ILPC 2027

ABSTRACT

Performance management and job security: what does fair dismissal mean now?

Glynne Williams and Vanessa Beck, University of Leicester

The claims made for performance management (PM) systems go far beyond that of individual productivity. In fact, the various purported effects on motivation, 'alignment' with business strategy and on organisational performance, are probably more than can logically be expected of a single HR instrument. For example, the 'developmental' component of appraisal fits uneasily with broader PM systems, which are frequently more punitive in nature. The ability to claim several different and possibly contradictory effects is maintained because PM is continually re-invented, making challenge, or even evaluation, problematic. For proponents, this innovation has led to more effective, and more 'strategic' approaches (Radnor and Barnes, 2007). Critical accounts, on the other hand, have tended to see continuity with earlier mechanisms designed to control work effort. In this view, although mechanisms may become more sophisticated, they serve much the same purpose as straightforward Taylorism (Carter et al, 2011).

Using data from a 'freedom of information' survey and from interviews with union representatives, this paper argues that the primary function of PM is indeed changing. A recent adoption of PM systems has been driven by the need for compliance, rather than by any likely improvements in productivity or work quality. ‘Systematic’ PM is expected to ‘equality-proof’ HR decisions. In particular, the accelerated uptake of PM systems is largely explicable as an attempt to avoid age-discrimination challenges over the treatment of older workers (Beck and Williams, 2015). The competitive form of equality afforded by PM allows for the management of employee ‘exit’ on terms set by the employer. Although PM still claims to do many things, its effects are to increase employer discretion on dismissal (and ‘retirement’) and to limit job security. The specific impact on older workers has already been noted (Williams and Beck, 2015; Scholarios and Taylor, 2015), but the effect extends to the whole workforce.

We ask how this change of focus came about, in particular the way in which PM allows an elision between disciplinary and ‘competency’ procedures. We also consider the implications for trade unions and ask what a fair and appropriate performance management regime might look like.

References

Beck, V. and Williams, G. (2015), ‘The (performance) management of retirement and the limits of individual choice’ Work, Employment and Society, 29(2): 267-277.

Carter, R.,Danford, A.,Howcroft, D.,Richardson, H.,Smith, A.,Taylor, P. (2011), “All they lack is a chain”: lean and the new performance management in the

British civil service, New Technology, Work and Employment 26 (2), 83–97.

Radnor, Z. and Barnes, D. (2007),’Historical analysis of performance measurement and management in operations management’, International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, Vol. 56 (5/6): 384 – 396.

Scholarios, D. and Taylor, P. (2014), ‘“Decomissioned vessels” – performance management and older workers in technologically-intensive service work’, Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 89: 333-342.

Williams, G. and Beck, V (2015), ‘Redefining retirement: age equality and the rise of performance management’, Industrial Relations Journal 46:5–6, 365–380.

21^st October 2016