ArticlePDF Available

Neoliberal ideology in work and organizational psychology

March 2018
European Journal of Work and Organisational Psychology 27(5):1-13

DOI:10.1080/1359432X.2018.1449108

Authors:

P. Matthijs Bal

University of Lincoln

Edina Doci

Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam

This paper explores the role of neoliberal ideology in workplace practices and in work and organizational psychology (WOP) research. It analyses how neoliberal ideology manifests in these two domains by using a prominent framework from the field of political theory to understand ideology through three different logics: political, social and fantasmatic logics. We explore the main neoliberal assumptions underlying existing practices in the workplace as well as in WOP research, how individuals are gripped by such practices, and how the status quo is maintained. The paper analyses how individuals in the contemporary workplace are henceforth influenced by neoliberalism, and how this is reflected in the practices and dominant paradigms within WOP. In particular, we focus on three ways neoliberalism affects workplaces and individual experiences of the workplace: through instrumentality, individualism and competition. The paper finishes with practical recommendations for researchers and practitioners alike on how to devote more attention to the, often implicit, role of neoliberal ideology in their work and research. The discussion elaborates on how alternative paradigms in the workplace can be developed which address the downsides of neoliberalism.

Content uploaded by P. Matthijs Bal

Content may be subject to copyright.

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=pewo20

European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology

ISSN: 1359-432X (Print) 1464-0643 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/pewo20

Neoliberal ideology in work and organizational

psychology

P. Matthijs Bal & Edina Dóci

To cite this article: P. Matthijs Bal & Edina Dóci (2018): Neoliberal ideology in work and

organizational psychology, European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, DOI:

10.1080/1359432X.2018.1449108

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/1359432X.2018.1449108

Published online: 07 Mar 2018.

Submit your article to this journal

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Neoliberal ideology in work and organizational psychology

P. Matthijs Bal

a,b

and Edina Dóci

Lincoln International Business School, University of Lincoln, Lincoln, UK;

Department of Industrial Psychology and People Management,

University of Johannesburg, Johannesburg, South Africa;

Department of Management & Organization, VU University Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the

Netherlands

ABSTRACT

This paper explores the role of neoliberal ideology in workplace practices and in work and organiza-

tional psychology (WOP) research. It analyses how neoliberal ideology manifests in these two domains

by using a prominent framework from the field of political theory to understand ideology through three

different logics: political, social and fantasmatic logics. We explore the main neoliberal assumptions

underlying existing practices in the workplace as well as in WOP research, how individuals are gripped

by such practices, and how the status quo is maintained. The paper analyses how individuals in the

contemporary workplace are henceforth influenced by neoliberalism, and how this is reflected in the

practices and dominant paradigms within WOP. In particular, we focus on three ways neoliberalism

affects workplaces and individual experiences of the workplace: through instrumentality, individualism

and competition. The paper finishes with practical recommendations for researchers and practitioners

alike on how to devote more attention to the, often implicit, role of neoliberal ideology in their work

and research. The discussion elaborates on how alternative paradigms in the workplace can be

developed which address the downsides of neoliberalism.

ARTICLE HISTORY

Received 25 September 2017

Accepted 2 March 2018

KEYWORDS

Ideology; neo-liberalism;

work and organizational

psychology; individualism;

instrumentality

The global economic crisis that started in 2007 continues to

affect societies and economies worldwide (IMF, 2016). Many

Western countries experience a sharp rise of income inequal-

ity, underemployment and unemployment (Galbraith, 2012;

Heyes, Tomlinson, & Whitworth, 2017; Piketty, 2014), and

thus continue to face concerns regarding social justice,

income equality and sustaining enough employment for the

people (IMF, 2016). Several authors have argued that the

causes of the crisis can be attributed to a dominance of a

neoliberal ideology in society (Harvey, 2005; Morgan, 2015;

Peck, Theodore, & Brenner, 2009). neoliberalism is a political-

economic ideology which postulates that to enhance human

well-being, it is necessary to maximize individual economic

freedom in society (Fine & Saad-Filho, 2017; Harvey, 2005).

Despite the academic work that has shown how neoliberal

ideology has contributed to the onset of the economic crisis

(e.g., Ayers & Saad-Filho, 2015; Kotz, 2009; Wigger & Buch-

Hansen, 2012), there is yet little understanding of how this

ideology has affected people at work (Delbridge & Keenoy,

2010; Harvey, 2005).

Moreover, itis striking how thus far the literature in the field of

work and organizational psychology (WOP) has neglected the

role of neoliberal ideology. This is important as it has been argued

that scientific research is profoundly influenced by ideologies

underpinning research questions and theoretical framing (e.g.,

Greenwood & Van Buren, 2017). Despite the calls for more

research on ideology in management (George, 2014;Grote,

2017), there is still little understanding of the role of ideology in

WOP. As it has been claimed that neoliberalism is currently the

dominant ideology in Western societies and beyond (Curran &

Hill, 2017;Harvey,2005;Morgan,2015; Van Apeldoorn &

Overbeek, 2012), it is important to analyse how neoliberal ideol-

ogy has affected WOP as a discipline, and in particular the

assumptions underlying research. On the one hand, neoliberal-

ism has affected the workplace and how people behave in the

workplace, while on the other hand, WOP as a discipline is also

affected by neoliberalism through incorporating neoliberal

assumptions in its research practices. There are a several pro-

blems resulting from a lack of understanding concerning the role

of neoliberal ideology in WOP. First, neoliberalism shapes main

assumptions within the field, and a lack of awareness causes

researchers to make choices in their research which are ideologi-

cally informed and may not be aligned with the values of the

researcher. Second, neoliberalism has been argued to have pro-

found negative effects on social justice and equality (Harvey,

2005), and lack of awareness of neoliberal ideology may legiti-

mize rather than contest neoliberal ideology in WOP. Finally,

pluralism of science is threatenedwhen scholars implicitly adhere

to a particular ideology without being aware of doing so.

This paper will analyse the logics underpinning neoliberal

ideology in the workplace and in the practices and research of

WOP. We will explain how neoliberalism has permeated the

workplace and WOP. In so doing, assumptions underpinning

WOP-research remain within neoliberal ideology, thereby lim-

iting pluralism of scientific research and narrowing the avail-

able discourse in which research can be conducted and

CONTACT P. Matthijs Bal mbal@lincoln.ac.uk

Thanks to Simon de Jong and Benjamin de Cleen for their comments on earlier drafts of the paper.

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF WORK AND ORGANIZATIONAL PSYCHOLOGY, 2018

https://doi.org/10.1080/1359432X.2018.1449108

debated. Subsequently, the paper offers ways through which

neoliberal ideology can be better acknowledged in research

such that alternative paradigms can be introduced and

defended.

Ideology and work and organizational psychology

The concept of ideology is used in different ways in WOP, but

primarily in relation to how ideological beliefs drive workplace

behaviours. For instance, ideology has been defined as “a

valued cause or principle (not limited to self-interest) that

are implicitly exchanged at the nexus of the individual-orga-

nization relationship”(Thompson & Bunderson, 2003, p.574).

This definition is strongly tied to the purpose and values of

organizations (Bal & Vink, 2011; Thompson & Bunderson,

2003). Moreover, this perspective on ideology implies a strong

alignment with organizational purpose and how this is com-

municated to employees and other stakeholders. Using ideol-

ogy in this sense, however, runs the risk of becoming the

“painting of a positive and appealing picture, legitimizing

certain interests and a specific social order”(Alvesson &

Kärreman, 2016, p.140). More fundamentally, ideology consti-

tutes not only the explicit, intentional attempts within the

social order to create an image of society and the workplace

as it should be, but also the lesser known, invisible under-

standings of the social order itself (Glynos, 2008;Žižek, 1989,

2001).

Hence, it is needed not only to understand the role of

ideology at the level of intended purposes of organizations,

but also at the level of the social order itself. We therefore

need to study dominant practices in the workplace, as well as

how research and practice in WOP adopt norms about the

workplace. To do so, we will use recent work in the field of

political theory to explore the three logics of ideology, and to

analyse how these appear in the workplace and WOP (Glynos,

2001,2008). Glynos (2008,2011)) differentiates three logics

through which ideology permeates the workplace: political,

social and fantasmatic logic (Glynos & Howarth, 2007). These

three jointly explain how ideology affects the workplace and

WOP and since neoliberalism is currently the dominant para-

digm in the Western world and organizations we apply these

logics to neoliberalism.

Political logic refers to the political dimension of social

relations, and describes an ideology’s core rules, norms and

understandings. Political logic explains how political discourse

influences people’s beliefs, how certain phenomena becomes

politicized or de-politicized (and thus non-challengeable), and

how political frontiers are constructed, contested, challenged

and transformed (Glynos, 2008). The final result of this process

of contestation and de-contestation is that some rules become

so axiomatic that they become invisible. For instance, indivi-

dualism as underpinning contemporary Western society is

presented not as something that is externally imposed upon

people, but is believed to constitute an inherent aspect of

contemporary society, or something that is intrinsically

“good”(Bauman, 2000; Oyserman, Coon, & Kemmelmeier,

2002). Hence, in Western society, there are implicit rules and

norms that pertain to the individual responsibility of human

beings to be self-reliant and to ensure one’s own success in

life. This has also been described as the need to become an

“entrepreneur of the self”(Bauman, 2000;Žižek, 2014). In other

words, people must design and develop their own lives, in

order to be functional and successful in contemporary society.

This neglects the fact that not all people may have similar

possibilities to enact their individualized responsibilities, which

thus may accentuate existing inequalities in society and the

workplace (Cobb, 2016; Littler, 2013).

Social logic is the actual manifestation of politicized rela-

tions in concrete practices, referring to how the political

dimensions are enacted and performed (Glynos, 2008).

Political logic informs social logic, and explains how and why

social practices appear or disappear, become dominant, and

how they are questioned and contested. Social logic thus

explains which practices are dominant in the workplace and

in WOP-research. For instance, the individualization of society

(Bauman, 2000; Curran & Hill, 2017) has caused employees to

become self-reliant, forcing them to negotiate their own con-

tract terms at work (Rousseau, 2005), and to be proactive at

work and “employable”(Parker & Bindl, 2017). In contrast,

those individuals who are less capable to do so, are not

protected anymore through regulation, through which they

are more likely to be forced into suboptimal, insecure jobs and

working conditions. Hence, dominant norms of individualiza-

tion and self-reliance in society are sustained and translated

into workplace practices, and individuals experience the

effects of individualism through the need to individually

negotiate contract terms which used to be covered by labour

law, collective agreements and HR policies.

Finally, fantasmatic logic explains why ideologically

informed social practices and political understandings appeal

to people. In other words, it explains how and why ideology

grips people, and thus, why its notions and practices come to

exist, become hegemonic and continue to exist (Glynos, 2008,

2011). It is argued that to sustain a dominant ideology in

society, fantasy supports the resistance to change of social

practices (Glynos, 2008). It does so by offering a gratifying

narrative to people that prevents the contestation of social

norms and the politicization of workplace practices, thus mak-

ing power relations less visible or even desirable (Glynos,

2008). Fantasy offers a way through which people can escape

into ideology (Žižek, 2014), thereby not having to recognize

the contradictions within the system and its practices through

means of disavowal. It is through such fantasies that people

are able to remain within a flawed system, and despite being

aware to some extent of its inherent contradictions, disavow

individual responsibility for sustaining current practices. We

now turn to the analysis of the dominant ideology of neoli-

beralism (Fine & Saad-Filho, 2017), and analyse its impact on

the workplace and WOP on the political, social and fantas-

matic level.

neoliberalism as ideology

neoliberalism is a political-economic theory about the

advancement of human well-being (Fine & Saad-Filho, 2017;

Harvey, 2005; Lazzarato, 2009). Moreover, neoliberalism also

constitutes an ideology, as it defines not only the implicit

understandings in society, but has also “penetrated

2P. M. BAL AND E. DÓCI

common-sense understandings”(Harvey, 2005, p.41), which

means that across the world, neoliberalism is widely perceived

as the natural state of affairs. Due to the hybrid nature of

neoliberalism (Peck et al., 2009), it is not surprising that

equivalent terms are used which essentially refer to the

same ideology, such as American corporate capitalism

(George, 2014), managerialism (Alvesson & Spicer, 2016;

Clegg, 2014; Delbridge & Keenoy, 2010) and corporatism

(Suarez-Villa, 2012). In the remainder of this paper, neoliberal-

ism is used as it concerns the most widely used term (Harvey,

2005; Van Apeldoorn & Overbeek, 2012). The core principle of

neoliberalism is that human welfare will be maximized when

individuals have ultimate economic freedom to act. In contrast

to more traditional notions of liberalism, neoliberal ideology

does not postulate that freedom is bounded by morality, but

that morality follows from economic freedom (Harvey, 2005).

The philosophy of unlimited economic freedom as part of

neoliberalism is based on the notion of the “invisible hand”

which determines in a free market the distribution of

resources (Sedlacek, 2011). neoliberalism therefore argues

that it is needed to ensure government withdrawal from the

market, such that the invisible hand can do its work in estab-

lishing a system where those who work hard are rewarded (cf.

the notion of meritocracy). Within the neoliberal perspective,

every human being is seen as a homo economicus, or a rational

agent, who acts strategically and out of self-interest and is

focused on utility maximization (George, 2014; Sedlacek,

2011). As every individual is supposed to make rational and

strategic decisions in social life, the unregulated, free market

will ensure that those with the highest quality for the best

price will prevail. In line with this theory, the government

should not interfere with the free market, and thus needs to

withdraw itself from the public sphere as much as possible.

Hence, the government needs to deregulate, privatize the

public sector, and withdraw itself from social provisions, such

as unemployment and healthcare benefits and social housing

(Peck et al., 2009).

neoliberalism also involves explicit attempts at reducing

the power of trade unions, increasing the number of tempor-

ary workers rather than offering permanent employment, and

the use of market principles in organizations (Bidwell, Briscoe,

Fernandez-Mateo, & Sterling, 2013; Kotz, 2009). The rise of pay

for performance, and the reduced role of employers in provid-

ing benefits to employees (such as retirement or health care

benefits) have all been seen as neoliberal practices at work

(Bidwell et al., 2013; Morgan, 2015). The hypothesized end

result of these activities is a completely free market, where

organizations can openly compete with each other, and where

people can freely consume against the best price for the

highest quality (Harvey, 2005).

Another aspect of neoliberalism is the “commodification of

everything”(Harvey, 2005, p.165). This entails the notion that

every aspect of human life should be exchangeable on the

market, as the market operates as an “ethic”in itself. On the

free market, not only goods and services are exchanged for

money, but also labour itself. Work in neoliberalism is nothing

more than another commodity. People sell their labour to an

organization in return for a salary, and thus, labour becomes a

commodity that can be freely exchanged on the labour

market. This constitutes a transactional perspective on the

employment relationship (Rousseau & McLean Parks, 1993),

and in particular the notion that all employees have to indivi-

dually negotiate their own contract with an employer (Harvey,

2005). Hence, in neoliberalism the meaning of work is reduced

to a mere transaction between two parties, thereby neglecting

the intrinsic meaning of work and employment relationships

for people.

Effects of neoliberal ideology

neoliberalism has had various effects. First, deregulation, pri-

vatization and governmental withdrawal from social provi-

sions have caused power to shift from governments towards

(multinational) corporations (George, 2014). As the free market

focuses on competition among organizations, shareholder

value and profit maximization (Lazonick, 2014; Porter &

Kramer, 2011), a distinction is created between the winners

and the losers in the free market. Consequently, a small num-

ber of organizations and individuals have been able to control

a substantial share of the (global) market (Vitali, Glattfelder, &

Battiston, 2011). This growing gap between powerful corpora-

tions and individuals has led to greater income inequality

(Bidwell et al., 2013; Cobb, 2016; Galbraith, 2012), which is

indicative of the contrast between neoliberal ideology with

the experienced reality of people. As free markets favour the

strongest, and without the protection of governmental regu-

lation (e.g., healthcare, unemployment and housing benefits),

it is the vulnerable people who are most likely to suffer from

the implications of increased self-reliance (Bauman, 2000).

Hence, growing inequality shows how ideology and the

experiences of people are increasingly dissonant (Stiglitz,

2012; Wisman, 2013).

An analysis of neoliberal impact on the workplace

and WOP

Our main argument is that neoliberal ideology has profoundly

impacted the workplace and WOP as a discipline. Ideology is

largely implicit, and about what is “not said”(Glynos, 2008;

Žižek, 1989). Hence, it is often difficult to directly assess the

influence of ideology on the workplace and scholarly articles,

as its impact can be rather implicit and hidden. Moreover,

many scholars in WOP may be unlikely to identify fully with

neoliberal ideology. However, as scholars (including the

authors of the current article) are also part of a system that

is permeated by neoliberal ideology, they are both pushed to

focus on the neoliberal elements within WOP, and pulled

towards neoliberal ideology, through the fantasies explained

below (Glynos, 2001,2008). The (original) intentions of a

researcher, and the ways research is interpreted and used to

prescribe practices dictated by neoliberal ideology may be

disconnected (see for instance research on employability;

Chertkovskaya, Watt, Tramer, & Spoelstra, 2013). Table 1 pre-

sents an overview of the three logics used to understand the

precise impact of neoliberal ideology on both the workplace

and WOP. This model describes a somewhat generalized

reflection of how neoliberalism permeates the workplace,

while reality is more nuanced and featured by contradictions.

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF WORK AND ORGANIZATIONAL PSYCHOLOGY 3

Political logic of the workplace

The political logic of neoliberalism in the workplace is three-

fold. First, instrumentality refers to how people and resources

are valued, and is closely aligned with the principle of com-

modification (Harvey, 2005). In neoliberalism, everything

becomes instrumental to generate profitability, including

labour and people in organizations. At the same time, people

are supposed to be rational utility maximizers (Harvey, 2005),

who are likely to perceive any other party in the market

equally instrumental towards the achievement of one’s own

goals. Under neoliberalism, organizations are alike in their

focus on profit maximization and shareholder value (Porter &

Kramer, 2011), and therefore treat everything as a commodity

that can be used to generate profit. People are merely instru-

mental to the achievement of organizational goals, and vice

versa, people are likely to approach the relationship with an

employer solely with instrumental goals in mind. Thus, the

employment relationship is nothing more than an instrumen-

tal exchange between two parties, which does not have any

value beyond an instrumental one. For the organization, there

is no need to invest in the employee, unless it contributes to

organizational goals. When profitability or shareholder value

can be increased by laying off people, there is essentially no

argument against it (Gilbert, 2000). Hence, political logic deter-

mines the workplace to be instrumental, and driven by trans-

actional agreements between employee and organization.

A second political logic in relation to the workplace is the

focus on individualism (see Table 1). neoliberalism is inher-

ently an individualistic ideology (Harvey, 2005), through posi-

tioning the utility for the individual as central to the structures

of society. Each individual is expected to be self-interested,

and to pursue maximization of one’s own outcomes.

Individualism refers not only to the opportunity for individuals

to pursue their individual goals and desires, but also to the

individual responsibility and accountability for one’s actions

and well-being (Bauman, 2000; Harvey, 2005). Hence, in neo-

liberalism, people are expected to be self-reliant, and to

ensure their own well-being, education, employability, wealth,

societal success and so on (Oyserman et al., 2002).

In consequence, the contemporary worker has become his

or her own mini-capitalist, an entrepreneur of the self, invest-

ing in his/her own future, including one’s education and

health (Bauman, 2000;Žižek, 2014). Whereas education, health

and unemployment benefits used to be rights in the welfare

states, this is increasingly replaced by a system where one has

to individually invest in one’s own future and employability

(e.g., through paying high university fees, health care and

unemployment insurance, and personalized pension plans;

Žižek, 2014). The rationale for this is through the rhetoric of

opportunity and free choice. The contemporary worker has

the opportunity to invent her/himself (Bauman, 2000), and has

a free choice over how to design her/his life and career.

Freedom of choice implies that people are truly free, however,

their freedom is limited to the extent that they are free to

make the right choices, which are externally determined

through ideology (Žižek, 1989). If one makes the wrong

choice, one loses the “freedom to choose”itself. In other

words, the contemporary human being has a free choice to

be an entrepreneur, but by making the “wrong”choice, loses

the right to do so, which leads to either unemployment or

precarious work (Bauman, Bauman, Kociatkiewicz, & Kostera,

2015).

Competition represents the third political logic. At the

organizational level, competition has co-aligned with the neo-

liberal doctrine of privatization (e.g., of health care, education,

energy and public transport). Organizations are postulated to

compete with each other on the market, and accordingly

organizations need to be managed such that they are compe-

titive (e.g., through creating sustained competitive advantage;

Barney, 1991). However, employees also have to become

competitive on the labour market, where existing organiza-

tional practices such as selective hiring and talent manage-

ment support a system of competition among employees for

the best careers, jobs and positions (Delbridge & Keenoy,

2010). The result is that employees are no longer focused on

being skilled in a job or developing themselves to fulfil intrin-

sic needs for development (Bal, 2017), but to outcompete

others for the best jobs and careers. This leads to an extrinsic

motivation where individuals should be competitive, educate

themselves, engage in “organizational citizenship behavior”,

and build up competitive CV’s to be more employable and

desirable than others (Lazzarato, 2009). In sum, neoliberal

political logic dictates about the instrumental, the individua-

lized and the competitive nature of the contemporary work-

place. The next question, however, is how these manifest in

concrete workplace practices.

Social logic of the workplace

The social logic pertains to how ideology manifests in con-

crete practices in the workplace, and how people enact these

norms (Harvey, 2005; Morgan, 2015). In particular, there are

several aspects of the workplace in which neoliberal ideology

manifests: the prevalence of the business case,

Table 1. Logics of neoliberal ideology in the workplace and WOP.

Neoliberal ideology

Workplace

Work and organizational psychology

(WOP)

Political

logic

●Instrumentality

●Individualism

●Competition

●Instrumentality

●Individualism

●Competition

Social logic ●Business case

●Individualization

●Decline of

labour

agreements

●Contracts

●Quantitative

assessment

●Control and

monitoring

●Instrumentality of employees

goals in scientific models, and

topics of research

●Growing interest in individualized

topics

●Practical recommendations to

improve organizational

performance

●Use of theory, models and con-

cepts to explain contribution of

individual employees to organiza-

tional performance

Fantasmatic

logic

●Freedom

●Meritocracy &

social

Darwinism

●Growth & pro-

gress

●Harmonious employment

relationship

●Social engineering

4P. M. BAL AND E. DÓCI

individualization as a process and the decline of collective

labour agreements, the contractualization of employment,

and the rising impact of quantitative assessment, control and

monitoring. Jointly, they explain how neoliberalism has per-

vaded the very nature of how the workplace is constructed.

The emphasis on instrumentality and competition in the

workplace has manifested through the use of the “business

case”in the management of organizations: every action and

investment of the organization and the people working for the

organization should contribute to the competitiveness of the

organization (Greenwood & Van Buren, 2017; Harvey, 2005).

The use of the business case aligns with the idea of organiza-

tions being primarily instrumentally managed: all that takes

place in the organization should be contributing to organiza-

tional performance, profit and shareholder value, and all

employee activity is subject to these goals. Moreover, the

business case also aligns with the idea of competition: as

every organization is competing with other organizations in

the free market, organizations need to justify every investment

and expenditure in line with the business case. Employees

themselves are integral part of this, where their value is purely

instrumental to the organization, and therefore they must

continuously prove their worth in competition with other

employees or applicants.

For organizations and neoliberal governments to realize

this potential of the “business case organization”, where every-

thing and everyone is instrumental and competitive, it has

been well-documented how the power of trade unions has

systematically been reduced since the 1980s (Harvey, 2005;

Morgan, 2015). Consequently, the decline of collective repre-

sentation and labour agreements co-aligned with the process

of individualization of society and workplaces.

Individualization differs from individualism, as the latter is

defined by the independence of people from each other

(Oyserman et al., 2002), while the former refers to the process

of change within societies where individuals increasingly per-

ceive themselves as individuals rather than part of collectives,

and where societal structures are gradually adapting to a more

individualized nature of its structures and norms (Bal, 2017).

Inherent to the process of individualization, are changes such

as individual employees increasingly having to arrange their

own work conditions, and becoming less reliant on existing

(protective) regulation. For instance, the rise of temporary

work and self-employed contractors provide organizations

with the desired flexibility to hire and fire workers at will

without the necessity to provide lifetime employment and

benefits such as development, job security and work-life bal-

ance (Bal & Jansen, 2016). Consequently, the employment

relationship can increasingly be described as transactional

(Bal, 2017; Rousseau & McLean Parks, 1993), whereby the

value of long-term commitment to organizations has lost its

meaning.

Instrumentality, individualism and competition have also

led to a focus on quantitative assessment, control and mon-

itoring within organizational life. To ensure that organizations

become and remain competitive, organizations need to

become efficient (Alvesson & Spicer, 2016). To implement

comparable ways to establish the “efficient organization”,

managers need quantitative measures to compare employee

performance. While these provide ways of comparison, they

do not necessarily carry validity and reliability of what they

intend to measure. Moreover, while the desire to be competi-

tive meant that all processes, activities and people in organi-

zations needed to be comparable using quantitative

measures, the resulting bureaucracy has led to the contradic-

tion of the hyperflexible, yet bureaucratic organization, where

people are closely monitored in their daily activities (Alvesson

& Spicer, 2016). In other words, for organizations to be com-

petitive, it is needed that comparisons can be made between

organizations and within organizations. The use of strict mon-

itoring and control has therefore become a central aspect of

the contemporary workplace (Vallas, 1999), strongly affecting

employees’work experience.

Fantasmatic logic of the workplace

Fantasmatic logic explains why the practices discussed above

continue to exist, by revealing the underlying motives through

which such practices appeal to and grip people (Glynos, 2008,

2011), and thus are actively maintained by them. We identify

three elements within neoliberal ideology which pertain to the

“fantasy-level”: the freedom fantasy, the logic of meritocracy

and social Darwinism, and the belief in growth and progress.

Individual freedom as a fundamental value has always been

at the centre of neoliberal thought (Freeden, 2003; Harvey,

2005). neoliberal ideology appeals to people by emphasizing

the importance of people’s freedom to choose, and their

ability to make decisions for themselves (Ayers & Saad-Filho,

2015; Bauman, 2000). Individual freedom (and well-being) is

ensured by the freedom of the market, the “deregulation of

everything”, and the liberation of the individual as entrepre-

neur (Bauman, 2000; Harvey, 2005). At the heart of neo-liberal-

ism’sfreedom fantasy is the notion that neoliberalism is the

exclusive guardian of freedom, defending it from the interven-

tionist and regulating state, paternalistic forms of organizing

and oppressive collectives. Thus, the role of the state shall be

limited to ensuring freedom and a well-functioning market

(Harvey, 2005).

In the domain of work, (individual) freedom in the neolib-

eral organization refers to the individual’s freedom to choose

(and leave) their employer, the freedom to negotiate for one-

self, the freedom to design one’s time arrangements, and the

freedom to manage and design one’s career and development

at work (Harvey, 2005; Hornung, Rousseau, & Glaser, 2008). As

opposed to the rigid and bureaucratic burdens of collective

action and state intervention, neoliberalism offers the freedom

of flexible labour relations and flexible time arrangements. The

deal that the paternalistic organization used to offer to

employees was “a power for patronage”bargain (Schwalbe

et al., 2000): the employee accepted their subordination to

organizational authorities and interests and in return offered

loyalty to the organization. The organization offered life-long

employment and benefits in exchange for the work and com-

mitment of the employee (Sims, 1994).

neoliberal ideology offers freedom to the individual, which

replaces patronage. In the centre of the freedom fantasy is the

agentic and free individual who can take care of her/himself,

who is in no need of the state’s, the organization’s or any

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF WORK AND ORGANIZATIONAL PSYCHOLOGY 5

authority’s protection. The price the individual must pay for

this freedom is to accept responsibility for their own employ-

ment and well-being (Bal & Jansen, 2016). If the individual fails

to succeed, it is their personal failure as “entrepreneur of the

self”(Harvey, 2005; Kalleberg, 2009). The freedom fantasy

implies that neoliberalism has emancipated the individual

from the heavy burdens of the bureaucratic, rigid relations of

the paternalistic organization, trade unions and collective

organizing, and instead, offers the individual the freedom to

assert oneself on the market, compete with others and realize

one’s interests. Through this fantasy, neoliberalism “grips”the

individual, and makes individualization, competition and

instrumentality seem appealing and desirable as it offers free-

dom to the people.

The freedom fantasy is closely related to the second fantas-

matic logic that neoliberalism offers, the fantasy of meritoc-

racy. Meritocracy has been described as the notion that merit

and talent should be the basis for how people are rewarded in

society and the workplace (Ayers & Saad-Filho, 2015; Castilla &

Benard, 2010). Success is primarily the result of willpower, hard

work and an enterprising mind (and not of one’s largely

inherited social, cultural and economic capital, Bourdieu,

1986). Thus, the fantasy of meritocracy refers to the belief

that all people get what they deserve (Littler, 2013).

Meritocracy is important in the context of neoliberalism, as

its principle of fairness in the distribution of talents and suc-

cess in life legitimizes the status quo and the position of

existing elites, as they have deserved their position due to

their innate talents and hard work.

While research shows that actual meritocracy is largely

absent in contemporary society (Fine & Saad-Filho, 2017;

Littler, 2013), the ideal of meritocracy remains a powerful

force in sustaining hegemonic, neoliberal ideology in society,

thereby underpinning the viability of current practices (Glynos,

2008). Hence, the ideas underlying meritocracy constitute a

fantasy, because at present resources are not distributed in

line with each individual’s talents and efforts as applied

through their daily labour (Littler, 2013), but are increasingly

clustered at the top. Innate differences and structural power

differences are often de-emphasized in neoliberal ideology

(Burke, 2013). By emphasizing the relationships between effort

and merit, neoliberal ideology ignores structural differences

among people due to privilege, including one’s social class,

ethnicity or gender (Burke, 2013; Littler, 2013).

The logic of meritocracy is closely related to Social

Darwinism (Tienken, 2013). Social Darwinism departs from

the point of view of natural selection, and that the fittest will

survive, or those who are best able to adapt to changing

circumstances in the environment (Tienken, 2013). The fantas-

matic logic of neoliberalism pertains to the natural selection

between those who are able to survive and thrive in the

contemporary workplace and those who are unable to do so.

The latter group will be forced into suboptimal work condi-

tions, such as temporary work, job insecurity, low pay, few

opportunities for developments and so forth. The evolutionary

logic of social Darwinism complemented with the idea of

meritocracy offers a compelling rationale for the neoliberal

organizing of society. Similar to how successful human evolu-

tion depended on the survival of the fittest, for the sake of

progress of human society and for the sake of well-functioning

organizations, the strong and capable must succeed.

Competition is thus seen as indispensable and fair, given

that everyone has the same chances to succeed in it (Harvey,

2005). Moreover, this fantasmatic logic does not only legiti-

mize individualization and instrumentalization, but makes

these processes seem desirable. In a competitive –but fair –

setting, where the legitimate end goal is outperforming others

and winning, everyone should be individualistic and instru-

mentally orientated. Within this logic, where individual success

is the guarantee of societal success, it is fair that other people

become individualistic and instrumental in the journey

towards one’s self-realization.

Besides people internalizing the drive to compete with

others (and individualize and instrumentalize themselves and

others in the process), the above mentioned neoliberal fanta-

sies have yet another function. They legitimize the notion that

in a society organized around competition, there will always

be “losers”. Because the losers of neoliberal competition are

the feeble who did not make use of their freedom and oppor-

tunities, it is legitimate that they do not receive support and

protection from poverty and isolation (Harvey, 2005). They are

the unfortunate but inevitable by-products of fair competition.

These fantasies therefore serve the purpose of soothing peo-

ple’s conscious in the face of social injustice and exploitation.

In so doing, they prevent the contestation of power relations

and collective mobilization, and ultimately, ensure sustaining

work practices (Glynos, 2008).

In neoliberalism, there is another set of underlying beliefs,

one that we identify as the fantasy of growth and progress. This

fantasy is twofold: it concerns a belief that when people exert

effort and become more “productive”, they will grow both in

status and as a person, but it also involves a belief that this

growth is inherently good. The notion that an individual stops

growing (in status or personally), or a society not making

progress anymore, falls beyond the scope of the fantasy. The

explanation of this resides in the meaning of fantasy itself; a

fantasy always involves a desire for more, for accumulation of

possession, status, or fulfilment (Žižek, 1989).

On the societal level, this fantasy has been institutionalized

through the growth-economy; whenever a country stops hav-

ing economic growth, it immediately enters a recession, with

all associated negative consequences, such as mass layoffs

and unemployment (Sedlacek, 2011). At the individual level,

people depend on their market value for survival and success

in a society organized around competition, where traditional

welfare state structures, labour unions and social support

systems are being dismantled (Harvey, 2005). In such a setting

the individual is susceptible to the fantasy of personal growth

and becomes overly focused on their individual progress and

development, which is identical to continuously maintaining

and enhancing one’s own market value. This way, the indivi-

dual instrumentalizes, commodifies and exploits her/himself.

This is the mechanism through which fantasmatic logic pre-

serves hegemonic ideology: being gripped by the fantasy, the

individual internalizes the ideology to the extent that it

becomes integral part of the individual’s identity and aspira-

tions. This way, there is no need for exercising coercive power

for the ideology to maintain its hegemonic position in

6P. M. BAL AND E. DÓCI

organizations and society (Glynos, 2008). Furthermore, the

belief in growth and progress is yet another fantasmatic

device that smoothens out the ambiguities of neoliberalism.

If the ultimate goal is to grow and progress, then the growth

and progress of a few is not only fair, but ultimately beneficial

for society as a whole (Harvey, 2005). The growth and progress

fantasy thus makes a competitive, individualistic and instru-

mental stance in society look reasonable and even inevitable:

if it is the individual’s striving for personal growth and pro-

gress that makes society as a whole well-functioning, then it is

entirely legitimate and desirable that individuals care primarily

about their own interests, strive to outcompete others and

regard others instrumental in this process.

Political logic of work and organizational psychology

The political logic of WOP can be understood in similar ways

to political logics underpinning the workplace. An implicit

assumption underlying the field of WOP pertains to positivism,

with a specific intention to study the workplace as it is,orin

objective ways (Bal, 2015; Keenoy & Delbridge, 2010).

However, a positivistic stance already implies a political logic,

as it depoliticizes WOP-research claiming that it is non-ideolo-

gical (Žižek, 1989). Within the positivist paradigm, research is

meant to convey the truth and thus, its axioms, constructs,

theories, methods and findings are not to be challenged (at

least not on a political basis). Yet, every scientific discipline has

an ideological dimension, even if holders of hegemonic ideol-

ogies often claim that their beliefs are not ideological but

reflect how things really are (Freeden, 2003). Therefore it is

important to take into account the ideological beliefs under-

pinning WOP. Even though there is some attention in WOP for

themes resulting from “experienced neoliberal ideology”such

as inequality (Cobb, 2016) and insecurity (Vander Elst, Näswall,

Bernhard-Oettel, De Witte, & Sverke, 2016), the influence of

instrumentality, individualism and competition are deeply

integrated into the implicit assumptions underlying WOP

research. While few WOP-researchers may identify themselves

as being neoliberal scholars, we are operating in a system that

pressures us to adhere to neoliberal principles, even though

personally we may not agree with them. It is therefore of

utmost importance to assess our assumptions and to critically

evaluate these.

First, the instrumental perspective underpins WOP theory

and research as much as it underpins the contemporary

employment relationship (Baruch, 2015). This means that

WOP research primarily approaches the employment relation-

ship in instrumental, transactional terms (Rousseau & McLean

Parks, 1993); that is, the employee delivers a performance

which is of interest to the employer as it contributes to

organizational productivity (e.g., profitability or shareholder

value; Walsh, 2007). This assumption guiding WOP research

reflects neoliberal instrumentality: research takes interest in

the employee as a resource that can be harnessed for organi-

zational interests, instead of taking interest in her/him as a

human being.

Within this perspective, work in itself is not considered to

have an intrinsic value, and employee experiences and well-

being are not relevant outcomes as such, as long as they do

not contribute to organizationally-relevant outcomes. For

instance, in retirement research (e.g., Bal, De Jong, Jansen, &

Bakker, 2012; Zacher, 2015), arguments usually do not revolve

around the intrinsic value of work in later stages of life, but are

primarily based on the extrinsic value of older workers for

organizations. In the employee training and development lit-

erature (e.g., Lepak & Snell, 1999), investment of organizations

in employee training is usually presented as a paradox, as

training may on the one hand enhance employee commit-

ment and thus their intention to remain with the organization,

while on the other hand, it increases employability, through

which employees may be more likely to obtain a better job

elsewhere. This apparent paradox resides within the instru-

mental logic, and neglects the more general intrinsic value of

development for people and society. The instrumental logic

also reveals itself through the absence of the acknowledge-

ment of the organization’s responsibility for workers’develop-

ment regardless of whether they intend to stay or not, as

development (and education) may be considered an intrinsic

societal value. The underlying concern here is that researchers

usually do not acknowledge the assumptions or ideological

basis on which their research is founded, while implicitly

adhering to a neoliberal logic.

Moreover, individualism is also present as political logic

underpinning WOP. There is an inherent relationship between

individualism and WOP, as the field has been built on the

centrality of the individual employee and her/his work experi-

ences. While this is not necessarily neoliberal, WOP research

tends to ignore the structural factors underpinning employee

behaviours, thereby attributing a personal and individualized

responsibility for how individuals behave in the workplace.

The focus on the individual employee indicates the implicit

assumption that the individual is primarily responsible and

accountable for ensuring employability, high quality jobs and

engagement at work. For instance, the review of Grant and

Parker (2009)on work design theory explicitly discusses how

the classic job characteristics theory of Hackman and Oldham

(1975), which principally focused on how organizations should

design meaningful jobs for workers, has been exchanged for

relational and proactive theories, which emphasize the role of

individual workers in crafting their jobs. While it is not expli-

citly argued that employees should be proactive, and thus are

individually responsible and accountable, the attention to

these individualistic notions of work design carry significant,

implicit meaning, as it draws away the attention from the

responsibility of the organization towards the responsibility

of individual employees to design their own jobs and careers.

Finally, competition is also central in the political logic

underlying WOP, as research in the field assumes the work-

place to be a competitive domain where employees are com-

peting with each other for scarce resources (Call, Nyberg, &

Thatcher, 2015). In other words, employees in WOP-research

are assumed to be self-interested, rational actors who are

utility maximizers (Harvey, 2005). Employees in WOP-research

are claimed to be interested in performance, innovation,

career success, salary increases and promotions, as it fulfils

the need for growth and development. To do so, employees

are competing with each other for the best jobs and positions.

It is notable how within WOP, there is a tendency to focus on

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF WORK AND ORGANIZATIONAL PSYCHOLOGY 7

those employees who are proactive, successfully develop

careers, while somewhat neglecting the employees who are

not proactive, or who for reasons of inability or unwillingness

do not engage in proactive behaviours or career development

(Grant & Parker, 2009; Seibert, Crant, & Kraimer, 1999).

Social logic of WOP

It also needs to be analysed how political logic permeates the

research that is conducted in the field. While WOP is not

necessarily neoliberal (Bal, 2015), neoliberal influences can be

traced in how WOP research is being practiced and used. The

practice of research concerns the choice to study particular

phenomena, but also concerns the ways through which

researchers in WOP make claims, underpin their research,

and remain silent on particular choices that have been made

explicitly or implicitly.

Hence, neoliberalism can be traced in WOP by showing

how the principles of instrumentality, individualism and com-

petition inform research practices. On the one hand, instru-

mentality can be observed in the explicit integration of

organizationally-relevant outcomes in models of individual

work behaviours. An example concerns the model of

Messersmith and colleagues (Messersmith, Patel, Lepak, &

Gould-Williams, 2011) which tested employee attitudes as

mediator and as indicator of the “black box”explaining why

HRM affects performance. In these types of studies, employees

are merely instrumental to organizational goals, which

expresses the symbolic, implicit, meaning of WOP research:

while there is attention for the individual’s experience of a job,

this is important as it contributes to organizational outcomes

(see e.g., Dalal, 2005, which article begins by arguing that

performance is the criterion of organizational psychology).

On the other hand, instrumentality is also observed in how

research on particular topics is legitimized. For instance, the

review of Call et al. (2015)on“star employees”(cf. research on

high potentials) represents not only an overt interest in those

employees who do well, but also in those employees who do

better than others, thereby also representing the workplace as

a competitive domain where the primary interest of workers is

to outperform others. The instrumental reason is overt, as the

first sentence of their paper reads: “Stars are assumed to be

unique and add disproportionate organizational value com-

pared to nonstars”(Call et al., 2015, p. 623).

Furthermore, adherence to individualism is also present in

an increasing interest in individually-focused research topics,

such as individual deals (Bal et al., 2012; Hornung et al., 2008),

employability (Fugate, Kinicki, & Ashforth, 2004), job crafting

(Kooij, Van Woerkom, Wilkenloh, Dorenbosch, & Denissen,

2017) and proactivity (Parker & Bindl, 2017). While these con-

cepts are not inherently neoliberal, they are indicative of

individualism, in its conceptualization and use in practice.

For instance, research on job crafting (Kooij et al., 2017) may

carry implicit understandings of individual employee respon-

sibility to create and maintain interesting and meaningful jobs.

This is subsequently translated into practice through (further)

reduction of organizational responsibility to provide meaning-

ful work, and a pressure to reduce collective representation

(e.g., through labour unions) in negotiating meaningful jobs

for all employees, regardless of their individual capabilities for

negotiation.

It can also be observed how these concepts are used in a

competitive way. It is not surprising that concepts such as

proactivity, job crafting, employability, performance and crea-

tivity are popular topics of research in WOP. As they are

employee behaviours that are determined to be crucial in

the labour market (e.g., George, 2014; Seibert et al., 1999),

they are also indicative of the rise of competition underpin-

ning employee behaviours. More specifically, studies on topics

such as proactivity do not investigate whether people are

proactive in relation to a certain objective standard of what

can be considered to be proactive behaviour, but by definition

ascertain proactivity in a competitive way, through comparing

proactive behaviour of one employee vis-à-vis other employ-

ees (Bal, 2017). This is also notable in research on employ-

ability, which tends to ignore distinctions of class, gender or

ethnicity in its appeal to workers to become employable,

notwithstanding the potential exclusion of people on the

basis of these distinctions (Chertkovskaya et al., 2013).

Moreover, another consequence of scientific interest and

research on employability is that it projects norms on people

in the workplace to portray themselves in the most “desirable”

way towards employers. As a result, characteristics that do not

contribute to employability (e.g., neuroticism) are concealed,

thereby reducing the possibility for people to “be themselves”

in the workplace, and act upon their dignity (Bal, 2017). Hence,

the meaning of employability moves beyond what is explicitly

stated in research into practice, where it also includes the

more implicit understandings around the rhetoric of employ-

ability. Therefore, a scientific definition of employability as

“the likelihood of easily finding a new job”becomes competi-

tive in neoliberal discourse, as it implies that people make

themselves as desirable as possible, thereby potentially con-

cealing their non-employable characteristics. In so doing, they

compare vis-à-vis other people, or more generally, an ima-

gined version of the ideal employable employee as portrayed

in scientific publications.

Furthermore, practical recommendations are often pre-

sented to showcase the instrumental nature of WOP-topics

(e.g., proactivity is good for organizational performance) as

well as the individualized responsibility of these topics (e.g.,

employees should become more proactive). Yet, this may also

create a paradoxical situation, in which organizations are

recommended to invest in employees and to create mean-

ingful jobs, as this may enhance organizational outcomes

(Messersmith et al., 2011), but at the same time holding

individuals responsible to ensure they develop themselves

and remain employable (Greenwood & Van Buren, 2017).

This paradox is usually resolved through positioning invest-

ments in employees as contributing to competitive advantage

for organizations (and thus instrumental to the organization),

but nonetheless refraining from linking this to an explicit

organizational responsibility or employee entitlement. Hence,

instrumentality is influential in how WOP-research is translated

into practice; yet, it has also influenced research itself.

Instrumentality has had a profound impact on the devel-

opment of theories and models. Conceptual models are gen-

erally defined in terms of how they contribute to

8P. M. BAL AND E. DÓCI

organizational outcomes, such as performance, absence or

innovation (Messersmith et al., 2011). Moreover, it is also easier

for researchers to publish research that establishes a link

between employee attitudes and “objective”organizational

outcomes, such as financial profit or return-on-investment,

than it is to publish research focused on explaining “soft”

outcomes, such as well-being (Paauwe, 2004). The ultimate

goal of much WOP research tends to be to explain relation-

ships of subjective employee experiences with objective orga-

nizational outcomes, thereby adhering to an instrumental

logic which turns all subjectivity into the logic of the business

case. A notable example is the conceptual model of altruism

by Clarkson (2014), in which altruism in organizations is not

valued as such, but, according to the model, obtains its legiti-

macy through its potential effects on organizational success.

Altruism therefore does not have an intrinsic value, but only

extrinsic in the potential for objective success. The omitted

question is whether organizations should refrain from valuing

altruism when it does not enhance organizational outcomes

(or what to do when altruism goes against organizational

goals).

The instrumental logic also manifests in the use of theories

and concepts in WOP. One of the major theories in WOP is the

Social Exchange Theory (Blau, 1964; Cropanzano, Anthony,

Daniels, & Hall, 2017). Notwithstanding the explicit incorpora-

tion of differences between economic, social and ideological

exchange by Blau (1964), the theory has been primarily used

with an instrumental focus, postulating that employees and

organizations engage in an exchange relationship in which

both parties monitor how well the other party is fulfilling its

obligations in order to establish one’s own contributions.

Moreover, it is argued that for the organization, the exchange

relationship is rather instrumental, and has value only when it

contributes to organizational outcomes. For instance, while it

is generally perceived that trust is essential in exchange rela-

tionships (Blau, 1964), it is notable to see how trust research

heavily orientates towards explaining a relationship between

trust and performance outcomes (De Jong, Dirks, & Gillespie,

2016; Dirks & Ferrin, 2002). Hence, trust (and in extension

many WOP concepts) seems to have a value only when it

contributes to organizationally-relevant outcomes.

A potential counterargument against the dominance of the

instrumental logic in WOP is that there is much research which

does focus on intrinsic outcomes, such as employee well-

being, satisfaction, engagement and work-life balance.

Notwithstanding the validity of this critique, the more funda-

mental question underlying it, is whether these concepts are

used in such a way that they require an extrinsic logic to

defend their use. The concern is that intrinsic outcomes are

increasingly attributed to have extrinsic properties in their

relationships with outcomes which are not directly relevant

to the employee her/himself (e.g., commitment is only impor-

tant as it positively predicts performance). This raises the

question concerning the prioritization of outcomes for indivi-

duals, groups, organizations or society. For instance, when

shareholder value is prioritized over employment (Porter &

Kramer, 2011), organizations may engage in layoffs to enhance

shareholder value notwithstanding the negative conse-

quences for employees and society. The alternative, however,

is lacking; there is not yet an established discourse which

counteracts the instrumental logic in WOP to defend the

inherent worth of concepts such as commitment, well-being

and work-life balance.

Individualism is also present in the choice and use of

theories and models. The notion that employees are individu-

ally responsible for their well-being and career development is

widespread in WOP. This had led to the rise of individualistic

concepts, and a positioning of self-reliance being central to

formulating theories and models. For employees to survive in

the workplace, these concepts become conditional, as they are

necessary to have a job and be successful in the workplace. It

is striking that there is hardly any research on the people who

are either unwilling or unable to engage in those activities, as

well as whose responsibility it is to manage and stimulate

employee proactivity and employability (Bal, 2017). If there is

attention to vulnerable groups, it is not to show the limitations

of concepts such as employability, but it is often focused on

how to increase the employability of this particular group,

such as older workers (Oostrom, Pennings, & Bal, 2016). It

thereby does not challenge neoliberal rhetoric, but fully

embraces it, and the aim of such research is to show how

these vulnerable groups can be made more useful for neolib-

eral society. Hence, the structural conditions of exclusion and

privilege do not have to be assessed and critiqued, whilst

maintaining beliefs in the hegemony of neoliberal ideology.

As a consequence, there remains a void concerning the role of

collectives and shared responsibilities in a field which has

become individualized in its approach towards theorizing

and conducting research. In sum, the social logic of contem-

porary WOP research dictates that choice and use of theories,

models and concepts are influenced by instrumental, indivi-

dualistic and competition-focused perspectives, leading to a

narrow view on how the employment relationship unfolds.

Fantasmatic logic of WOP

At the core of explaining dominant practices in WOP are the

fantasy constructions of researchers and the discipline itself,

which can be traced towards two main fantasies: the fantasy

of the harmonious employment relationship, and at the heart

of WOP, the notion of social engineering. It is important to

assess the fantasies that exist within the discipline itself, as

they motivate individual researchers, direct attention to spe-

cific research streams and discourses which become dominant

in the field. Thereby they potentially undermine other streams

of research and pluralism within a discipline. In other words,

the relationship between WOP research and society is not just

unidirectional, in that WOP research reflects the dominant

ideology in society, but WOP research itself also contributes

to the maintenance of societal ideologies (Glynos, 2008,2011).

At the most visible level of fantasy, we can discern the

harmonious employment relationship. This entails a belief in

the possibility of a harmonious relationship between employ-

ees and organizations, where through consensus and negotia-

tion mutual agreement can be reached in terms of shared

needs, interests, and power balance between the two parties.

This belief is dominant in WOP, where an implicit assumption

pertains to the possibility of employees and organizations to

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF WORK AND ORGANIZATIONAL PSYCHOLOGY 9

be connected and aligned in their goals. For instance, a pop-

ular concept such as the psychological contract (Rousseau &

McLean Parks, 1993) assumes the relationship between

employee and organization to be reciprocal and equal. It is

not surprising that power differences between organizations

and employees are hardly taken into account in the psycho-

logical contract literature. Meanwhile, WOP-research often pre-

sents the contemporary employee as proactive and able to

negotiate, and therefore equal in power to the organization. It

thereby neglects the organization’s fundamentally instrumen-

tal approach to labour and the employee, and thus the unfair-

ness in the structural positions of employee and organization.

Consequently, there is little reference to the employment

relationship as being formed through pluralism (Geare,

Edgar, & McAndrew, 2009; Greenwood & Van Buren, 2017),

and as such driven by divergent interests of employees and

organizations.

Beliefs in fairness and reciprocity may result in fantasies of

harmonious employment relationships, as they picture a world

where mutual obligations are genuinely felt and met by the

various parties in the organization. Systematically unacknow-

ledged is the more structural exploitation in neoliberalism

which makes fairness and reciprocity effectively a fantasy

which in reality does not take place (Harvey, 2005).

Moreover, this can also be seen in the use of theories within

WOP, as social exchange theory remains one of the most

popular theoretical frameworks to understand phenomena at

work (Cropanzano et al., 2017). While other exchange frame-

works exist and have been investigated, such as communal

sharing or authority ranking (see e.g., Fiske, 1992), WOP

researchers have persisted in using social exchange theory

being able to explain almost any action in the workplace.

The question, however, remains why WOP continues to

believe in the harmonious employment relationship as under-

pinning the workplace, and why it fails to acknowledge the

variety of power relations and processes influencing the work-

place. This may be explained on the basis of the persistent

belief within WOP that the world is ultimately fair, and that

people will be rewarded for meeting their social obligations or

punished when they fail to reciprocate and adhere to social

exchange norms. However, in the reality of the contemporary

workplace, fairness is more often absent than not, and burn-

out, dignity violations, layoffs, abusive leadership and so on,

persist (e.g., Bal, 2017). In response to this unfair reality, we

suggest that the ultimate fantasy of WOP pertains to engage-

ment in “social engineering”. Social engineering entails the

notion that reality and societal relations can be changed

through interventions (e.g., Kooij et al., 2017; Strauss &

Parker, 2018), and that in the absence of fairness, the WOP

researcher should engage in research and collaborative activ-

ity with practitioners and consultants to change reality to

actively construct fairer and more harmonious workplaces.

It is therefore not surprising that in WOP (just as in other

scientific disciplines), a preoccupation has grown with the

impact of research on practice (Grote, 2017), and that gener-

ally experimental intervention studies are perceived as the

best example of scientific research. It is now desirable that

research transforms organizational reality, and makes organi-

zations operate in a smoother way, thereby both enhancing

organizational performance and sustaining employee well-

being (Van De Voorde, Paauwe, & Van Veldhoven, 2012).

Hence, on the basis of positivistic, “objective”research, it is

possible to formulate technical, evidence-based solutions

towards realizing the high performance organization that

meets the needs of both organizations and employees. This

constitutes a recipe or even a panacea for the high-performing

organization where both managers and employees are pro-

ductive and happy (Taris & Schreurs, 2009). The problem with

this, however, is that it overestimates the capacity of WOP

(and science in general) to influence (experienced) reality of

the workplace, while it underestimates the impact of structural

forces, political ideologies, and random error, over which

researchers have no control.

Moreover, social engineering fantasies are also inconsistent

with researchers’proclaimed “objective”stance towards rea-

lity, where they claim to study the workplace as it is. In

contrast, social engineering implies a proactive attitude to be

willing to intervene in reality and to implement changes that

correspond to the underlying principles of scholars. Hence,

this process of social engineering (e.g., through various colla-

borative efforts between research and practice) may cause

neoliberalism not only to be sustained in the workplace, but

to even be further legitimized. When WOP-scholars emphasize

the importance of organizational outcomes (e.g., performance

and profits) and the individualized and competitive nature of

work, they are actively contributing to an ideological under-

pinning of the contemporary workplace, thereby ignoring

potential alternatives and frameworks that do not correspond

to neoliberal ideology (see e.g., Fiske, 1992; Kostera, 2014).

Discussion

In the current paper, we have analysed the ways through

which neoliberal ideology has influenced the workplace as

well as research within WOP. Using the framework of ideology

analysed through political, social, and fantasmatic logics

(Glynos, 2008,2011), we explored the impact of neoliberalism,

and in particular the emphasis on instrumentality, individual-

ism and competition on experiences of the contemporary

workplace, as well as in WOP research. Our main argument is

that the effects of neoliberalism on the workplace and WOP

research has been neglected. The effect of this is that research

on the one hand remains vague and ambiguous concerning

its ideological and ethical assumptions, while on the other

hand, pluralism of research is stifled through a dominance of

hegemonic ideology within the discipline (e.g., through impli-

citly enforcing organizational interests to be accounted for in

research). Our analysis on the basis of Glynos’(Glynos, 2008)

framework of the three logics describing ideology offered a

way of analysing the relationships between the level of shared

norms and understandings in both the workplace and WOP

(political logic), and the level of visible practices through

which norms are enacted (social logic). This, however, is insuf-

ficient to fully capture the dynamics of ideology at work, as at

the deepest level, it is the shared, collective fantasies of peo-

ple that sustain ideology and its impact on the workplace.

neoliberal ideology sustains itself through penetrating the

fantasies of people about their own lives and how they

10 P. M. BAL AND E. DÓCI

function in the workplace (Žižek, 2014). Fantasies are not often

discussed in relation to the workplace, while they may explain

why behaviour is persistent over time, and why changes at the

level of assumptions are not readily achieved.

This raises the question what type of solutions can be

offered for the study of WOP. The answer to this is not

straightforward, as the replacement of one ideology is likely

to produce another ideology, which may become as hegemo-

nic as the previous ideology (Žižek, 2001,2014). This has been

referred to as the double blackmail, which entails the idea that

existing alternatives to neoliberal capitalism reside in a return

to social-democracy (or Marxism), which also has been shown

to have important limitations. In WOP context, this would

imply that an alternative to the current neoliberal dominance

would be a return to historical world views, with its focus on

permanent contracts, job security, lifelong employment at the

same firm, stable employment relationships and broad collec-

tive representation via trade unions (Sims, 1994). Moreover,

historical attempts to counteract neoliberal ideology, such as

social-democracy, critical psychology (Holzkamp, 1992), or col-

lective approaches to WOP (Stephenson & Brotherton, 1979),

have yet been unsuccessful in counteracting neoliberal ideol-

ogy. One explanation could be that while addressing the

symptoms of ideology, they did not yet engage with the

fantasies that sustain neoliberal ideology. Hence, to develop

viable alternatives, it is needed to formulate these at the level

of the individual and collective fantasies that sustain ideolo-

gies despite potential inherent contradictions and tensions.

We postulate a number of implications and recommenda-

tions for future research. First, it is important that within the

field of WOP, researchers become more aware of the under-

lying (ideological) assumptions driving their research.

Discourse analysis could be informative in further elucidating

the ideological underpinnings of our research and how

researchers justify their research in neoliberal terminology

(e.g., instrumentality and business case). Only through explicit

awareness and acknowledgement of fundamental assump-

tions of research, these can be debated, defended or changed.

As “objective”research concerns an impossibility in a social

science (Greenwood & Van Buren, 2017), research is by defini-

tion driven by interpretations of what is happening in the

workplace, and ideological choices regarding what type of

constructs are studied, what theories and models are

designed, and how outcomes are legitimized. We advocate

pluralism in relation to our field, where we can openly debate

the basic assumptions underlying our research (i.e., why and

for whom we are conducting our research) and how we can

create more pluralism in the actual research that we do (i.e.,

the topics, methods, techniques and analyses). This may also

help researchers to make more explicit choices regarding what

can be regarded as important in the context of WOP to study.

One way of achieving this is to engage in research using

more interdisciplinary perspectives, as perspectives from other

fields may inform the validity and legitimacy of choices being

made in WOP research. Because scientific disciplines such as

sociology, political economy and geography explicitly debate

the role of neoliberalism in contemporary society (Harvey, 2005;

Morgan, 2015; Peck et al., 2009), a stronger integration of various

disciplines could not only enrich understanding of particular

phenomena (such as the experience of individuals in the con-

temporary workplace), but could also allow for broader frame-

works to be included in research. For instance, more

interdisciplinary approaches could offer important perspectives

on how structural forces (e.g., power relations, economic circum-

stances and ideology) influence individual employee behaviour.

The goal, therefore, is not to ban neoliberal perspectives on the

workplace, but to shape the space where multiple frameworks

can be debated in relation to each other, and where a playing

field is created where multiple ideological frameworks can co-

exist. For instance, while research stressing the importance of

organizational and individual performance will continue to exist

and even flourish, there should also be the possibility for coun-

ter-narratives, such as research emphasizing alternative out-

comes, for example dignity (Bal, 2017), integrity (Amann &

Stachowicz-Stanusch, 2013) or societal value.

However, it is also important to address the problematic

issues of neoliberal ideology at the systemic level, and the

need to postulate alternatives at the system-level. It is notable

how “fixes”or initiatives to challenge the effects of neoliberalism

easily become incorporated by neoliberal ideology, through

which the system is essentially maintained. For instance, a

focus on the “victims”of neoliberalism is important but not

sufficient, as it may lead to negligence of the underlying struc-

tures in society that causes people to become victims. Hence, it is

not surprising to see WOP researchers to empathize with the

victims, but at the same time, postulating solutions within the

system, or in other words, to prescribe victims to become more

neoliberal. Hence, “victims”are taught how to become more self-

managing, employable and so on, and therefore, the underlying

structures that cause systematic exclusion of groups of people

(e.g., women, ethnic minorities and older people) are not

addressed. Therefore, a dignity-paradigm may transform the

presuppositions of the workplace and WOP research through

postulating the dignity of the individual, and consequently asks

the question how dignity can be respected and promoted in the

workplace (Bal, 2015,2017). A theory of workplace dignity pos-

tulates that everything in the workplace, including people, ani-

mals and resources have their intrinsic worth, and should be

treated as such (Bal, 2017). The theory offers an alternative to

the neoliberal logic of organizing and studying the workplace, as

it deviates from the dominant instrumental logic in formulating

the structures of the dignified organization.

In sum, this paper has introduced neoliberal ideology to WOP

discourse and has explored the ways through which neoliberalism

has influenced the workplace and our research. Future research

may further explore neoliberal as well as other ideologies and

discourses in WOP. This may advance understanding of workplace

dynamics and how they influence individuals at work, as well as

contribute to greater relevance and impact of the research within

the discipline.

Note

1. One such an initiative to debate the underpinnings of WOP research

and develop possible futures for WOP concerns the EAWOP Small

Group Meeting organized around the Future of Work and

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF WORK AND ORGANIZATIONAL PSYCHOLOGY 11

Organizational Psychology in the Netherlands in 2018. See also the

EAWOP website.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

References

Alvesson, M., & Kärreman, D. (2016). Intellectual failure and ideological

success in organization studies: The case of transformational leader-

ship. Journal of Management Inquiry,25, 139–152.

Alvesson, M., & Spicer, A. (2016). (Un) Conditional surrender? Why do

professionals willingly comply with managerialism. Journal of

Organizational Change Management,29,29–45.

Amann, W., & Stachowicz-Stanusch, A. (2013). Integrity in organizations.

Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.

Ayers, A. J., & Saad-Filho, A. (2015). Democracy against neoliberalism:

Paradoxes, limitations, transcendence. Critical Sociology,41, 597–618.

Bal, P. M. (2015). Voorbij neoliberalisme in de arbeids- en organisatiepsy-

chologie: Menselijke waardigheid en organisatiedemocratie. [Beyond

neoliberalism in work and organizational psychology: Human dignity

and organizational democracy]. Gedrag En Organisatie,28, 199–219.

Bal, P. M. (2017). Dignity in the workplace. New theoretical perspectives.

Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave MacMillan.

Bal, P. M., De Jong, S. B., Jansen, P. G. W., & Bakker, A. B. (2012). Motivating

employees to work beyond retirement: A multi-level study of the role

of I-deals and organizational climate. Journal of Management Studies,

49, 306–331.

Bal, P. M., & Jansen, P. G. W. (2016). Workplace flexibility across the

lifespan. Research in Personnel and Human Resources Management,34,

43–99.

Bal, P. M., & Vink, R. (2011). Ideological currency in psychological contracts:

The role of team relationships in a reciprocity perspective. The

International Journal of Human Resource Management,22, 2794–2817.

Barney, J. (1991). Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage.

Journal of Management,17,99–120.

Baruch, Y. (2015). Organizational and labor markets as career ecosystem. In

A. De Vos & B. I. J. M. Van der Heijden (eds.), Handbook of research on

sustainable careers (pp. 364–380). Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.

Bauman, Z. (2000). Liquid modernity. New York: John Wiley and Sons.

Bauman, Z., Bauman, I., Kociatkiewicz, J., & Kostera, M. (2015). Management

in a liquid modern world. New York: John Wiley and Sons.

Bidwell, M., Briscoe, F., Fernandez-Mateo, I., & Sterling, A. (2013). The

employment relationship and inequality: How and why changes in

employment practices are reshaping rewards in organizations. The

Academy of Management Annals,7,61–121.

Blau, P. M. (1964). Exchange and power in social life. New Brunswick, US:

Transaction Publishers.

Bourdieu, P. (1986). The forms of capital. Cultural Theory: An Anthology,1,

81–93.

Burke, P. J. (2013). The right to higher education: Neoliberalism, gender

and professional mis/recognitions. International Studies in Sociology of

Education,23, 107–126.

Call, M. L., Nyberg, A. J., & Thatcher, S. (2015). Stargazing: An integrative

conceptual review, theoretical reconciliation, and extension for star

employee research. Journal of Applied Psychology,100, 623–640.

Castilla, E. J., & Benard, S. (2010). The paradox of meritocracy in organiza-

tions. Administrative Science Quarterly,55, 543–576.

Chertkovskaya, E., Watt, P., Tramer, S., & Spoelstra, S. (2013). Giving notice to

employability. Ephemera: Theory and Politics in Organization,13,701–716.

Clarkson, G. P. (2014). Twenty-first century employment relationships: The

case for an altruistic model. Human Resource Management,53, 253–269.

Clegg, S. (2014). Managerialism: Born in the USA. Academy of Management

Review,39,566–585.

Cobb, J. A. (2016). How firms shape income inequality: Stakeholder power,

executive decision making, and the structuring of employment rela-

tionships. Academy of Management Review,41, 324–348.

Cropanzano, R., Anthony, E., Daniels, S., & Hall, A. (2017). Social exchange

theory: A critical review with theoretical remedies. Academy of

Management Annals, in press doi:10.5465/annals.2015.0099

Curran, T., & Hill, A. P. (2017). Perfectionism is increasing over time: A

meta-analysis of birth cohort differences from 1989 to 2016.

Psychological Bulletin.in press. doi:10.1037/bul0000138

Dalal, R. S. (2005). A meta-analysis of the relationship between organiza-

tional citizenship behavior and counterproductive work behavior.

Journal of Applied Psychology,90, 1241–1255.

De Jong, B. A., Dirks, K. T., & Gillespie, N. (2016). Trust and team perfor-

mance: A meta-analysis of main effects, moderators, and covariates.

Journal of Applied Psychology,101, 1134–1150.

Delbridge, R., & Keenoy, T. (2010). Beyond managerialism? The

International Journal of Human Resource Management,21, 799–817.

Delbridge, R, & Keenoy, T. (2010). Beyond managerialism?. The

International Journal Of Human Resource Management,21(6), 799-817.

doi:10.1080/09585191003729309

Dirks, K. T., & Ferrin, D. L. (2002). Trust in leadership: Meta-analytic findings

and implications for research and practice. Journal of Applied

Psychology,87, 611–628.

Fine, B., & Saad-Filho, A. (2017). Thirteen things you need to know about

neoliberalism. Critical Sociology,43, 685–706.

Fiske, A. P. (1992). The four elementary forms of sociality: Framework for a

unified theory of social relations. Psychological Review,99, 689–723.

Freeden, M. (2003). Ideology: A very short introduction (Vol. 95). Oxford:

Oxford University Press.

Fugate, M., Kinicki, A. J., & Ashforth, B. E. (2004). Employability: A psycho-

social construct, its dimensions, and applications. Journal of Vocational

Behavior,65,14–38.

Galbraith, J. K. (2012). Inequality and instability: A study of the world

economy just before the great crisis. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Geare, A., Edgar, F., & McAndrew, I. (2009). Workplace values and beliefs:

An empirical study of ideology, high commitment management and

unionisation. The International Journal of Human Resource Management,

20, 1146–1171.

George, J. M. (2014). Compassion and capitalism: Implications for organi-

zation studies. Journal of Management,40,5–15.

Gilbert, J. T. (2000). Sorrow and guilt: An ethical analysis of layoffs. SAM

Advanced Management Journal,65,4–13.

Glynos, J. (2001). The grip of ideology: A Lacanian approach to the theory

of ideology. Journal of Political Ideologies,6, 191–214.

Glynos, J. (2008). Ideological fantasy at work. Journal of Political Ideologies,

13, 275–296.

Glynos, J. (2011). On the ideological and political significance of fantasy in

the organization of work. Psychoanalysis, Culture & Society,16, 373–393.

Glynos, J., & Howarth, D. (2007). Logics of critical explanation in social and

political theory. London: Routledge.

Grant, A. M., & Parker, S. K. (2009). Redesigning work design theories: The

rise of relational and proactive perspectives. The Academy of

Management Annals,3, 317–375.

Greenwood, M., & Van Buren, H. J., III. (2017). Ideology in HRM scholarship:

Interrogating the ideological performativity of ‘New Unitarism’.Journal

of Business Ethics,142, 663–678.

Grote, G. (2017). There is hope for better science. European Journal of Work

and Organizational Psychology,26,1–3.

Hackman,J.R.,&Oldham,G.R.(1975). Development of the job diagnostic

survey. Journal of Applied Psychology,60,159–170. doi:10.1037/h0076546

Harvey, D. (2005). Neoliberalism: A brief history. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Heyes, J, Tomlinson, M, & Whitworth, A. (2017). Underemployment and

well-being in the uk before and after the great recession. work. work,

Employment and Society,31(71–89 1), 0950017016666199. doi:10.1177/

0950017016666199

Holzkamp, K. (1992). On doing psychology critically. Theory & Psychology,

2, 193–204.

Hornung, S., Rousseau, D. M., & Glaser, J. (2008). Creating flexible work

arrangements through idiosyncratic deals. Journal of Applied

Psychology,93, 655–664.

IMF (2016). Accessed 23 February 2017. Retrieved from http://www.imf.

org/en/About/Factsheets/Sheets/2016/07/27/15/19/Response-to-the-

Global-Economic-Crisis.

12 P. M. BAL AND E. DÓCI

Kalleberg, A. L. (2009). Precarious work, insecure workers: Employment

relations in transition. American Sociological Review,74,1–22.

Kooij, D. T., van Woerkom, M., Wilkenloh, J., Dorenbosch, L., & Denissen, J.

J. (2017). Job crafting towards strengths and interests: The effects of a

job crafting intervention on person–job fit and the role of age. Journal

of Applied Psychology,102, 971–981.

Kostera, M. (2014). Occupy management! inspirations and ideas for self-

organization and self-management. London: Routledge.

Kotz, D. M. (2009). The financial and economic crisis of 2008: A systemic

crisis of neoliberal capitalism. Review of Radical Political Economics,41,

305–317.

Lazonick, W. (2014). Profits without prosperity. Harvard Business Review,92,

46–55.

Lazzarato, M. (2009). Neoliberalism in action: Inequality, insecurity and

the reconstitution of the social. Theory, Culture & Society,26, 109–

133.

Lepak, D. P., & Snell, S. A. (1999). The human resource architecture: Toward

a theory of human capital allocation and development. Academy of

Management Review,24,31–48.

Littler, J. (2013). Meritocracy as plutocracy: The marketising of ‘Equality’

under neoliberalism. New Formations,80,52–72.

Messersmith, J. G., Patel, P. C., Lepak, D. P., & Gould-Williams, J. S. (2011).

Unlocking the black box: Exploring the link between high-performance

work systems and performance. Journal of Applied Psychology,96,

1105–1118.

Morgan, G. (2015). Elites, varieties of capitalism and the crisis of neo-

liberalism. Research in the Sociology of Organizations,43,5

5–80.

Oostrom, J. K., Pennings, M., & Bal, P. M. (2016). How do idiosyncratic deals

contribute to the employability of older workers? Career Development

International,21, 176–192.

Oyserman, D., Coon, H. M., & Kemmelmeier, M. (2002). Rethinking indivi-

dualism and collectivism: Evaluation of theoretical assumptions and

meta-analyses. Psychological Bulletin,128,3–72.

Paauwe, J. (2004). HRM and performance: Achieving long-term viability.

Oxford: Oxford University Press on Demand.

Parker, S., & Bindl, U. (2017). Proactivity at work. New York: Routledge.

Peck, J., Theodore, N., & Brenner, N. (2009). Postneoliberalism and its

malcontents. Antipode,41,94–116.

Piketty, T. (2014). Capital in the 21st century. Cambridge: Harvard University

Press.

Porter, M. E., & Kramer, M. R. (2011). The big idea: Creating shared value.

Harvard Business Review,89,2–17.

Rousseau, D. M. (2005). I-deals. idiosyncratic deals employees bargain for

themselves. New York: ME Sharpe.

Rousseau, D. M., & McLean Parks, J. (1993). The contracts of individuals and

organizations. Research in Organizational Behavior,15,1–43.

Schwalbe, M., Holden, D., Schrock, D., Godwin, S., Thompson, S., &

Wolkomir, M. (2000). Generic processes in the reproduction of inequal-

ity: An interactionist analysis. Social Forces,79, 419–452. doi:10.1093/sf/

79.2.419

Sedlacek, T. (2011). Economics of good and evil: The quest for economic

meaning from Gilgamesh to Wall Street. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Seibert, S. E., Crant, J. M., & Kraimer, M. L. (1999). Proactive personality and

career success. Journal of Applied Psychology,84, 416–427.

Sims, R. R. (1994). Human resource management’s role in clarifying the new

psychological contract. Human Resource Management,33, 373–382.

Stephenson, G. M., & Brotherton, C. J. (Eds.). (1979). Industrial relations: A

social psychological approach. New York: John Wiley & Sons.

Stiglitz, J. E. (2012). The price of inequality: How today’s divided society

endangers our future. New York: WW Norton and Company.

Strauss, K, & Parker, S. K. (2018). Intervening to enhance proactivity in

organizations improving the present or changing the future. In journal

of management (vol., pp.). press. doi:

Suarez-Villa, L. (2012). Technocapitalism: A critical perspective on technolo-

gical innovation and corporatism. Philadelphia, US: Temple University

Press.

Taris, T. W., & Schreurs, P. J. (2009). Well-being and organizational perfor-

mance: An organizational-level test of the happy-productive worker

hypothesis. Work & Stress,23, 120–136.

Thompson, J. A., & Bunderson, J. S. (2003). Violations of principle:

Ideological currency in the psychological contract. Academy of

Management Review,28, 571–586.

Tienken, C. H. (2013). Neoliberalism, social Darwinism, and consumerism

masquerading as school reform. Interchange,43, 295–316.

Vallas, S. P. (1999). Rethinking post-Fordism: The meaning of workplace

flexibility. Sociological Theory,17,68–101.

Van Apeldoorn, B., & Overbeek, H. (2012). Introduction: The life course of

the neoliberal project and the global crisis. In H. Overbeek & B. van

Apeldoorn (Editors.), Neoliberalism in crisis (pp. 1–20). Basingstoke, UK:

Palgrave Macmillan.

Van De Voorde, K., Paauwe, J., & Van Veldhoven, M. (2012). Employee well-

being and the HRM–Organizational performance relationship: A review

of quantitative studies. International Journal of Management Reviews,

14, 391–407.

Vander Elst, T., Näswall, K., Bernhard-Oettel, C., De Witte, H., & Sverke, M. (2016).

The effect of job insecurity on employee health complaints: A within-

person analysis of the explanatory role of threats to the manifest and latent

benefits of work. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology,21,65–76.

Vitali, S., Glattfelder, J. B., & Battiston, S. (2011). The network of global

corporate control. PloS One,6, e25995.

Walsh, A. J. (2007). HRM and the ethics of commodified work in a market

economy. In A. Pennington, R. Macklin, & T. Campbell (Editors.), Human

resource management: Ethics and employment (pp. 102–116). Oxford:

Oxford University Press..

Wigger, A., & Buch-Hansen, H. (2012). The unfolding contradictions of

neoliberal competition regulation and the global economic crisis: A

missed opportunity for change? In H. Overbeek & B. van Apeldoorn

(Editors.), Neoliberalism in crisis (pp. 23–44). Hampshire, UK: Palgrave

Macmillan.

Wisman, J. D. (2013). Wage stagnation, rising inequality and the financial

crisis of 2008. Cambridge Journal of Economics,37, 921–945.

Zacher, H. (2015). Successful aging at work. Work, Aging and Retirement,1,

4–25. doi:10.1093/workar/wau006

Žižek, S. (1989). The sublime object of ideology. London: Verso Books.

Žižek, S. (2001). Did somebody say totalitarianism? Five interventions in the

(Mis)use of a notion. London: Verso Books.

Žižek, S. (2014). Trouble in paradise: from the end of history to the end of

capitalism. Milton Keynes, UK: Penguin Publishers.

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF WORK AND ORGANIZATIONAL PSYCHOLOGY 13

Ideology

Chapter

Full-text available

Jan 2024

This entry describes the notion of ideology in Organizational Psychology. It discusses the strange absence of the term in the field, and provides seven ways through which ideology can be studied in the field. The entry continues to discuss ideology as fantasy construction as introduced by the philosopher Slavoj Žižek, which presents the most 'psychological' theory of ideology, and which hitherto has been rather ignored in the field. The entry also describes how this ideology as fantasy has been identified in Organizational Psychology through the study of neoliberal ideology. The entry finishes with discussing potential ways out of ideology.

WORKING OBJECTIFICATION AND NEOLIBERALISM: RECOGNIZING DEHUMANIZATION PROCESSES IN THE WORKPLACE FROM AN IDEOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVE

Article

Jun 2023

Francesco Tommasi

This conceptual essay situates the study of dehumanization processes in the workplace and working objectification within the study of neoliberal influences on the institutions of work and employment. The paper links studies from social psychology and critical perspectives in work and organizational psychology to argue that working objectification is one of the implications of the neoliberalization of work and employment. Furthermore, dehumanization processes in the workplace can be better understood through a macro-social lens, that is, an ideological perspective. Thanks to this diagnosis, the essay positions dehu-manization processes and working objectification into an ideological perspective which has the potential for theoretical impact in psychology. Finally, the essay reflects on how this approach can best develop within psychology for responsible research that cares for humanistic institutions of work and employment.

Anticipatory policy rhetoric: exploring ideological fantasies of Finnish higher education

Article

Full-text available

Nov 2023

Tuomas Tervasmäki

This research explores how anticipatory policymaking played out in Finnish higher education reform. The study applies a discourse theoretic framework to explore how policy narrative might prove attractive to subjects by mobilizing ideas, norms, and fantasies through affective identification. Fantasies frame and stabilize our sense-making practices, thereby providing affective belonging and (ir)rationale for our actions. As an empirical case, the analysis of the Vision Development 2030 reform elucidates how the policy documents construct fantasmatic narratives (with reference to obstacles, threats, and plenitude to come) that set the terms of debate in articulating the ‘problem’ of Finnish HE and in supplying the favorable policy solutions. Scrutinizing a range of ideological fantasies, such as articulating gloomy forecasts and reactivating cognitive and affective memories of past successes, Vision Development sought to evoke subjects’ latent emotions and desires, mobilizing them toward a reproduction of the techno-managerialist order. Applying poststructuralist discourse theory and the concept of fantasy in policy studies, the role of desire and affective rhetoric in anticipatory future-making can be critically evaluated and the implications of such policy doctrines contemplated.

'Workplace Inequality'

Chapter

Full-text available

Nov 2023

John Mendy

Organizations and society are confronted with fundamental socio-political, cultural, and economic challenges because of poorly construed and implemented Equality Diversity and Inclusion measures. Whilst Organizational Behavior research has adopted a traditional approach seeking to highlight the business case benefits and focused on quantifiable outcomes measurements, recent research has questioned this dominant, neoliberal capitalist-based strand, which has perpetuated managerial hegemonic power and employer-employee conflicts. Emerging Employment Relations scholarship has identified and added additional EDI categories including further neurodiverse, social and workplace groupings, and suggested further methodological tools, including intersectionality, institutional, relational, and agentic frameworks to repair the damages. Human Resource Management research has focused on how to implement standardized regulatory mechanisms related to Affirmative Action and Social Justice models on recruitment, pay and reward. However, such western-centric approaches, models, constructs, and analysis levels have exposed greater 'psychological' and workplace, individual and group inequalities, marginalized employees and highlighted the contested and contestable nature of EDI. Alternative, non-western calls intensify.

Remote Working

Chapter

Full-text available

Nov 2023

Mehmet A. Orhan

Working remotely has become an abrupt reality for millions of workers due to recent external shifts. Traditionally viewed as a benefit granted to executives and knowledge-intensive workers in the corporate world, remote work is now recognized as a new, modern way of working in and with organizations. Since remote work has become more prevalent and has been growing in demand, unique challenges have also emerged. In addition to the long-identified limitations and struggles, the pandemic-induced paradigm shift has introduced a new set of complexities that are not adequately acknowledged. This entry provides an overview of the increasingly popular topic of remote working and presents the existing literature in organizational psychology. It critically evaluates the historical conceptualization of remote work and offers new perspectives that have been neglected in current scholarly debates. The entry also examines the challenges associated with remote work, including management issues, and highlights future directions for research in this area.

From Precarious Work to Sustainable Livelihoods

Chapter

Sep 2023

Working Conditions After an Economic Crisis in Spain: “No Calm After the Storm”

Article

Jul 2023

Work-family justice – meanings and possibilities: introduction to the work and family researchers network special issue

Article

Nov 2023

Beyond the Paycheck: Navigating the New Era of Employee Expectations

Chapter

Oct 2023

Michael Gerlich

In a dynamic employment landscape, the classic determinants of job contentment and workforce engagement have become outdated. Contemporary employee expectations are shaped by significant societal transformations since World War II, the influence of Generation Z, and the indelible mark left by the COVID-19 pandemic on remote working conditions. Using Maslow's hierarchy of needs as a framework, this chapter delves deep into the evolving prerequisites of the modern-day workforce. Priorities have gradually shifted from basic security and stability concerns, synonymous with post-WWII sentiments, to an emphasis on advanced needs like belonging, esteem, and self-realization. The pressing need for adaptability in human resource management (HRM) strategies is highlighted and supported by research including 640 companies from Germany and Switzerland, emphasizing a more personalized approach attuned to individual employee needs amidst overarching societal changes.

Clinical Action Research and Its Radically Reflexive Way: Dialogical Encounters to Face Current Organizational Needs

Article

Oct 2023
J Appl Behav Sci

The paper presents a clinical and radically reflexive approach to action research, capable of nurturing caring relationships and renewed organizational wealth. These outcomes are achieved by creating space for research-oriented, in-the-moment, constitutive, and collective reflexivity. The paper discusses a framework for understanding a clinical and radically reflexive approach to action research. Second, the radically reflexive perspective is illustrated via a case study. Finally, the specific conditions and limits of such an approach are discussed. The radically reflexive perspective we present hopes to return researchers and participants to the center as authors of renewed organizational landscapes, thanks to their collective agency and their capacity to resist the taken-for-granted cultural and social structures whose “sickness” often has a toxic and unconscious impact on people lives. The paper, therefore, contributes to an understanding of radical reflexivity in action research and its implications for productive dialogue between other clinical, dialogical, and reflexive action-research approaches.

Perfectionism Is Increasing Over Time: A Meta-Analysis of Birth Cohort Differences From 1989 to 2016

Article

Full-text available

Dec 2017

From the 1980’s onwards, neoliberal governance in the US, Canada, and the UK has emphasized competitive individualism and people have seemingly responded, in kind, by agitating to perfect themselves and their lifestyles. In this study, we examine whether cultural changes have coincided with an increase in multidimensional perfectionism in college students over the last 27 years. Our analyses are based on 164 samples and 41,641 American, Canadian, and British college students, who completed the Multidimensional Perfectionism Scale (Hewitt & Flett, 1991) between 1989 and 2016 (70.92% female, Mage = 20.66). Cross-temporal meta-analysis revealed that levels of self-oriented perfectionism, socially prescribed perfectionism, and other-oriented perfectionism have linearly increased. These trends remained when controlling for gender and between-country differences in perfectionism scores. Overall, in order of magnitude of the observed increase, our findings indicate that recent generations of young people perceive that others are more demanding of them, are more demanding of others, and are more demanding of themselves.

Dignity in the Workplace: New Theoretical Perspectives

Book

Full-text available

Jun 2017

P. Matthijs Bal

Why the need for a new theory on workplace dignity? Currently, there is not a theory of workplace dignity, which could help to understand the issues and challenges of the contemporary workplace. Hence, the need for a new theory must be resulting from an observation that current models, paradigms and theories are insufficient to explain the current economic situation. More importantly, there are hardly any new theoretical developments taking place regarding how the future workplace should and could be structured, organized and developed. This book is not by far not the first which claims that our current economic-political paradigms are insufficient to help us through the 21st century, and that contemporary society is in desperate need of new ideas to shape the workplace of the future (Bauman et al. 2015).

Job Crafting Towards Strengths and Interests: The Effects of a Job Crafting Intervention on Person-Job Fit and the Role of Age

Article

Full-text available

Mar 2017

We introduce 2 novel types of job crafting—crafting toward strengths and crafting toward interests—that aim to improve the fit between one’s job and personal strengths and interests. Based on Berg, Dutton, and Wrzesniewski (2013), we hypothesized that participating in a job crafting intervention aimed at adjusting the job to personal strengths and interests leads to higher levels of job crafting, which in turn will promote person–job fit. Moreover, we hypothesized that this indirect effect would be stronger for older workers compared with younger workers. Results of an experimental field study indicated that participating in the job crafting intervention leads to strengths crafting, but only among older workers. Strengths crafting was, in turn, positively associated with demands–abilities and needs–supplies fit. Unexpectedly, participating in the job crafting intervention did not influence job crafting toward interests and had a negative effect on crafting toward strengths among younger workers. However, our findings suggest that some types of job crafting interventions can indeed be an effective tool for increasing person–job fit of older workers.

Social Exchange Theory: A Critical Review with Theoretical Remedies

Article

Full-text available

Jan 2017

Social exchange theory is one of the most prominent conceptual perspectives in management, as well as related fields like sociology and social psychology. An important criticism of social exchange theory; however, is that it lacks sufficient theoretical precision, and thus has limited utility. Scholars who apply social exchange theory are able to explain many social phenomena in post hoc manner but are severely limited in their ability to make useful a priori predictions regarding workplace behavior. In this review, we discuss social exchange theory as it exists today and identify four critical issues within the social exchange paradigm that warrant additional consideration. The four concerns, around which we center this review, include the following: (1) overlapping constructs that need to be more clearly distinguished; (2) insufficient appreciation to the positive or negative hedonic value of these various constructs; (3) an assumption of bipolarity, which treats negative constructs (e.g., abuse) as the absence of positive constructs (e.g., support); and, following from the prior three issues, (4) theoretically imprecise behavioral predictions. Given that these problems are inherent in the current unidimensional framework for social exchange theory, we suggest an additional dimension–activity. We explain how conceptualizing social exchange within a two-dimensional space, while giving equal consideration to both hedonic value and activity, creates new opportunities for future research.

HRM and the ethics of commodified work in a market economy

Chapter

Jan 2007

Adrian J Walsh

The book examines ethics and employment issues in contemporary Human Resource Management (HRM). Written by an international team of academics from universities in the UK, the US, Australia and New Zealand, it examines the problems and opportunities facing employers and employees. The book subdivides into three sections: Part I assesses the context of HRM; Part II analyses contemporary debates, continuity and change in HRM, and Part III proposes likely developments for the future seeking to identify a more proactive HRM approach towards ethical issues arising in employment. Distinctive features include: Comprehensive analysis of continuity and change in employment and HRM, In-depth assessment of the ethical contribution and potential of HRM, Timely evaluation of the ethical achievements to-date of HRM in: individualized employment relations, HRM partnerships, HRM and employee performance, and strategic HRM, Detailed recommendations for HR managers and general managers encouraging more ethically aware practice, Guidance on ethical approaches to leadership, knowledge management and collective employment relations, Analysis of alternative futures for HRM as a profession and advice on how to create more rigorous and independent professional practice, A vision of a more innovative, cooperative and ethically sensitive set of HRM practices, Clear proposals for HRM on how to attain more ethical conduct.

Organizational and labor markets as career ecosystem

Chapter

Jun 2015

Yehuda Baruch

Capital in the 21st Century

Chapter

May 2018

Thomas Piketty

Capital in the Twenty-First Century

Book

Mar 2014

Thomas Piketty

A Brief History of Neoliberalism

Book

Jan 2006

David Harvey

Neoliberalism--the doctrine that market exchange is an ethic in itself, capable of acting as a guide for all human action--has become dominant in both thought and practice throughout much of the world since 1970 or so. Writing for a wide audience, David Harvey, author of The New Imperialism and The Condition of Postmodernity, here tells the political-economic story of where neoliberalization came from and how it proliferated on the world stage. Through critical engagement with this history, he constructs a framework, not only for analyzing the political and economic dangers that now surround us, but also for assessing the prospects for the more socially just alternatives being advocated by many oppositional movements.

Management in a Liquid Modern World

Book

Sep 2015

Neoliberal ideology in work and organizational psychology

Abstract

Recommended publications

Last Chance to Apply! 18 Assistant & Associate Professor positions at VU Amsterdam

See our 18 open Asst/Assoc. Professor positions at the science faculty of VU Amsterdam

Ideology and utopia: Historic crisis of economic rationality and the role of public sociology

Côte d'Ivoire : clientélisme, ajustement et conflit

Pan Africanism and European Liberalism: A Mythic and Ideological Analysis by

What is Important to Me Is My Business, Nothing More: Neoliberalism, Ideology and the Work of Sellin...