Participation: what can we learn from Swedish experience? Available to Purchase

There is a great deal that can be learned about participation by looking at Swedish experience. However, attempts to do so must begin on a note of caution. The steps which individual companies take in this direction are determined to a considerable degree by their own unique culture and that of the community in which they are located and clearly there are significant cultural differences between Sweden and Britain. Some of the more obvious of these differences go a long way towards explaining why the development of participation has progressed much further in Sweden than it has in this country. For example, their Trade Union system is, for historical reasons, much more rational than ours. It is based on a comparatively small number of industrial unions and, even if one includes white collar workers, it is extremely unlikely that any Swedish company will have to negotiate with more than three or four unions. And as union membership is virtually universal, particularly on the shop floor, the problem of management having to relate to mixtures of unionised and non‐unionised workers simply does not arise. In addition Sweden has a unitary education system: everyone goes to the same kind of school. This has been an important factor in making their society comparatively classless and, while one can argue about the wider social merits of a fully comprehensive system, there can be little doubt that collaboration between the different interest groups in industry is a lot easier when workers, managers and trade union representatives have a shared educational background. Some of the other differences between our two countries are less obvious but no less important. Sweden is a small nation which is almost completely dependent for its very high standard of living on the ability to compete in international markets. Perhaps because this dependence is so obvious its implications, in terms of productivity, profitability, manning levels and so on, appear to be accepted by the vast majority of Swedes. There is also a strong belief, running right across Swedish society, that participation and industrial democracy are good things in their own right and essential for the future of their industry; a concensus which we cannot yet pretend exists in Britain. Clearly Swedish companies have things a lot easier in developing participation than their British counterparts. Moreover some of the complexities of the British scene cannot be tackled at company level. There is not much the average production manager or shop steward can do about class differences or the structure of the Trade Union system. These are issues which must be dealt with at national level. However it would be wrong for companies to conclude that the differences between Sweden and Britain make Swedish experience irrelevent to us. We are certainly prevented by these differences from copying what they have done, but they do not prevent us from learning from their experience.