Assessment and selection in the 21st Century

1.1.1 Anti-colonial rhetoric

Against this background, the UK and many other parts of the Eurocentric and English-speaking world have recently been confronted by strong anti-colonialist sentiments arguing that British and European cultural imperialism has created untold harm throughout the world, especially in those countries that were colonized. For example, during his May 2021 visit to the Central African country, the French President Macron apologized for his government’s role and its failure to act in the 1994 Rwandan genocide. Similarly, in May 2021 the German government also apologized for their role in the genocide that took place in what was German South West Africa (now Namibia) during which thousands of local Africans were enslaved and allowed to die in concentration camps. They undertook to invest 1.1 billion Euros in the Namibian economy as atonement.

A short extract from Nandi and Platt (2015) highlights some of the issues that require attention.

In the context of increasing immigration and the changing composition of European populations through both immigration and demographic change, there has been extensive public debate both in the UK and internationally on the success or otherwise of “multiculturalism” and the liberal multiculturalist project (Kymlicka 1996). Modood (2007) has defined multiculturalism as “The recognition of group difference within the public sphere of laws, policies, democratic discourses and the terms of a shared citizenship and national identity.” However, there have been ongoing debates about the extent to which group recognition is compatible with the egalitarian principles of liberal democracies (Barry 2001). Huntington’s (1993) claim that there are limits to the extent that it is possible for different “cultures” to co-exist, a concern particularly targeted on religious difference, has found a more recent resonance, in the retreat from multiculturalism and political anxiety about the extent to which difference (especially difference as marked by Islam) and shared identity are fundamentally incompatible. (p. 2.)

1.1.2 Neoliberal assumptions

In their examination of the assumptions that people have about the world of work, Bal and Dóci (2018) show how a neoliberal ideology and its accompanying set of assumptions manifests itself in the domains of work and organizational psychology (WOP). In their view, neoliberalism is a political-economic ideology which postulates that to enhance human well-being, it is necessary to maximize individual economic freedom in society (p. 1). They argue that an understanding of the impact of neoliberal assumptions on WOP is important, as scientific research (and management praxis, no doubt, although they do not go there) are profoundly influenced by the ideologies that shape the way pertinent issues are framed. They build on three different logics through which ideology permeates the workplace. In this respect, Glynos (2008, 2011) differentiates between political, social and fantasmatic logic (Glynos & Howarth, 2007).

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. (p 5)

In other words, human well-being/prosperity is realized through individual economic freedom to act and that ultimately, morality ensues from economic freedom. It is based on the regulation of a free market/unlimited economic freedom by the “invisible hand”, which thereby determines the distribution of resources. The notion of the “invisible hand” thus postulates that “those who work hard are rewarded” (p. 538) and that all individuals are agents who partake in society in a strategic manner, out of self-interest and with a focus on utility maximization (Bal & Dóci, 2018). The most relevant assumption of neoliberalism is that it advocates for the “commodification of everything” – labour and intellect are simply commodities and the employment relationship is a transactional one: people sell their labour in return for a salary which makes labour a commodity that can be freely exchanged on the market. This eradicates the view that work and employment relationships are intrinsically meaningful and fulfilling (Bal & Dóci, 2018).

As conceptualized by Harmes (2012), neoliberalism, is concerned primarily with “individual freedom and, in particular, freedom from social democratic forms of government intervention designed to redistribute wealth and correct market failures [i.e. in support of laissez-faire markets]” (p. 64). Under neoliberalism, governmental intervention in the market ought to be severely restricted to ensure the unbridled exercise of the free hand. Neoliberalism is thus fundamentally an individualistic ideology that places emphasis on the utility of the individual as central to societal and businesses processes. Individuals are thus seen to focus primarily on their own interests and maximization of own goals, as well as have a sense of responsibility and accountability for individual actions and well-being (Bauman, 2000, as cited in Bal & Dóci, 2018). Individualism “tends to ignore the structural factors underpinning employee behaviours, thereby attributing a personal and individualised responsibility for how individuals behave in the workplace” (Bal & Dóci, 2018, p. 542).

In contrast to traditional ideas of liberalism, the neoliberal ideology thus maintains that liberation is not bounded by morality, but that morality follows from economic freedom and that the market is not just an economic force, it is a moral force that punishes the lazy and incompetent and rewards the resourceful and hard working.

1.1.3 Critique of the NLC arguments

Bal and Dóci (2018) are critical of this neoliberal model of the world of work, particularly its individualistic, free market ideology, noting:

There are a several problems 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 [and managers] to make choices in their research [and practices] which are ideologically informed …. Second, neoliberalism has been argued to have profound negative effects on social justice and equality (Harvey, 2005), and lack of awareness of neoliberal ideology may legitimize rather than contest neoliberal ideology in WOP. (p 2)

In other words, NLC is wrong in accepting that the business of business is business, and that it should take over, or at least assist in, the State’s role of ensuring the survival and dignity of those parts of the population that are not able (or willing) to contribute to the neoliberal business enterprise, that is, of “feeding the baby”.

What is noteworthy in this regard is that this neoliberal focus on individual rather than social wellbeing sits well within what Geert Hofstede (e.g., 2001) has termed a masculine culture which is driven by competition, achievement and success. It also clearly within what Hofstede labels an individualistic culture. This is defined by the degree to which a society reinforces individual achievement and interpersonal relationships. These cultures find satisfaction in meeting challenges, and have an expectation of rewards for hard work and privacy and personal space are respected. It is interesting to note in this regard that the UK ranks third highest on individualism (after the US and Australia) and tenth on the masculinity dimension. On the other hand, more collectivist cultures are characterized by closer ties between individuals, the tendency to suppress feelings and emotions in order to work in harmony and mutual support where everyone takes responsibility for fellow members of their group. Feminine cultures are far more nurturing of the “other” than masculine ones. Holland scores quite highly on the individualism scale, but is amongst the most feminine/nurturing countries surveyed by Hofstede (see, e.g., Hofstede, Hofstede and Minkov, 2010). It is therefore not too surprising to find that British managers are far more likely to accept the basic tenets of the neoliberal argument and that Bal and Dóci, both from Holland, are far more opposed to the neoliberal position than most Britons.

1.1.4 Henrich’s WEIRD theory

This anti-NLC sentiment is closely echoed in the recent publication by Joseph Henrich (2020) that examines the perceived cultural imperialism of Eurocentric individualism. In his book, Henrich (2020) of Harvard University argues that the vast majority of business and psychological theories in the literature is based on what he terms WEIRD populations, where WEIRD is an acronym for Western, Educated, Industrialized, Rich and Democratic. He states:

One of the first lessons that must be learned from this important book is that …. we must stop assuming that our ways are “universal”. Offhand, I cannot think of many researchers who haven’t tacitly adopted some dubious universalist assumptions. I certainly have. We will all have to change our perspective.

In a review of this book in the New York Times, dated 12 September 2020, Daniel Dennett notes the following:

The world today has billions of inhabitants who have minds strikingly different from ours. Roughly, we weirdos are individualistic, think analytically, believe in free will, take personal responsibility, feel guilt when we misbehave and think nepotism is to be vigorously discouraged, if not outlawed. Right? They (the non-WEIRD majority) identify more strongly with family, tribe, clan and ethnic group, think more “holistically”, take responsibility for what their group does (and publicly punish those who besmirch the group’s honor), feel shame – not guilt – when they misbehave and think nepotism is a natural duty.

Henrich is thus the latest in a series of authors challenging the wisdom of believing that the Eurocentric way of being and doing things as inherently superior to other world views, an assumption that allows for and normalizes the neoliberal approach in the workplace and the broader social environment. Against this background, management is seen primarily from a WEIRD perspective within the English melting pot and a universalist one size fits all approach. Accordingly, most of the tools and techniques brought by European psychologists to the management of people and organizations, including assessment and selection as a matching process, are unwittingly but not unexpectedly, seen through this neoliberal WEIRD lens. The impact of these assumptions needs further analysis.

Perhaps another, more cynical, interpretation of WEIRD could be White, Ethnocentric, Insensitive, Racist and Dominating!

1.1.5 Social reactions to these arguments

It is accepted that anti-discrimination legislation exists in the majority of the WEIRD nations and that this has led to the equality and human rights movements. It is also accepted that it is the Northern European, Protestant countries together with the USA, Canada, Australia and New Zealand which are the most liberal and most concerned about fairness. It is also clear that many non-Eurocentric people are not immigrants and have been in the UK and elsewhere in Europe for decades and over generations. At the same time (as Modood and others argue), there are often socio-cultural remnants in their world views that may impact on the way they respond to various workplace situations and events. It would appear that people responsible for personnel selection in these countries are stuck in bubbles of groupthink (to use Mandaville’s 2021 term – see below) and are relatively unaware of the issues involved in ensuring fairness in recruitment and assessment for selection.

In support of this argument, Tariq Modood (2007), a Pakistan-born professor of Sociology at Bristol University, states the following:

The relationship between ethnic, religious and social communities in some Western European states is surrounded by a sense of crisis. The atmospherics of this crisis – immigration, visible difference, tension over “trigger issues” such as women’s apparel or icons of faith, the pervading fears of the post-9/11 world – are easier to identify than its actual character. In this circumstance, where evidence of conflict is readily available but a view of the whole picture is harder to achieve, it is not surprising that many people – seeking to make meaning from apparent confusion – look for scapegoats. In media, academia and much public discussion in the first years of the millennium (particularly in Britain … ), one of the principal scapegoats has been and continues to be multiculturalism. (p. 1)