Member preference heterogeneity and system-lifeworld dichotomy in cooperatives: An exploratory case study

Abstract

Purpose

The purpose of this paper is to shed new light on the issue of preference heterogeneity in cooperatives.

Design/methodology/approach

Drawing on the ideas of Habermas and Luhmann, this paper interprets preference heterogeneity of cooperative members in terms of the precarious relationship between the categories of “system” and “lifeworld.” The argument is buttressed with a case study of an agricultural cooperative recently founded in Central Greece.

Findings

The sensitivity of cooperatives to the lifeworld contexts of their members exacts the price in the form of the member preference heterogeneity problem. If this sensitivity is taken to be the constitutive characteristic of cooperatives, then the proposed argument hammers home their fundamental ambivalence, as they are necessarily fraught with the potential for internal conflict.

Research limitations/implications

The paper urges for a radical rethinking of Georg Draheim’s thesis of the “double nature” of cooperatives. “Double nature” is shown to aggravate the member preference heterogeneity problem.

Practical implications

The results of this study inform the cooperative leaders’ quest to strike a balance between the interests of their members and the demands of the external socio-economic environment.

Originality/value

This research contributes significantly to the literature on collective decision-making costs incurred by cooperatives. The failure of cooperatives to balance the sensitivity to members’ interests and to the external environment is exposed as the root cause of the divergence and heterogeneity of member preferences. This heterogeneity is shown to boost collective decision-making costs.

Citation

Iliopoulos, C. and Valentinov, V. (2017), "Member preference heterogeneity and system-lifeworld dichotomy in cooperatives: An exploratory case study", Journal of Organizational Change Management, Vol. 30 No. 7, pp. 1063-1080. https://doi.org/10.1108/JOCM-12-2016-0262