![]() ![]() Of the 52 managers interviewed, 41 worked for the same company, thus ensuring that company or industry characteristics did not explain the different approaches. The study was based on in-depth interviews of 52 managers as well as qualitative reviews of a further 56 managers. Managers who perceive their evaluation experiences as mostly positive, on the other hand, will take the broader, diffuse approach: they evaluate work actions but also personal qualities, use both quantitative and qualitative measures, and evaluate individual performance in the context of a larger whole (e.g., a group or team). Managers who perceive their evaluation experiences as mostly negative will take a narrow, focused approach: they evaluate work actions only, use quantitative measures, and focus on the individual level. The result is two very different approaches to evaluating merit: focused and diffuse. Rectify the unfairness that they experienced if their evaluation outcomes were perceived as mostly bad.Reproduce the fairness that they experienced as employees if their evaluation outcomes were perceived as mostly good, or.When employees become managers and start to make merit-based decisions, they want to either Over time, employees solidify their understanding of merit based on these positive or negative evaluation experiences. In contrast, an employee who loses a promotion to another employee because the other person is considered more likable will consider that any evaluation of merit should exclude personal qualities such as likability. Following negative outcomes, employees will exclude in their understanding of what constitutes merit the decisive factors that led to the negative outcome.įor example, an employee who is promoted in part because of his or her likability (in addition to positive actions and results) will consider that personal qualities should be included when deciding merit. Following positive outcomes, employees will include in their understanding of what constitutes merit the decisive factors that led to the positive outcome. ![]() The source of these different views of merit is found, according to the research, in the evaluation experiences of the managers when they were employees-experiences that for most managers were perceived as either mostly good (leading to positive outcomes) or mostly bad (leading to negative outcomes).īased on the outcomes, employees form different understandings of merit. These differences are these different definitions or understandings of merit diverge in terms of content (for example, accomplishments only or accomplishments and personal attributes), metric (for example, qualitative measures versus quantitative measures), and unit (that is, the merit either involves the individual only or the individual and the team). The study showed that different managers have different ideas of what constitutes merit. For example, studies continue to show that women and minorities are paid less than their white male counterparts.Ī study from MIT and Berkeley offers one explanation for why companies and organizations are not living up to their meritocratic goals. However, the practice of meritocracy doesn’t often live up to the aspiration. Meritocracy is an ideal that today’s organizations strive for. This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.Different evaluation experiences as employees can lead managers to different ideas about merit, complicating efforts for companies trying to establish merit-based processes for hiring, promoting, or rewarding people. References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEcĬitations: View citations in EconPapers (1) Track citations by RSS feed Keywords: identification workplace change workers India qualitative methods (search for similar items in EconPapers) The author examines identification at three levels—occupational, organizational, and that of the work itself—and finds that workers are more likely to cooperate with workplace change that protects and fortifies their pre-existing sources of identification. This article introduces an additional factor: whether a change fosters or impairs workers’ identification with their work. The previous employment relations literature has invoked interests, cultural values, and worker power to explain workers’ responses to change. Workers tend to cooperate more with some workplace changes than with others. Novel technology and management practices are frequently introduced into work settings as the world of work changes. ![]() This article uses ethnographic and interview data about four cases in two work settings in India to examine identification as a factor in workers’ reactions to workplace change. Identification and Worker Responses to Workplace Change: Evidence from Four Cases in India
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |