How to negotiate and Change Laboratory?
Negotiation and Strategic Planning of a Change
Laboratory intervention
Marco
Antonio Pereira Querol1 and Rodolfo Andrade de Gouveia Vilela2
1
Department of Agriculture Engineering, Federal University of Sergipe, Brazil
2Faculty
of Public Health, University of São Paulo, Brazil
Abstract
This
article discusses the planning and negotiation of interventions with the Change
Laboratory (CL) methodology, highlighting its application in diverse
organizational contexts. CL, grounded in the Cultural Historic Activity Theory and
expansive learning, requires a careful process of strategic, methodological,
and operational alignment. Negotiation with strategic decision-makers, such as
managers and politicians is presented as a continuous process of shared
learning, essential to ensure adherence, institutional support and
sustainability of the proposed changes. The text emphasizes the importance of
the social construction of demand, in which researchers, managers and workers
collectively identify problems and possibilities for development. Negotiation strategies
in different organizational contexts are explored, from rigid hierarchical
structures to more horizontal environments, highlighting the challenges of
engagement and the need for methodological adaptation. It is concluded that the
success of a CL depends on mutual trust, constant communication and the
protagonism of the participants, ensuring lasting and significant
transformations.
Keywords: Negotiation, Planning, Change Laboratory; Formative
Interventions; Theory of Historical-Cultural Activity; Expansive Learning.
1. Introduction
This article
aims to discuss the question: how to negotiate a Change Laboratory (CL) intervention
with strategic decision makers. In this paper,
strategic decision makers are understood as individuals who make decisions
regarding the allocation of financial and human resources within organizations.
In such cases, strategic decision-makers are often individuals in leadership
positions, such as directors, managers, or CEOs. Depending on the context,
decision-makers may also include politicians. Henceforth, for clarity, the
strategic decision makers will be referred to as 'managers'.
The topic of
negotiation with management has already been addressed in other publications (Cassandre
et al., 2018; Virkkunen & Newnham, 2013),
but here we intend to treat it in a more practical and detailed way, based on
our experience and that of our research groups Research on Occupational
Accidents (PesquisAT) and Innovation and Transformation of Occupational Risk
Prevention Activities – ITAPAR (Vilela
et al., 2019).
In the article, we will present conditions that can influence learning and
strategies that can facilitate this process.
A CL can be initiated through different pathways. One possibility is
that management is already familiar with the CL method and requests an
intervention from researchers. This represents the ideal scenario, as it
suggests both recognition of the problem and prior knowledge of the method
within the organization. In such cases, the negotiation process tends to be
simpler, with greater acceptance and institutional support.
Another and most common possibility are that the initiatives originated
from students who are insiders in an organization, who have learned about the
method and wish to implement it within their organization. This scenario is
also noteworthy, as the interventionist is an insider in the activity and has established
internal contacts with a certain level of trust. Such conditions facilitate the
acceptance, implementation, and continuity of the learning process during the
intervention.
It some cases the demand arises externally, either at the initiative of
researchers or public agents or regulatory or auditing bodies that encourage
development and innovation practices. In these cases, the initial challenge is
to sensitize the organization's managers and strategic managers to participate
in the intervention, involving a negotiation about its importance, presentation
of the method and gradually building a shared demand. This process tends to
require more time, dialogue and convincing effort, so that CL is perceived not
as an external imposition, but as an opportunity for transformation. This paper
examines the negotiation of a Change Laboratory in this type of scenario where
the initiative originates outside the organization, the management is
unfamiliar with the method, and the interventionist is not an insider.
In this
article negotiation is understood as a continuous learning process between the
interventionist and the management, with the aim of supporting the intervention
of the Change Laboratory. Negotiation should occur not only at the beginning
with a view to the acceptance of the CL, but throughout the process, from
planning, execution and implementation, evaluation, consolidation and
dissemination of the solutions generated throughout the intervention. If managers
do not participate directly in the sessions, they should be actively
communicating about what happens during the sessions, to avoid learning gaps
between the participants and them.
The negotiation process is not unique to the Change Laboratory; it is
also com mon in most interventionist research approaches, such as the Ergonomics
of Activity, where it is referred to as the social construction of demand
(Guérin et al., 2001).
The construction of the demand can be understood as a dynamic and socially
constructed process, where the team of researchers/interventionists provide a
learning space initially with the top management, a process that is deepened in
the initial sessions of the CL, so that the actors identify real and potential
problems at work, often based on latent or explicit social demands, such as complaints from workers, the need for
technological changes, or requests from inspection agencies.
This construction involves the engagement of
management and workers through interactional and observational methods anchored
by the tool of double stimulation, allowing the demand to be reconstructed by
the actors from the actual activity and not just the prescribed work. The
initial phase of the negotiation that must involve the
organization's managers will
result in the formulation of a term of commitment for intervention at
the institutional strategic level. This type of planning is part of what
we will call negotiation (Querol,
2025).
The
planning of a CL intervention can occur at three levels: strategic,
methodological and operational planning (Querol,
2025). In this article, we focus on strategic planning. This
type of planning consists of aligning the intervention with other development
actions and with the objectives of the organization in which the activity is
inserted. At the strategic level, it is essential that the intervention team
has a good prior representation regarding the nature of the problems that
potentially disturb or bother the organization. How are these problems
perceived and experienced at different levels of the organization? Are they
clear? What intervention initiatives and methodologies have already been tried
with success or failure?
Figure 1 Representation of
the three levels of planning and their relationship with the interventional
team and the CL.
Methodological
planning consists of organizing questions related to the method, such as which
mirror data to collect, which models and concepts to use as a second stimulus,
formulation of hypotheses about contradictions and identification of
development possibilities, in addition to which learning actions to promote
during the initial negotiation and expansive learning sessions. This planning
takes place among researchers and is sometimes called a group of experts
(Querol,
2025).
The
operational planning group has the function of organizing the step-by-step of
the sessions, dealing with more practical issues, such as who to invite, how to
engage the participants and how to adapt the method and stimuli to the culture
of the activity. It is a space that usually involves three to five participants
in the sessions, but in the group's most recent experiences, we chose to leave
it open to those who wished to get involved. In general, the most proactive and
engaged participate. This space can also be used by participants to clarify
concepts and ideas, as well as to develop proposals that arise throughout the
sessions (Querol,
2025).
The way in
which the demand for an intervention arises is an aspect that affects the
negotiation. Next, we discuss how an organization's hierarchy and the
composition of a CL affect negotiation. Then we go into greater detail on how
to conduct the first contacts, what information to collect and present the
method. Finally, we will discuss the content of strategic planning and the
intervention plan.
2. Organizational
conditions affecting negotiation
The
hierarchical structure of the organization and the configuration of the
activities that will constitute the CL influence the negotiation process. For
an intervention to succeed, it is essential to establish a continuous process
of shared learning, active communication, and joint decision-making involving
key actors throughout all stages, that is, an ongoing negotiation. This dimension of negotiation is closely linked to the
strategic planning of the intervention.
2.1
Hierarchy
Negotiation
usually involves, at least initially, the research team and managers. However,
where possible, it can also include intermediary actors who offer support, for
example, an internal agent of the organization who supports the idea of
intervention and maintains contact and trust with managers, and if possible,
worker representatives.
Which
managers to involve depends on whether it is a single activity or a network,
the degree of centralization in decision-making, the division of labor, the
hierarchy among the participants and the distribution of the power of action.
Rarely is an organization completely centralized and hierarchical or totally
decentralized and horizontal — the most common thing is to find gradients in
the distribution of decision-making power.
For
example, organizations such as the military police, schools, government
institutions, and hospitals tend to have more centralized and hierarchical
structures. On the other hand, in contexts of less hierarchical organizations —
such as family farming, NGOs, technology companies, or the companies in the financial
market — decisions often need to be made quickly and decentralized, involving
autonomous teams or more distributed leadership.
2.2
Composition of activities
The way in
which negotiation in a CL is conducted is closely linked to the composition of
the activities that make up the intervention and the degree of decision-making
power of the participants involved. Recognizing these different organizational
configurations is essential for the interventionist to be able to adapt his
negotiation strategies, seeking to involve managers in a way that is compatible
with the culture and structure of the activity in question.
2.2.1
Independent activity systems
Negotiation,
understood as learning between the researcher and management, can occur in
different CL formats. One of the simplest types of layouts occurs in CLs
composed of independent activity systems, in which participants have high
autonomy in decision-making. A classic example is CL with farmers who meet to
discuss a common problem that requires collective action to solve — such as
controlling a pest that cannot be fought individually (Vänninen et al., 2015, 2021; Vänninen & Querol, 2025).
This type of intervention involves managers with decision-making autonomy. In
this case, communication tends to be simpler and more direct, as the
participant and the manager are the same person.
In CL of
this type, there is usually an initial individualized interaction to accept
participation in the CL, followed by occasional interactions, in case any
participant withdraws or ceases to participate in the process. Most of the
learning takes place during the open sessions and in interactions with the
other participants, rather than individually with the intervening researcher.
2.2.2 Activities
with low hierarchy
Another
form of CL format is when managers participate together with workers in the
sessions. This type of CL usually happens in local organizations or units with
low hierarchy, where workers can express themselves without fear of repression
or retaliation. This is the typical case of CLs carried out in activities in
the communication technology sector or in Nordic countries, where there are
less hierarchical rigidity and greater openness to dialogue between different
levels of the organization. In these contexts, negotiation, i.e.,
individualized learning between researchers and managers, occurs mainly at the
beginning of the intervention, with the aim of obtaining management acceptance.
Once started, there is no need to maintain an exclusive space for negotiation,
since managers actively participate in the sessions and directly monitor the
development of the process (Figure 2).
Figure 2:
Representation of the two moments in a CL where the participants, executors,
and managers participate together in the same session.
2.2.3 Activities
with high hierarchy or conflict between levels
During the
application of the Change Laboratories in Brazil, we observed a different
context, characterized by a more rigid hierarchy and, frequently, by situations
of conflict between management and workers (Vilela
et al., 2020).
In these environments, the freedom of expression of participants tends to be
limited, which can compromise the collective learning process. Given this
scenario, it is recommended to create separate learning spaces between managers
and frontline workers. The goal is to offer an environment in which the latter
can express themselves more openly and safely. In this case, the negotiation
tends to be more prolonged, extending throughout the intervention, being
mediated by the interventionists researchers until they assess that the level
of understanding achieved is sufficient to enable direct mutual learning —
which can occur during or at the end of the intervention (Figure 3).
Figure 3: CL
format with sessions parallel to the negotiation (Querol, 2025).
The model
in Figure 3, where there is negotiation in parallel meetings and CL sessions,
are characteristics of CLs in organizations with a strong hierarchy and a
strong culture of division of labor, development and innovation between workers
and management. This is the most common model in which we have experience.
3. Recognize
the need for formative intervention
As
mentioned above, negotiation can vary depending on several aspects, such as the
composition, hierarchical culture, the level of knowledge of the managers about
the method and the problem, and the existence and intensity of the previous
relationship between the interventionist researcher and the managers.
Below I
present a possible sequence of negotiation actions for the type of case that is
perhaps the most typical and challenging, which is the case when the researcher
has no previous contact with an organization, has no prior knowledge about
strategic actions, the managers do not know the method in advance, and the
problems are aggravated with the risk of resistance to change. If this is not
your case, several recommendations are probably not relevant; repeating that
each case is different.
3.1 First
contact with managers
The first
step, of course, is to establish contact with managers. The selection of the manager to contact depends on each case,
and maybe local managers, central managers (boarding directors of an
institution) or in some cases responsible for formulating public policies. The contacting manager depends on the problem that
aims to be solved, the level of support needed to solve it, the contacts and
access that the researcher has.
In general,
the higher the level of management that the researcher can achieve, the greater
the support for learning, the greater the continuity and expansion of it.
However, this does not mean that if the researchers do not have, or do not
manage, contact with senior management, they cannot or should not conduct an
intervention. If the researcher does not initially manage to contact senior
management, they can start with local management and try to involve actors from
higher levels during the process. Support can also be obtained during the
sessions. The situation must be
evaluated by the researcher and adapted to each situation. Here we propose just
a few possible scenarios, and some possible strategies rather than a rule to be
followed.
3.2
Recognition of the need for change
The first
phase is to achieve recognition of the need for change on the part of managers.
When you get in touch with managers, the process of mutual learning with
interventional researchers begins. For the interventionists it is a
contradictory situation, because to carry out a good negotiation they need
strategic information, but to obtain such information they first need the
management to trust, learn and open the doors to the interventionist.
Negotiation
usually begins with an introductory meeting. Negotiation can go in two
directions: a focus on problems or on development potential. In case the
researcher decides to focus on the problem, the first step is to explore the
conception that managers have in relation to disturbances (unwanted events),
and in which activity these problems are situated. Depending on the context,
managers may recognize that there are problems and that they need to be solved.
It may also
be that for one reason or another there is a denial and masking of the
problems. For example, managers may deny that there are work accidents because
they see risks of lawsuits for the company.
Another example is a case in which there is a risk of legal, social or
psychological punishment for acknowledging unwanted practices. It may also be
that the management did not become aware of the problem, or simply because the
problem visualized by the researcher is not considered a problem by the manager. So, again it depends on the context.
To move
from denial to recognition of the need for change, a confrontation with mirror
data is necessary, but it can be risky in cases of overly aggravated problems.
If the researcher is aware of the problem and has some data about it (e.g., a
report, images, speeches, etc...), an alternative would be to confront the
managers by presenting mirror data that show the problem. This is a possibility
that can be considered and should be done if possible. However, it depends on
the level of worsening of the crisis. If the crisis is too aggravated, it may
be that such data may generate resistance. If this is the case, the researcher
can use some strategies.
The first
strategy is to use neutral mirror data, which may be from another organization,
industry, or another region facing similar problems that managers can identify
with. One example of neutral mirror data was used
in an intervention for supporting collective Integrated Pest Management among
horticultural farmers in Finland (Vänninen et al., 2021). Instead of accusing them of poor pest management, we presented mirror
data on pest infestation levels from various anonymous farms. This allowed us
to show that while some farmers succeeded in controlling the pest, others did
not, and to demonstrate how much money they could save annually by managing it
effectively.
Another
possibility is to explore the potential for development. To do so, the
researchers can explore the organization's mission and the expected results in
the activity, and whether they are being achieved to their maximum potential,
or if they could be improved further. Management should probably recognize that
some kind of improvement is possible, and change efforts are needed. In this
case, the initial focus is not on the problems, but on the possibility of
improvement and development.
Another
possible strategy is to explore the problem-solving methods adopted by
the organization, questioning whether they achieve the expected results. It is
very common in organizations to hire external advisors who implement ready-made
solutions from the outside that do not necessarily meet the needs and context
of the internal culture. The typical model is the one that, once the existence
of the problems is verified, one or more ready-made solutions are applied,
without, however, analyzing in depth the systemic causes of these problems, and
worse without internally building the systemic learning and the necessary
protagonism for the causal diagnosis, the collective construction of
innovations, eventually compromising the sustainability of the solutions. A
shortcut is created, as represented by the direct passage from quadrant 1 to
quadrant 4, as shown in Table 1.
Table 1: Options for change in a problematic situation. (Vilela et al., 2021). Source:
Adapted from Virkkunen and Newnham (2013. p. 54).
|
Focus |
Problem |
Solutions |
|
Invisible systemic structure of collective
activity. |
2. Revealing the systemic causes of visible problems in
the activity. |
3. Finding a way to overcome problems through the
expansive reconceptualization of the idea of activity. |
|
Events and problems immediately
visible in the actions of individuals within
the scope of the activity. |
1. Identifying obvious (visible) problems. |
4. Implementing changes (new instruments, rules, ways
of dividing work, new relationships with
customers, etc.). |
Table 1 represents
the path of the technical solution typical of engineering and consulting
interventions, which do not consider the systemic interaction of the deep and
historical origins of the problems. This approach disregards the human,
political, economic and social aspects that go far beyond the technical
dimension. The solutions resulting from this approach may not be long-lasting,
leaving untouched the organizational factors, the contradictions that will
continue to affect the system. On the other hand, the systemic socio-technical
approach typical of the expansive learning proposed by the CL can be
represented by the 1-2-3-4 path (Seppänen, 2004; Virkkunen & Newnham, 2013). It
expands the understanding and intervention on these determinants (the causes of
the causes), usually the invisible and unobvious dimensions of the problems (Vilela et
al., 2021).
At this
stage, you can use, for example, the Zone of Proximal Development model (Engeström & Sannino, 2017; Querol, 2011;
Vygotsky, 1978), which
represents the possibilities of developing the activity under possible
intervention, and ask where it is and where you would like it to be soon. As
the researchers do not yet have specific knowledge because they have not yet
collected mirror data, they can use a general ZPD model, with temporal,
spatial, social and ethical dimensions. The company's mission, if it exists
explicitly, can help to identify the most important dimensions and in the
formulation of a ZPD that is more adapted to the organization's strategic
alternatives.
The desired
result of this first phase of negotiation is recognition by managers of the
need for change. This need can be both in terms of solving unwanted
results, as well as promoting improvements and improving results. To
consolidate the results of the phase, it is worth explicitly questioning the
management if: is it necessary to change? Do you want to change? If yes. Move
forward.
3.3 Present
and fit the CL into the organization's strategic development plans
Once it is
recognized that there is a need for change, and interest in change, the next
phase is to explore making room and presenting the CL. To make room, some
questions to ask are: What has the organization been doing to get there? Are
these ways enough? The researcher may
question what the organization has been doing and whether this is sufficient to
achieve the expected results. If there is a recognition that new actions and
initiatives are necessary, the researcher can bring one or more examples of CL
interventions in similar activities or with similar problems, highlighting the
process and the results achieved. You can bring some printed images, or slides
with a summary presenting what a CL is, how it works, actions conducted,
potential possible results
Managers
can be asked if they would be interested in participating and what results they
would expect from such an intervention; and, if and how the CL could fit into
the organization's strategic development actions.
4.
Starting
strategic planning with management
Once an
interest in conducting a Change Laboratory has been expressed, it can begin
with planning the intervention. To this end, the elaboration of a plan can be
used as a means and end, which will serve to systematize and facilitate
learning between researchers and managers. Here I replicate and use as a basis
the ideas proposed by Virkkunen and Newnham (2013).
4.1 Outlining
the activity system to be developed
As
mentioned earlier, CL has as its unit of analysis one or more activity system.
To this end, during the dialogue with the management, it is necessary to define
what is the activity that is intended to be developed. Conducting
a dialogue about problems can indicate the activity in which they occur with
greater intensity. I remind you here that what determines an activity is
its object. Therefore, if there is difficulty in determining the activity, a
tip is to identify the object.
The need to
transform the activity and to carry out an intervention through the Change
Laboratory can be identified from discussions about the main changes that have
already occurred, which are in progress or are still necessary in the activity
in question. This mapping also involves the analysis of management's view of
the situation and its strategic objectives, as well as the difficulties faced,
customer dissatisfaction and the absence of satisfactory results. In addition,
it considers the examination of ongoing initiatives and ideas, existing debates
on the development of the activity, and units in which transformations and new
challenges are presented more intensely (Virkkunen and Newnham, 2015).
The management’s preference for which pilot unit to develop largely
depends on how the Change Laboratory is perceived—either as an opportunity to
solve problems or as a way to create a new model to be expanded. If managers
acknowledge the existence of problems and view the CL as a means to address
them, the tendency is to select the most problematic unities. However, if
problems are not recognized, or if the CL is seen mainly as an opportunity to
design a mirror model for expansion, or even if there are concerns that the
research might expose weaknesses or mistakes with potential negative
consequences for the company (such as cases involving workplace accidents or
environmental damage), management is more likely to “play it safe” by choosing
more advanced unities with fewer visible issues.
From the workers’ perspective, the main interest usually lies in
developing activities in units with more severe problems, aiming to improve
working conditions and increase well-being and satisfaction. For researchers,
in turn, the choice involves not only practical aspects—such as logistics and participants’
interests—but also how representative the unit is. It is important to avoid
selecting unities that fail to capture the broader challenge faced by the
organization. Thus, the selection of the activity and the unit is quite a
political moment of setting the boundaries of the project. This stage should
already be understood as a moment in which expansive learning is taking place.
It can, and should, be facilitated through the instruments of the Change
Laboratory, such as double stimulation, as well as by promoting expansive
learning actions like questioning and analysis.
4.2
Clarification of the preconditions of an CL
It is
essential to clarify the necessary conditions for its application. The CL is
characterized as a formative intervention: its results are not previously
known, as both the problems and the solutions are built collaboratively with
the participants.
It is
essential to ensure constant communication between researchers and management, to
share the progress of the process and the lessons learned. Depending on the
nature of the problem, it may be necessary to initially hold some meetings
without the presence of management, until the participants reach a minimum
level of learning and confidence for a broader dialogue.
Another
crucial aspect is the availability of time for employee participation. To do
so, they need to be released to participate in the sessions during working
hours. In addition, management must demonstrate support not only at the end of
the process, but also actively throughout its realization, eventually
participating in some sessions.
The
learning process also requires a safe space, in which participants feel
comfortable and confident expressing themselves. To do this, it is important to
establish an agreement of mutual respect and ensure that the content of the
discussions will not be used against those involved. Usually, sessions are
recorded for analysis purposes, but researchers are committed to preserving
everyone's confidentiality and privacy. This right to free expression must be
guaranteed in the formal document/term of commitment signed between
managers and researchers.
4.3 The preparation
of a plan
Once the
activity is defined and the principles are clarified, it is time to start
drawing in more detail where, who, and how often they will meet.
A CL is
usually conducted in a pilot unit where the problem is aggravated or where
activity is more advanced. It is also important that the pilot unit shows
interest in participating. It is also necessary to evaluate which of them
occupies a central position for the future expansion and consolidation of a new
model of activity. Finally, it is necessary to examine in which unit the
situation is sufficiently stable so that the process of the Change Laboratory
can be conducted successfully.
Details
regarding who the participants will be, and the frequency of the sessions can
be defined in advance in the plan, but it is also interesting to leave open the
possibility of inviting new people and adding new sessions during the process.
It is
important to highlight that the criterion for selecting participants should not
be political representativeness, but rather the ability to contribute in a
practical way to the analysis, design, and implementation of solutions to the
problems faced. Participation should be voluntary and, preferably, include
members from different functions within the activity, if they share the same
object of work. The invitation, ideally, should be open. As for the number of
participants, a group of between 15 and 20 people is considered adequate to
favor intense and open discussions. If the number is higher, it is recommended
to subdivide it into smaller groups.
The
definition of the frequency of the sessions needs to be agreed before the start
of the process. In general, a CL is made up of 5 to 12 encounters. However,
reconciling schedules is often a challenge, as more workers find it difficult
to set aside time to reflect and develop their own activity. There is often a
tendency to reduce the number of sessions or to extend the intervals between
them. Experience shows, however, that a very small number of encounters is not
enough to carry out an in-depth analysis and go through the entire cycle of
expansive learning. Likewise, intervals of more than a week between sessions
tend to "cool down" the debate, compromising the continuity of the
learning process.
4.4 The
communication and evaluation process
The success
and sustainability of the learning generated in a Change Laboratory depends
largely on the support of managers, responsible for controlling financial and
human resources. For this to occur, it is essential to establish continuous
communication, so that these managers can also learn throughout the process. In
other words, the negotiation process, understood as the expansive learning that
occurs individually, or in isolation, between researchers and managers, must be
continuous throughout the process.
This
learning can take place in different spaces: directly in the CL sessions, if
managers participate together with the other participants, in which case it is
no longer called negotiation; in parallel meetings, that is, separate sessions
only with managers; in individual meetings between researcher and managers; or
even through communications (e.g., minutes and reports). Another alternative is
the creation of a steering or planning committee with the participation of managers,
which allows them to monitor and influence the process in a structured way. The
key, as already mentioned, is that expansive learning also involves managers,
because, without it, the innovations proposed by the participants tend to face
barriers to be implemented, consolidated and disseminated.
For this
reason, it is recommended that, in the initial negotiation phase, communication
strategies with management be defined and that these are incorporated into the CL
plan. In addition, it can be foreseen that, at the end of the process, the
organization itself promotes a joint evaluation, with the objective of
analyzing the innovations developed and planning the means to support and
disseminate them. Below we present the content of a plan of a CL according to
Virkkunen and Newnham (Virkkunen
& Newnham, 2013).
Table 1.
Outline of the Project of a Change Laboratory (Virkkunen
& Newnham, 2013)
|
Section |
Elements |
|
1. Justification for the intervention |
•
Need to prepare for intervention •
Impulse or motivation to carry it out |
|
2. Object of the activity |
•
Activity to be developed •
Central problems and challenges •
Manifestations of the need for transformation |
|
3. Actors involved |
•
CL participants •
Researcher-interveners •
Experts and contacts of the client organization |
|
4. Coordination and integration |
•
Project direction •
Articulation with other development activities |
|
5. Process structure |
•
Sequence of CL sessions •
Participants in each session •
Data collection strategies •
Process preparation |
|
6. Resources and costs |
•
Estimated working hours •
Needed resources from researchers, participants, and partners |
5. Final
considerations
This article
aims to present the main elements of negotiation and strategic planning with managers
of a Change Laboratory intervention. We discuss factors that directly influence
this process, such as the composition of activities, the participation or not
of managers in meetings, previous contact between researchers and managers, as
well as aspects of the organizational culture and the existing hierarchical
level. It is up to the interventionist researcher to be aware of these
elements, as the conditions for the initiation and sustainability of the
intervention.
We also
highlight that contexts in which there is no previous contact with the
organization, or in which managers are unaware of the CL method, present the
greatest challenges. In these cases, dialogue and learning strategies become
essential for managers to understand both the need to transform the activity
and the potential of the CL to support this process.
Finally, we
emphasize that the learning of managers must be continuous, an indispensable
condition for the success of the intervention and for the consolidation of a
sustainable expansive learning process. This learning can occur during the
sessions, in specific spaces of interaction or in individualized dialogues with
the researcher, a process that we call negotiation. Therefore, it is
recommended that, from the beginning, the principles of the CL, the conditions
necessary for its success and the forms of follow-up along the entire path be
clarified. Only in this way will it be possible to create the foundations of
trust, co-responsibility and engagement that allow not only the implementation
of durable and transformative changes.
About the
authors
Email: mapquero@gmail.com
ORCID: 0000-0003-3815-1835.
Senior
Professor at the School of Public Health of the University of São Paulo,
Department of Environmental Health. Researcher in the area of occupational
health and safety, technological risks, surveillance, analysis and prevention
of accidents. He was an engineer and coordinator of CEREST Piracicaba,
coordinated 2 thematic research projects supported by FAPESP using the CL
methodology adjusted to socio-cultural conditions in various productive
activities.
Email: ravilela@usp.br
ORCID : https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8556-2189
References
Cassandre,
M. P., Senger, C. M., & Querol, M. A. P. (2018). Preparing a change
laboratory intervention: Waste management in a University hospital. Race: revista de administração,
contabilidade e economia,
17(1), 9–28.
Engeström,
Y., & Sannino, A. (2017). Studies of expansive learning: Foundations, findings
and future challenges. Introduction
to Vygotsky,
100–146.
Guérin,
F., Kerguelen, A., & Laville, A. (2001). Compreender o trabalho para
transformá-lo: A prática da ergonomia. Editora
Blucher.
Querol, M. A. P. (2011). Learning Challenges in
Biogas Production for Sustainability: An activity theoretical study of a
network from a swine industry chain. Helsingin yliopisto.
Querol, M. A. P. (2025). Strategies for the
sustainability of expansive learning in a Change Laboratory. Bureau
de Change Laboratory, 2, 4–4. https://doi.org/10.82215/mw99x032
Seppänen, L. (2004). Learning
challenges in organic vegetable farming: An activity theoretical study of
on-farm practices.
Vänninen,
I., Pereira-Querol, M., & Engeström, Y. (2015). Generating
transformative agency among horticultural producers: An activity-theoretical
approach to transforming Integrated Pest Management. Agricultural Systems,
139, 38–49.
Vänninen, I., & Querol, M. A. P. (2025). Lessons
from a change laboratory in plant health risk management: The dynamics of
concept formation. Learning, Culture and Social Interaction, 54,
100944.
Vänninen, I., Querol, M. P., & Engeström, Y.
(2021). Double stimulation for collaborative transformation of agricultural
systems: The role of models for building agency. Learning, Culture and
Social Interaction, 30, 100541.
Vilela, R. A. G., Almeida, I., & Faria, M. P.
(2021). Razões para
a persistência da insegurança no trabalho. Braatz, D.; Rocha, R.; Gemma, S.
(org.). Engenharia do trabalho: Saúde, segurança, ergonomia e projeto. Ex Libris.
Vilela,
R. A. G., Querol, M. A. P., Hurtado, S. L. B., Cerveny, G. C. de O., &
Lopes, M. G. R. (2019). Collaborative Development for the Prevention of
Occupational Accidents and Diseases: Change Laboratory in Workers’ Health.
Springer Nature.
Vilela,
R. A. G., Querol, M. A. P., Silva-Macaia, A. A., & Hurtado, S. L. B.
(2020). Learning in and from Change Laboratory Interventions
for Developing Workers’ Health in Brazil. Em R. A. de G. Vilela, M. A. Pereira
Querol, S. L. Beltran Hurtado, G. C. de O. Cerveny, & M. G. R. Lopes
(Org.), Collaborative Development for the Prevention of Occupational
Accidents and Diseases: Change Laboratory in Workers’ Health (p. 225–253).
Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-24420-0_15
Virkkunen, J., & Newnham, D. (2013). The change
laboratory: A tool for collaborative development of work and education.
Springer Science & Business Media.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The
development of higher psychological processes (V. 86). Harvard university press.
Comentários
Postar um comentário