43

MERRELYN EMERY AND TOM DEVANE

Participative Design Workshop

We must be the great arsenal of democracy.

—Franklin Delano Roosevelt

Real-Life Story

Cyclone Hardware P&N Tools manufactures products for the building and engineering industries. The company began to encounter serious problems as imports reduced P&N Tools’ market share. Management downsized the workforce, initiated four-day weeks, and reduced capital expenditures.

Internally, quality, production times, and operating costs were not competitive. Management believed reducing the hierarchy from five levels would improve cycle times and reduce costs through faster decision making. They also realized they would need a structure that encouraged motivation and responsibility from employees at all levels.

Their first attempt using a Sociotechnical Systems (STS) approach foundered because apart from the design team, the workforce didn’t feel ownership. Representation is not the same thing as participation.

As it happened, P&N Tools had previously been introduced to the concepts of Participative Design Workshops (PDWs); subsequently, all employees participated in a series of PDWs. The final design contained three levels of function without supervision and in which the management team concentrated on productive work. All goals were aligned with the business strategy.

The business results were extraordinary:

• Equipment utilization improved by 30 percent in three months.

• Stock levels were successfully built up prior to Christmas shutdown, even though teams only had a 1,200-hour window for 1,600 hours of work.

• A year later, a third production shift was added because of increased product demand attributed to higher quality and customer satisfaction.

In addition to the impressive business results, other changes in the way the workforce worked together became strikingly evident (table 1).

Teams Now Have	Instead of
responsibility for handling and scheduling back orders	waiting for orders
daily information about stock levels	monthly reports
responsibility for minor maintenance on machines	downtime, waiting for maintenance
become multiskilled	one skill per person
requested Total Quality and Just In Time tools to increase performance	“Its someone else’s job”
spontaneous ideas for improvement	staying silent and apathetic

Table 1. Changes in Workforce Behavior

These results have been sustained and this experience is not unique. Similar results have been obtained from 1971 and from such different organizations as Microsoft, Weyerhaeuser, Hewlett-Packard, Karadoc Winery, and the Federal Judicial Court System of the United States.

The Basics

WHAT IS THE PARTICIPATIVE DESIGN WORKSHOP?

The PDW is one of several open systems methods that help organizations or communities get on top of their unpredictable environment. The other methods are covered in chapters 22 (Evolutions of Open Systems Theory) and 35 (Search Conference). In a PDW, participants bring into being a structure that leads to increased levels of responsibility and motivation to achieve their strategic intent. At the end of a PDW, participants know how to sustain performance improvement. There are two forms of PDW, one for redesign, and one for designing a structure where none exists, for example in a Greenfield or start-up organization or community. The differences between the PDWs for redesign and design are discussed in chapter 22. This chapter concentrates on the PDW for redesigning existing structures.

A PDW is a highly structured and participative process in which people redesign their own organizational structure from one based on the first genotypical organizational design principle to one based on the second, as described below. It is a comprehensive process during which they also design a set of measurable goals, training requirements for the new design, and other necessities such as how they will cooperate with other groups. These are subsequently negotiated with others before final agreement. Any organization—a corporation, government agency, or association—can use a PDW. A community may use a modified PDW to design itself an organization structure (see chapter 22).

The first PDW was conducted in Australia in 1971. It was devised by Fred Emery to replace the method experts used in the 1960s (STS). This old method evolved from the early 1950s to provide experimental proof that there was an alternative to autocracy in the workplace. It was not suitable for everyday use or to educate people about what is involved in designing DP2 (the second genotypical design principle, described below) organizations. The PDW, therefore, is a method to bring into being organizational forms that have been successfully tested over long periods of time.

THE TWO GENOTYPICAL ORGANIZATION DESIGN PRINCIPLES

The two genotypical design principles were discovered during the Norwegian Industrial Democracy Project (1962–1967). They’re called “genotypical” because like DNA, they determine the most fundamental aspects of organizational shape and characteristics. These principles differ in the nature of the redundancy used in an organization. Organizations cannot survive without some redundancy, but there are two distinct ways of obtaining it. The first design principle (DP1) is called “redundancy of parts” because there are more people in the organization than it can use at any given point in time. In DP1 structures, people are replaceable parts. Its critical feature is that responsibility for coordination and control is not located with people who are actually doing the work. Therefore, DP1 produces a supervisory hierarchy where some have the right and responsibility to tell others what to do and how to do it. Terms associated with this principle include “command and control,” “autocratic,” “bureaucratic,” and “master-servant relationship.”

The second design principle (DP2) is called “redundancy of functions” because flexibility is gained by building into each individual person more skills and functions than he or she can use at any point in time, and certainly a lot more than would typically be associated with a single job description. The most critical feature of DP2 is that responsibility for coordination and control is located with people who are actually doing the work (see figure 1). Therefore, DP2 produces a flat hierarchy of functions based on self-managing groups where relationships between all groups—both laterally and vertically—entail negotiation between peers. Terms often used include “high performance,” “democratic,” and “self-directed.”

Figure 1. The Organization Design Principles

DP2 structures should not be confused with the “you can do what you like” approach, which is called “laissez-faire.” Laissez-faire is seen today in DP1 structures where the supervision and management is so loose that it approximates a lack of structure. DP2 structures are highly regulated, as each group contracts to meet a comprehensive set of measurable goals covering every aspect of its day-to-day work. These are all negotiated to ensure that collectively they meet the organization’s strategic goals. As the team goals control the work of the teams, so this network of interconnected goals ensures tight control within the organization.

In the PDW, participants are briefed on the design principles and their effects. One of the major effects is on the “six criteria,” a set of psychological requirements people have when attempting to do productive work. They are well established and extensively researched. These criteria are:

1. Elbow room, autonomy in decision making

2. Continual learning, for which there must be (a) the ability to set goals, and (b) accurate and timely feedback

3. Variety

4. Mutual support and respect

5. Meaningfulness, which consists of (a) doing work with social value and (b) seeing the whole product or service

6. A desirable future

These requirements are the intrinsic motivators and are closely tied to the design principles. DP1 structures work against the six criteria as well as deskilling over time. Short-term increases in motivation are gained by increased pay, but for sustained high scores on the six criteria, a DP2 structure is a necessity. The design principles also affect other features of interpersonal relations such as the quantity and quality of communication and personality differences. As research continues on these principles, the more powerful they are seen to be.

The overall organization chart looks something like that in figure 2. Every level of the flat hierarchy is composed of self-managing groups, each of which does productive work and negotiates changes. The double lines indicate relations between equals with two-way communication and initiation of negotiation. They do not signify reporting relationships in the traditional sense of the term (i.e., who reports to whom, and who supervises whom).

Table 2 summarizes the key distinctions between DP1 and DP2 organizations.

Figure 2. DP2 Structure

	In an Organization Based on …
	Design Principle 1	Design Principle 2
Basic Performance Unit	Individuals with a supervisor	Self-managing group
Overall Organizational Design	A hierarchy of personal dominance; superiors have the legal right and responsibility to tell subordinates what to do and how to do it	A nondominant hierarchy of functions where all relationships are between peers who negotiate; every functional level does productive work only
Responsibility for Coordination and Control	Is held by successive levels of supervisors and managers	Is held by self-managing groups at every level of the functional hierarchy
Type of Redundancy	Redundancy of parts: People are replaceable parts	Redundancy of functions: People are knowledgeable assets
Quality of Work	Is the direct responsibility of supervisor or specialized quality control section	It is the responsibility of groups doing the work and built into explicit, monitored goals
Specialized People or Sections (e.g., R&D)	People with specialized skills are also treated as replaceable parts; specialized units often fail to coordinate work	If training or legalities prevent full multiskilling, coordination is still shared by the group, but control rests with individual specialists
Requirements for Productive Work	Usually ignored; designs typically work counter to these requirements	The design of the organization specifically addresses the six criteria

Table 2. Comparisons of Structures Based on the Two Design Principles

WHEN TO USE A PDW

PDWs are used when management realizes that high productivity and profit today and into the future depends on the cooperation of staff that is gained by treating them as people, not machines. That is, PDWs are used when top management wants to:

• see increased commitment and responsibility throughout the organization, and

• have an active, adaptive organization that can rapidly reorganize itself in response to changing environmental conditions, and also influence its outside environment.

Embarking down this path of changing the design principle is obviously not a simple, tweaking kind of change program. There are profound and far-reaching effects. Selecting this path requires serious consideration because when the design principle is changed, most existing organizational systems must also be changed, including that of pay and classification. Such fundamental change also demands changes in roles and responsibilities for all members of the organization.

PROBABLE OUTCOMES

The primary outcome of one or a series of PDWs is a redesigned, self-managing organization (figure 2). There are other outcomes that occur as a direct result of the PDW:

• Higher productivity and quality because each team has a comprehensive set of measurable goals that collectively further the organization’s strategic goals

• Increased responsibility and commitment because all members of the organization are treated as responsible adults

• Reduction in infighting and turf battles, as each team has an agreed-upon identity and area of work, and interfaces with other groups are clearly defined

• Increase in multiskilling because people share goals and work, and the organization has moved to a skill-based pay system

HOW A PDW WORKS

PDWs can be used very flexibly. Small organizations as a whole or sections of larger organizations can redesign their structures in a long day, or over several sessions. Many different parts of a large organization can simultaneously redesign at the same time. Many organizations are not rich and cannot afford to pay overtime for example, to a whole off-shift crew. Therefore, a small “deep slice” team¹ may attend the workshop and then take the process back to the others so that everyone is involved in analysis and redesign. Numbers can, therefore, vary widely.

For larger organizations, a series of PDWs will be carefully designed, starting at the lowest level of the organization, and finishing with the senior management team. We start at the bottom for reasons explained later in this chapter.

In a small organization, the design can be of the whole organization. Large organizations are broken into natural sections of the existing structure. Table 3 represents general PDW flow for a section.

Segment	Tasks
Introduction	• Participant introductions, if required • Senior management/union overview
Analysis	Briefing 1: DP1 and Its Effects • Participants score themselves on the six criteria for productive work in their section • Participants identify skills held in the section • Reports and analyses
Structural Redesign	Briefing 2: DP2 and Its Effects • Participants draw the work flow and current organizational structure • Participants then redesign the structure, not the work flow • Reports
Practicalities for Success	Briefing 3: Requirements to Make the Design Work • Participants draft a comprehensive set of measurable goals for each team and the section • Participants decide on the training required for start-up (from the skills matrix) • Participants decide what else is required for the design (e.g., mechanisms for coordination with other groups, technological changes) • Participants draft career paths for the section based on skills held • Participants show how the design improves scores on the six criteria

Table 3. Participative Design Workshop Flow

The PDW manager gives comprehensive briefings about the design principles and their consequences so everybody has this knowledge for the future.

Variations of PDWs include: conducting PDWs in parts separated over time, multiple teams designing different sections, and multiple teams designing the same section. In large organizations where teams have redesigned section by section, management holds its PDW to design the management structure and integrate the existing redesigns into a coherent organizational design.

COST JUSTIFICATION

Increases in productivity and quality arising from change to the second design principle (DP2) have been consistently measured since the early 1950s using normal organizational statistics such as quantity, wastage, accident, and error rates.

Despite this consistent history, this structural change is not for everybody. Some people put their belief in autocracy and their comfort level with the status quo above the need for increased performance.

Table of Uses

Brief Description	Project Length	Number of Participants and Outcome
Software development firm starting up a new venture wanted a high-participation structure for fast, high-quality decisions.	2 days	40 people designed self-managing structure that was instrumental in capturing 68% of their target market in 2 years.
Data mining firm was seeking to decrease report production time and delight customers.	3 days	55 people redesigned 6 departments into one organization of high-performing teams. Report production decreased time by 50%.
Electronics assembly firm wanted to dramatically increase product quality and customer satisfaction levels.	2.5 days	80 people redesigned a structure the reduced customer failures by 45% within 14 months.
Postapartheid South African quasi-government lending agency sought to extend offerings of government services while increasing profits.	2 days per site for 26 sites over 4 weeks	1,300 people formed corporate and branch high-performing teams that developed numerous new products for emerging market segments. Within 18 months, revenues doubled with the same number of staff.

Getting Started

FUNDAMENTALS TO CONSIDER

PDWs require certain conditions for success and sustainability. For unionized enterprises, the union should be involved right from the first discussions. The basic conditions are:

• For all legally constituted organizations where responsibilities are encoded into contractual documents such as duty statements or job specifications, a decision must be made by the relevant authorities that the organization or large autonomous subsection will legally change its design principle. This must be enshrined in some agreement that is binding though some reasonable period of time. If the design principle is not legally changed from DP1 to DP2, then it is still legally DP1. Everyone will soon realize this, and nothing will actually change in the long term.

• For unionized enterprises, guarantees usually need to be in place that no one will regress in terms of pay and conditions and that no one will be laid off as a direct result of the process.

• There must be at least “in principle” formulas and plans for such matters as fairly sharing the increased productivity, and finding productive work for people whose levels of the existing hierarchy have been designed out.

• An agreement for a new, more flexible pay system must be in place, whereby people are paid for skills held, not for a job. Changing the design principle alters career paths that are based on movement up the hierarchy.

• Everyone must be educated about the change and its effects through prebriefings about the concepts and the process.

• First-line supervisors and middle management need a special session prior to the PDWs because transfer of responsibility for coordination and control from supervision to productive groups can be threatening. They may need reassurance that opportunities will be provided for them to design themselves creative new work.

For those looking for a proven way to move from a DP1 to a DP2 structure, conducting a series of PDWs for every large section of the structure is a high-leverage, systemic process. For people who still believe that command-and-control methods work in today’s rapidly changing world, we wish you success and suggest that you avoid PDWs like the plague.

GUIDING PRINCIPLES FOR USING THE METHOD

The guiding principles for using PDWs are as follow:

• There is a binding agreement that the entity (large enough to have the autonomy to change the genotypical design principle) will move to DP2.

• No designs will be imposed. Everyone in the organization participates in analysis and detailed design of his or her section.

• The process is educational. Everyone gains conscious conceptual knowledge about the design principles and how to use them.

• Those who work in a section redesign their section. As long as the design is genuinely DP2, the workers in it will continue to improve and redesign it because it is theirs.

• Use trained and experienced PDW managers. They must know the theory, give briefings, answer questions, and recognize non-DP2 designs.

Roles, Responsibilities, and Relationships

ROLE OF TOP MANAGEMENT

Before the PDW, top management is responsible for the following:

• Sitting down with the unions, if present.

• Making it crystal clear to everyone what type of structures they are moving from and to.

• Clarifying that a strategic change has been decided and is not negotiable.

• Ensuring that everyone has a clear vision of strategy for the future.

Top management (and/or senior union representation) is usually not present throughout an entire PDW unless it is a smallish organization or the PDW is for a senior management group. However, during a PDW:

• The CEO should open the workshop, returning later to hear the reports.

• Relevant managers should be on hand if questions arise about the reality of the change or about information that groups might need to finalize a design.

After the PDW or series of PDWs, the strategy level (the top level of the organization that makes strategic decisions and develops organizational policy) has the responsibility to:

• ride the boundary between the enterprise and the environment, disseminating knowledge of relevant environmental change, and updating strategic plans and policies; ensuring the overall financial health of the enterprise through investments, and so on.

• ensure conditions are right for the new structure to succeed.

ROLE OF THE PDW MANAGER

We use the word “manager” instead of “facilitator” because PDW management excludes much conventional facilitation in running groups. PDW managers have a totally “hands-on” role to produce:

• workable DP2 designs for the new organizational structure, and

• an enterprise whose members hold conceptual and practical knowledge to redesign for active adaptation to the changing environment.

PDW managers are responsible for giving accurate briefings, assuring participants’ understanding, challenging designs, and suggesting alternatives when required.

ROLE OF PARTICIPANTS

Before the PDW, the participants must attend prebriefings. During the PDW, they redesign the structure of their section, and design in the practicalities that will ensure the design works. Afterward, they work within the new structure, redesigning and improving as conditions warrant.

Conditions for Success

WHEN TO USE THIS APPROACH

We’ve discussed why and when to use this approach and what conditions above are necessary to get started. Long-term success depends on this preparatory work and these conditions.

WHY IT WORKS

This method works because:

• It is based on a well-established and unique combination of solid theories (see the “Critical Underlying Theory and Research Base” section of this chapter).

• DP2 creates the structures that provide for individuals to be treated as people. When people hold responsibility for coordinating and controlling their own work and can use their human abilities for learning, thinking, and planning, they respond with responsibility, motivation, and creativity.

• The PDW was designed by the same person (Fred Emery) who discovered the genotypical design principles after years of research on people, social systems, and how to create organizations fit for people to work and live in. It has been continually refined over a 35-year period to ensure that when followed, it is a highly reliable method for making this change.

WHEN NOT TO USE THIS METHOD

Do not use this method if:

• The conditions for success listed above in the “Getting Started” section are not present.

• Your objective is just one or two high-performance teams or teams just at the operational level. This process is intended to redesign the entire organization. The design principles do not mix within an organization.

• Senior management is unsure that it’s the best strategic direction. This effort must not be posed as a “pilot” or any type of experiment, because people will not take it seriously.

However, if management is simply unsure about the method, an “educational PDW” can be run, and a technically accurate simulation is also available from Amerin Consulting. The only difference between an educational and a real PDW is that no guarantees are given that the results of the educational PDW will be implemented.

COMMON MISTAKES

Most mistakes are avoided by education. Some common mistakes in the use of this method are shown in table 4.

Common Mistake (and Likely Result)	Reason for the Mistake	Remedy
Asking employees if they want a DP2 organization (this decision is not their responsibility).	Executives are trying to model participation, but only top management has the authority to make this decision.	Do research and decide. Inclusivity is covered by education and participation in redesign.
Not committing to a binding agreement to change the design principle (people realize the announced change is phony and nothing will change).	The most important reason is lack of understanding of the reality and power of the design principles.	Educate top management thoroughly up front and don’t hold PDWs until the conditions are in place.
Not committing to change the compensation and reward system (dissatisfaction will rise rapidly).	Some can resist. However, compensation and reward changes are necessary for economic justice, and everybody must understand why.	Build compensation and reward system changes into the agreement. Hire a professional career path designer to use drafts from the PDWs and integrate them to fit the new structural form.
Mistake multiskilling for changing the design principle (multiskilling does not produce increased motivation and proper use of increased skills).	Multiskilling is fashionable and relatively easy. DP2 structures both motivate and encourage multiskilling.	Change the design principle first and follow with a pay-for-skillsheld system. Then people also have a financial incentive to increase the depth and breadth of their skills.
Having team leaders for “self-managing groups” (people realize that only the name changes, that responsibility has not shifted).	There is no understanding of the design principles and a corruption of the term “self-managing group.”	Change the design principle and ensure that all understand the concepts. Leadership and lead roles will move around the group as required.
PDW manager confusing DP2 with laissez-faire or corrupting the PDW (performance and scores on six criteria go backward).	PDW manager doesn’t know the theory and practice. The PDW is not a “touchy-feely” or human relations–based approach to organizational change.	Learn the theory and practice. Choose PDW managers who can show you DP2 designs and harddata outcomes from previous work.
Designs being implemented before goals are agreed, essential training done, and so on (performance and scores on six criteria become lower, and there is a risk of accidents from lack of training).	There is haste and confusion between DP2 and laissez-faire. Without measurable goals, the design is laissez-faire and the results are worse than those from DP1.	Don’t implement designs until everything is in place.

Table 4. Common Mistakes

Critical Underlying Theory and Research Base

As Kurt Lewin once noted, “There is nothing as practical as a good theory.” To build a sustainable organizational structure in which people are intrinsically motivated to implement the strategy and continually improve performance, the Participative Design Workshop draws upon solid theory from a wide variety of research venues over the past 70 years.

Theorist/Researcher	Key Theory Elements	Use in Participative Design Workshop
Kurt Lewin and others	Discovered effects of democratic and autocratic climates and “laissez-faire”	Climates now known to be produced by structures. PDW manager must recognize and reject autocratic and laissez-faire designs.
Eric Trist and Ken Bamforth, and others	Birth of sociotechnical systems	These researchers began the work that ultimately led to the PDW.
Fred Emery	Characteristics of open sociotechnical systems as a subpart of open systems theory	This work builds on more than 50 years of research on “open jointly optimized sociotechnical systems,” now called systems with DP2 structures.
Fred Emery	Genotypical organization design principles	PDW provides conscious conceptual knowledge of these principles and how to design and implement structures based on the second of them (DP2).
Fred Emery and Einar Thorsrud	The six criteria that constitute the third, human dimension of organizational success—what people require for productive work.	People assess the six criteria for productive work in their current structure and then design a structure that improves their scores.
Fred Emery, Einar Thorsrud, and others	Development of previous method (STS) used to establish scientific proof of the efficacy of DP2	PDW replaced STS because it was designed for diffusion. Proof was accepted in 1969 that there was an effective alternative to autocracy at work.
Merrelyn Emery	The “two-stage model” of active adaptation (see chapter 22)	This researcher modified PDW for design (e.g., to have a PDW follow the Search Conference to complete an organization’s active adaptation).
Fred Emery and Merrelyn Emery	As above, plus years of associated R&D	With dedicated others, these researchers brought open systems to a high level of reliability.

Table 5. Theory Base

Sustaining the Results

ADVICE FOR RETAINING THE BENEFITS ACHIEVED

If there is an agreement and the designs implemented are genuinely DP2, the conditions for sustainability are built in for the life of the agreement. When the agreement is up for negotiation, anyone who wants to revert to DP1 has to convince all parties to do that, which will be difficult.

IMPACT ON ORGANIZATION’S CULTURAL ASSUMPTIONS

Culture is normally defined as the systems of assumptions and conventions that govern the lives of a particular group. These usually implicit rules of behavior are largely determined by the structural relations between people—those governed by the design principles. When the design principle is changed, a whole new system of behaviors comes into play: cooperation rather than competition, motivation rather than passivity and carelessness. Over time, these behaviors become established.

Burning Question

Why would I bother changing the design principle when I can currently afford a pay increase to boost my employees’ commitment?

Your employees’ commitment after a pay increase lasts for only a short time, after which everything returns to normal and you have to increase the pay again. Changing the design principle ensures that your organization will enjoy a long period of high commitment with increasing innovation and productivity.

Some Final Comments

Table 6 summarizes what is distinctive about PDW to clearly illustrate what PDW is and what it is not.

Participative Design Workshop	PDW Does Not
• Is based on open systems theory that specifies an environment, produces active adaptation to that environment, and uses environmental knowledge to make change. Messengers do not get shot.	• Rely on closed systems; no environment is specified, so organizations ignore it. Messengers can get shot when they convey news of environmental change.
• Assumes people are purposeful, responsible, want to learn, and can change their environments.	• Assume that most people need direction from above or help to be responsible and purposeful.
• Deals with genotypical material. Does not rely on words such as “teams,” but deals with hard legal realities of structural relationships. Is sustainable.	• Deal with phenotypical (superficial) material such as communications and interpersonal relationships. People feel good in the short term.
• Transfers conscious conceptual knowledge and know-how of the design principles for sustainable, active adaptation to all. Reduces dependency.	• Neglect to transfer conceptual and practical knowledge for future use. Can produce dependency.
• Produces motivation to sustain changes.	• Produce only short-lived change or resistance to change
• Produces energy and creativity for innovation.	• Produce more cynical and apathetic people without the energy to change anything.

Table 6. Summary of Differences from Other Methods

About the Authors

Merrelyn Emery ([email protected]) has been developing opens systems theory (OST) methods now for more than 35 years, many of them spent working with Fred Emery. She holds a first-class honors degree in psychology and a Ph.D. in marketing. She has worked with innumerable communities and organizations in the public, private, and volunteer sectors. She continues to teach the state of the art of open systems theory around the world.

Tom Devane ([email protected]) helps organizations and communities thrive in their respective environments. His diverse background in strategy, Six Sigma, technology, organizational development, community planning, and leadership effectiveness provides for dramatic, sustainable improvement. With BS and MS degrees in finance, Big Six consulting, and industry leadership experience, he founded his own firm in 1988. Clients include Microsoft, Hewlett-Packard, Johnson & Johnson, General Electric, the U.S. Forest Service, AT&T, Honeywell, and the Republic of South Africa.

Where to Go for More Information

REFERENCES

Bradshaw, C., J. Roberts, and S. Cheuy. “The Search Conference: A Participative Planning Method That Builds Widespread Collaboration.” In The Collaborative Work Systems Fieldbook: Strategies, Tools, and Techniques, edited by M. M. Beyerlein, C. McGee, G. D. Klein, J. E. Nemiro, and L. Broedling, 43–56. San Francisco: Pfeiffer, 2002.

Cabana, S. “Participative Design Works, Partially Doesn’t.” Journal for Quality and Participation 18, no. 1 (1995).

Cabana, S., F. Emery, and M. Emery. “The Search for Effective Strategic Planning Is Over.” Journal for Quality and Participation 18, no. 4 (1995): 10–19.

de Guerre, D. W. “Action Research as Process: The Two Stage Model for Active Adaptation.” Ecclectica (2002), http://www.ecclectica.ca/issues/2002/4/.

———. “Variations on the Participative Design Workshop.” In The Collaborative Work Systems Fieldbook: Strategies, Tools, and Techniques, edited by M. M. Beyerlein, G. Klein and L. Broedling, 275–286. San Francisco: John Wiley & Sons, 2002.

Emery, F. “Participative Design: Effective, Flexible and Successful, Now!” Journal for Quality and Participation (January/February 1995).

Emery, F., and M. Emery. “The Participative Design Workshop.” In The Social Engagement of Social Science: A Tavistock Anthology: The Socio-technical Perspective, Vol. II, edited by E. Trist and H. Murray, 599–613. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1993.

Emery, Merrelyn. “The Evolution of Open Systems to the 2 Stage Model.” In Work Teams: Past, Present and Future, edited by M. M. Beyerlein, 85–103. Amsterdam: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 2000.

———. “The Power of Community Search Conferences.” Journal for Quality and Participation 18, no. 7 (1995): 70–79.

———. Searching: The Theory and Practice of Making Cultural Change. Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 1999.

———, ed. Participative Design for Participative Democracy. Canberra, Australia: ANU/CCE, 1993.

Emery, M., and R. Purser. The Search Conference: A Powerful Method for Planning Organizational Change and Community Action. San Francisco: Jossey Bass, 1996.

INFLUENTIAL SOURCES

de Guerre, D. W. “The Co-Determination of Cultural Change Over Time.” Systemic Practice and Action Research 13, no. 5 (2000): 645–663.

———. “Democratic Social Engagement.” Innovation Journal 10, no. 1 (2005).

de Guerre, D. W., and H. Hornstein. “Active Adaptation of Municipal Governance: An Action Research Report.” Innovation Journal 9, no. 1 (2004).

de Guerre, D. W., and M. M. Taylor. “Participative Design and Executive Coaching.” International Journal of Knowledge, Culture and Change Management 4 (2005): 513–521.

Emery, Merrelyn. The Future of Schools: How Communities and Staff Can Transform Their School Districts. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Education; Toronto: Oxford University Press, in press 2006.

———. “The Search Conference: Design and Management with a Solution to the “Pairing” Puzzle.” In The Social Engagement of Social Science: A Tavistock Anthology: The Socio-Ecological Perspective, Vol. III, edited by E. Trist, F. Emery, and H. Murray. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1997.

———. “The Six Criteria for Intrinsic Motivation in Education Systems: Partial Democratization of a University Experience, Partial Success.” In Educational Futures: Shifting Paradigm of Universities and Education, 309–334. Istanbul: Sabanci University, 2000.

Paton, John, and M. Emery. “Community Planning in the Torres Strait.” Journal of Quality and Participation 19, no. 5 (1996): 26–35.

Purser, R. E., and S. Cabana. The Self Managing Organization: How Leading Companies Are Transforming the Work of Teams for Real Impact. New York: The Free Press, 1998.

Trist, E., and H. Murray, eds. The Social Engagement of Social Science: A Tavistock Anthology: The Socio-Technical Perspective, Vol. II. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1993.

ORGANIZATIONS

Canadian Institute for Research and Education in Human Systems—[email protected]

For information about training courses and current projects.

Centre for Human Relations and Community Studies, Concordia University, Montreal—[email protected]

For information about training courses and current projects.

Department of Applied Human Sciences, Concordia University, Montreal

Fred Emery Institute, Melbourne

The Modern Times Workplace—www.moderntimesworkplace.com

The Vaughan Consulting Group—www.vaughanconsulting.com/pdw.html

The authors thank Peter Aughton of Amerin, Australia, for the use of the P&N Tools case study and Don deGuerre of Concordia University for his suggestions and help in editing.

1. A “deep slice” team covers each level of the existing hierarchy in the section and as many different functions and skills across the section as possible. Do not allow PDWs to be used with only one level of the existing hierarchy at a time, or with a single-function section, as the designs will be inadequate.