How does performance management affect workers ?

Beyond human resource management and its critique

Developed by Neburac Anastasia

Introduction

Maximizing the potential of people to create value, however, requires, on the part of human
resources specialists, the development of a systemic process of identification and management of
the skills available to employees. Such a process is performance management which is a means
of preventing better outcomes from the organization, teams and individuals, by knowing and
managing performance in the phase of an agreed framework of planned objectives, standards and
competency requirements. It is a process of establishing a common conception of the things to be
accomplished and a methodical approach to personnel management and development in such a
way as to increase the likelihood that these things will be accomplished, both in the short and
long term. It is suggested that performance management represents possibly the greatest
opportunity for a human resource (HR) system to make a telling contribution to organizational
performance . It represents a system that can inform how the firm’s human resources
contribute to the organization’s strategic objectives.
HRM and PM

Human Resource Management is the process of recruiting, selecting, inducting employees,

providing orientation, imparting training and development, appraising the performance of
employees, deciding compensation and providing benefits, motivating employees, maintaining
proper relations with employees and their trade unions, ensuring employees safety, welfare and
healthy measures in compliance with labour laws of the land and finally following the Orders /
Judgements of the concern High Court and Supreme Court, if any.

What is the importance of Human resource?

Behind production of every product or service there is an human mind, effort and man hours
(working hours). No product or service can be produced without help of human being. Human
being is fundamental resource for making or construction of anything. Every organisation desire
is to have skilled and competent people to make their organisation competent and best.

Thematically ,there are three HRM research phases focused on , respectively :eliminating
measurament error (phase I); understanding PM’s „social context” (phase II) ;and integrating PM
into organizational strategy (phase III).
Although not all the functions that HRM attributes to PM directly lens is generally at least
implied.

HRM Phase I : Eliminating measurement error

Reducing human error involves far more than taking disciplinary action against an individual.
There are a range of measures which are more effective controls including the design of the
equipment, job, procedures and training.

The design guidance developed consists of two forms: design principles and a three step process
for systematically addressing human errors in design. The relationships between the guidance
developed, human error occurrence and consequence in system operation, and conventional
engineering design.

HRM Phase II : PM’s “social context “

Starting in the 1980s and culminating in the 1990s , HRM researchers began to question
systematically the assumption that rating accuracy was the appropriate criterion to assess PM
system .
This “ social context” framework drove much of the PM research agenda from the 1990 s
onwards. The social context phase entailed widespread acceptance that PM’s effectiveness
depended in part on how primary users react. To gain a better understanding of these social
dynamics , PM researchers examined various proximal variables , including : rate perceptions of
justice , motivation and reactions to appraisal .

HRM Phase III :Improving organizational performance

The HRM Phase III links PM research even more strongly to organizational goals . The context
for Phase III is the substantial gap between what theorist argue PM is supposed to do . For an
effective performance, the organization is to plan the work in advance. Planning of the work
includes setting of the performance expectations and goals. To achieve the desirable performance
levels, it becomes necessary to channel the efforts of the employees towards achievement of the
organizational objectives. Getting employees involved in the planning process help them to
understand the goals of the organization, what needs to be done, why it needs to be done, and
how well it should be done. Further performance plans are to be flexible so that they can be
adjusted for any change in the operating environment.
Critical HRM and PM

The context of crisis provides ideal circumstances for critical reflexivity and for integrating
wider societal issues into the HRM curriculum. It argues for Critical Human Resource
Management Education or CHRME, which, if adopted, would be an antidote to prescriptive
practitioner-oriented approaches. It proceeds to set out five principles for CHRME: using the
‘sociological imagination’ prism; emphasizing the social nature of the employment relationship;
investigating paradox within HRM; designing learning outcomes that encourage students to
appraise HRM outcomes critically; and reflexive critique. Crucially, CHRME offers a teaching
strategy that does not neglect or marginalize the reality of structural power, inequality and
employee work experiences.
There are three influential critical approaches : labor process theory ; foucauldian theories and
notions of conflicting rationalities . While not always discrete frameworks , this typology is
heuristically useful to draw out how different critical literatures conceptualize PM’s effects.

CHRM : labour process theory and related pre – Foucauldian critiques

The labor process theory depicts the organization of work within a capitalist setting. It is based
on the concepts of Marxism and explores the processes through which labor is objectified to
become something useful in production. According to Spencer, (2000, p. 231) the theory
assumes that process of labor has three elements namely: work, objects, and instruments. The
labor process is therefore a purposeful undertaking geared towards the generation of use values.
In other words, the process of labor is simply the organization of work within an entity or
organization. The labor process theory is concerned with the way people work, the skills used in
work, the controllers of the work process and how people are paid for their work. In the modern
era, the labor segment is an increasingly important aspect of any organization as it determines the
productivity and sustainability of the organization. Accordingly, the theory provides important
insights into the functioning of modern organizations. Perhaps the most interesting contribution
of the labor process theory is its ability to paint the rationality of technique as something that is
not neutral in today’s modern organizations. In fact, the theory takes on the domination of class
within modern organizations thus showing a clear picture of the nature of these organizations.
According to the theory, human life is principled around labor which is also the primary means
of development and existence. As such, every individual must explore their abilities and
strengths in obtaining societal benefits. In today’s modern society, organizations are structured in
a manner that exploits these abilities including diligence and persistence. 

CHRM : Foucauldian theory and debates

The dominant CHRM approach to PM draws on Michel Foucault , with early up takes focused
on Discipline and Punish .Like labour process analyses, Foucauldian studies of PM foreground
managerial power . This represents PM as a management practice that constructs and maintains
particular worker subjectivities , making the employee a ‘knowable , calculable and
administrable object ’. Foucauldian theorists focus on PM’s more pernicious consequences
,especially how PM makes the working self into a willing , unquestioning, unresisting servant of
managerial power .

CHRM : PM and ‘ conflicting rationalities ’

An alternative critical framing conceptualizes PM as part of ‘ conflicting rationalities ’,typically

using Habermas , whose overarching critical agenda is to evaluate what social conditions enable
or impair autonomy .He closely links autonomy to communicative rationality , which refers to
collective determination of principles and actions based on rationally motivated assent , without
coercion .Habermas views both communicative and instrumental rationalities as legitimate and
necessary .However , although Townley fiind that PM’s instrumental logic ultimately ‘
colonized’ its accountability role , they don’t argue PM inevitably functions this way.
All CHRM perspectives retain CHRM’s characteristic ‘anti-performative’ stance , because their
focus is on workers ‘ interests or well being rather than corporate efficiency. Some CHRM
research suggests PM could benefit workers in some conceivable circumstances , there is scope
to clarify further when PM harms workers and when , if ever , it might work in their favour .
Responding to CHRM : PM , recognition and identity at work

Honneth conceives of work as firm vehicle of individual and collective striving for
emancipation. His strategy is to associate mutual recognition – along with its normative
expectations of social emancipation – with the structure of labor as a system that implies and
allows for social reproduction. By working, individuals contribute not only to the material
reproduction of their society, but also to the formation of their own identity. From this point of
view, the concept of work has a twofold value: insofar as it makes social reproduction possible, it
is the root of our “common good”, and insofar as it defines one of the dimensions of recognition
– that of esteem –, it also serves as root of the individual’s identity. From Honneth's perspective,
this means that it is not only legitimate but also imperative (from a normative point of view) to
protest when the existing social and working conditions do not allow people to feel appreciated
for their contribution to the development of their community.

Introducing recognition theories

Axel Honneth’s theory of recognition is based on the human struggle to be recognized. In

previous eras, people fought for the recognition of their nations or for the rights of large groups
of people. Currently, in a society that’s constantly changing, people still seek recognition.
The author recognizes three spheres of human recognition: love, law, and solidarity.

 Firstly, the law provides guidelines to ensure forms of recognition. It also produces the
rules that ensure the dynamics between the spheres.

 Secondly, love is a substrate of the other spheres and promotes care and attention.

 Finally, social valuation is the sphere of solidarity in which the qualities and capabilities
of a person in a given community are recognized.

The author understands justice as the acquisition of rights and duties beyond the social order.
That understanding would only be possible when a person detaches themselves from moral
traditions, when they let fundamental universal principles guide them.
Social struggles extend the margin of rights and duties. Thus, we identify damage in that sphere
when the subject’s moral capacity to take charge of their own actions isn’t recognized. When
we’re not legally recognized, there’s impairment in our ability to make decisions and exercise
our rights.

When people don’t feel recognized in their community, their neighborhood, or their work, then
the sphere of solidarity breaks. Not feeling like we’re a fundamental part of our daily group
produces cracks in our self-esteem and our bond with others. This lack is the result of
stigmatization and it affects a person’s honor and dignity.

Material interactions and social reproduction

With this approach, Dejours opens the way to interpretation of the material and bodily aspects of
work interactions as a central dimension in the subject's constitution. Thus, we are able to
consider this dimension as one of the essential components in the development of the social
pathologies related to work. Neglect of it often has negative effects on the subject's development
and flourishing. Can the same also be said for social reproduction? Only by demonstrating that
material interactions in the workplace are essential both for the subject's formation and for social
reproduction can we affirm the immanence and universality of the normative demands related to
these interactions. This is essential if we mean to maintain the accuracy and strengths of
Honneth's social theory. Certainly, these demands deserve attention and are worthy of
consideration even though they remain subjective demands, depending on the individual’s
constitution. And yet the model of critical social theory we are concerned with would have a
stronger potential if we were able to connect these subjective aspects with the objective
development of our societies.

Let us now consider one of the major objections that can be raised against this conception of
work. The fact is, we always encounter problems and impediments in our daily life, and we can
call this reality a “material” reality insofar as it presents some resistance to our achieving our
goals
Recognition theories of PM : concept and empirical application

The past decades have witnessed growing interest in the concept of recognition, in social
movements as well as in social theory. While the ‘recognition turn’ has made recognition a
cornerstone in social and political philosophy, empirical interest – in sociology, anthropology
and business studies – remains limited and has mainly focused on misrecognition and disrespect.
As a result, recognition as a theoretical ideal remains largely divorced from the lived and messy
realities of people’s everyday search for recognition. This article addresses this lacuna. Based on
long-term participant observation and interviews with professionals and young men with mild
intellectual disabilities working in sheltered employment projects in the Netherlands, it examines
everyday practices of claiming and receiving recognition, how recognition is shaped by the
institutional environment of sheltered work, and how it is achieved or subverted in everyday
interactions between young men and professionals. Our contribution to the literature lies in our
empirical finding that misrecognition is often enfolded in recognition. By stating that
misrecognition is enfolded in recognition, we mean that an instance of recognition coincides
with, and likely depends on, some form of misrecognition. While focusing on the messiness and
ambivalence of recognition in everyday life may dilute it as an ideal, acknowledging its dark side
opens the path to a more nuanced understanding of the dynamic in which misrecognition, rather
than being its opposite, is enfolded within recognition.
Coclusion

On these bases, it is possible to re-evaluate the social pathologies concerning work

making reference to the concept of alienation Suffering in the workplace becomes
a pathology when the objective conditions of the organization of work obstruct a
living and interactive exchange with the concrete realities of the working
environment. This may come about, for instance, by separating workers, excluding
them from cooperative activity, overloading them with tasks, requiring of them
excess in performance and competitiveness, or expecting them to tackle tasks for
which the material and organizational conditions are inappropriate.
The concept of emancipation increases in critical value by integrating those
material and bodily dimensions that remain partially in the shade in Honneth's
theory. According to Dejours, the move towards a context in which individuals can
exercise their creativity in the workplace and which, consequently, enhances their
subjectivity, i.e. “emancipation” in and through work, depends on the
establishment of a favorable and supporting living-work environment.

Workers can find the power to play an important role in political policy only if
they have sufficient scope to engage and cooperate with one another. But it is
precisely this kind of cooperative scope – essential to establish a travail vivant-
friendly environment – which they lack in the contemporary organization of work.
On the basis of this diagnosis, critical social theory following in the lines of the
Frankfurt School should analyze the pathologies of work and propose alternative
models to organize it in accord with social practices . We can justify this approach
by showing how the suffering caused by inappropriate work organization – which
is unacceptable in itself, raising severe moral concerns – is counterproductive both
in the production process (material reproduction) and beyond it. By pushing the
performance and competitiveness ideal to the extreme, post-Fordist work
organization negatively affects the well-being of the people who work and the
quality of the social reproduction as a whole .
However, recognition is not the only element at stake in these harmful effects of
work on individual and collective life. Mutual recognition is rooted in basic layers
of bodily and psychical interactions. Through the depletion of subjectivity, the
ability of the subject to activate the psychic investment in the human and non-
human environment and interact within it positively is also affected. The sphere of
work is not isolated from the other spheres of subjective and social life. Improved
cooperation amongst workers and the related normative demands are also based,
however, on the indispensable preconditions to establish living and interactive
work activity. In other words, they derive from the difficulty, without this kind of
work activity, to establish rich and flourishing relationships with oneself, and
indeed with the human and the non-human environment.