Spirit & Development Within the Natural Workplace

Articles

Vital Work: Spirit and Development Within the Natural Workplace
Terri A. Deems, PhD
DAI/WorkLife Design

What happens when we reframe work as a fundamental site of human development? This research explores two organizations where development becomes not a function of training but a way of conducting work as a whole. This study illuminates the lived experience of people who work within "natural" or "vital" workplaces. The educative function of the workplace is explored and principles for vital work are identified and defined.

Adults today spend more of their time and energy engaged in work than in any other wakeful activity; for the adult, work is the central domain for learning and for the development of our human capacity (Jarvis, 1992; Kincheloe, 1995; Watkins, 1991; Welton, 1991). Research presents a clear interrelationship between the structure of our work organizations and the psychological qualities and attitudes of the people who work within them (Balawajder & Popiolek, 1996; Mortimer, 1988; Pauchant, 1995; Riordan & Griffeth, 1995; Watkins, 1991; Williams et al, 1997); the everydayness of work serves as a context and source of learning and of self-knowledge. Work is, as Welton (1991) describes, a fundamental training site for a participatory and democratic society.

Such a perspective of the workplace moves beyond traditional ideas about the education and training of workers to enhance corporate profit. Rather, it brings us to consider the workplace itself as a curricular structure, an educative environment (Dewey, 1938) with the potential to stimulate or enhance, to restrict or distort, growth and development. Yet this educative function of work has been a largely neglected theme in the field of human resource development (HRD). In our efforts to ensure we are making "value-added" contributions to organizational performance, we risk losing sight of our field's tradition: to further the development of humans and to promote the growth and welfare of the larger society (Friedlander, 1996).

This research explores two organizations where development becomes not a function of training but a way of conducting work as a whole, and illuminates the lived experience within these environments. The educative function of the workplace is explored and principles for vital work are identified and defined.

The Organization of Work

Contemporary Workplace Reforms

We are experiencing today a pace, breadth, and depth of change unseen in any previous chapter in workplace development in the Western world. Innovations that emphasize the importance of learning and of personal and collective development can be seen in the emergence of less authoritative structures and more collaborative and democratic work processes (for example Briskin, 1996; Dew, 1997; Dirkx, 1996; Kofman & Senge, 1993; Marsick, 1987). Such efforts to reinvent the corporation depict a struggle to establish a vision of work founded on a more clearly articulated set of humanistic values and constructivist models (Aktouf, 1992; Dew, 1997; Dirkx, 1996; Meltzer & Wickert, 1976): shared rather than unilateral power; autonomous work groups; diversity rather than conformity. Within the margins of such change lies an implicit recognition of the interrelationship of the subjective life of the worker and the objective conditions of work (Aktouf, 1992; Watkins, 1991; Welton, 1991). Yet in spite of new reforms, technical-rational approaches to work continue to be the norm and reforms retain a distinct positivist flavor (Ketchum & Trist, 1992; Kincheloe, 1995; Pauchant, 1995). Reforms are appropriated or sanctioned in order to enhance worker quality, commitment, productivity, or morale. The extent to which such reforms add value to the organization is embedded almost exclusively within a capitalistic framework (Briskin, 1996; Dirkx, 1996; Morin, 1995). Contradictions and paradox exist. With increased democracy, there are increased surveillance technologies. With open sharing of information, heated debate over office Internet access. With increased participation, restrictions on cubicle "prairie-dogging."

The worker continues to be conceptualized as an object ruled by causes, whose subjective experience is separated from the objective conditions of the workplace (Watkins, 1991). Research indicates that such a fragmentation results in an experience of work which constricts and distorts, rather than enhances and enlarges the human spirit (Aktouf, 1992; Watkins, 1991; Welton, 1991). This constitutes a miseducative experience (Dewey, 1938), a "false and stunted humanism" (Aktouf, 1992, p. 412). The centrality of work in our lives is generally relegated to work's role in creating a preferred lifestyle and there is little regard or consideration for how people develop, what people learn, what they come to know, outside the confines of sanctioned training.

The Natural Workplace

Reframing work calls for more than innovative strategies subtly inserted within the Taylorist paradigm (Aktouf, 1992; Block, 1997). It calls for deeper questions concerning our assumptions about the nature of work, how work is structured and organized, even the very purpose and meaning of work itself. In contrast to contemporary reforms, a "natural," more fully human workplace is emerging that ceases to artificially create, manage, appropriate or control the experiences of others (Aktouf, 1992; Semler, 1993). Grounded in a developmental view of work, the natural workplace appears to restructure the workplace around fundamentally different social, psychological, and economic assumptions. Named as radically humanist, democratic, mindful, conscious, even spiritual or soulful, this way of work is conceptualized as passionate, creative, nurturing, socially just, and more fully human, where profit and market share become not the goal but the by-product of vital or right work (for example Adams, 1984; Aktouf, 1992; Briskin, 1996; Clark, 1967; Dew, 1997; Dirkx & Deems, 1996; Fox, 1994; Hawley, 1993; Kofman & Senge, 1993; Meltzer & Wickert, 1976; Wenger, 1996; Whyte, 1994).

This sense of a more authentic, more fully human workplace appears to be qualitatively different than many other workplace reforms. The natural workplace is grounded in a particular view of human nature, a view supported within diverse bodies of literature (for example Aktouf, 1992; Dewey, 1938; Egan, 1994; Fox, 1994; Handy, 1994; Hawley, 1993; Jarvis, 1992; Kincheloe, 1995; Kofman & Senge, 1993; Moore, 1991; Pauchant, 1995; Wilber, 1995; Whyte, 1994). Primary to this view are the ideas that humans are (a) endowed with consciousness, right judgment, and free will — we are actively involved in our own becoming; (b) fundamentally defined by our community and relations with others; (c) innately drive towards development and transcendence; and (d) share a common need for partnership and connectedness, for self-expression, and for meaning and purpose. Natural workplaces appear to structure and organize work in a way that facilitates the expression of this nature.

A growing body of literature (for example Bolman & Deal, 1995; Briskin, 1996; Fox, 1994; Hawley, 1993; Kofman & Senge, 1993; Whyte, 1994) presents an impressive picture of how work might be experienced within such environments: as vital, nurturing the human quest to embrace life fully with animation, meaningfulness, and purpose. Most of this work, however, consists of anecdotal evidence from proud CEOs (for example Fishman, 1996; Melrose, 1995; Semler, 1993). A relatively small body of ethnographic or anthropological research into more humanized workplaces or work units (for example Balawajder & Popiolek, 1996; James, James & Ashe, 1990; Massarik, 1976; Riordan & Griffeth, 1995; Schneider, 1990) describe a culture of work that embraces highly self-directed, participatory practices, community building, opportunities for friendship, recognized contributions, trust, and respect for humanity. They depict a strong corporate consciousness manifest by organizational members' engagement in the active processing of information, awareness of individual and collective strengths and weaknesses, awareness of the full environment in which the organization exists, and awareness of the interdependency of its systems (for example Massarik, 1976).

The idea of the natural workplace has been developed conceptually by numerous scholars, and the testimony of organizational leaders presents a rich and thought-provoking picture of what work might be. Within existing representations, however, there is a continued emphasis on the perception of work rather than on the experience of work (Briskin, 1996). There remains a distinct lack of research which presents the lived experience of workers within these sites, and we can only speculate on the extent to which people themselves experience these workplaces in an educative way. The purpose of this study is to explore how people experience and make meaning of the natural workplace, to build on our understanding of the qualities and characteristics of such an environment, and to investigate ways in which the natural workplace may contribute to growth and development.

Research Questions and Significance to HRD

This study explores the lived experience of people within two organizations working to create more humanistic, natural workplaces. It focuses on the nature of work and how people experience and make meaning of work within these environments. The following questions guided this inquiry:

How do workers experience and make meaning of organizational life within the natural workplace?
How is the natural workplace structured and organized? What are the qualities and characteristics of such an environment?
How and what do people learn, of themselves and of others, within the natural workplace? In what ways does the natural workplace facilitate growth and development of the individual and group?

Significance of the Research Problem

Argyris (1976, p. 405) described, "If the validity of the concept of the organization is to survive, the new designs will have to raise the level of the quality of life within the system and genuinely value high-quality living as much as efficiency." Conceptualizing the workplace as a fundamental site of learning and development offers this opportunity by creating experiences where "the purposes, driving forces, culture, behavior standards and results are more closely aligned to human needs, aspirations, and potential" (Koch & Godden, 1996, p. 173). An on-going and direct concern of organizational leaders lies with the objective conditions within the workplace in which interactions take place. Growing interest in such concepts as quality of work life, organizational learning and transformation, and work as vocation or calling, demonstrate a new focus on the establishment of working conditions that will "awaken in the worker the desire to work together in a spirit of community, creative energy, and meaningful purpose" (Aktouf, 1992, p. 419). The human spirit at work may be understood less as an object to be improved and much more as a force for collective creativity and innovation.

Human resource development practitioners are called to look more deeply into the ways in which the environment nurtures experiences that lead to growth, and how to utilize the physical and social environments "so as to extract from them all that they have to contribute to building up experiences that are worth while" (Dewey, 1938, p. 40). There is little agreement, however, as to what this means in a real and concrete way. This study contributes to our understanding of the workplace as a site for personal and organizational development, and illuminates conditions of work which are most conducive to a vital workforce. Developmental aspects of work will enhance our knowledge base of learning in terms of sociocultural, tacit, and self-knowledge. This study also contributes to our understanding of adult learning within the context of work as informal and incidental.

Research Methods

To understand another's experience, and to gain insights into the context which surrounds this experience, is to understand how a person makes meaning of a phenomenon. Meaning-making is the interpretive aspect of cognition and perceptions and, by definition, it is phenomenological (James, James & Ashe, 1990, p. 42). This study is grounded in Husserl's concept of phenomenology (as in Holstein & Gubrium, 1994; Moustakas, 1994; Sinha, 1969) a method that allows us to understand the ways the experiential world is produced and experienced by its members (Holstein & Gubrium, 1994).

Two midwest organizations participated in this study, having met the criteria for working towards a more natural work environment. This criteria were established based on a review of literature concerned with humanizing work environments (for example Fox, 1994; Hawley, 1993; Pauchant, 1995), and included:

high levels of autonomy (e.g., use of participatory and democratic work processes, lack of dress code, and the commitment of the organization to an individual's personal goals);
tolerance for ambiguity (e.g., lack of an employee handbook or task-specific job descriptions);
relatively high levels of trust (e.g., lack of detailed policy and procedures, open leave policies, self-reporting time records, or full disclosure of financial information concerning organizational status);
non-competitive recognition of employee contributions such as profit sharing plans maintained by employees;
evidence of concern for the "whole" person (e.g., health/wellness facilities or programs, encouragement of educational development, social activities, or flexible time-off policies); and
minimal hierarchical structure and evidence of individual power based on earnings or job title (e.g., office space determined by need rather than level of position, lack of reserved parking spaces, or open access to designated organizational leaders).

From these sites 20 self-selected people, representing a diverse mix of age, educational levels, gender, and positions within the organizations, participated as co-researchers. Data was collected through multiple methods including non-participant observation, document review, focus groups, unstructured field interviews, semi-structured interviews, and follow-up interviews. Information was recorded with the use of detailed field notes and audiorecordings. The participants/co-researchers also participated in the analysis and the writing of the findings through member checks and providing feedback to the primary researcher on the written narrative.

Data analysis consisted of three major stages (Moustakas, 1994): phenomenological reduction, imaginative variation, and synthesis of meanings and essences. Audiorecordings were transcribed verbatim and each transcript underwent a process of horizonalization, establishing meaning units and themes, development of individual textural and structural descriptions, and the synthesis of meanings and essences across cases. From this synthesis a composite textural-structural description was constructed, representing the shared essence of the work experience. The composite descriptions were presented to participants to ensure they represented an accurate and rich portrayal of their experiences and meaning-making within their workplaces. Accuracy and trustworthiness of the data (Lincoln & Guba, 1985) was ensured through on-going contact with participants, triangulation of data, member reviews, and peer review.

Findings: The Experience of Work

Findings reveal these more natural workplaces as relatively unstructured, with open books and open systems of communication, fluid work groups, high levels of autonomy, ample opportunities for friendship, and de-structured work processes. Being here is "vital" and animating involving a pace that is both draining and energizing, and filled with contradiction and paradox, conflict and uncertainty, high emotion and "fun." Participants structure the experience of work in five universal ways, described in their own words below: Self and Self-Other Relationships, Connectedness and Relatedness, The Role of Past Experience, Individual Differences, and Meaning in Work. Participants fill their days with activity which moves them and the organization forward. The days are both "too long" and "not long enough." When the roller-coaster is in motion, people are tired and supportive, teasing and resentful, hopeful and frustrated, excited and angry. "Fully alive." Pushing to be their best often demands that all their energies be directed towards a narrowly-defined product goal, subordinating equally important objectives and desires. It's frustrating. Work is depleting, yet somehow adds "life to the hours" both at home and at work. Work requires continual negotiation between both outward and inward projections: fulfilling your own needs in the challenge to learn more, do more, be "better" than last time, sometimes clashes with specific organizational needs and interests; personal time sometimes clashes with the need for overtime to complete a project or shipment date. A deep sense of safety comes in knowing that you are trusted, in conjunction with a darker sense of doubt in knowing that you are solely accountable within that trust.

Self in relation to others involves demands, interruptions, arguments. There is a sense that "I can be myself" in the midst of others, having no need to justify actions or to remain on guard lest someone misinterpret our actions. Interacting with others — in play, in dialogue, even in conflict — serves a generative function in the creation of new ideas and suggestions, new perceptions of others, and new perceptions of self. Within this environment, it is with great difficulty that people talk only of "I." Rather, it is "our" work, "our company," "our" project. This collective orientation frequently runs up against the personal valuing and significance of choice and autonomy at work.

The structures, processes, management, and directives of work — both explicit and implicit — make up a web connecting people, job tasks, goals, and meaning. Respect is a key foundation — respect for one's views and variations, for how you express yourself through your work, and for how you relate with others. This respect leads to the creation of work processes which encourage dialogue and innovation. To exclude someone from full participation within the workplace is an expression of disrespect or of "not recognizing humanity": not listening, not involving, not engaging, not making eye contact, making decisions which affect a work group without their input and insights, responding to one's ideas with ridicule, sarcasm, or silence. Inclusion demands participation and voice, which constitute "being a person" at work. Only through such participation and interaction will product quality be assured and improved, a sense of purposeful work be created, and interest and energy maintained.

As participants describe, respect is closely related to trust, because "when you respect another, you see your common humanity" — you see yourself within them. This implies high levels of trust from the first moment of relationship, given freely rather than following a testing period, trust which is maintained until actions occur which prove misplacement. "Empowerment" is a part of the human condition, rather than something that is granted or bestowed. Such trust is incompatible with tight controls, and implies such conditions as the personal use of company equipment, elastic timeframes for work, even the willingness to have others laugh with you at your own mistakes and trust they have no hurtful intent. As one leader described, trust is the belief "that people want to perform at their peak," then providing what they need and getting out of the way so they can do so.

With trust comes responsibility: the group is responsible for the project, the person for their work, the company for the person. Connected to responsibility is a strong sense of both personal and collective accountability. When you hold the responsibility, you are accountable for the decisions you make, the work performed, the hours claimed, the copies made. Accountability recognizes, however, that outcomes are not always a matter of individual performance but the result of factors outside our control. The need for close interaction with others becomes necessary then, in order to support conditions which make accountability, responsibility, and understanding and empathy, realistic conditions of work.

Joking with co-workers, talking with the boss, examining a part, or taking time off to run the car into the garage become significant activities when framed against previous work experiences and our prior sense of what work is. Guilt lingers at times, "old tapes" claiming we should be more productive, or suggesting that people are watching, whispering, when we arrive for work 15 minutes late or leave a few moments early. Hesitantly, we sit for the first time among a work group, listening to heated debate and struggling to express our own ideas when that has never been invited until now. Escaping past bonds demands learning: learning to participate, learning to trust your instincts and judgment, learning to fight it out within the project room and still remain friends afterwards. The past loosens its hold as we come to know that we are valued and important here, that people will listen to our ideas. The construction of new meaning can be filled with frustration, though, and we sometimes insist on imposing the structures we are most used to as a way of confronting and overcoming the uncertainties before us.

A wide range of individual differences seem to influence the experience and meaning of work. Some people described a childhood upbringing they believed impacted their comfort or discomfort with their present workplace. Instincts for taking action may influence our sense of whether a system is too rigid or not rigid enough, provides too much structure or is chaotic, is safe or threatening. Other participants suggested age as a critical feature: younger workers believed their young age made them more flexible, adaptable, able to interact more authentically with others; older workers believed these same characteristics were attributed to their greater maturity and experience within the workplace. Individual differences, though frustrating at times, also serve to create a culture and work climate that are filled with the noise of life, the full range of sounds that accompany celebration and anger, joy and conflict, work and play. Some suggested it is the absence of such noise that reflects the more oppressive, restrictive work environment.

Within our society, the meaning of work will perhaps always be somehow connected with our ability to create and maintain a lifestyle. Yet within this environment there lie more fundamental meanings as well. According to these participants, work constitutes how we care for others and how we contribute to their lives. "It's a reason to create." Work means personal growth through the daily struggles and challenges, through expressive activity, and an ever-broadening perception of our presence in the world. It means the "thrill" and pride in "seeing something come from nothing," or in "pushing myself to do what I did not believe I could do." The experience of trust, responsibility, being connected with others, and recognition help to create meanings of value and of the awareness of one another's essential humanity. In the past, when these have been absent, participants present a reliance on financial outcomes to define meaning within work. While the material rewards as a meaning for work remain for all people, they increasingly dim as we engage more closely with others in purposeful work.

Discussion of Findings

Participatory or democratic social arrangements are more likely to result in experiences which arouse curiosity and strengthen initiative (Dewey, 1938), necessary conditions for continuous improvement. The natural workplace expresses its educative potential through interaction with others, structures and systems for communication which demand interpersonal competence and dialogue, movement from self-protective to ever-increasing autonomy, and the encouragement of postformal thought through processes which compel complex means of problem-solving. The "dark side" of work is balanced in part by ample opportunities for informal relationships which provide opportunities to re-energize and rejuvenate from the complexities present within the workplace. Participants indicated that interaction with others, and the nature of relationships which developed, affected not only the quality of the work but also one's sense of self. Cognitive development accompanies increases in social-cognitive experience as people are challenged to reflect on their beliefs or behaviors, to debate and dialogue, and to approach their work more critically (Sinnott, 1993). Increasingly complex ways of solving problems develop with social experience and encourage critical and postformal thought (1993).

The vital workplace depicts an organizational consciousness which values mindfulness — the active processing of information, differentiation, and always-present awareness of context. Langer (1989) proposes that human potential can be expanded through processes which demand an active rather than passive experience of work, cultivating individuals who continually create new challenges for themselves. Organizational goals are achieved by people who are originators rather than pawns, and expressive creativity encourages innovation rather than conformity and satisfaction with the status quo. Organizational leaders play a key role in removing barriers and developing mindfulness — not by way of control and power but in terms of de-structuring work and the persistent and careful attention toward what will be of most use to the workers.

The idea of partnership, of interconnectedness, of holism, within the workplace leads us to appreciate that we are not separate from the world but a necessary and vital part of it. This interconnectedness, however, can and often does arouse conflict and contradiction. Rather than working to alleviate such uncomfortable conditions, leaders recognize that the tensions created can serve as originators of growth and development, opening avenues for new learning about self, about others, and about being a part of the work community. The natural workplace is as full of frustration as it is of joy, of angry emotion as it is compassion, of unpredictability as it is trust, of conflict as it is of happy and satisfied people. It seems to embrace all expressions of human nature, and values them each as sources of human animation and meaning. People, as one participant described, "live loudly" in their shared pursuit of business profits, relationships with others, and meaningful work.

Cultivating Vital Work: Implications for HRD

Participating workplace leaders involved in this study support the idea that how vital work evolves follows no set formula; there is no clear prescription of "steps" to take nor a clear point indicating when an organization has "become" a vital workplace. It is an on-going process of unfolding and learning; reframing organizations as sites for adult development begins not with a prescribed formula but with critical assumptions (see for example Aktouf, 1992; Bolman & Deal, 1995; Briskin, 1996; Dirkx, 1996; Welton, 1991) of human nature: that people are active constructors, not pawns, within the workplace; that we carry in us an innate drive to create something larger than ourselves; and that we are naturally motivated and empowered. When these are not expressed in our work it is less due to a deficit people hold but because of barriers embedded within the work context or our past experience. The findings of this study support the anecdotal evidence, prior research, and theory of the relationship between work and learning in suggesting central principles for HRD and the cultivation of the natural or vital workplace. These principles guide the concrete ways in which work is structured and conducted. While these principles are not necessarily exhaustive, they do present an experience of work which focuses on a way of being and becoming, on presence rather than appearance.

Solidarity. It is imperative that people within the workplace be seen as active and willing participants rather than as instruments of production. We must abandon management based on authority and in its place create opportunities which nurture people's natural desire to belong, to contribute, and to engage in meaningful work. Managers are not "artisans of liberation;" rather, a culture of convergence and sharing must be inserted into actual practice where people act on their intentions through reasons, feelings, and choices rather than by "causes." Only then will we recognize a unity and quality of worklife based on community of interests, objectives, and standards.

Engagement. Participatory and self-directing work processes provide the necessary opportunities for development through autonomy, relationship, and engagement with others. This participation, however, must be unrestrained by channels of command and mechanisms of control. Rather than simply a symbolic participation, people must participate in a real way with the sharing of profits, power, property, and decisions. The perception alone of autonomy, of being valued, and of participation will not sustain the more humanized workplace. It must, as Aktouf (1992) describes, be a lived rather than appropriated experience, one which holds the human actor in high regard in an authentic way. We also know we cannot engage people simply by asking them to participate; based on prior experience, many people will have to learn what it means to participate. The quality of engagement within the workplace is enhanced when leaders foster dialogue, authentic relations, and reflection by modeling these behaviors, challenging people, asking questions, and offering opinion over directive. Dialogue and reflection are sustained when people can see positive outcomes from these exchanges--when they see their voices are heard, their questions answered, their ideas considered, when information is freely shared, and when understanding is viewed as an important part of work. People's sense of business literacy will be enhanced through the free sharing of information and business problems concerning all aspects of the business — hiring, orienting new workers, sharing in the evaluations of work completed, regular information concerning the company's financial performance. Engagement also demands recognition of people's contributions in order to sustain their efforts and energies. Just as critical are opportunities to come together in informal ways which help cultivate a sense of solidarity and engagement with others: common eating or other socializing areas, company-wide events held, and organization-wide communication must be emphasized. These serve to enhance a real and meaningful sense of unity and connectedness.

Mindfulness. It is critical that an organization become willing and able to reflect on itself, to critique and question its own work relations, and to cultivate a more mindful or conscious orientation to the full environment in which it operates. Growth and development are fluid constructs, and there is never a point where either an individual or an organization has "made it" to a definitive evolutionary end. This more conscious and critical perspective provides the means for increasing both personal and collective capacity, to expand identity and embrace a larger view of ourselves in the world.

Connectedness. A greater sense of holism, of connectedness and interconnectedness, must be recognized as it pertains to the worker and the product, the person and the environment — we must view work in its full complexity and multidimensional character. This includes, for example, the relation between language, meaning, and work, and the relationship between communication, information-sharing, and a person's ability to contribute in a meaningful way. Conflict and contradiction are inherent components of connectedness. Rather than rushing in to "fix" problems, to ease tempers, or to speed production, organizational leaders are instead compelled to prod and push, to challenge people towards resolution. In this way, "problems" become forces for learning and innovation. For this to happen, however, leaders must reframe their sense of "resistance," and be willing to sit with the tensions created rather than jumping in to resolve problems themselves. This holding of the tensions encourages people to break out of their comfort zones, to think more critically, and to transcend rather than concede.

Meaningful Purpose. Finally, the purpose of work based strictly on economic assumptions must be challenged. Where more traditional workplaces and many workplace reforms focus on profit and consumption as primary goals, the vital workplace understands these as natural byproducts of a more humanized environment and as a means to contribute to a greater cause. Work is not simply about money, but about satisfying our need for expression, innovation, community, and purpose. When we acknowledge the full function of work in our lives, we cannot help but begin to reshape our organizations. Begin by asking, If profits are important for us to survive as a company, why is that survival important? To what end are we, as a company, truly working? And then, How can we best reflect this focus in the ways in which we conduct work?

Conclusion

Reforms that are targeted to change the behavior of others are not reforms at all (Aktouf, 1992; Block, 1997). Such reforms oversimplify human nature and depict the worker as an object rather than as subjects in their own right. By continuing to objectify the human at work, we relegate development to that which happens only when authorized by someone else, embedded within traditional structures of power and control. This ideology fosters a narrow and restrictive growth — a miseducative experience — in both the individual and the organization (Dewey, 1938; Welton, 1991) because it fails to acknowledge the complex relationship between individual experience and the full organizational context.

In contrast, this study suggests the natural workplace holds a greater educative potential. This study suggests that by de-structuring work and through the manifest valuing of the whole person within the organization, the natural workplace removes the barriers which serve to restrict and distort growth. Real and fundamental change within the workplace evolves through dynamic and contradictory means, where development is not a function of training but a way of thinking about and conducting work as a whole. This study reveals characteristics of educative work environments which return the person at work to that of a subject who acts upon his or her world. Such a workplace is not a utopia; it demands of people greater flexibility, the development of new skills, and a high tolerance for conflict and ambiguity. Fortunately, these environments provide the necessary context and opportunities for developing these qualities.

Bibliography

Adams, J.D. (Ed.). (1984). Transforming work. Alexandria, VA: Miles River Press.

Aktouf, O. (1992). Management and theories of organizations in the 1990s: Toward a critical radical humanism? Academy of Management Review, 17(3), 407-431 .

Argyris, C. (1976). On organizations of the future. In H. Meltzer, & F.R. Wickert (Eds.). Humanizing organizational behavior (pp. 393-420). Springfield, IL: Charles C Thomas. Argyris, C., & Schon, D. (1978). Organizational learning. Reading, MA: Addison Wesley. Balawajder, K., & Popiolek, K. (1996). Psychological aspects of the transformations in Poland: Changes in the sense of participation in the life of a plant. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 5(1), 125-135.

Block, P. (November, 1997). When change is no change at all. Association for Quality and Participation, News For a Change, p. 5.

Bolman, L., & Deal, T. (1995). Leading with soul. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Briskin, A. (1996). The stirring of soul in the workplace. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.

Clark, D. (1967). Work and the human spirit. New York: Sheed and Ward.

Dew, J.R. (1997). Empowerment and democracy in the workplace: Applying adult education theory and practice for cultivating empowerment. Wesport, CT: Quorum Books.

Dewey, J. (1938). Experience and education. New York: Collier Books.

Dirkx, J. (1996). To earn or to learn? The meaning of workplace learning in HRD. In R. Rowden (Ed.). Workplace Learning: Debating Five Critical Questions of Theory and Practice (pp. 668-674). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Inc.

Dirkx, J.M., & Deems, T.A. (1996). Towards an ecology of soul in work: Implications for Human Resource Development. In E.F. Holton III (Ed.). Academy of Human Resource Development 1996 Conference Proceedings, Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota, p. 11-4.

Fishman, C. (April, 1996). Whole foods is all teams. Fast Company, Handbook of the Revolution, [On-line]. Available: www.fastcompany.com.

Fox, M. (1994). The reinvention of work: A new vision of livelihood for our time. San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco.

Friedlander, F. (October, 1996). Our values, our jobs, our profession: OD at the crossroads. National Organizational Development Network (on-line). Available:

Handy, C. (1994). The age of paradox. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.

Hawley, J. (1993). Reawakening the spirit in work. New York: Simon & Schuster.

Holstein, J., & Gubrium, J. (1994). Phenomenology, ethnomethodology, and interpretive practice. In N. Denzin and Y. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of Qualitative Research (pp. 262-272). London: Sage.

James, L.R., James, L.A., & Ashe, D.K. (1990). The meaning of organizations: The role of cognition and values. In B. Schneider (Ed.). Organizational Climate and Culture (pp. 40-80). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.

Jarvis, P. (1992). Paradoxes of learning: On becoming an individual in society. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Ketchum, L.D., & Trist, E. (1992). All teams are not created equal: How employee empowerment really works. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Kincheloe, J.L. (1995). Toil and trouble: Good work, smart workers, and the integration of academic and vocational education. New York: Peter Lang.

Koch, R., & Godden, I. (1996). Managing without management: A post-management manifesto for business simplicity. London: Nicholas Brealey Publishing.

Kofman, F., & Senge, P. (1993, Autumn). Communities of commitment: The heart of learning organization. Organizational Dynamics.

Langer, E.J. (1989). Mindfulness. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company.

Lincoln, Y., & Guba, E. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. London: Sage.

Marsick, V. (Ed.) (1987). Learning in the workplace. Croom Helm: London.

Massarik, F. (1976). The humanistic organization: From soft-soap to reality. In H. Meltzer, & F.R. Wickert (Eds.). Humanizing organizational behavior (pp. 231-249). Springfield, IL: Charles C Thomas.

Melrose, K. (1995). Making the grass greener on your side: A CEO's journey to leading by serving. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler Publishers Inc.

Meltzer, H., & Wickert, F.R. (Eds.). (1976). Humanizing organizational behavior. Springfield, IL: Charles C Thomas.

Moore, T. (1991). Care of the soul: A guide for cultivating depth and sacredness in everyday life. New York: HarperCollins.

Morin, E.M. (1995). Organizational effectiveness and the meaning of work. In T.C. Pauchant, and Associates (Eds.). In search of meaning: Managing for the health of our organizations, our communities, and the natural world (pp. 29-64). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Mortimer, J.T. (1988). Introduction. In J.T. Mortimer & Borman, K.M. (Eds.). (1988). Work Experience and Psychological Development Through the Life Span (pp. 1-6). Boulder, CO: Westview Press, Inc. Moustakas, C. (1994). Phenomenological research methods. London: Sage.

Pauchant, T.C. and Associates (Eds.) (1995). In search of meaning: Managing for the health of our organizations, our communities, and the natural world. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Riordan, C.M., & Griffeth, R.W. (Winter, 1995). The opportunity for friendship in the workplace: An underexplored construct. Journal of Business and Psychology, 10(2), 141-158.

Schneider, B. (Ed.). (1990). Organizational climate and culture. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.

Semler, R. (1993). Maverick: The success story behind the world's most unusual workplace. New York: Warner Books.

Sinha, D. (1969). Studies in phenomenology. Paris: Martinus Nijhoff/Hague.

Sinnott, J.D. (1993). Use of complex thought and resolving intragroup conflicts: A means to conscious adult development in the workplace. In J. Demick and P. Miller (Eds.). Development in the workplace (pp. 155-169). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Watkins, P. (1991). Knowledge and control in the flexible workplace. Australia: Deaken University Press.

Welton, M. (1991). Toward development work: The workplace as a learning environment. Deaken University Press.

Wenger, E. (1996). Communities of practice: The social nature of learning. Healthcare Forum Journal, 39(4), 20-27. Whyte, D. (1994). The heart aroused: Poetry and the preservation of the soul in corporate America. New York: Doubleday.

Wilber, K. (1996). A brief history of everything. Boston: Shambhala.

Williams, R., Barefoot, J., Blumenthal, J., Helms, M., Luecken, L., Pieper, C., Siegler, I., & Suarez, E. (June, 1997). Job strain among working women linked to anger, depression. Science News Update, American Medical Association Science News.

Back to Articles