate
instruments that help to achieve these objectives.
What kind of advice, or which conclusions, is it possible to draw from this
discussion? If we are interested in studying or stimulating relational approaches
to organizing and participatory practices in working life, it is perhaps wise to
look for the plenitude of identities and possibilities and creative conflicts that are
inherent in all practices. It may be the place where we work, it may be a non-
profit organization, a union, a political party, a co-operative, a consumer
association, or something different. As consultants and researchers, we have,
perhaps, put too much effort into understanding, describing, and improving work
organizations separated from their contexts. In many cases, steps towards a
relational practice of organizational learning may be taken by bringing in more
stakeholders, by restoring conflicts that have been obscured, or forgotten. This
can be achieved through creating situations where the members of an
organization can interact, through multilogue, with parts of their lives, their
community, and their environment, which are normally excluded from the daily
agenda of their work. A very practical way to do this is to direct attention to all
the possible conflicts that arise in the various boundary-spanning relations
involved in all processes of organizing. Examples of these may include relations
to spouses and clients, patients, citizens, customers, children of employees, and
owners.
It may also be reasonable to create forms of organizing and changing work that
are more collaborative, in which we do not attempt to give answers to people’s
practical problems, where we step back and do not cheat people into becoming
dependent or entrepreneurial, or whatever. Townley’s (1995) discussion on self-
formation through a reorientation towards rights and participation seems to be
one alternative along these lines. The essential contribution of a relational
perspective, as it has been discussed in this article, is its potential for questioning
 ORGANIZATIONAL LEARNING AND PARTICIPATION 187
and providing space for alternatives to the dominant conceptualizations of
organizational learning.

REFERENCES
Alvesson, M., & Deetz, S. (1996). Critical theory and postmodern approaches in organization
studies. In S. Clegg, C. Hardy, & W. Nord (Eds.), Handbook of organization studies. London:
Sage.
Argyris, C. (1994). Good communication that blocks learning. Harvard Business Review, 72(4),
77–86.
Argyris, C., Putnam, R., & McLain Smith, D. (1985). Action science: Concepts, methods, and skills
for research and intervention. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Argyris, C., & Schön, D. (1996). Organizational learning: II. Theory, method, and practice.
Wokingham, UK: Addison-Wesley.
Beer, M., Eisenstat, R.A., & Spector, B. (1990). The critical path to corporate renewal. Harvard:
Harvard Business School Press.
Blackler, F. (1993). Knowledge and the theory of organizations: Organizations as activity systems
and the reframing of management. Journal of Management Studies, 30(6), 863–885.
Bruner, J.S. (1997). The culture of education . London: Harvard University Press.
Dachler, H.-P., & Hosking, D.-M. (1995). The primacy of relations in socially constructing
organizational realities. In D.-M. Hosking, Dachler, H.-P. & K. Gergen (Eds.), Management
and organization: Relational alternatives to individualism. Aldershot, UK: Avebury.
Deetz, S. (1992). Democracy in an age of corporate colonization: Developments in communication
and the politics of everyday life. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
Deetz, S. (1995). Transforming communication, transforming business: Building responsive and
responsible workplaces. Hampton, NJ: Hampton Press.
Edmondson, A.C. (1996). Three faces of Eden: The persistence of competing theories and multiple
diagnoses in organizational intervention research. Human Relations, 49(5), 571–595.
Ford, J.D., & Ford, L.W. (1995). The role of conversations in producing intentional change in
organizations. Academy of Management Review, 20(3), 541–570.
Gergen, K.J., & Thatchenkery, T.J. (1996). Organization science as social construction:
Postmodern potentials. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 32(4), 356–377.
Gustavsen, B. (1996). Vägen till bättre arbetsliv: strategier och arbetsformer i ett
utvecklingsarbete . Stockholm: Arbetslivsinstitutet.
Hackman, R.J., & Wageman, R. (1995). Total quality management: Empirical, conceptual, and
practical issues. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40, 309–342.
Harré, R., & Gillett, G. (1995). The discursive mind. London: Sage.
Hart, H. (1999). Ständiga förbättringar som komponent i en ledningsstrategi för förändring. In T.
Nilsson, (Ed.), Ständig förbättring—om utveckling av arbete och kvalitet. Solna, Sweden:
Arbetslivsinstitutet.
Hosking, D.-M., & Morley, I.E. (1991). A social psychology of organizing: People, processes and
contexts. London: Harvester Wheatsheaf.
McCabe, D., Knights, D., Kerfoot, D., Morgan, G., & Wilmott, H. (1998). Making sense of
“quality?”—Toward a review and critique of quality initiatives in financial services. Human
Relations, 51(3), 389–412.
Nonaka, I. (1994). A dynamic theory of organizational knowledge creation. Organization Science,
5(1), 14–37.
Popper, M., & Lipshitz, R. (1998). Organizational learning mechanisms. Journal of Applied
Behavioral Science, 34(2), 161–180.
188 HOLMBERG

Potter, J. (1996). Representing reality: Discourse, rhetoric and social construction. London: Sage.
Reger, R.K., Gustafsson, L.T., Demarie, S.M. & Mullane, J.V. (1994). Reframing the organization:
Why implementing total quality is easier said than done. Academy of Management Review,
19(3), 565–585.
Schein, E.H. (1991). Organizational culture and leadership: A dynamic view. Oxford: Jossey-
Bass.
Schein, E.H. (1993). On dialogue, culture, and organizational learning. Organizational Dynamics,
22(2), 40–52.
Senge, P. (1991). The fifth discipline: The art and practice of the learning organization. New York:
Doubleday.
Senge, P., Ross, R., Smith, B., Roberts, C., & Kleiner, A. (1994). The fifth discipline fieldbook.
Strategies and tools for building a learning organization. London: Currency Doubleday.
Steffy, B.D., & Grimes, A.J. (1992). Personnel/organizational psychology: A critique of the
discipline. In M. Alverson & H. Willmott (Eds.), Critical management studies. London: Sage.
Townley, B. (1993). Foucault, power/knowledge, and its relevance for human resource
management. Academy of Management Review, 18(3), 518–545.
Townley, B. (1995). Know thyself: Selfawareness, self-formation and managing. Organization ,
2(2), 271–289.
Weick, K.E. (1995). Sensemaking in organizations . London: Sage.
Weick, K.E., & Quinn, R.E. (1999). Organizational change and development. Annual Review of
Psychology , 50, 361–386.
West, M.A. (1996). Reflexivity and work group effectiveness: A conceptual integration. In M.A.
West (Ed.), Handbook of work group psychology . London: John Wiley & Sons.
Willmott, H. (1993). Strength is ignorance; slavery is freedom: Managing culture in modern
organizations. Journal of Management Studies, 30(4), 515–552.
Yong, J., & Wilkinson, A. (1999). The state of total quality management: A review. International
Journal of Human Resource Management, 10(1), 137–161.