Home > Research > Publications & Outputs > Managerial appropriations of the ethos of democ...

Electronic data

  • Amiridis Costea - Rating as Policing - FINAL 2019

    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

Links

Text available via DOI:

View graph of relations

Managerial appropriations of the ethos of democratic practice: rating, 'policing', and performance management

Research output: Contribution to journalJournal articlepeer-review

Published

Standard

Managerial appropriations of the ethos of democratic practice : rating, 'policing', and performance management. / Amiridis, Kostas; Costea, Bogdan.

In: Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 164, No. 4, 01.07.2020, p. 701-713.

Research output: Contribution to journalJournal articlepeer-review

Harvard

APA

Vancouver

Author

Bibtex

@article{4ba2164f31d042a5a7d2532036e6c818,
title = "Managerial appropriations of the ethos of democratic practice: rating, 'policing', and performance management",
abstract = "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{\textquoteright}s work. On the contrary, we argue that by being placed in continuous confrontation with each other{\textquoteright}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{\textquoteright}s and Ranci{\`e}re{\textquoteright}s arguments. We use Ranci{\`e}re{\textquoteright}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.",
keywords = "performance appraisal, feedback, Mouffe, Ranciere, neoliberalism, ethics, managerialism, social credit system",
author = "Kostas Amiridis and Bogdan Costea",
note = "The final publication is available at Springer via http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10551-019-04399-y",
year = "2020",
month = jul,
day = "1",
doi = "10.1007/s10551-019-04399-y",
language = "English",
volume = "164",
pages = "701--713",
journal = "Journal of Business Ethics",
issn = "0167-4544",
publisher = "Springer Netherlands",
number = "4",

}

RIS

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 -