Work, Self and Society

Casey, Catherine

doi:10.4324/9780203444993

Cited by 43 publications

(65 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The massive emphasis on shared identification meant some employees were more concerned with fitting in and looking the part (Casey, 1995). Innovation, entrepreneurship and productive risk-taking are stifled under such conditions (Foster and Kaplan, 2001).…”

Section: Workers As the Embodiment Of Company Interestsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Human Capital Hoax: Work, Debt and Insecurity in the Era of Uberization

Fleming

2017

Organization Studies

326

230

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This is the accepted version of the paper.This version of the publication may differ from the final published version. This essay argues the opposite. Human capital theory implies that employees should bear the costs (and benefits) of their investment. Highly individualized training and work practices are an inevitable corollary. Self-employment, portfolio careers, the 'gig economy' and ondemand business models (including Uber and Deliveroo) faithfully reflect the assumptions that inform human capital theory. I term this the radical responsibilization of the workforce and link it to growing economic insecurity, low productivity, diminished autonomy and worrying levels of personal debt. The essay concludes by proposing some possible solutions. Permanent repository link

show abstract

Section: Workers As the Embodiment Of Company Interestsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Human Capital Hoax: Work, Debt and Insecurity in the Era of Uberization

Fleming

2017

Organization Studies

326

230

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…It is possible that this portion of the labour force is (and always will be) limited, and so organisations fully adopting these practices are also limited. But there is reason to worry that this is changing, especially in the US, where instrumental narcissism and the self‐alienation that defines it appears to be widespread, and the operative model seems increasingly to be the modern military one, in which workers are all part of a team (squadron) and are expected to have undying loyalty to their team leader and ultimately their team's ‘mission’, not just because their own security (ontologically) depends on it, but also because they are likely to find themselves ostracised, marginalised, and ultimately, in effect, having to ‘bowl alone’ (Casey, : 150–151). The extent to which this model will or has spread beyond the US is uncertain, but in an era of institutional crisis on the one hand, and instrumental narcissism on the other, it may be an important means to ontological security and self‐satisfaction – a possibility that is both significant and worrying.…”

Section: The Deeper Problemmentioning

confidence: 99%

The psychologisation of employment relations?

Godard

2013

Human Res Mgmt Journal

149

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article argues that HRM is by nature a multidisciplinary subject area, and that it has traditionally been closely associated with the field of industrial relations (IR). However, it appears to have increasingly been taken over by industrial and organisational (I‐O) psychology, and in the process increasingly associated with organisational behaviour, which has also been taken over by I‐O psychology. Coupled with the narrowing and marginalisation of IR, this has meant an increasing ‘psychologisation’ not only of the study of HRM, but of the study of employment relations in general. This article discusses why this appears to have been happening, what its implications might be and what (if anything) might be done about it. Focus is on developments within North America, although the issues raised apply, perhaps, to different degrees, across liberal market countries and possibly beyond.

show abstract

“…The latter in particular relates such metaphors to the increasing prevalence of religious discourse in organizations, seen as evidence of a movement towards 'spirituality at work', a "new work ethic" (Bell and Taylor 2003) or "neo-Protestant ethic" (Casey 1995). The majority of the literature is critical regarding the prevalence of such metaphors, seeing this as related to the "dark side" of transformational leadership models (Tourish 2011(Tourish , 2013).…”

Section: Of Saints Priests and Messiahs: A Critical Review Of 'Sacrementioning

confidence: 99%

“…In other words, in the new spirit of capitalism 'neo-ascetic' models of leadership emerged, in which elements of the Weberian model were presented in a different way, reflected in the incorporation of religious language and metaphors in leadership communication, presented under the aegis of (workplace) 'spirituality'. Casey (1995) describes the resultant "neo-Protestant ethic" as an attempt to "restore Protestant cultural forms that have … faltered under the culture of narcissism of advanced industrial society" (181). The "culture of narcissism" is countered by incorporating "American "Southern-style" revivalism … evangelism, charisma and conversion" into leadership style (Casey 1995: 194), resulting in "religiosity" (Casey 1995: 193), "quasi-religiosity" or "spirituality" (Lips-Wiersma et al 2009) in the workplace.…”

Section: The Discursive Legitimation Of Neo-ascetic Models Of Leadersmentioning

confidence: 99%

The role of CEO (auto-) biographies in the dissemination of neo-ascetic leadership styles

Halsall

2016

Leadership

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper attempts to relate the critical analysis of religious or “sacred” metaphors in leadership to the theory of askēsis, the idea of leader as an incarnation of a virtue defined as “the formation of a full, perfect, complete and self-sufficient relationship with oneself.” A model of leadership based on askēsis, it is argued, is established by means of the form of rhetoric called the exemplum, by means of which leaders derive authority from their being held to be a living (or dead) incarnation of an ideal of perfection, and their life being narrated as a “perfectionist vita.” The principal means of communication of this exemplarity is the hagiography, which finds its contemporary equivalent in the popular CEO (auto-) biography, which can be interpreted as a reactivation of ancient hagiographic archetypes. In readings of three leader hagiographies, focusing on the narrative, rhetorical, and discursive strategies employed, it is shown how the dubious moral exemplarity of such individuals is established. The paper concludes with a discussion of the differences and analogies between the medieval hagiography and the contemporary CEO (auto-) biography, and a discussion of the relationship between asceticism and charisma in the light of these examples.

show abstract

Work, Self and Society

Cited by 43 publications

References 0 publications

The Human Capital Hoax: Work, Debt and Insecurity in the Era of Uberization

The Human Capital Hoax: Work, Debt and Insecurity in the Era of Uberization

The psychologisation of employment relations?

The role of CEO (auto-) biographies in the dissemination of neo-ascetic leadership styles

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About