Two Perspectives in a Voluntary Organization

  • Claire Cohen


This case history describes an organization where the workers hold different, and often conflicting, perspectives on their organization. By “perspective” I mean a view, or a way of looking at things, which has a profound influence on an individual’s approach to organizational activities and problems. This analysis is primarily concerned with the way in which the different “perspectives” within the organization (a small charity staffed by volunteers) hinder the development of consensus, and, as a result, prevent the organization from responding effectively to its changing environment. This analysis concludes by proposing how, through a process of “debate,” consensus might possibly be achieved. The conclusions are based on my own experiences as a voluntary worker within the organization.


Management Committee Voluntary Sector Feminist Movement Charitable Organization Management Meeting 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Ackoff, R. L. (1974). Redesigning the future. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  2. Barthes, R. (1982). The Eiffel Tower. In S. Sontag (Ed.), A Barthes reader (pp. 236–250). London: Jonathan Cape.Google Scholar
  3. Beer, S. (1979). The heart of enterprise. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  4. Beveridge, W. (1949). Voluntary action. London: Allen & Unwin.Google Scholar
  5. Boston Women’s Health Book Collective. (1973). Our bodies, ourselves. New York: Simon & Schuster.Google Scholar
  6. Brown, H. (1992). Women organising. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  7. Cohen, C. (1995). Striving for seamlessness: Procedures manuals as a tool for organisational control. Personnel Review, 4, 50–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Evans, M. (Ed.). (1994). The woman question. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  9. Fay, B. (1987). Critical social science. Oxford: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  10. Ferguson, K. E. (1984). The feminist case against bureaucracy. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.Google Scholar
  11. Flood, R. L., & Jackson, M. C. (1991). Creative problem solving. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  12. Freire, P. (1973). Education for critical consciousness. London: Sheed & Ward.Google Scholar
  13. Freire, P., & Shor, I. (1987). A pedagogy for liberation: Dialogues on transforming education. London: Macmillan & Co.Google Scholar
  14. Habermas, J. (1972). Knowledge and human interests. Boston: Beacon Press.Google Scholar
  15. Handy, C. (1985). Understanding organizations. London: Penguin.Google Scholar
  16. Hatch, S. (1980). Outside the state. London: Croom Helm.Google Scholar
  17. Henderson, P., et al. (Eds.). (1980). The boundaries of change in community work. National Institute for Social Work (Social Services Library No. 37). London: Allen & Unwin.Google Scholar
  18. Holub, R. C. (1991). Jurgen Habermas. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  19. Iannello, K. P. (1992). Decisions without hierarchy. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  20. Kafka, F. (1919). In the penal settlement (W. & E. Muir, Trans.). Reading: Minerva.Google Scholar
  21. King, Y. (1989). Healing the wounds. In A. M. Jaggar & S. R. Bordo (Eds.), Gender I body I knowledge. New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press.Google Scholar
  22. Law, J. (1992). Notes on the theory of the actor-net work: Ordering, strategy, and heterogeneity. Systems Practice, 5, 379–393.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Mason, R. O., & Mitroff, I. I. (1981). Challenging strategic planning assumptions. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  24. Morgan, G. (1986). Images of organization. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  25. Narayan, U. (1989). The project of feminist epistemology: Perspectives from a nonwestern feminist. In A. M. Jaggar & S. R. Bordo (Eds.), Gender/body/knowledge (pp. 256–269). New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press.Google Scholar
  26. Smith, W. A. (1976). The meaning of conscientizacao: The goal of Paulo Freire’s pedagogy. Center for International Education: University of Massachusetts.Google Scholar
  27. The Wolfenden Committee. (1978). The future of voluntary Organisations. London: Croom Helm.Google Scholar
  28. Tsivacou, I. (1992). Emancipation and truth in critical systems methodologies. Systems Practice, 5, 181–191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Ulrich, W. (1983). Critical heuristics of social planning. Bern: Haupt.Google Scholar
  30. Weber, M. (1947). The theory of social and economic organization. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Press, New York 1996

Authors and Affiliations

  • Claire Cohen
    • 1
  1. 1.Centre for Systems StudiesUniversity of HullHullEngland

Personalised recommendations