What works in Democratic Dialogue?

$ € £¥ social sciences A icle Wha Wo ks in Democ a ic Dialogue? Sa u Kalliola 1, Tuula Heiskanen 1and Riikka Ki imäki 2,* 1Facul y o Social Sciences, Tampe e Uni e si y, Kale an ie 4, 33014 Tampe e, Finland; [email p o ec ed] (S.K.); [email p o ec ed] (T.H.) 2Independen esea che , 33580 Tampe e, Finland *Co espondence: [email p o ec ed] Recei ed: 14 Janua y 2019; Accep ed: 14 Ma ch 2019; Published: 20 Ma ch 2019   Abs ac : As he global wo ld p oduces new social p oblems and he con inuously changing en i onmen o wo k o ganiza ions calls o new modes o ope a ion, he e eme ges a need o discussion o ums o analyze and ind p ac ical solu ions, in ol ing he people conce ned. This a icle examines, wi hin he amewo k o ealis e alua ion, he po en ial o democ a ic dialogue, a No dic me hod o wo kplace de elopmen , o gene a e ou comes ha a e pu in o p ac ice in wo k o ganiza ions. Democ a ic dialogue is seen as a social p og am ha , by p o iding he pa icipan s wi h new esou ces and new easoning in wo k con e ences and o he dialogue o ums, enables hem o make new choices. The ocus is on h ee Finnish ac ion esea ch ne wo ks applying democ a ic dialogue, and he ecompila ion o hese cases along he Con ex -Mechanism-Ou comes o mula o ealis e alua ion. Changes in he o ganiza ional pa e ns o communica ion, linked o he c i e ia o democ a ic dialogue and he design o wo k con e ences, a e iden i ied and examined h ough he lenses o a ied o ganiza ional concep s ha elabo a e he unde lying p ocesses gene a ing change. The a icle sugges s u he esea ch o compa e cases wi h he same s a ing poin s bu di e ing ou comes o ace he ine dis inc ions in he p econdi ions o accomplishing he desi ed objec i es. Keywo ds: democ a ic dialogue; wo k con e ences; wo kplace de elopmen ; ealis e alua ion; Finnish ac ion esea ch cases 1. In oduc ion O la e, managemen e o ms ha e been aded om one coun y o ano he pe haps mo e in ensi ely han p e iously, al hough, as Polli (2003) pu s i , such in e na ional a ic is a om new. In e na ional in e ac ion is also one o he mos essen ial elemen s o esea ch and de elopmen ac i i ies. Nowadays he Eu opean Union is also in e es ed in ga he ing and dissemina ing ideas o new me hods used in wo kplace de elopmen p og ams, o on a smalle scale in change ini ia i es a he wo kplace le el (Eu o ound 2015). In his amewo k o managemen e o m ading, we e lec on Finnish applica ions o democ a ic dialogue, a wo kplace de elopmen me hod ha o igina ed in Scandina ia. Democ a ic dialogue was adop ed in Finland om he Swedish LOM (Leade ship, O ganiza ion, Co-de e mina ion) p og am (Gus a sen 1991;Gus a sen and Engels ad 1986) and was p ac iced as an in e en ion me hod in wo kplace de elopmen deploying pa icipa o y ac ion esea ch (PAR). The con ex o democ a ic dialogue is ha o wo k o ganiza ions and managemen cul u es, e e ing o wo kplace democ acy. Alasoini (2011) has highligh ed ac ion esea ch as one g oup o me hods used in ambi ious wo kplace inno a ion, meaning collabo a i ely cons uc ed changes in o ganiza ional and human esou ce managemen p ac ices. This no ion is well in acco dance wi h G eenwood (2015) de ini ion o ac ion esea ch as he s a egy o using mul iple heo ies and me hods o p omo e democ a ic social change. Democ a ic dialogue began o be used in Finland in he 1980s du ing he boom in ac ion esea ch (Buhanis e al. 1994), is s ill being used o e 35 yea s la e in o ganiza ional de elopmen issues Soc. Sci. 2019,8, 101; doi:10.3390/socsci8030101 www.mdpi.com/jou nal/socsci Soc. Sci. 2019,8, 101 2 o 20 usually ela ed o he quali y o wo king li e and he p oduc i i y, and is epo ed o p oduce p ac ical esul s (Hökkä e al. 2014;Sy änen e al. 2015;Leinonen 2016), al hough i has been modi ied o e ime. These modi ica ions include changes in he in ensi y o he de elopmen p ocesses and he concep s used. In he i s la ge-scale PAR p og ams, democ a ic dialogue was p ac iced in con e ences las ing up o one and a hal days (Kas io e al. 1994;Heiskanen e al. 1998). Nowadays, i is mo e cus oma y o ha e mini-con e ences—o a he wo kshops— ha may las 3–6 h, bu democ a ic dialogue o some o he o m o dialogue app oach is applied (Ki imäki 2011;Hökkä e al. 2014). B ie —e en momen a y—dialogue wo kshops ha e been de eloped oge he wi h he pa icipan s in esponse o he demands o he cu en hec ic wo k pace. The modi ica ions include a new emphasis on he concep o “me e” dialogue and he eme gence o a he di e se dialogical app oaches wi hou di ec e e ences o wo kplace democ acy. Cases conduc ed along hese lines, heo ies, and e alua ions ha e been p esen ed, o example, by Collin e al. (2015), and Heiskanen and Jokinen (2015). We a gue ha PAR applying democ a ic dialogue, as de ined by Gus a sen (1991), may also be ui ul in he cu en ci cums ances cha ac e ized by con inuous changes o wo k o ganiza ions. The basic no ion is o acknowledge he signi icance o b oad pa icipa ion and labou -managemen coope a ion in o ganiza ional de elopmen issues. When a suppo ing pa icipa o y ac ion esea ch p ojec applying democ a ic dialogue is se up he membe s o he o ganiza ion and he esea che s wo k collabo a i ely owa ds new ways o ope a ion. Gus a sen (1991,2001) and Gus a sen and Engels ad (1986) p esen an ope a ionaliza ion o democ a ic dialogue as a se o c i e ia o be pu sued in a p ocess aiming o make an ag eemen o u u e join ac ion. Democ a ic dialogue is conduc ed in dialogue con e ences, and also in o he de elopmen g oups. Along he p og ess o he con e ence om small g oup dialogues and plena ies abou isions o desi able u u es h ough obs acles and means o conque ing he obs acles owa ds a conc e e ac ion plan he oice and wo k expe ience o he membe s o he o ganiza ion a e espec ed. Due o he egula ly posi i e ou comes i seems wo hwhile o de e mine he co e elemen s o democ a ic dialogue ha may con ibu e o change and hus encou age o main ain a con inued in e es in dialogical de elopmen app oaches in he wo king li e. Habe mas’s (1984) concep o communica i e ac ion is o en ad anced as a co e assump ion in heo izing democ a ic dialogue. Gus a sen (1991) concludes ha he quali y o all human hough and ac ion is seen ul ima ely o depend on he pa e ns o communica ion be ween people. This is in acco dance wi h Mumby (1988), who a gues ha o ganiza ional ac o s wi h posi ions high up in he hie a chy also ha e dominance o e communica ion. While meanings a e c ea ed and o ganiza ions a e buil in communica ion p ocesses, powe ela ions a e also main ained and ep oduced by communica ion ha ei he suppo s o ejec s di e en o ganiza ional expe iences. F om his poin o iew, i seems easonable and p ac ical o change he pa e ns o communica ion and o b ing o wa d di e se expe iences abou wo k in he pu sui o desi able change. This is wha democ a ic dialogue aims o do. Ne e heless, Gus a sen (2001) no ed ha he unequi ocal scien i ic-philosophical unde pinning o democ a ic dialogue was being p og essi ely abandoned in a o o a p agma ic one based on “wha wo ks”. We a e in e es ed in his p agma ic aspec o democ a ic dialogue and ocus on he co e o “wha wo ks”, especially in he Finnish con ex . The applica ions o be e alua ed e ospec i ely we e conduc ed a Tampe e Uni e si y, Wo k Resea ch Cen e. 2. Me hods and Resea ch Tasks The applica ion o democ a ic dialogue as a pa icipa o y wo kplace de elopmen me hod necessa ily means in e ening in he egula cou se o o ganiza ional li e. By gi ing he membe s o wo k o ganiza ions a oice in hei de elopmen al issues, he PAR se ing is app ecia ed in he ealm o c i ical ealism o ha ing he po en ial o be an emancipa o y, in ensi e, and engaged esea ch app oach, al hough Ack oyd and Ka lsson (2014) do no ecognize any dis inc i e c i ical ealis ype o ac ion esea ch. C i ical ealism is commi ed o inding po en ial bu no eadily obse able Soc. Sci. 2019,8, 101 3 o 20 mechanisms ha ha e an e ec in he social wo ld (O’Mahoney and Vincen 2014, p. 10). This idea has been de eloped u he , o example by Pawson and Tilley (1997), who ha e p esen ed a p ocedu e o ealis e alua ion used in connec ion wi h social p og ams. Thei guiding p inciple is ha social p og ams a e heo ies o socie y whe e causal ou comes (O) ollow om mechanisms (M) ac ing in con ex s (C); his is known as he CMO- o mula. D awing on Ack oyd and Ka lsson (2014) we see bo h pa icipa o y ac ion esea ch PAR and ealis e alua ion as p ac ical p ojec s o c i ical ealism, a philosophy o science, ha assumes an objec i e wo ld and also ha a pa o he wo ld consis s o subjec i e in e p e a ions. The esea ch se ing becomes mo e complica ed when la ge, heo y-d i en social p og ams ake hei place as a pa o he con ex . We ha e a choice o make: Do we y o di ec ly s udy how, why and in wha ci cums ances democ a ic dialogue imp o ed he ou come o pa icipan o ganiza ions, o how, why and in wha ci cums ances democ a ic dialogue impac ed he ways o wo king and con ibu ed o he imp o emen o he ou come (see Al a ado e al. 2017). D awing on Dalkin e al. (2015) we choose he la e . Dalkin e al. (2015) ha e ocused on Pawson and Tilley (1997) wo k conce ning he con en o mechanisms as a combina ion o esou ces o e ed by social p og ams and he pa icipan s’ easoning in esponse o hese new esou ces. Fu he , hey see ha he combina ion o esou ces and easoning enables pa icipan s o make and sus ain new choices, which in ou case would mean new, dialogue ela ed, ways o wo king and in e ac ion a he wo kplace. Following Kazi (2014), we call hose pa s o he social p og am (democ a ic dialogue in e en ion) ha he pa icipan s in ol e hemsel es and use as hei esou ces, as “gene a i e mechanisms”. Based on he abo e a gumen s we adop ealis e alua ion as ou gene al amewo k—a guideline—in inc easing ou unde s anding o wha wo ks in democ a ic dialogue and hus a e ackling he co e issue o also o he heo y-based e alua ions: how complex p og ams in complex con ex s lead o changes in ou comes (Blamey and Mackenzie 2007). Mo e speci ically, we ake PAR in e en ions applying democ a ic dialogue (Gus a sen and Engels ad 1986;Gus a sen 1991) o be equi alen o heo y-based social p og ams and an icipa e p ac ical changes will ake place by changing communica ion pa e ns (Habe mas 1984) in he pa icipa ing wo k o ganiza ions. Acco dingly, we ace gene a i e mechanisms ha p o ide po en ial o e en plausible explana ions o he known ou comes o he democ a ic dialogue p ojec s conduc ed in hei his o ical con ex s. We p ac ice ealis e alua ion a he PAR case le el, ied o he his o y o ou cases, and do no claim o use ealis ac ion esea ch like o example Wes ho p e al. (2016). Thei app oach esembles g ea ly he classic ac ion esea ch cycles (Lewin 1948) du ing which he ac o s e alua e he planned solu ions by lea ning om obse ing hei e ec s and imp o e he solu ions un il hey wo k as desi ed in he gi en con ex . On he o he hand, we eel ee o use exis ing heo ies o he phenomena s udied, adding heo y o da a along he lines o c i ical ealism (O’Mahoney and Vincen 2014, p. 18). The de ined esea ch asks a e • o e-compile PARcases conduc ed a Tampe e Uni e si y, Wo k Resea ch Cen e acco ding o he CMO- o mula by desc ibing hei socie al and o ganiza ional con ex s (C), he ou comes (O) oge he wi h he aims and p ac ical esul s, and he mechanism (M) as applica ions o democ a ic dialogue, as epo ed in he da a; • o iden i y hose aspec s o democ a ic dialogue applica ions ha he pa icipan s ha e in e p e ed u he as gene a i e mechanisms eme ging om he pa icipan s’ new esou ces and new easoning and o p oceed owa d po en ial explana ions o wha makes democ a ic dialogue wo k by adding exis ing heo ies o da a as he basis o new, de ailed esea ch. • The da a consis o he inal epo s and connec ed esea ch a icles o he cases conduc ed by he au ho s. In he case selec ion, we ensu ed ha he ma e ial include comp ehensi e desc ip ions o PAR in e en ions. The inal epo s and a icles a e based on ield dia ies o pa icipan obse a ion, o ganiza ional documen s, ques ionnai es, eco ded in e iews, p ojec g oup/ ask o ce memo anda, and wo k con e ence ma e ials. O he da a consis o a desc ip ion o democ a ic dialogue by Kas io (1990) and a icles on he o iginal Swedish LOM p og am. Soc. Sci. 2019,8, 101 4 o 20 • In ca ying ou his esea ch he case epo s and o he da a a e e- ead by using he sepa a e ac o s o he CMO- o mula as analy ical ools. The e o e, he om case o case a ying con ex s (C), applica ions o democ a ic dialogue (M) and ou comes (O) p oduce new knowledge as hey a e s uc u ed in a new way. They gi e backg ound o a mo e de ailed analysis o democ a ic dialogue (M) as a p ocess ha migh p oduce new esou ces and new easoning (Dalkin e al. 2015) o he pa icipan s and hus gi e plausible explana ions o he ou comes. In epo ing his esea ch he CMO- o mulas a e p esen ed as spli in Tables 1–3and in Figu e 1in Sec ions 3and 4. Tables 1and 2include wo modi ica ions o he o mula; he case-speci ic aims conc e ize he b oad amewo ks o wo kplace de elopmen and p ac ical esul s conc e ize he ou comes. Sec ion 5concen a es in he de ails o he ope a ionaliza ion o democ a ic dialogue (M) by Gus a sen (2001) as quali a i e in e p e a ions o he expe iences o he pa icipan s. Sec ion 6 discusses he esul s. In summa y, he au ho s ha e a e ospec i e in e es in democ a ic dialogue and hey ask he ques ion: why and how has he me hod wo ked? The cases o be s udied a e PAR ne wo ks ep esen ing h ee di e en sec o s o he Finnish economy. Ne wo k A (Heal h sec o ) was conduc ed in wo phases in ol ing all uni e si y hospi als (22 wa ds) in he ea ly 2000s, and cen al and egional hospi als, heal h ca e cen es, and p i a e shel e ed homes (nine o ganiza ions) be ween 2008 and 2010. Rep esen a i es o wo k sa e y and occupa ional heal h we e in ol ed in bo h phases. Applica ions expanded o he de elopmen p ojec s conduc ed by uni e si ies o applied sciences. Ne wo k B (Clo hing Indus y) also had wo phases. Phase I in ol ed ou companies in he ea ly 1990s and Phase II included se en companies om 1994 onwa d, including h ee om Phase I. Local ade union b anches o clo hing indus y wo ke s we e ac i e pa icipan s in he case. Applica ions expanded o gende and equali y issues in Finnish wo kplaces. Ne wo k C (Public se ices) was launched in 1991 as a na ional p og am o 14 p ojec s wi h a di e se in ensi y o de elopmen wo k (co e, sa elli e, sho e m). I con inued in 1995 as a ne wo k wi h 25 pa icipan se ice o ganiza ions un il 2001 and has la e a ac ed new pa icipan s and c ea ed spin-o ac i i ies. A he local le el, i in ol es ci izens/clien s, human esou ce manage s, ade union ep esen a i es, and poli ical decision make s and a he cen al le el ep esen a i es o labou ma ke pa ne s and ac ion esea che s om o he esea ch and educa ion ins i u ions. 3. Case Ne wo ks in Thei Con ex s (C), De elopmen Aims, he Repo ed Ou comes (O) and Unde lying P ac ical Resul s As he Con ex -Mechanism-Ou come (CMO) o mulas o ealis e alua ion (Pawson and Tilley 1997) imply, he con ex o any social p og am la gely de e mines he po en ial and ac ual ou comes o he p og ams. The i s case Ne wo ks applying democ a ic dialogue we e launched in he ea ly 1990s and con inued in a ious spin-o s la e , in he condi ions o he Finnish ecessions o he 1990s and 2008 and hei a e ma hs. The socie al and o ganiza ional con ex s (C) ha ga e ise o he use o democ a ic dialogue in wo kplace de elopmen in Ne wo ks A–C, and hei con ex s in e p e ed as aims o he de elopmen wo k, as well as he epo ed ou comes (O), a e summa ized in Table 1, based on he in o ma ion p o ided in he inal epo s. Soc. Sci. 2019,8, 101 5 o 20 Table 1. The con ex s, aims and ou comes o he ne wo ks. Socie al and O ganiza ional Con ex s (C) Aims and Repo ed Ou comes (O) Ne wo k A (Heal h sec o , Ki imäki e al. 2006) Cu -back managemen in he a e ma h o he ecessions in he ea ly 1990s and 2008 S ic hie a chy P o essional ca ego ies egula e he low o wo k P o essional bu eauc acy domina ed by medical doc o s Mul ile el and mul iac o decision-making Aimed o de elop good p ac ices o imp o e he well-being o employees in he heal h ca e sec o Achie ed imp o emen s in he measu ed well-being and he disc e ion a wo k as dozens o ac ual de elopmen ideas we e pu in o p ac ice A spin-o p ojec ocusing on esea ch-based models including dialogical app oaches o suppo well-being a wo k in 2012–2015 Ne wo k B (Clo hing Indus y, Heiskanen e al. 1998) C isis due o s i ening compe i ion in Wes e n ma ke s The collapse o bila e al Finnish-So ie ade Pe sis en domes ic ecession Top-down managemen Clea ules o au ho i y and decision-making Aimed o ind means o su i e and hen o h i e in a globalizing ma ke Achie ed new modes o ope a ions and inc eased labou -managemen coope a ion O ganized a semina conce ning he Eu opean u u e o he b anch in ol ing di e en s akeholde s om indus ial o ganiza ions, ade unions, he labou adminis a ion, indus ial policy, and oca ional educa ion Ne wo k C (Public se ices, Kas io e al. 1994;Kalliola and Naka i 1999,2008;Kalliola 2003) P oblems in job sa is ac ion and wo k o ce a ailabili y be o e he ecession Cu -back managemen in he a e ma h o ecession Demands o ou sou cing, ma ke iza ion, and p i a iza ion due o he ise o New Public Managemen P o essional bu eauc acy Mos ly op-down managemen Mul ile el and mul iac o decision-making Aimed o simul aneously p omo e he p oduc i i y o he se ices, including ci izen o ien a ion, and he quali y o wo king li e Achie ed imp o emen s in he con en o wo k, sel -designed eams, enhancemen o labou -managemen coope a ion and in he as majo i y o o ganiza ions, he p ojec s succeeded in bo h p oduc i i y and QWL imp o emen s In he in e p e a ion o Table 1i is also necessa y o men ion he unde s as con ex ual ac o s: he Finnish Wo k En i onmen Fund (TSR), closely ela ed o he cen al labou ma ke o ganiza ions, h ee Minis ies (Social and Heal h A ai s, Educa ion and Labou ), he Finnish Wo kplace De elopmen P og ammes (1996–2010), he Finnish Funding Agency o Inno a ion (Tekes), he Eu opean Social Fund, he Academy o Finland, and he pa icipan o ganiza ions o Ne wo k C. We may in e p e ha he socie al p essu es, combined wi h he p oblema ic o ganiza ional con ex , had dec eased employee well-being in he heal h ca e sec o o a le el ha unding was alloca ed o launch Ne wo k A. In he p i a e sec o en e p ises o Ne wo k B, he domina ing socie al con ex is he ecession o he ea ly 1990s, which c ea ed he impe us o launch PAR wi h ambi ious objec i es o ind new compe i i e po en ial. Al hough he pa icipan o ganiza ions o Ne wo k C ha e alloca ed inancial esou ces o be in ol ed, majo unding came om public bodies. This ma e has been discussed by F icke (2011) who a gues ha PAR p og ams o wo k li e e o m s and no chance wi hou being able o gene a e suppo om b oad socio-poli ical coali ions. This was also he case in Finland. Al hough no emphasized in he inal epo s, we should add o he socie al con ex s he na ional le el labou -managemen coope a ion and ipa i e e o m coali ions (including also he go e nmen ) ha suppo ed pa icipa o y wo kplace de elopmen by p o iding su icien inancial unds. Al hough he suppo in he socie al con ex was secu ed he ea ly PAR p ojec s o Tampe e Uni e si y, Wo k Resea ch Cen e, democ a ic dialogue had o be accep ed by hose in a posi ion ei he o g an o deny access o hei o ganiza ions. Kas io e al. (1994, p. 25) ha e epo ed abou one case ha accep ed he esea che s only o p oduce esea ch ma e ial o suppo he local de elopmen ac i i ies and wo cases ha we e in e up ed a a e y ea ly s age due o he misbalance o he managemen ype and he PAR app oach du ing a se e e budge c isis. Addi ionally, Ki imäki (2011) has epo ed expe iences o he misma ch o he democ a ic dialogue app oach wi h he op-down Soc. Sci. 2019,8, 101 6 o 20 app oach o cu -back managemen . P o essional disc epancies a e men ioned as cons ain s in he di usion o local de elopmen ideas by Kalliola and Naka i (1999). When access is denied o cons ained a a e y ea ly s age, he democ a ic dialogue in e en ions canno be ca ied ou a all. When access is g an ed, he e a e usually su icien suppo ing ac o s, and democ a ic dialogue p oduces p ac ical esul s. This is he signi ican backg ound expe ience o he au ho s, who wan o unde s and wha lies behind hose esul s. Table 1also desc ibes how he p omises o he democ a ic dialogue in e en ions we e ul illed. In Ne wo k A, imp o emen s we e achie ed in he low o in o ma ion, gene al in e ac ion and coope a ion, he p og ess o wo k and ac i i ies, he wo k clima e, he acknowledgemen o he employees’ opinions, and he ela ions be ween small employee g oups. The employees hough ha hei oppo uni ies o in luence hei wo king condi ions had imp o ed (Ki imäki e al. 2006, English summa y). Many ideas we e de eloped u he o secu e he smoo h unning and o ganiza ion o wo k, he lows o in o ma ion, wo king hou s and o a planning, equipmen sa e y, and wo king a mosphe e, and o help he wo ke s cope wi h in e pe sonal con lic s and he h ea o iolence, as p esen ed by some clien s (Ki imäki e al. 2006). Ne wo k B accomplished he desi ed changes in o ganizing p oduc ion and he con en o labou -managemen coope a ion. In addi ion, i ook s eps owa d in e na ional collabo a ion wi h all ele an s akeholde s. A summa y o he p oduc i i y imp o emen s o he i s p ojec s o Ne wo k C is p esen ed by Kas io e al. (1994, p. 147) as inc eases in o e all p oduc i i y consis ing o economic e iciency and economic p oduc i i y (inpu /ou pu measu es), e ec i eness a a long- e m socie al le el and a he clien le el, and imp o emen s in he in e nal capaci y o he o ganiza ion, including he quali y o wo king li e. The in e p e a ion o he imp o emen s in he quali y o wo king li e (Kas io e al. 1994, p. 195) was done in he amewo k o inc eased labou -managemen coope a ion and new o ms o sel - egula ed wo k. The posi i e ou comes o he ne wo ks do no mean ha e e y case p oceeded comple ely smoo hly wi hou any se backs in he bo om-up app oach when con on ed by op-down managemen and p o essional posi ions. Howe e , he posi i e ou comes can be in e p e ed as one p econdi ion, oge he wi h a ou able socie al and o ganiza ional con ex s, o consecu i e unding and p o iding he esea che s wi h oppo uni ies o lea n mo e abou he con ex s and he PAR me hods. In Table 2we e isi he inal epo s and look o hose p ac ical esul s, conc e e changes ha unde lie he compila ion o he epo ed ou comes in Table 1. The p ac ical esul s ha e ound a pe manen unc ion in he o ganiza ions, a leas o he ex en ha he new changes a e e iden . The e o e, we app oach he ideas o gene a i e mechanisms and discuss b ie ly he ole o he o ganiza ional con ex s as p esen ed ea lie in ei he p omo ing o cons aining changes. Table 2. The p ac ical esul s o he Ne wo ks. P ac ical Resul s Ne wo k Imp o emen s in in o ma ion channels A, B, C C ossing o ganiza ional bo de s -Inc eased e ical and ho izon al in e ac ion -Inc eased coope a ion wi h ac o s and s akeholde s A, B, C A, B, C On- he-job aining A, B, C S eps owa d pa icipa o y managemen and leade ship s yles B, C Re-o ganiza ion o wo k by le elling he hie a chies B, C Inc eased au onomy a wo k -Ros e s/Ro a-planning in mul ip o essional eams -Mul ip o essional eams wi h delega ed au ho i y A, C C Imp o emen s in wo king condi ions/quali y o wo king li e (no measu ed in B) A, C Mone a y ewa ds; local ba gaining B, C Handbooks and guides o p ac i ione s A, B, C We can in e p e om Table 2 ha all o ganiza ional con ex s allow democ a ic dialogue-d i en de elopmen wo k o p oduce wo e y conc e e new gene a i e mechanisms: imp o ing he Soc. Sci. 2019,8, 101 7 o 20 in o ma ion channels and o e ing on- he-job aining ha inc eases he in o ma ion and knowledge o he employees. All he o ganiza ional con ex s also allow coope a ion and he c ossing o o ganiza ional bo de s e ically and ho izon ally. This change is ini ia ed by he design o he wo k con e ence, which in ol es a b oad ange o s akeholde s, and may e ol e owa ds a pe manen way o planning and wo king. The o ganiza ional adi ions s a o hinde he changes when we look a he leade ship s yles and he s a us o hie a chies: p i a e companies and public se ice o ganiza ions ha e been able o adop ‘managemen by walking’ and o le el he hie a chies, bu his did no happen in he mo e igid hie a chies o heal h ca e. Howe e , au onomy was inc eased among he heal h ca e s a in he planning o wo king schedules, while he eams in he public se ice o ganiza ions we e also gi en o icial decision-making powe s (Kalliola 2003). Acco ding o Gus a sen (2017), his elemen o inc easing au onomy a wo k, and he need o see wo kplace de elopmen as an issue on he socie al le el, has no only su i ed bu also been s eng hened since hey we e placed on he agenda decades ago. The wo king condi ions and quali y o wo king li e ques ionnai es om Ne wo ks A and C showed posi i e esul s, sugges ing con ibu ions om democ a ic dialogue in p o essional bu eauc acies, and bo h ne wo ks p oduced esul s in he guides o p ac i ione s. As he p ac ical esul s highligh , he me hod was also app ecia ed in p i a e companies, al hough he possible changes in wo king condi ions we e no measu ed. On he o he hand, p i a e companies we e he only ones lexible enough o allow local ba gaining as pa o he de elopmen p ojec s, and he heal h ca e ne wo k was he only one o modi y he dialogical me hod used. A e es ablishing he main cha ac e is ics o con ex s (C) and ou comes (O) o he CMO- o mula, we p oceed o in es iga e he mechanisms (M). 4. The Finnish Applica ion o Democ a ic Dialogue: F om Dialogue Con e ences o Wo k Con e ences (M) Buhanis e al. (1994) ace he eme gence o ac ion esea ch in Finnish wo king li e o No dic con ac s among esea ch-o ien ed o ice holde s a he Minis y o Labou and he labou ma ke pa ne s. The uni e si y-based pionee s o Finnish ac ion esea ch lea ned he p inciples o democ a ic dialogue by eading esea ch epo s, jou nal a icles, and books. Conc e e applica ions we e b ough o p ac ice by a lea ning-by-doing me hod (F icke 2011). The main sou ce in desc ibing he me hod in Finnish is Kas io (1990)Kas io Kas io (1990) e e s o he wo k o Odhno and O e (1987) as one o he basic ex s abou he No dic de elopmen app oach, and o Gus a sen and Engels ad (1986) as a sou ce o unde s anding he design o wo k con e ences’, a concep adop ed in Finland o co e ‘con e ences applying democ a ic dialogue’. The con e ence pa icipan s came om o ganiza ions wo king in he same b anch, as he s a egy o he LOM p og am was o in ol e clus e s o o ganiza ions in ca ying ou he de elopmen p ocess (Gus a sen 1991). In he Finnish con ex , he basic model o wo k con e ences was p esen ed as a pu pose ul ga he ing o pa icipan s om p i a e o public wo k o ganiza ions who wan ed o wo k oge he in hei sea ch o a a ou able u u e and in he e alua ion o hei p og ess. Fu he mo e, he pa icipan s showed an in e es in he o en-hidden pe spec i es and capabili ies o he en i e s a . They app ecia ed local heo ies and o ganiza ional mapping (Kas io 1990;Elden 1983) which we e seen as ools o b ing o wa d he unused esou ces o he s a . The pa icipa ion o he s a was seen as a p e equisi e o commi men and he eme gence o a join unde s anding abou u u e ac ion. This was he p omise o he o en publicly unded p ojec s, which we e expec ed o come o ui ion by ollowing he p inciples o democ a ic dialogue. Kas io (1990) ou lines he epis emological and social scien i ic oo s o democ a ic dialogue emphasizing equal oppo uni ies o pa icipa e in he o ganiza ional change p ocesses and he c ea ion o easible plans o u u e ac ion. Below, one o he English-language e sions o he c i e ia o Soc. Sci. 2019,8, 101 8 o 20 democ a ic dialogue is p esen ed (Gus a sen 2001, pp. 18–19; he numbe ing o he c i e ia is by he au ho s): 1. Dialogue is based on he p inciple o gi e and ake, no one-way communica ion. 2. All conce ned by he issue unde discussion should ha e he oppo uni y o pa icipa e. 3. Pa icipan s a e unde an obliga ion o help he o he pa icipan s be ac i e in he dialogue. 4. All pa icipan s ha e he same s a us in he dialogue a enas. 5. Wo k expe ience is he poin o depa u e o pa icipa ion. 6. Some o he expe ience he pa icipan has when en e ing he dialogue mus be seen as ele an . 7. I mus be possible o all pa icipan s o gain an unde s anding o he opics unde discussion. 8. An a gumen can be ejec ed only a e an in es iga ion (and no , o ins ance, on he g ounds ha i emana es om a sou ce wi h limi ed legi imacy). 9. All a gumen s ha a e o en e he dialogue mus be p esen ed by he ac o s p esen . 10. All pa icipan s a e obliged o accep ha o he pa icipan s may ha e a gumen s be e han hei own. 11. Among he issues ha can be made subjec o discussion a e he o dina y wo k oles o he pa icipan s—no one is exemp om such discussion. 12. The dialogue should be able o in eg a e a g owing deg ee o disag eemen . 13. The dialogue should con inuously gene a e decisions ha p o ide a pla o m o join ac ion. The wo k con e ences we e modelled as an in e play be ween small g oups and plena ies ha we e conduc ed acco ding o a design deduced om Democ a ic Dialogue (Kas io 1990, p. 121). In he basic model he p oblems and laws a e pu aside as he s a ing poin is he desi able u u e wi hin a ime span o i e yea s (Figu e 1). Soc.Sci.2019,8,xFORPEERREVIEW8o 20 13. Thedialogueshouldcon inuouslygene a edecisions ha p o ideapla o m o join ac ion. Thewo kcon e enceswe emodelledasanin e playbe weensmallg oupsandplena ies ha we e conduc edacco ding oadesigndeduced omDemoc a icDialogue(Kas io1990,p.121).In hebasicmodel hep oblemsand lawsa epu asideas hes a ingpoin is hedesi able u u ewi hina imespano  i e yea s(Figu e1).  Figu e1.Thep og essiono  hedialogue(wo k)con e ences. The isionso  hedesi able u u ewe e o mula edinhomogenousg oups,consis ingo pa icipan s wi hsimila hie a chicalo occupa ionalposi ions.The e o e,manage s,supe iso s,shop‐ loo ‐le el wo ke s, ep esen a i eso  adeunionsandoccupa ionalheal handsa e y,o occupa ionalg oups, om di e en o ganiza ions,bu p esumablysha ingsamein e es sandgoals,conduc edadialoguewi hin hemsel esinsmallg oups.Asall heo he phaseso acon e encewe es ee edby he isionphase, his composi ionwasanimpo an elemen in hedesigno  hecon e ences. All he isionswe ep esen edandsubmi ed oa u he dialogueinaplena y,a e whichdiagonal g oups,consis ingo  ep esen a i eso all hehie a chicalo occupa ionalposi ionsp esen ,de ined he po en ialobs acleshinde ing he isions ocome ue. Thecon e encecon inuedbydiscussingpossiblemeans oo e come heobs aclesin eelymixed in o malg oups.Again, ollowingaplena y,membe so eachpa icipan wo ko ganiza ionsga he edby hemsel es,asacommuni yo wo k, ode ineo ganiza ionalgoalso  hei own. Theclosingplena ysumma ized heideasb ough  o wa d,looking o simila i iesanddi e ences,and also o acommong ound o someconc e eac ion obe akenimmedia elybyall,while heindi idual pa icipan o ganiza ionswe eexpec ed oca yon hei planswi hinap ope  ime.The e o e, hedemoc a ic dialogueC i e ion13wasemphasized: he eisaneed omakeconclusionso wha shouldandcouldbedone ino de  oimp o e heissuesinques ion. Ini ially,wo kcon e encesapplyingdemoc a icdialoguewe epa so de elopmen p ojec slas ing2–3 yea s.Thec i e iao democ a icdialogueassign he esea che sa acili a ing ole: esea che swe eno  Figu e 1. The p og ession o he dialogue (wo k) con e ences. The isions o he desi able u u e we e o mula ed in homogenous g oups, consis ing o pa icipan s wi h simila hie a chical o occupa ional posi ions. The e o e, manage s, supe iso s, shop- loo -le el wo ke s, ep esen a i es o ade unions and occupa ional heal h and sa e y, Soc. Sci. 2019,8, 101 9 o 20 o occupa ional g oups, om di e en o ganiza ions, bu p esumably sha ing same in e es s and goals, conduc ed a dialogue wi hin hemsel es in small g oups. As all he o he phases o a con e ence we e s ee ed by he ision phase, his composi ion was an impo an elemen in he design o he con e ences. All he isions we e p esen ed and submi ed o a u he dialogue in a plena y, a e which diagonal g oups, consis ing o ep esen a i es o all he hie a chical o occupa ional posi ions p esen , de ined he po en ial obs acles hinde ing he isions o come ue. The con e ence con inued by discussing possible means o o e come he obs acles in eely mixed in o mal g oups. Again, ollowing a plena y, membe s o each pa icipan wo k o ganiza ions ga he ed by hemsel es, as a communi y o wo k, o de ine o ganiza ional goals o hei own. The closing plena y summa ized he ideas b ough o wa d, looking o simila i ies and di e ences, and also o a common g ound o some conc e e ac ion o be aken immedia ely by all, while he indi idual pa icipan o ganiza ions we e expec ed o ca y on hei plans wi hin a p ope ime. The e o e, he democ a ic dialogue C i e ion 13 was emphasized: he e is a need o make conclusions o wha should and could be done in o de o imp o e he issues in ques ion. Ini ially, wo k con e ences applying democ a ic dialogue we e pa s o de elopmen p ojec s las ing 2–3 yea s. The c i e ia o democ a ic dialogue assign he esea che s a acili a ing ole: esea che s we e no expec ed o adop expe posi ions o o gi e any kind o lec u es du ing he con e ences, in line wi h he in e p e a ion o C i e ion 9. Only la e , when he u u e plans we e conc e ized in he wo kplaces, we e he esea che s expec ed o p o ide hei inpu in he p ocesses. This was c i icized by Kas io (1990), who wonde ed whe he he s ong emphasis on local knowledge would o e ule he impac o ele an heo ies in he de elopmen wo k. Kas io (1990) was also conce ned abou whe he any no ma i e p ocedu es would ee communica ion om he ac ual powe s uc u es. In he UNI ne wo ks, he p ac ice o democ a ic dialogue was encou aged in he o icial p ojec g oups, wo kplace mee ings, and all o he wo k g oups ha we e assembled along he lines o ep esen a i eness (occupa ions, hie a chical le els) and s akeholde posi ions. The oles o pa icipan s we e de ined along PAR p inciples as esea ch subjec s, no objec s. The esea che s coope a ed wi h liaison pe sons who knew he egula ac i i ies and he cul u e o hei o ganiza ions. The o icial objec i es (see Table 1) we e ans o med in o a local need o change, and he subs ance o he in e en ions was planned and e alua ed h ough he coope a ion o he esea ch subjec s and he esea che s. In some cases, he pa icipan s we e eal co- esea che s (Ha é1979) p oducing and commen ing on da a, and in some cases co-au ho s as ecen ly in Hökkä e al. (2014). In PAR in e es ed in communica ion pa e ns and he ecogni ion o he pa icipan s as esea ch subjec s, he language spoken mus ha e ele ance o he pa icipan s’ li es. This was pu sued, o example, in he i s in e iews cha ing he pe spec i es o he pa icipan s abou he de elopmen issues and concep s used, and in eedback mee ings discussing he esul s o he ques ionnai es (Kalliola and Naka i 1999;Heiskanen e al. 1998). A summa y o he esea ch app oaches applied in Ne wo ks A–C is gi en in Table 3. Ne wo k A buil Phase II on he p ac ical esul s o Phase I and elied on minia u e wo k con e ences, combining he basic ou dialogues (Figu e 1) in o wo. The pa icipan s ag eed o ca y ou a leas 2–3 o he new ideas wi hin one yea ; his was moni o ed by a ques ionnai e. Ne wo k B main ained he o iginal idea o he LOM p og am (Gus a sen 1991) by clus e ing pa icipan o ganiza ions. The ini ial ieldwo k and su eys in he ou en e p ises o Phase I played an impo an ole in conduc ing he ac ion esea ch in e en ions, as he hemes o wo k con e ences we e chosen based on hese esul s. In Phase II, esea che s s ayed wi h he se en en e p ises o some ime, making obse a ions and in e iewing people om all occupa ional g oups. Once again, his knowledge p o ided he backg ound in o ma ion o wo k con e ences. Since he esea che s had p io knowledge o he en e p ises based on hei ieldwo k s udy, hey could pa icipa e ac i ely in he discussions, a he han me ely o e ing esou ces. This p o-ac i eness was equi ed, o example, in si ua ions whe e discussions we e egula ed oo much by manage s. Fu he mo e, in ension- illed issues, Soc. Sci. 2019,8, 101 16 o 20 his no ion pa ly: he ele ance o he in ol emen o ga ekeepe s is based on hei posi ion as ac o s ha o he s ollow. As ac ual ga ekeepe s may exis in any o ganiza ional g oup, i is impo an o ind hem in he p epa a o y nego ia ions be o e PAR is launched, and his is also a ma e o he o ganiza ional con ex o PAR. Lewin (1958) o e s one mo e amewo k o conside . The inal objec i e o he c i e ia o democ a ic dialogue, as exp essed by C i e ion 13, is a close analogy o Lewin (1958)g oup decision, a p ocedu e ha esul s in he esponsible and commi ed ac ion o he pa icipan s a e discussions abou he need o change. Commi men as a gene a i e mechanism may unc ion a any le el om he indi idual o he many ypes o collec i es. When he c i e ia o democ a ic dialogue a e acknowledged as obliga o y, hey can be in e p e ed as c ea ing a new kind o egula i e space (Sco 1995) ha p omo es he ealiza ion o he plans (Kalliola and Naka i 2008). The pa icipan s will gain expe ience o his when wo k con e ences—o o he dialogue o ums—a e adop ed as a egula p ac ice. In Ne wo ks A–C, a su icien numbe o pa icipan s ha e ound new esou ces and new ways o eason, and hey ha e made new choices o ca y ou he plans c ea ed in he dialogue o ums. In addi ion, hey ha e been in posi ions o ensu e he p ac ical ac ions. No p ac ical ou comes would be possible wi hou he pa icipan s, since he ac ion esea che s a e no in a posi ion o accomplish such changes. 6. Discussion The ecompila ion o he p ojec documen s o Ne wo ks acco ding o CMO- o mula accen ua ed he signi icance o he a o able socie al and o ganiza ional con ex s (C), which is in line wi h he basic assump ions o ealis e alua ion (Pawson and Tilley 1997). The ole o go e nmen in se ing s a egic goals o minis ies as well as p o iding unding ha e been essen ial elemen s in suppo ing democ a ic dialogue and o he PAR in e en ions in he wo kplace in o de o esol e he su i al and quali y o wo king li e issues caused by he ecessions o he 1990s and in 2008. The adop ion o especially democ a ic dialogue was acili a ed by he coope a ion o labou ma ke pa ne s who ound an ag eemen abou he necessi y o change and a ou ed any s eps owa ds mo e pa icipa o y o ms in managemen s yles. These in e p e a ions ge suppo om Lawle (1987, pp. 216–17), who names an u gen , ecognized need o su i e as an unde lying ac o in success ul o ganiza ional changes. Cu en ly he need o su i e is a pe manen con ex ual ac o ha may encou age Finnish wo k o ganiza ions, aluing hei human esou ces, o adop dialogue-based wo kplace de elopmen me hods al hough he la ge socie al con ex is no as a ou able as du ing he conduc o Ne wo ks A, B and C. The p esen socie al con ex wi h an emphasis on global economic compe i ion and e iciency may challenge he basic idea o democ a ic dialogue. Howe e , he me hod has p o en o be malleable wi hou comp omising i s basic componen s. The c ea ion o u u e ac ion plans by hea ing all o hose conce ned, al hough some imes h ough ep esen a i es, has main ained i s posi ion as a co e elemen o also ‘me e’ dialogical wo kplace de elopmen me hods, wi hou any emphasis on wo kplace democ acy as such. Fo example, in he spin-o p ojec o Ne wo k A (Table 1), democ a ic dialogue was modi ied owa d a mo e gene al dialogical app oach in which de elopmen al dialogues we e p ac iced a wo le els: among o ganiza ions o e ing occupa ional heal h and sa e y se ices and hei clien companies and also o ums including esea che s (Ki imäki e al. 2015). A connec ed p ojec also showed he malleabili y o dialogue-based app oaches: well-being a wo k was de eloped by combining indi idual e lec ions wi h wo kplace-le el dialogues (Sy änen e al. 2015). The he i age o indus ial democ acy as a d i ing o ce o democ a ic dialogue and o he o ms o PAR in he wo kplaces calls us o look a he o ganiza ional cul u e o Finnish wo kplaces mo e closely. Al hough wo king li e has unde gone nume ous changes o la e, ea u es o au ho i a i e managemen in he Finnish leade ship s yles we e aced as la e as 2010 by Lämsä (2010) in he compa ison o he adi ional Finnish and Swedish leade ship s yles, wi h Sweden being he o iginal home cul u e o Soc. Sci. 2019,8, 101 17 o 20 he LOM p og am. This in o ma ion seems o o e one explana ion o he popula i y o democ a ic dialogue in Finnish wo king li e: i is a ou ed by employees as a compensa ion o he de iciencies o he leade ship. F om he pe spec i e o he managemen , democ a ic dialogue may be seen as a use ul app oach in si ua ions whe e he managemen eally needs he inpu o he employees and wan s o a oid an agonis ic esis ance. Basically, democ a ic dialogue is a mul iple le el concep and phenomenon. I may be unde s ood as an abs ac high-le el socie al aim o ideal speech si ua ion (Habe mas 1984), a ision accompanied by a compa ible s a egy o leade ship s yles and pa icipa ion, pu sued by he managemen o he s a , o bo h ( he idea o wo kplace democ acy) o conc e e ac ion (Gus a sen 2001). In ou esea ch, democ a ic dialogue akes he o m o conc e e ac ion as an in eg al pa o pa icipa o y ac ion esea ch and is e alua ed as a mechanism. Ou e alua ion is ha democ a ic dialogue is a mechanism (M) ha is able o p oduce new, gene a i e mechanisms leading o change, o p ac ical esul s and o desi ed ou comes (O). The change gene a ion abili y is linked o he 13 c i e ia and o he design o con e ences, bo h building on b oad pa icipa ion and join ly ag eed u u e plans o be ca ied ou . B oad pa icipa ion may be in e p e ed as a o m o co-design ad oca ed by Wes ho p e al. (2016) in hei ealis ac ion esea ch app oach. In he in e play o small g oups and plena ies o he con e ence he i s wo dialogues ( isions and hei obs acles, Figu e 1) a e signi ican especially o people wi h posi ions low in he hie a chy and consequen ly wi h li le au onomy. The p ope conduc o he con e ence secu es hei oices o be hea d, and in addi ion, o be aken se iously, when he isions o e e y small g oup a e deal wi h espec ully and hey all o m a basis o u he dialogues, conc e e planning and lea ning om o he s. We conclude ha democ a ic dialogue has a capaci y o in eg a e wo k and lea ning ( o gi e new esou ces and easoning), and o ans o m wo ds in o ac ion ( o make new choices), by changing he pa e ns o o ganiza ional communica ion (Habe mas 1984;Mumby 1988). The new s eps aken may ha e e en mo e e ec when hey a e embedded in e e yday managemen and leade ship s yles, as pu sued by he p ojec ask o ces and wo kplace mee ings. In addi ion o he hinking o Habe mas (1984) and Mumby (1988) ou e alua ion poin s owa ds nume ous po en ial heo e ical in e p e a ions and explana ions o he change-gene a ing mechanisms connec ed o democ a ic dialogue. Ou s udy has aken us amids o ganiza ional heo ies ha seem o complemen a he han exclude each o he . We ha e added heo y o he da a by using mul iple heo e ical lenses o poin ou he di e se in luences ha a ec he ou come (O’Mahoney and Vincen 2014) o he applica ions o democ a ic dialogue. Relying on only one concep ual amewo k will lea e many o ganiza ional ea u es unexamined. Addi ionally, one canno igno e he po en ial o wo kplace democ acy as a conc e ely p ac iced o ganiza ional alue in gene a ing he change. In his esea ch, he ocus is on la ge, ne wo ked, and well-documen ed success ul cases. We sugges u he s udies on closely compa able cases wi h di e en ou comes: in o de o ace ine dis inc ions be ween success ul and less success ul cases, ‘ he new esou ces, new easoning, and new choice’ aspec s should be combined wi h he ou come e alua ions o PAR p ojec s (Pawson and Tilley 1997;Dalkin e al. 2015). Addi ionally, p ima y da a collec ion abou he c i e ia o democ a ic dialogue and he design o con e ences as a heo y o ‘p oduc i e pa icipa ion’ could be conduc ed along he lines pu o wa d by Manzano (2016). In addi ion, when applying ealis e alua ion he e a e di icul ies in he de ini ion o he con ex and he mechanism since hey a e uly in e wined—a suppo i e con ex may be in e p e ed as a pa o he mechanisms. This challenges he esea che s o clea ly explica e hei CMO o mulas. Au ho Con ibu ions: Concep ualiza ion, me hodology and in es iga ion, S.K., T.H. and R.K.; w i ing—o iginal d a p epa a ion, S.K. and T.H. and isualiza ion, R.K. Funding: The au ho s ecei ed no ex e nal unding o he au ho ship o his a icle. The unding o he Ne wo ks A–C unde s udy is men ioned in he Sec ion 2o a icle. Con lic s o In e es : The au ho s decla e no con lic s o in e es . Soc. Sci. 2019,8, 101 18 o 20 Re e ences Ack oyd, S ephen, and Jan Ch. Ka lsson. 2014. C i ical Realism, Resea ch Techniques, and Resea ch Designs. In S udying O ganiza ions Using C i ical Realism. Edi ed by Paul K. Edwa ds, Joe O’Mahoney and S e e Vincen . Ox o d: Ox o d Uni e si y P ess, pp. 21–45. Alasoini, Tuomo. 2011. Wo kplace De elopmen as Pa o B oad-Based Inno a ion Policy: Exploi ing and Explo ing Th ee Types o Knowledge. No dic Jou nal o Wo king Li e S udies 1: 23–43. [C ossRe ] Al a ado, Na asha, S ephanie Honey, Joanne G eenhalg, Alan Pea man, Dawn Dowding, Alexand a Cope, And ew Long, Da id Jayne, A on Gill, Alwyn Ko ze, and e al. 2017. Elici ing Con ex -Mechanism-Ou come Con igu a ions: Expe iences om a Realis E alua ion In es iga ing he Impac o Robo ic Su ge y on Teamwo k in he Ope a ing Thea e. E alua ion 23: 444–62. [C ossRe ] Blamey, A il, and Mhai i Mackenzie. 2007. Theo ies o Change and Realis ic E alua ion. Peas in a Pod o Apples and O anges. E alua ion 13: 439–55. [C ossRe ] Buhanis , Paul, An i Kas io, Timo Kauppinen, and Maa i Lah onen. 1994. Finnish Ac ion Resea ch. In Ac ion Resea ch in Finland. Ac i e Socie y wi h Ac ion Resea ch. Labou Policy S udies 82. Helsinki: Minis y o Labou , pp. 15–41. Colbjø nsen, Tom, and El in Falkum. 1998. Co po a e E iciency and Employee Pa icipa ion. In De elopmen Coali ions in Wo king Li e The "En e p ise De elopmen 2000" P og am in No way. Dialogues on Wo k and Inno a ion DOWI 6. Edi ed by Bjö n Gus a sen, Tom Colbjø nsen and Øy ind Pålshaugen. Ams e dam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company, pp. 35–54. Collin, Kaija, Susanna Paloniemi, and Ka ja Vähäsan anen. 2015. Mul iple Fo ms o P o essional Agency o (Non)C a ing o Wo k P ac ices in a Hospi al O ganiza ion. No dic Jou nal o Wo king Li e S udies 5: 63–83. [C ossRe ] Dalkin, Sonia Michele, Joanne G eenhalgh, Diana Jones, Bill Cunningham, and Monique Lhussie . 2015. Wha ’s in a Mechanism? De elopmen o a Key Concep in Realis E alua ion. Implemen a ion Science 10: 49. [C ossRe ] [PubMed] Elden, Max. 1983. Democ a iza ion and Pa icipa i e Resea ch in De eloping Local Theo y. Jou nal o Occupa ional Beha iou 4: 21–33. Eu o ound. 2015. Thi d Eu opean Company Su ey Wo kplace Inno a ion in Eu opean Companies. Luxembou g: Publica ions O ice o he Eu opean Union. [C ossRe ] F icke, We ne . 2011. Socio-Poli ical Pe spec i es in Ac ion Resea ch. T adi ions in Wes e n Eu ope—Especially in Ge many and Scandina ia. In e na ional Jou nal o Ac ion Resea ch 7: 248–61. [C ossRe ] Ghe a di, Sil ia. 2001. F om O ganiza ional Lea ning o P ac ice-Based Knowing. Human Rela ions 54: 131–39. [C ossRe ] G eenwood, Da ydd J. 2015. An Analysis o he Theo y/Concep En ies in he SAGE Encyclopedia o Ac ion Resea ch: Wha We Can Lea n abou Ac ion Resea ch in Gene al om he Encyclopedia. Ac ion Resea ch 13: 198–213. [C ossRe ] Gus a sen, Bjö n. 1991. The LOM P ogman: A Ne wo k-Based S a egy o O ganiza ion De elopmen in Sweden. In Resea ch in O ganiza ional Change and De elopmen . Edi ed by Richa d W. Woodman and William A. Pasmo e. G eenwich and London: JAI P ess, pp. 285–315. Gus a sen, Bjö n. 2001. Theo y and P ac ice: The Media ing Discou se. In Handbook o Ac ion Resea ch: Pa icipa ia e Inqui y and P ac ice. Edi ed by Pe e Reason and Hila y B adbu y. London: Thousand Oaks and New Delhi: Sage, pp. 17–26. Gus a sen, Bjö n. 2017. Gene al Theo y and Local Ac ion: Expe iences Fo m he Quali y o Wo king Li e Mo emen . No dic Jou nal o Wo king Li e S udies 7: 107–20. [C ossRe ] Gus a sen, Bjö n, and Pe H. Engels ad. 1986. The Design o Con e ences and he E ol ing Role o Democ a ic Dialogue in Changing Wo king Li e. Human Rela ions 39: 101–16. [C ossRe ] Habe mas, Jü gen. 1984. Theo y o Communica i e Ac ion, Volume One: Reason and he Ra ionaliza ion o Socie y. T ansla ed by Thomas McCa hy. Bos on: Beacon P ess. Ha é, Rom. 1979. Social Being: A Theo y o Social Psychology. Ox o d: Blackwell. Heiskanen, Tuula, and Esa Jokinen. 2015. Resou ces and Cons ain s o Line Manage Agency in Municipal Re o ms. No dic Jou nal o Wo king Li e S udies 5: 79–100. [C ossRe ] Soc. Sci. 2019,8, 101 19 o 20 Heiskanen, Tuula, Rii a La ikka, Leena Piispa, and Pi jo Tuuli. 1998. Jous amisen Mone Muodo . Pukine eollisuus E simässä Tie ä Huomiseen. [In Sea ch o Flexibili y – Building Pe spec i es o he Tex ile and Clo hing Indus y. Wi h English Summa y]. Yh eiskun a ie eiden Tu kimuslai os, Sa ja T 17. Tampe e: Tampe een yliopis o. Hökkä, Päi i, Susanna Paloniemi, Ka ja Vähäsan anen, Sanna He anen, Ma i Manninen, and Anneli E eläpel o, eds. 2014. Amma illisen oimijuuden ja yössäoppimisen ah is aminen—Luo ia oima a oja yöhön! [P omo ing Occupa ional Agency and Lea ning a Wo k—C ea i e Resou ces o Wo k!]. Jy äskylä: Uni e si y o Jy äskylä. A ailable online: h ps://jyx.jyu. i/handle/123456789/44975 (accessed on 19 Decembe 2018). Kalliola, Sa u. 2003. Sel -Designed Teams in Imp o ing Public Sec o Pe o mance and Quali y o Wo king Li e. Public Pe o mance & Managemen Re iew 27: 110–22. Kalliola, Sa u, and Ris o Naka i. 1999. Resou ces o Renewal. A Pa icipa o y App oach o he Mode niza ion o Municipal O ganiza ions in Finland. Dialogues on Wo k and Inno a ion DOWI 10. Ams e dam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. Kalliola, Sa u, and Ris o Naka i. 2006. Vuo o aiku us ja dialogi oppimisen iloina [In e ac ion and dialogue as lea ning spaces]. In Rajan yli ykse yössä. Yh eis oiminnan ja oppimisen uude mahdollisuude . Edi ed by Hanna Toi iainen and Hannu Hänninen. Jy äskylä: PS kus annus, pp. 203–36. Kalliola, Sa u, and Ris o Naka i. 2008. Dialogues wi h an Impac on De elopmen . In Dialogue in Wo king Li e Resea ch and De elopmen in Finland. Labou , Educa ion and Socie y 13. Edi ed by Ja mo Leh onen and Sa u Kalliola. F ank u am Main: Pe e Lang, pp. 109–30. Kas io, An i. 1990. Työo ganisaa ioiden u kimus ja niiden u ki a kehi äminen [Resea ching and de eloping wo k o ganiza ions. Li e a u e e iew.]. Yh eiskun a ie eiden u kimuslai os, Sa ja T 4. Tampe e: Tampe een yliopis o. Kas io, An i, Ris o Naka i, Sa u Kalliola, A ja Kuula, Ilkka Pesonen, Helena Rajakal io, and Si pa Sy änen. 1994. Uudis umisen oima a a . Tu kimus kunnallisen pal elu uo annon uloksellisuuden ja yöelämän laadun kehi ämises ä. [Resou ces o Renewal. Resea ching P oduc i i y and he Quali y o Wo king Li e o Municipal Se ices]. Yh eiskun a ie eiden u kimuslai os, Sa ja T 14. Tampe e: Tampe een yliopis o. Kazi, Mansoo . 2014. Realis E alua ion and E ec i eness Resea ch: An Example om School Based In e en ions. In E alua ion as a Tool o Resea ch, Lea ning, and Making Things Be e . Edi ed by Sa u Kalliola. Newcas le upon Tyne: Camb idge Schola s Publishing, pp. 31–43. Ki imäki, Riikka. 2011. Työhy in oin i on Teh ä ä. Te eydenhoi oalan Työpaika Työhy in oin ia Kehi ämässä [Heal h Ca e Wo k O ganiza ions in P omo ing Wellbeing a Wo k]. Työelämän Tu kimuskeskus, Työ apo eja 87. Tampe e: Tampe een yliopis o. A ailable online: h ps:// ampub.u a. i/handle/10024/65669 (accessed on 19 Decembe 2018). Ki imäki, Riikka, Aija Ka unen, Leena Y jänheikki, and Sa i Hin ikka. 2006. Hy in oin ia sai aala yöhön. Te eydenhuollon kehi ämishanke 2004–2006. [Imp o ing wo kplace wel a e in hospi al wo k. De elopmen p ojec in he heal h ca e sec o 2004–2006]. Sosiaali- ja e eysminis e iön sel i yksiä 69. Helsinki: Sosiaali- ja e eysminis e iö. A ailable online: h p://julkaisu . al ioneu os o. i/bi s eam/handle/10024/71950/ Sel 200669.pd (accessed on 19 Decembe 2018). Ki imäki, Riikka, Eija Ky önlah i, Ani a Keski-Hi i, Kaija Loppela, Niina Pel oniemi, and Pia-Ma ia Haapala. 2015. Yh eis yöllä Uusia Työhy in oinnin Edis ämisen Malleja UUMA [New Coope a ion Based Models o P omo ing Wellbeing a Wo k]. Seinäjoki: Epky. A ailable online: h p://huispaus.ucs. i/Epane /A kis o/julkaisuja/ uuma_malli .pd (accessed on 19 Decembe 2018). Lämsä, Tuija. 2010. Leade ship S yles and Decision-Making in Finnish and Swedish O ganiza ions. Re iew o In e na ional Compa a i e Managemen 1: 139–49. Lawle , Edwa d E. E., III. 1987. High-In ol emen Managemen Pa icipa i e S a egies o Imp o ing O ganiza ional Pe o mance. San F ancisco: Jossey Bass. Leinonen, Minna. 2016. Toimin a u kimus ja yökon e enssimene elmä yöpaikkojen asa-a on edis ämisessä [Ac ion Resea ch and He Wo k Con e ence Me hod in P omo ing Wo kplace Gende Equi y]. Ac a Uni e si a is Tampe ensis 2184. Tampe e: Tampe e Uni e si y P ess. A ailable online: h p:// ampub.u a. i/handle/10024/99605 (accessed on 19 Decembe 2018). Lewin, Ku . 1948. Ac ion Resea ch and Mino i y P oblems. In Resol ing Social Con lic s. Selec ed Pape s on G oup Dynamics. Edi ed by Ge ud Weiss Lewin. New Yo k: Ha pe & B o he s. Lewin, Ku . 1958. G oup Decision and Social Change. In Readings in Social Psychology, 3 d ed. Edi ed by Eleano E. Maccoby, Theodo e M. Newcomb and Eugene L. Ha ley. New Yo k: Hen y Hol and Company, pp. 197–211. Soc. Sci. 2019,8, 101 20 o 20 Manzano, Ana. 2016. The C a o In e iewing in Realis E alua ion. E alua ion 22: 342–60. [C ossRe ] Mumby, Dennis K. 1988. Communica ion and Powe in O ganiza ions: Discou se, Ideology, and Nomina ion. No wood: Ablex. Odhno , Jan, and Cas en on O e , eds. 1987. A be e s a ionali e e : Om am idens a be sli [The Ra ionali ies o Wo k: Abou he Wo king Li e o he Fu u e]. S ockholm: A be sli scen um. O’Mahoney, Joe, and S e e Vincen . 2014. C i ical Realism as an Empi ical P ojec A Beginne ’s Guide. In S udying O ganiza ions Using C i ical Realism. Edi ed by Paul K. Edwa ds, Joe O’Mahoney and S e e Vincen . Ox o d: Ox o d Uni e si y P ess. Pålshaugen, Øy ind. 1999. The End o O ganiza ion Theo y? Language as a Tool in Ac ion Resea ch and O ganiza ional De elopmen . Dialogues on Wo k and Inno a ion DOWI 5. Ams e dam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. Pawson, Ray, and Nick Tilley. 1997. Realis ic E alua ion. London: Sage. Polli , C is ophe . 2003. Public Managemen Re o m: Reliable Knowledge and In e na ional Expe ience. OECD Jou nal o Budge ing 3: 121–36. [C ossRe ] Sco , W. Richa d. 1995. Ins i u ions and O ganiza ions. Thousands Oaks: Sage. Suá ez-He e a, JoséCa los, Jane Sp inge , and Ca olyn Kagan. 2009. C i ical Connec ionss be ween Pa icipa o y E alua ion, O ganiza ional Lea ning and In en ional Change in Plu alis ic O ganiza ions. E alua ion 15: 321–42. [C ossRe ] S ensson, Lenna G. 2005. P o essional Occupa ions and S a us: A Sociological S udy o P o essional Occupa ions, S a us, and T us . Pape p esen ed a ESA Eu opean Sociological Associa ion Con e ence, Resea ch Ne wo k ‘Sociology o P o essions’, To un, Poland, Sep embe 9–12. Sy änen, Si pa, Ka i Tikkamäki, Kaija Loppela, Sa i Tappu a, An i Kas io, and Timo Toikko. 2015. Dialoginen Joh aminen: A ain Tuloksellisuu een, Työelämän Laa uun Ja Inno a ii isuu een [Dialogical Leade ship: The Key o P oduc i i y, Quali y o Wo king Li e and Inno a i eness]. Tampe e: Tampe e Uni e si y P ess. Wal on, Richa d E., and Robe B. McKe sie. 1965. Beha io al Theo y o Labo Nego ia ions: An Analysis o Social In e ac ion Sys em. New Yo k: McG aw Hill. Wes ho p, Gill, Kaye S e ens, and Pa icia J. Roge s. 2016. Using Realis Ac ion Resea ch o Se ice Redesign. E alua ion 22: 361–79. [C ossRe ] © 2019 by he au ho s. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Swi ze land. This a icle is an open access a icle dis ibu ed unde he e ms and condi ions o he C ea i e Commons A ibu ion (CC BY) license (h p://c ea i ecommons.o g/licenses/by/4.0/).