Continuous and instantaneous evaluation systems, such as 360-degree performance reviews, are a way to monitor employee performance using feedback from everyone who interacts with them. The benefits of this system are rooted in the idea that if employees are aware that they are constantly monitored, their work performance will increase. "The Circle" by Dave Eggers (2013) perfectly captures the system of continuous and instantaneous rating systems through "PartiRank" and "Customer Experience" ratings and represents a technique to achieve everyone's main organizational goal "to be able to see, and judge each other” (The Circle, p.395). The first step in critically answering this question is to consider the conditions that have allowed this culture of performativity and the use of performance appraisal systems to become one. organizational and cultural norm. The second section of this essay will consider the effects that performance appraisal systems have on organizational cultures; increased employee dependence on the organization for validation and “self-actualization” (Maslow, 1943) , a reduced sense of “real” individual self, and increased toxic competition among employees The final section of this essay will consider the cultural impact of performance appraisal systems on society at large and how technological advances. they have enabled this for younger generations. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an Original Essay To fully understand the cultural impact of continuous and instantaneous appraisal systems in performance management, we must first consider the context in which this toxic management discourse originated its foundation and has been allowed to cultivate. This socio-cultural shift, best described as the “Turning to Life” (Heelas, 2002), includes an increase in the focus of an individual's priorities towards the “self” and a change in the perceived meaning of humanity; “self-actualizing” – a phrase first coined by Maslow in 1943. Nietzsche first noticed these structural changes in society in the late 19th century, long before the full extent of the change had occurred. It was only after his death, when the effects of society's “turn to life” fully manifested themselves, that we were able to understand the importance of his insights. The focus on “self-actualization” as the primary purpose of an individual's life has created a series of ripple effects that have entrenched its place in Western culture. Organizations in particular attempted to capitalize on employees' desire for self-actualization by creating early versions of the modern language of human resource management (HRM). This romantic language has paradoxically caused and at the same time given rise to the “self-employment ethic” (Heelas, 2002) that dominates 21st century management systems. With the increased focus on “strong” organizational culture – a resource that theorists have linked to company performance – managers were able to subtly encourage employee opinions to align with those of the organization and motivate employees to find “meaning through work” (Berger, 1972). Combined with employees' newly developed desire to find themselves through work, the organizational context in which people existed has given way to aggressive performance appraisal systemsmanagement. The transition towards the era of performativity means, according to Serres (2012), the “end of the era of knowledge” due to the decrease in the need to remember information, this being easily accessible online. This further increases the pressure on 21st century employees to “perform,” as their success is no longer measured by their ability to retain information. The way The Circle presents this is through the anger Mae Holland faces from her superiors when they realize she has shown no interest in extracurricular activities; “Do you think your passions aren't important? (The Circle, p.187). Management therefore uses HRM language as a way to force employee self-actualization in the workplace, as an accepted aspect of organizational culture. My theory is that attempts to encourage employee empowerment through the language of human resource management and increased use of performance management systems are a form of mass control, cleverly disguised as self-management. The cultural impacts of this philosophy paradoxically toxic, where the lines between work and private life are blurred, will now be discussed using The Circle as a reference guide. The major cultural (and largely organizational) impact of the use of instant and continuous performance appraisal systems , is employees' growing reliance on their workplace for validation and as a key tool for self-actualization. This, paradoxically, reduces an employee's individual sense of self and ability to think independently or controversially. In this sense, the relationship an employee has with the employing organization could be compared to the relationship between a child and a narcissistic parent. A child raised by a narcissistic parent is not trusted to do anything without the parent's judgment and insensitive feedback, to an extent that is detrimental to the child's self-confidence and emotional development. The separation between child and parent becomes blurred when the child begins to live exclusively for parental validation, becoming a mirror version of the parent. This form of social action often leaves an internal void in selfhood and a complete dependence on an external source of validation. Performance management systems, such as 360-degree appraisals or The Circle's PartiRank system, reflect this concept in the working lives of adults. Mae is constantly and instantly evaluated based on its performance in terms of Customer Experience and PartiRank; she is constantly aware of – and obsessed with – people's opinions of her. Constantly, over the course of the novel, she learns which behaviors are rewarded with higher ranks (and greater devotion to the organization) and as a result she is molded into a very specific type of person, perpetuating the culture of performativity and "governmentality" (Foucault , 1978). . While the fear in a relationship between the child and the narcissistic parent may include physical violence or abuse, the resulting fear in the relationship between employee and organization is a metaphysical form of punishment; the fear of low ratings and social exclusion. Mae's subsequent blind devotion to the organization is further demonstrated at the end of the novel; once he becomes aware of the unethical nature of the Circle, he does not hesitate to unmask the traitor and continue to achieve his organizational and at the same time personal goals. The conditional and circumstantial love shown to children of narcissistic parents is the result of the idea that unconditional love only creates "selfish and demanding" children (Hendrick, 2016), but notconsider the impact this has on the child in the long term. term. In The Circle, Mae's performance and journey to self-actualization involve devoting her full attention to the organization, diminishing her sense of self. Furthermore, the resulting confusion between employees' work and home lives is masked by the attractive prospect of flexible working, even though this could arguably simply be a means of enabling 24/7 monitoring of employee performance . This is exemplified in the "transparency" of The Circle, where Mae is expected to broadcast her every experience onto a camera for millions of viewers to see at any time. Ultimately, performance management is what led Mae Holland to lose her individuality and freedom of thought due to the subtle bullying of organizational culture, turning her into a blind follower through the direct use of evaluation systems. In this sense, it is also the end product of The Circle of any tangible product or service, as it perpetuates the culture of performativity and living in the “Society of the Spectacle” (Debord, 1984). Another impact on organizational culture of instant and continuous performance appraisal systems is the increase in competition among employees, due to the pressure for high performance. Due to the increasing use of self-management in large organizations, employees can often work too hard to appear more dedicated or loyal than their colleagues. This toxic competition is further perpetuated by management's use of HRM language to get employees to reach their human potential; In The Circle, Mae is told directly, "we consider you a fully knowable human being of unlimited potential" (The Circle, p. 180) while surrounded by seemingly motivational words like "Dream. Participate. Innovate." (The Circle, p.1). By placing the responsibility for reaching their potential in the hands of employees through HRM phrases such as "invest in yourself" (Warren Buffet, 2008), they are cleverly rewarding the employee with the empowerment they believe is necessary for self-realization, while cleverly removing any clear metrics on what good performance is. With this growing ambiguity of what is considered “good performance” and the simultaneous denial of human limitations in exchange for “unlimited fullness” (Costea, Watt, Amiridis, 2015), employees have no choice but to dedicate all efforts to achieve the never-ending goal of more or better performance, putting oneself under “tremendous pressure to succeed and be happy” (FT.com, 2017). The politics of equality causes the dynamics to evolve towards strong competition; Infinite access to recognition is not possible or feasible in our capitalist society, so employees exist in a world where colleagues' failure is greeted with a sly, smug smile. This toxic cultural impact is visible in the real world of recruitment, with Barclay's HR department insisting on demanding perfection in everything you do; something true to the idea that organizations have unrealistic expectations about the physical and psychological capabilities of their employees. Ignorance of human limitations in human resource management practices increases internal pressure on employees, which in the contemporary cut-throat graduate market can have fatal consequences, as seen in the death of Moritz Erhardt. He “internalized an overbearing culture of performance” (Costea, Amiridis, Watt, 2015) in an attempt to be perceived as performing better than his peers, which ultimately contributedto his tragic death. The pressure that was put on him – and even more acutely the pressure he put on himself – was enabled and encouraged by the competitive conditions of his work environment and the culture of performativity that surrounded him. Similarly, in The Circle, the relationship between Mae and her childhood best friend Annie develops into one of jealousy and malice by the end of the book, where they no longer share an affinity or care l 'of each other; “Mae was cursing Annie…her smug sense of entitlement” (The Circle, p.355). The expectations they place on themselves are so unattainable that the only way to succeed is to perform comparatively better than your colleagues, which leads to an isolated and bitter work environment. Management staff are largely responsible for perpetuating this competitive culture of performativity, as they create a space where employees feel at the center of importance in the workplace through training, feedback and the opportunity for self-actualization. However, this could also simply be a method of mobilizing employees through the romantic language of human resource management. Employees may almost feel obligated to dedicate their lives to an organization when human resources management makes them feel so indebted for providing a space in which they can seemingly self-fulfill. This is the sad irony of the culture of performativity in that employees enter the workplace expecting to focus on developing their individual careers, but end up entrenched in a perpetually obligated relationship with their organization in which more and more is expected of them . Ultimately, this further allows the culture of competitive performativity to manifest itself in the workspace, with employees constantly able to compare their own performance or ratings to those of their colleagues. The prevailing cultural impacts of performance appraisal systems can be further seen in the pervasive performativity of society, not exclusive to the workplace. It is the "performative culture" theorized by Thrift (2002); with performance in every aspect of life as a determinant of an individual's success. The “Social Credit System” in China is a chilling real-life example of this; citizens' credit ratings depend on the personal ratings they receive from the public (Collective Evolution, 2017). The combined use of HRM language and performance appraisal systems has therefore become the embodiment of consumerism and capitalism in Western societies. Performativity through performance evaluation systems has also transpired into the university experience of many students. The language of human resource management and performativity is now common in universities, most likely as a way of preparing undergraduates to become the “fast movers” (Thrift, 2002) that they are expected to be in the graduate recruitment market. One of the most widely accepted performance review systems used by college students is LinkedIn; anyone can view your skills, online CV and what others have approved as your strengths/weaknesses. This absolute freedom of personal information is reminiscent of the focus on "transparency" throughout The Circle, meaning that students are consequently transformed into ideal employees from an even earlier age. Another social impact of performance appraisal systems is the increased use of social media as a contemporary performance. rating system and the consequent decrease in.