From Human Resource Management to Human Dignity Development: A Dignity Perspective on HRM and the Role of Workplace Democracy

P. Matthijs Bal and Simon B. de Jong

Introduction

The recent crisis has revealed a number of problems inherent to contemporary societies and economic systems (Seymour 2014) and has increased many of these, including greater inequality and more poverty, depression, suicides, and other health problems (Kentikelenis et al. 2014; Seymour 2014). Moreover, the crisis also revealed and amplified problems for workers, including unemployment and underemployment (George 2014), as well as a higher rate of burnout (Leiter et al. 2014) and worker abuse (Lucas et al. 2013). Besides these human costs, there are also financial costs. For example, the costs of employee burnout have been calculated to be over ?77 billion a year across Europe (Evans-Lacko and Knapp 2014). In the search for underlying problems, many scholars

P.M. Bal (H)

University of Bath, Bath, UK S.B. de Jong

University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK

have pointed towards flaws in the economic system and increasing social injustice (George 2014; Harvey 2005; Seymour 2014). More specifically, at the heart of capitalism, and in particular neoliberalism, are the focus on (short-term) profit maximization for individual firms, the focus on the instrumentality of labor, and the focus on individualism among workers. These elements have been adopted in many modern organizations and have affected the relationships between employees and their organizations (Bal 2015).

However, thus far management research, especially research on the role of workers in organizations, has largely been silent on the impact of these economic paradigms on how employment relationships are shaped and managed. Research on Human Resource Management (HRM) especially, or the management of people in organizations, has relied upon frameworks which are largely built on capitalist and neoliberal foundations (Bal 2015; Greenwood 2002) . In fact, many HRM frameworks even aim to increase the instrumentality of people in organizations and the individualization of work (Bal 2015; Pirson and Lawrence 2010). Co-occurring with this trend is the individualization of employment relationships and the decline of trade unions in representing the needs and interests of collective groups of employees (Godard 2014). Finally, many HR functions increasingly focus on maximizing short-term financial gains, making jobs even more insecure and putting the responsibility for employability squarely in the employee’s corner (Thompson 2013).

The question then is whether the dominant models in HRM are still relevant in contemporary society, as the crisis has shown that an overly myopic focus on instrumentality, individualization, and short-termism may cause organizations to take excessive risks and become unstable and prone to collapse (Harvey 2005; Seymour 2014). In this chapter, we argue that it is imperative to challenge the assumptions of contemporary HRM practice and research (e.g., Jiang et al. 2013). Therefore, the revelations of the crisis (Pirson and Lawrence 2010) also provide an opportunity to create a new paradigm of the role of people in organizations, and hence the role of HRM. In contrast to the neoliberal utilitarian approach of perceiving people as instrumental, or as resources to be used and to be expended, we will outline how HRM can be designed based on the philosophical alternative of human dignity.

Human dignity, according to Immanuel Kant, postulates that people can never be treated as means to an end, but rather should be treated as ends in themselves. When human dignity is introduced as an alternative paradigm in organizations, existing models of HRM (Marchington and Wilkinson 2013) should be adapted in line with this paradigm. The current chapter takes up this proposal, and discusses how human dignity and organizational democracy can be applied to the major HRM activities (e.g., resourcing and performance management) across the employee life cycle (e.g., from joining an organization, via development and growth, to eventually leaving it; Hall 1984).