Critique of Human Resources Theory - Essay Example

Using 3 carefully chosen, described and analysed illustrations, show how images of ‘success’ used in the contemporary labour market revolve around the themes of potentiality, performativity and perfection Along with the modernisation of technology now used by business enterprise’s in its production process and service delivery, also came the dramatic change on how the human capital is viewed and treated. From the utilitarian approach of Taylor and Ford of treating human resource as an unthinking cog behind the machine in the early days of capitalism, human resource management has now evolved to value its human capital more realising its vast potentiality for performance that could dramatically contribute to the company’s economic imperative of enhancing its bottom line. Given this “improved perspective” of the human resource, this paper will examine if such “improved perspective” of the workforce translates to better work life. This paper will also answer the new definition of success in the workplace, given the prevailing economic environment, and what it takes to succeed. As a business entity, companies are always driven by the profit motive. To paraphrase Radcliffe, “essentially, the main goal of all firms is to maximise and improve their bottom line” (2005 p.56). To improve this bottom line, companies had always sought new ways on how to improve its profitability that includes adoption of new processess and methodologies, as well as the usage of sophisticated technologies. It also realised that by maximising the potential of its human capital to perform, it would be able to enhanced its viability and competitiveness as a business entity in the market. Hence, there is the adage “our people is our most important asset” (Costea 2007 p.6), a slogan which is used by almost all companies in stressing the importance of human capital in their organisation. Frederick Winslow Taylor first thought that to motivate performance, employees has to be adequately paid (Jaffe 2008). It may have been a simplistic perspective about motivation, but it answers the economic needs of an enterprise’s employees and is even used until today. Mayo later expanded on this narrow perspective of Taylor about human resource and later included the social needs of its employees that needs to be satisfied for employees to be better motivated (Sarachek 1968). Perhaps it was Mayo who introduced the concept of Human Resource Management (HRM) when he introduced Human Relations department at the workplace who emphasized among its managers to treat its subordinates humanely (Smith 1987). Other organizational behaviorists and psychologists followed suit on how to better motivate employees by attending to their various economic, social, psychological and emotional needs. Most notable is Abraham Maslow with his identification of the five levels of motivation culminating in self-actualisation (Goodman 1968). Later, Frederick Herzberg introduced the concept of finding meaning with work, that work in itself can be a motivator through an “intrinsic rewards such as interesting, challenging work and the opportunity to achieve and grow into greater responsibility” (2003 pg. 49). This concept of Herzberg of “intrinsic rewards such as interesting work and the opportunity to achieve and grow into greater responsibility” proved to be useful in today’s modern business enterprise as this idea of motivating employees through a challenging and interesting work now pervades in most of the companies. It is even used as an advertising enticement to recruit potential candidates to join the business organization as what the cited companies implied with their recruitment advertisements. If we are to consider these developments in Human Resource Management (HRM), one may lead to believe that employees today are better off compared to their predecessors during Taylor and Ford’s time. For one, work today is no longer as laborious compared to the effort needed during the industrial age. Sophisticated technologies are now available to ease work. But as Fucini and Fucini frankly noted, the reality is quite the opposite as the new world of work is more intensified that to a certain degree, still exploits the employees in the workplace (1990). It may no longer require severe physical labor, but the time, effort and dedication needed today to succeed in the workplace is more demanding than before especially with the introduction of performativity, perfection and potentiality at work. Companies are still driven by their bottom line and when survival is being threatened by fierce competition, businesses will always resort to the hard model of HRM which is “ concerned with the business performance and is widely acknowledged as placing little emphasis on workers’ concerns” (Radcliffe 2005 p.51). Such, success in labour market does not depend on the benevolence of management but rather on performability, perfection and potentiality of employees to deliver the demands of work. Performativity demands an “increased personal engagement with work” (Costea 2007) and is associated with “total quality, excellence, flexibility, performance management (Costea 2007 p.6) which is intended to attain perfection at work. This is reinforced by management tools, such as performance appraisal, which intends to reinforce “a perfect” work. Work, in the modern economy has not mitigated its demands but has rather intensified as induced by competition where companies have to compet for the limited purses of consumers who demands for better, cheaper and faster delivery of goods and services. Thus, anyone who enters into the labour market must display the potentiality to engage in the knowledge based economy which exacts not only talent, but dedication and ability to endure the rigors of expanded work. Given this new context of work, success in the new workplace necessitates the failure of some aspects of life because the dedication needed by performability and perfection at work requires the sacrifice of one’s societal lfe. Such that the potentiality or requisite needed to succeed at work demands not only talent but also the readiness to engage with an intensified and extended work that will exact time and energy away from family, friends and self. The slogan that “people are our greatest asset” is a mere rhetorical emphasis on how demanding the work in business organisations today. The word “performance” is always emphasized because it is what is expected from the organisation as whole from the products and services it offers to its equally demanding customers. The business structure in itself has designed the mechanism to ensure that performativity, perfection and potentiality is always enforced in the organisation to ensure its viability in a very competitive market. Management tools such as “management by objectives, agreed targets, multi-dimensional appraisals and performance management systems, economic value-added measurements, or balanced scorecards (as analysed extensively by Froud et al. 2000; Erturk et al. 2004 as cited in Costea 2007 p.6) while being presented to the employees tools to improve ones work, is really just a mechanism to institutionalise the expectation of performativity , performance and potentiality from its employe. To illustrate how these demands of performativity, perfection and potentiality, are being conveyed to those who are about to join the labour market, the three illustration below will be used as an example of how performativity, perfection and potentiality is demanded from prospective candidates to succed in the workplace. The examples from Accenture, Aldi and Denoitte shall be cited and interpreted to illustrate how this “demands” are being communicated through subtleties, symbolism and figures of speech. The Accenture recruitment slogan is reminiscent of the army slogan “be all that you can be” inviting recruits to join their organisation to actualise themselves. It is a subtle message that all of the Maslow’s hierarchy of needs from physiological need to actualisation need can be had in the company as long as one is willing to submit to the grind of extended work in the company. The sub-text is a perversion of Herzberg’s theory of intrinsic rewards that work in itself can be a motivator through an “intrinsic rewards such as interesting, challenging work and the opportunity to achieve and grow into greater responsibility” (Herzberg 1987 p. 49). This concept is very prominent with the subtext that “our capabilities are so broad, you can even change jobs without ever changing companies. Talk to Accenture and discover how great you can be”. It meant that if a candidate has the willingness to do extended work and sacrifice his or her societal life, then Accenture is the place work. The idea of “changing jobs without ever changing company” is really just a sugarcoated idea of Herzberg’s idea of job rotation to make work interesting. The bottom line of the message is, the company is willing to pay a premium if one is willing to work harder. This is being emphasized by the silhouetted girl against the background of a big city. She is wearing glass and looks afar signifying vision, short of saying, “c’mon work with us and you will have a good future”. The glass is emblematic of technical competency and perfection as what is required with the job. Outside the ambit of her image is hazy. Meaning, the clarity and meaning of work can only be found within the company and whatever is beyond or outside it, is unclear. This manifests that Accenture knew that there is a competition for potentiality because it is not the only company who is seeking those who are talented and willing to do intensified work. Unlike Accenture which employed subtleties in its recruitment of those who have the potentiality for performativity and perfect work, Aldi is more direct of what it wants in its recruitment advertisement. It wants those who “get up at 5 A.M. and ride”. It meant that if the applicant is willing to dedicate its life to Aldi, then the company wants him or her. This message is nicely placed beside a mudded tire of a bike signifying that the work will be rough and rugged and can even get “dirty”. But still, if a candidate will “rise to the challenge” and “do not pull the duvet over their head and go back to sleep,” then the candidate will have an Audi A4 car, a handsome pay, and more work to look forward to. The bicycle also tells that despite how rough and rugged or dirty the work can be, it can still be fun. The ad did not also put any back drop behind the poster so that the audience’s attention will not be distracted by any other images that will drown of what it want, “someone who’s going to get up at 5 A.M. and ride”. Unlike Accenture who subtly requires technical competency with the girl wearing glass, Aldi can forgo that as long as the candidate is willing to play rough as required by performativity, “qualifications are important, but determination, competitiveness and team skills are vital” says Aldi. The approach of Aldi is borrowed from Taylor’s concept of motivation that an employee can be motivated by handsome pay. In this case, the ad attempts to recruit or seduce an applicant who just came out from college with handsome pay and luxurious car knowing that most candidates are hungry for monetary reward being dependent and on allowance basis when he or she was still in school. The “challenging work” is already a mantra of all companies because it knows that it is directly connected with job satisfaction and motivation, as put forth by Herzberg before. Deloitte’s approach towards recruitment can be considered to be more “old school” compared to Accenture and Aldi who were quite aggressive in enticing applicants to apply for them. Deloitte’s ad is more symbolic compared to the previous two. It places the figure “I” in the center signifying Deloitte as number one, with the knock on the middle which is the figurative applicant. The color is green which meant “go”. An applicant who wants to knock on the doors of Deloitte has to have the “on the go” attitude as required by performativity and perfection at work. If the candidate is already “green” or has the “on the go” attitude, the ad then ask “how far are you wiling to take it?”. It meant the company will require intensified work for somebody to progress and it asks the candidate how hard is he or she willing to work to go far in the company. The backdrop color is black but it could have been anything. It was made to black because black can best contrast the color green which is placed at the center of the “I” and the “opportunity knocks” text. Conclusion As early as the recruitment process, companies are already sending the message that success in the workplace depends on performativity, perfection and potentiality. In a way, this is laudable because it is being transparent to the candidates of what to expect when they join the organisation. They will be paid well but the company will demand intensified work that may require some personal sacrifices to deliver performativity. The work is challenging yes, especially designed to conform to Herzberg’s proposiiton of the intrinsic reward of challenging work, but it requires no less than perfection. If the candidate is willing to put up, business organisations will reward such hardwork to the style of Maslow and Taylor. The candidates who are about to join the labour market has really few choices to rescind this kind of work arrangement. It is the order of the day at the workplace and such will be the case in most business organisations. Business organisations are, in effect, just passing the competitiveness of the market to its employees who in turn, has to be competitive themselves for the organisation they belong to survive and thrive in the market. It is an economic imperative for businesses because it is always driven by profit motive and this organisational goal requires performativity, perfection and potentiality from its work force in order to keep itself as a going concern. Bibliography Costea, B., Crump, N. and Amiridis, K., 2008. Managerialism, the therapeutic habitus and the self in contemporary Organizing. Human Relations, Vol. 6, (5) 661-685. Available at http//eprints.lancs.ac.uk/773/1/COSTEA_CRUMP_AMIRIDIS_-_HUMAN_RELATIONS_-_ACCEPTED_NOV_2007.pdf. Retrieved on January 17, 2012. Goodman, R. A., 1968. On the operationality of the Maslow need hierarchy. British Journal of Industrial Relations 6(1) p. 51-57. Guld, M., 2007. Recruitment p. number two priority. Supervision 68(12) p. 19-21. Herzberg, F. I., 1987. One more time p. How do you motivate employees? Harvard Business Review, (65) p.30, 48-61. Jaffe, D. & DeDreu, C.K.W., 2007. The Psychology of Conflict and Conflict Management Organizations, Erlbaum Pysch Press, Hoboken, ISBN p. 9781410618795. Radcliffe, D., 2005. Critique of Human Resources Theory. Otago Management Graduate Review (3) 51-67. Sarachek, B., 1968. Elton Mayos Social Psychology and Human Relations. Academy of Management Journal 11(2) p. 189-197. Smith, J.H., 1987. Elton Mayo and the English dream . Sociological Review 35(3): 602-621. Read More