Foucauldian Studies and HRM Essay

When sing about human resource direction ( HRM ) being understood as discourse.

it is necessary to link Foucault’ s theory on discourse with employee choice as a important portion of human resource direction. Though Foucault himself non a specializer in HRM. it appears that legion organisation surveies scholars tend to pull on Foucault’s thoughts for the intent of re-analyzing and re-understanding HRM. ( Barrantt. 2001 ) The ground is that Foucault’s apprehension of the relationship between discourse.

Best services for writing your paper according to Trustpilot

Premium Partner
From $18.00 per page
4,8 / 5
Writers Experience
Recommended Service
From $13.90 per page
4,6 / 5
Writers Experience
From $20.00 per page
4,5 / 5
Writers Experience
* All Partners were chosen among 50+ writing services by our Customer Satisfaction Team

truth and power implies how we should see HRM from different position and set it into re-consideration.By and large. discourse could be understand as ‘ a set of constructs. looks and statements that constitutes a manner of speaking or composing about an facet of the universe. therefore bordering the manner people understand and act with respect to that facet of the world’ ( Watson.

2002: 118 ) . And in Foucault’s position. discourse is a flexible term. In one of Foucault’ s book. The Archaeology of Knowledge. published in 1969. was an outstanding work of post-structuralism illustration.

He believes that discourse is a statement integrity. It talks about the statement ( enonce ) . which is a regulation for the dianoetic look to go meaningful.In Foucault’ s position. the statement has some particular archaeological significances. The regulations give the significance of its being. The significance of the statement is dependent on the context where it presents. So dianoetic framing provide a linguistic communication to stand foring a subject ( Foucault.

1969 ) . So discourse is more than linguistic communication. It is the manner we understand or interpret the universe. Due to talk about is shaped or unshaped by society and civilization. there are assorted discourses. The same as for HRM. it can be understand and interpreted from a different position. There is no uncertainty that Foucaultdian surveies give new apprehension of HRM.

This paper will analyse and critically believe of three parts of reframing HRM Foucaultdian surveies give. The first portion will analyse human resource direction as discourse. It focuses on how Foucualtdiansm understand HRM in different positions. The 2nd portion will discourse the relationship between HRM and power. which includes how Foucault decodes power. its relationship with cognition or truth. and how HRM associated with power.

The 3rd portion will concentrate on one of import facet of HRM. employee choice. to research how employee choice can be understood and interpret in different ways.Finally. a decision will be drawn based on old treatment. HRM as Discourse Generally. HRM are treated as a set of patterns that regard human as resource to accomplish companies’ marks or involvements. It is a merchandise of modern society.

From managerial position. human resource direction featured with ‘rationality. optimism and authoritarianism’ ( Legge. 1995 ) . Numerous bookmans have explored human resource direction from Foucualdian position. By and large.

the discourse in HRM is associated with power.Poole ( 1999 ) argued that it is likely happened that the dianoetic analysis contains the description of the HRM discourse related juncture. It will arouse the issue between the topics who have the right to talk and its influence on employees. When it comes to Foucault.

he did non analyze in HRM but attracts a figure of bookmans of HRM. Townley ( 1993 ) was a representative who put the relation between HRM and Foucault’ s disciplinary power into consideration. She argued that HRM could be best comprehended as a discourse and provides Foucauldian analyses of typical characteristic of HRM.Because Foucault provided a intimation that there are interconnectednesss between discourse. power and truth. So Foucault gave HRM discourse much topographic point to be considered from new position ( Du Gay et Al. 1996 ) .

From Foucauldian position. HRM is to ‘impose order on the inherently undecidable-the employment contract’ ( Legge. 2005:345 ) . It is striking of power that allow directors to pull off. Following Foucault’s theory. it is argued here that the topic plays a critical function in HRM. To back up this.

Foucauldian surveies lay accent on the influence of the topic in HRM.In human resource direction. ‘the capable plays a more active role’ ( Barratt. 2003 ) . The procedure of HR direction witnessed scrutiny and designation of the topic. Foucualt ( 1988 ) himself argued that persons are influenced and influence others by their certain agencies. All facets of HRM including employee choice.

company’s civilization and public presentation assessment are the merchandise of subjectiveness. Take public presentation assessment for illustration. employees have to subject to an important assessment system to squeal their public presentation at work ( Townley.

1993 ) .It can be regarded as an action of subjective power. Stressing on capable gives infinite for diverse apprehensions and readings of HRM. Despite of the dominant apprehension of HRM from managerial position. HRM can be something else because post-structuralism and Foucaudian surveies propose that there is no definite apprehension of a subject. For illustration. Nayab ( 2011 ) argued that HRM could be interpreted in five ways.

The fist is normative position. which separates HRM as forces direction and strategic human resource direction.The 2nd is to see HRM in a critical manner. It is believed that the world showed the contradiction between traditional HRM and the new 1. The ‘behavioral Perspective’ is different from others. It put more accent on their public presentation. The intent of HRM is to steer and pull off employees in order to ‘attain the coveted performance’ ( Nayab. 2011 ) .

Seen from the systems position. HRM concerns about the result of human resource. It is a mill that utilizing employees as stuff and bring forthing organisational turnover.The last 1 is ‘agency or dealing cost perspective’ ( Nayab. 2011 ) . This apprehension is seting HRM as a go-between of struggles for the intent of minimising the cost. The five apprehensions of HRM are believing HRM from different position. which inspire the new apprehensions or some alterations against the dominant manner of pull offing human resource.

However. the most of import stakeholder in HRM may be employee. because it is the opposite toxicant against directors besides the employee’s voice is progressively needed in modern HRM. The dominant apprehension of HRM is hinking and specifying from a managerial position. Actually. the employee’s position on HRM varied based on the HRM theoretical accounts ( Whitener.

2001 ) Fiona Edgar and Alan J. Geare ( 2005 ) did some research on researching employee’s voice on HRM. The consequence showed that employees tend to maintain a positive attitude towards soft HRM theoretical account and defy the traditional and difficult 1. However. the current HRM needs some alteration in order to run into employee’s demand for self-development. It is possible that the different apprehensions of HRM push the revolution in both theoretical and practical field.HRM and power Michel Foucault is celebrated for his critical surveies on power. cognition and discourse.

However. harmonizing to Foucault ( 1980 ) . discourse has no unequivocal account. It could be understood in assorted positions. There is no definite truth in the universe. Peoples ever impose their subjective consciousness upon the truth.

So it is difficult to maintain the right manner to the truth seeking. ( Wetherall. 2001 ) Classical theory represented by Marx implied the traditional understanding the relationship between cognition and power ( Barratt. 2003 ) .Ideology is regarded as a tool for power.

It covers the truth so that people who are governed capable to pull offing without opposition ( Braverman. 1976 ) . However. one chief defect of his theory is that he neglects the topic.

He defined persons at work as representation of economic or employment dealingss ( Knights and Willmott. 1985. 1989 ) . In Foucault’s theory. the connexion between power and cognition is complex. Power is everyplace.

Besides. we have to set human topic into consideration.The ground why discourse is of import is that the point of Foucault’s theory non merely lies in how the linguistic communication expresses significances but besides in what is the relationship between the discourse and the nonsubjective buttocks.

or what sort of power imposed ( Luke. 1999 ) . In the Order of Discourse. Foucault ( 1971 ) claimed that the impression of exclusion is good known in our society. but the most obvious one is prohibition.

In other words. non all the subject is allowed in a certain juncture and non everyone is given the right to talk out everything. Discourse itself is non an of import issue.

However. the prohibition behind the discourse surprised us due to its connexion with the desire and power. In add-on. there is another sort of exclusion rule.

which is the resistance between ground and lunacy. On one manus. the discourse of a lunatic no uncertainty will be regarded as invalid and undependable. On the other manus. the lunatic is given the gift of foretelling and uncovering the truth.

So in fact. there is no definite alleged “madness” ( Foucault. 1971 ) .

The unnatural itself presents the control from a certain group of people.Or in other words. power defines the truth the lunacy to convert people. In footings of cognition. Foucault ( 1971 ) argued that power create cognition.

they are connected with each other. Besides. cognition is merely available to the populace merely when stated within discourse. He claimed that cognition and truth are non independent and nonsubjective.

They are connected closely with power and go the legitimate protection for power operating. As Foucault stated it in The History of Sexuality ‘Discourses are non one time and for all subservient to power or raised up against it. and more than silences are.We must do allowances for the complex and unstable procedure whereby discourse can both an instrument and an consequence of power.

but besides a hinderance. a stumbling-block. a point of opposition and a starting point for an opposing scheme.

Discourse transmits and produces power: it reinforces it. but besides undermines and exposes it. renders it delicate and makes it possible to queer it. ’ ( Foucault. 1980 ) Besides. the power displayed in Discipline and Punish helps us to critically believe about the self-regulation. which can be applied into workplace.

It mentioned the disciplinary power. As Foucault ( 1977 ) observed. the prison designed by Jeremy Bentham is a technique of the panoptic regard. The cardinal tower makes captives to train themselves. So when it comes to the workplace. the panoptic regard besides normalising individuals’ behaviour.

In 1950. Elton Mayo and Fritz Roethlisberger put forwarded the Hawthorne consequence ( Gallic. 1953 ) .

They observed the public presentation of labours in an electric mill. They found that when the visible radiations become brighter. workers tend to train themselves and the production will increase.This sort of self-regulation besides can be seen in modern workplaces where CCTVs and call centres are facilitated. It is a kind of ‘info-normative control’ ( Frenkel et al. 1995 ) that evaluates employees’ public presentation objectively.

But besides the monitoring may damage the civilization of tilting signifier each other and put excessively much emphasis on workers ( Knights & A ; McCabe. 2003 ) . However. it seems that power is everyplace but it does non intend power is everything. Knights and McCabe besides argued that power is non possessed by certain group of people. even the disciplinary power can non make up one’s mind the individual’s behaviour.Foucault ( 1980 ) supposed that when persons put power into action.

they are given their ain individuality and significance. Subjects are acquiring bit by bit split from the corporate category. but it is neither individuality nor Bolshevism ( Knights. 1994 ) . It should be treated dialectically. So the power has its influence on cognition and discourse. Or even the disciplinary power promotes self-regulation and do employees subject to the power. However.

the impact of the topic can non be neglected. It interacts with power and discourse.