Performance Appraisal and Identity - Coursework Example

Critical Analysis for Management Name: Course: Course code: Tutor: Date: Introduction Organizations that are seeking to be competitive in the market through employees should be able to manage the results and the behavior of their employees. Usually, the formal performance appraisal was regarded as the major means of managing the performance of employees within an organization. Performance appraisal was regarded as an administrative function that was only done by the managers and particularly the responsibility of the human resource. Currently, managers regard performance appraisal as an annual event where they quickly fill the appraisal form and use it in cataloging all the bad information they have collected on an employee over the past years (Combe, 2014). Since they don’t like being confronted and feel as if they don’t know how to appraise, some of them spend the little time to provide feedback to employees. In most cases, both employees and the managers dislike the process of performance appraisal. “Frustrating”, “burdening”, “time consuming” and “dreadful” are some of the words that think when receiving or giving performance appraisals. Some of the contributing factors include inconsistency of performance appraisal practices across the organization, inability of the appraisal system to offer meaningful information for employee growth to empower employees build their skills and failure to differentiate among performance levels. Some people have argued that all the performance appraisal systems are flawed to an extent where they are manipulative, autocratic, manipulative ad counterproductive. It is therefore worth to note that the criticism leveled against annual performance appraisal are not as a result of performance evaluation of employees but rather the perception of managers towards employee identities Performance appraisal and Identity There has been a considerable interest in the present literature in the salience and nature of identity at the place of work. Looking at workplace identity holds important promise as a way of extending our knowledge of reactions of employees to HRM strategies in general, particularly to performance appraisal. It allows us to look at the process through which managers view identity and how they maneuver regarding such practices as employee appraisals. Identity confirmations, challenges, disruptions, and the consequent work identity as a result of appraisal process form a good foundation for research. The meaning of identity has created some definitional problems since it is used in various disciplines. For instance, there is a vast literature on identity within the social theory. Scholars and writers from various theoretical traditions have looked at the intricate ways that people are seeking so as to construct the true meaning for their relationships, actions and their identities. Therefore, an identity is not just a label or an abstract idea, such as an ethnic category, title or a personality trait but rather a lived sense of belonging or not belonging. True identity comprises of deeper connections with others through shared experiences, histories, affection, reciprocity, and mutual commitments. In summary, identity is achieved by defining and revising who a person is, or who we are as a group Appraisal and identity regulation The management approach regards appraisal as a discursive technology with the purpose of controlling employees within an organization through (re)construction of worker identity. Identities societies, social institutions and also cultures may be seen as ‘discursively constructed ensembles of text’. Discourse act as powerful force within the organization thus shaping the organizing process and it’s constitutive and construct language effects How different takes on identity may alter a manager’s approach to performance appraisal As far as identity is concerned, employees within an organization can be treated as discursive objects. From the managerial approach, workers are regarded as objects of managerial technologies. Performance appraisal is a ritual of confession and employees are treated as objects of power and knowledge. In this perspective, employee appraisal assumes that as a human object, the truth concerning an individual employee can be appraised through positivistic social science method. Changing the concepts totally changes the object is socially related to, treated or acknowledged. For instance, employees may be regarded in conceptual terms as resources of an organization. Such as perception of seeing employees as resources of an organization affects the whey the employees are treated i.e. as objects of value, with the possibility of implementing human resource management practices such as training and development programs. On the contrary, if the employee were to be regarded as only mere factors of production whose cost must be minimized, the same employees could be treated as only objects who must be controlled and coaxed so as perform at higher levels of productivity (for instance, through an appraisal method that measures output per employee). They may be even sacked or retrenched so as to get the right numbers Another example of a discursive object is the performance appraisal document. Such a form indicates in material terms the assumptions of the discursive object. For example, if the management regards employee appraisal as evaluative, the appraisal form will be most likely to have some rating or ranking scale (Leonard, 2007). If the management perceives the appraisal as developmental rather instead of evaluative, the appraisal form (in this case the discursive object) would most likely be seen as career development, and has some attempts to expedite construction of a developing, growing employee. The employees, by themselves, are most likely to perceived in the appraisal process as objects to be calibrated and measured (evaluative concept) or regarded as plants to be nurtured and watered (developmental concept). The appraisers could see themselves as mentors or coaches in the latter review, while in the former, terms such as supervisor or superior could be applicable. The language used has an effect on the way we relate or acknowledge a person. For instance, who regards the purpose of employee appraisal is to squeeze the lemon even harder, to get much from an employee, depicts an instrumentalist approach towards employees. The term labor instead of colleagues or employees or staff likewise, in workplace context, discursively shows workers being treated as only factors of production. It is therefore worth to note that language used by the managers shows whether they see workers as mere objects in the labor process, or as a feeling, thinking, and exceptional individuals (Willmott, 2000). Paradoxically, some work being done under critical management studies also repeats this way of perceiving employees, to a point where workers are decentered, therefore treating them as mere objects (Igor et al., 2007). Employee perceptions and expectations must be acknowledged and interrogated, and not be pre-judged or ignored as it is often done by critical management proponents and managerialists. The critical stream of people does not go beyond considering employees as mere objects. Employees are seen as inactive and unquestioning vessels for managerial ideas, unable to think for themselves, or even resist challenging initiatives, less effort has been done to engage with, leave alone to understand, employees as slaves. Therefore, time has come for the managers to see and understand employees as important assets of an organization during the appraisal process Discursive objects People who are subjected to the use of patronizing discursive concepts, and are regarded as objects of management theories, strategies, approaches, or visions, may not take their position in the discourse. There is a growing research which depicts employees as active social agents who have their own subjectivities and interests, who are after establishing their own preferred positions or roles in the power and social relations of the organization. In this body of literature, employees are regarded as being active agents in their own right, as individuals who are subjected to the practices of the organization but who interpret those practices to suit their own understanding of those practices according to their own subjective realities. Discursive subjects, as impulsive agents, do not just sit down and let their own identities to be watered down by managerial others. Employees use their own resources to build workplace identities both for themselves and their workgroups (Director, 2012). Conclusion The relationship that exists among identity, knowledge, power, resistance and control continue to be at the center of debate. Similarly, relationships amongst subjectivity, self and identity are argued among and within various research traditions. Accounts of human resource practices like employee appraisal must consider the subjective parts of response of employees to managerial initiatives. Instead of organizing and integrating work, HRM practices intended to regulate the identity are theorized to produce an ‘iron cage of subjectivity’. These practices together with other forms of normative practices form powerful consequences for both personal and occupational identities. As seen from the literature, the meaning of identity has created some definitional problems since it is used in various disciplines. For instance, there is a vast literature on identity within the social theory. Writers and scholars from various theoretical traditions have looked at the intricate ways that people are seeking so as to construct the true meaning for their relationships, actions and their identities. As a result, an identity is not just a label or an abstract idea, such as an ethnic category, title or a personality trait but rather a lived sense of belonging or not belonging. True identity comprises of deeper connections with others through shared experiences, histories, affection, reciprocity, and mutual commitments. The language used has an effect on the way we relate or acknowledge a person. For instance, who regards the purpose of employee appraisal is to squeeze the lemon even harder, to get much from an employee, depicts an instrumentalist approach towards employees. The term labor instead of colleagues or employees or staff likewise, in workplace context, discursively shows workers being treated as only factors of production. It is therefore worth to note that language used by the managers shows whether they see workers as mere objects in the labor process, or as a feeling, thinking, and exceptional individuals. In conclusion, identity is achieved by defining and revising who a person is, or who we are as a group (Ackroyd, 2005). References Ackroyd, S., 2005. Critical Realist Applications in Organisation and Management Studies. Routledge. Combe, C., 2014. Introduction to Management. OUP Oxford. Director, S., 2012. Financial Analysis for HR Managers: Tools for Linking HR Strategy to Business Strategy. FT Press. Igor , L., Wenning, R. & Kiker, G.A., 2007. Managing Critical Infrastructure Risks. Springer Science & Business Media. Leonard, D., n.d. Critical Knowledge Transfer: Tools for Managing Your Company's Deep Smarts. 2014: Harvard Business Press. Library, B., 2008. Harvard Business School Core Collection. Harvard Business School. Piepenburg, K., 2011. Critical analysis of Hofstede’s model of cultural dimensions: To what extent are his findings reliable, valid and applicable to organisations in the 21st century? GRIN Verlag. S.M. Lee, G.L.M.L.A.D., 2012. Network Analysis for Management Decisions: A Stochastic Approach. Springer Science & Business Media. Washington Odongo Ochola, 2010. Managing Natural Resources for Development in Africa: A Resource Book. IDRC. Willmott, H., 2000. Critical Management Studies. SAGE. Read More