Open AccessTHE DARKSIDE OF IDIOSYNCRATIC DEALS: HUMANISTIC VERSUS NEOLIBERAL TRENDS AND APPLICATIONS
Author(s) -
Severin Hornung,
Thomas Höge
Publication year - 2021
Publication title -
psychological applications and trends
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Conference proceedings
ISSN - 2184-3414
DOI - 10.36315/2021inpact097
Subject(s) - rationalization (economics) , sociology , humanism , solidarity , human resource management , ideology , economic system , economics , positive economics , public relations , business , social psychology , politics , political science , psychology , microeconomics , management , law
"Theory-building on workplace flexibility is extended, based on a critical Human Resource (HR) systems framework and paradox (conflict) perspective on employee-oriented vs. capacity-oriented flexibility. Differentiated are variabilities in HR practices by: a) content (functional, temporal, spatial, numerical, financial); b) control (employer, employee); and c) creation (top-down, bottom-up). Hybrid types of bottom-up initiated and top-down authorized flexibility, idiosyncratic deals (i-deals), describe mutually beneficial, negotiated agreements on non-standard working conditions between employees and employer. If their real-world manifestations reflect idealized assumptions, however, remains obscure. Integrating institutional logics, HR systems embody values of humanistic ideals vs. neoliberal ideology: (1) individuation vs. individualism; (2) solidarity vs. competition; (3) emancipation vs. instrumentality. Reflecting these antipodes, construed ideal-type and anti-type i-deals facilitate: (a) self-actualization vs. self-reliance (needs vs. interests); (b) common good vs. tournament situations (triple-win vs. winner-take-all); (c) social transformation vs. economic rationalization (development vs. performance). In humanistic management theory, i-deals increase employee-oriented flexibility, but, in reality, risk being co-opted for economic rationalization and divisive labor-political power strategies. Antagonistic applications involve: humanization vs. rationalization goals; egalitarian vs. elitist distribution; relational vs. transactional resources; need-based vs. contribution-based authorization; procedural vs. distributive justice; supplementing vs. substituting collective HR practices. Instrumental adoption in high-performance work environments likely facilitates harmful internalizations as subjectification and self-exploitation."