Rights statement: The final publication is available at Springer via http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10551-019-04399-y
Accepted author manuscript, 494 KB, PDF document
Available under license: CC BY: Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
Final published version
Licence: CC BY: Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
Research output: Contribution to Journal/Magazine › Journal article › peer-review
Research output: Contribution to Journal/Magazine › Journal article › peer-review
}
TY - JOUR
T1 - Managerial appropriations of the ethos of democratic practice
T2 - rating, 'policing', and performance management
AU - Amiridis, Kostas
AU - Costea, Bogdan
N1 - The final publication is available at Springer via http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10551-019-04399-y
PY - 2020/7/1
Y1 - 2020/7/1
N2 - This article examines how new types of performance appraisal reconfigure everyday personal relationships at work. These systems deploy smartphone technologies to be used continuously by individuals to rate each other. Our aim is to show, in concrete terms, how these practices claim to configure a democratic space where individuals are liberated to express their views about each other’s work. On the contrary, we argue that by being placed in continuous confrontation with each other’s ratings, the genuine space for democratic contestation, for the establishment of a genuine community, as well as for critique and dissent is—paradoxically—narrowed down. The first section of this article explores the context in which managerialism has become consolidated at the centre of neo-liberal politics in a dialogue with some of Mouffe’s and Rancière’s arguments. We use Rancière’s concept of “policing” to understand how managerial techniques subvert genuine democratic spaces, modes of participation and expression. Using performance appraisal systems as an example, the second part of the article provides a critical investigation which shows how managerialism intervenes at the very roots of possible democratic engagement and undermines dissent in subtle ways.
AB - This article examines how new types of performance appraisal reconfigure everyday personal relationships at work. These systems deploy smartphone technologies to be used continuously by individuals to rate each other. Our aim is to show, in concrete terms, how these practices claim to configure a democratic space where individuals are liberated to express their views about each other’s work. On the contrary, we argue that by being placed in continuous confrontation with each other’s ratings, the genuine space for democratic contestation, for the establishment of a genuine community, as well as for critique and dissent is—paradoxically—narrowed down. The first section of this article explores the context in which managerialism has become consolidated at the centre of neo-liberal politics in a dialogue with some of Mouffe’s and Rancière’s arguments. We use Rancière’s concept of “policing” to understand how managerial techniques subvert genuine democratic spaces, modes of participation and expression. Using performance appraisal systems as an example, the second part of the article provides a critical investigation which shows how managerialism intervenes at the very roots of possible democratic engagement and undermines dissent in subtle ways.
KW - performance appraisal
KW - feedback
KW - Mouffe
KW - Ranciere
KW - neoliberalism
KW - ethics
KW - managerialism
KW - social credit system
U2 - 10.1007/s10551-019-04399-y
DO - 10.1007/s10551-019-04399-y
M3 - Journal article
VL - 164
SP - 701
EP - 713
JO - Journal of Business Ethics
JF - Journal of Business Ethics
SN - 0167-4544
IS - 4
ER -