The Finnish workplace development programme

Abstract

This article is based on the evaluation of the Finnish Workplace Development Programme, TYKE-FWPD, by a team led by the author. The programme ran as a national government programme from 1996 to 2003, and has been continued, with modifications, in 2004 through 2009. Until the early 1990s the main focus of working life development in Finland was technological. During the past decade a shift in the emphasis has occurred toward work organization and human resources development. As part of this process, TYKE-FWDP has played an important role. The programme aims at accelerating working life development be means of improvements in learning networks and methods as well as by encouraging cooperation between researchers and research institutes, workplace parties, social partners and governmental agencies and institutions at national and regional levels. The idea is that as change agencies, firms can influence their own future by engaging in a complex learning process, long-term multi-dimensional interaction and networking. Highly developed learning strategies will give companies a competitive edge, and thus directly or indirectly also secure or enhance positive employment development. The evaluation, carried out in 2002–2003, showed that the Programme has been successful on many counts: sustainable results have been achieved at the company and organisational level, learning networks have been enhanced between different institutions related to innovation and workplace development, and the programme enjoys a very high legitimacy among key stakeholders, including the social partners.

Work Organization and `the Scandinavian Model'

“…The main contemporary effort is a work organization programme initiated by the Ministry of Labour in cooperation with all the major parties in the labour market. The programme can be seen as a part of a governmentally based innovation policy (Arnkil et al, 2003). This policy, with roots in the crisis that followed the collapse of the Soviet trade around 1990, largely focuses on technology, but since it has been kept stable for more than a decade it has generated elements of a new economic infrastructure.…”

“…When A and B are to develop technology together they can hardly avoid developing social relationships as well, and if many actors with different backgrounds are involved, these relationships will over time become many sided and span more and more sectors of working life. These developments have made it possible for the work organization programme to tap into the innovation structures, partly to help promote them, partly to draw benefits from them (Arnkil et al, 2003).…”

General Theory and Local Action: Experiences from the Quality of Working Life Movement

“…There are a number of further evalutions, such as Davies et al (1993), Bakke (2001), Arnkil et al (2004), and Arnold et al (2005). They emerge from different perspectives and draw different conclusions, but they also confirm the ability of research to promote democratic communication in organizations and to do this on a scale that encompasses substantial parts of working life.…”

“…First out was Sweden with the LOM program (1985) followed by Center for a Better Working Life (SBA) in Norway (1988), Enterprise Development 2000 in Norway (1994), and The Workplce Development Programme in Finland (1996). The LOM program is presented in Gustavsen (1992) and in ; SBA in Qvale (1994) and Davies et al (1994), the Finnish program in Alasoini and Kyllönen (1998) and Arnkil et al (2004), and Enterprise Development 2000 in Gustavsen et al (2001). In Denmark, there appeared no program specifically designed to incorporate research, but in the 1990s, there appeared two programs -one to combat monotonous work and one to promote work as a source of learning and development -where ideas promoted by research played a role and where research appeared in supportive functions in a number of contexts (Hvid, 2000).…”

Proces zarządzania z wykorzystaniem innowacji społecznych w firmie – facylitacja

“…Ocena programu okazała się bardzo pozytywna. Znacznie podniosła się efektywność działania organizacji, pracownicy wysoko ocenili zmianę, biorąc pod uwagę lepszą atmosferę pracy i własne korzyści (Arnkil 2004).…”