One symptom of individualism in liquid modernity is the search for `identity'. Using the five theoretically discrete articles in this special issue as both a `rich' discursive resource and a point of departure, we develop a supplementary reading of the narratives which appear to inform identity research. We suggest that, while social agents in pursuit of `identity' draw on a cacophony of discursive sources, it is the varieties of `self—other' talk which emerge as the critical ingredient in processes of identity formation. The dualities that all such self—other talk articulate can be seen as discursive reflections of the more fundamental relationship between the individual and sociality. In turn, this is seen to refract one of the persistent problems of organizational analysis: the agency—structure issue. In addition, while we argue that deploying a discursive perspective to analyze identity work offers distinctive insights, such an approach carries with it an epistemological consequence. For what the articles also indicate is that in any attempt to delineate the `identity of identities', researchers need to be aware of not only the reflexivity displayed by social actors constructing `identity' but also of their own role in `re-authoring' such scripts. We briefly explore the implications of this for identity theory and organizational analysis more generally.

No abstract

The polemical argument developed in this paper is an attempt to analyse thè problem' of HRM and suggest a way forward. The`problem' is identi®ed in terms of the intrinsic conceptual-theoretic, empirical, representative and institutional ambiguities which characterize the discourses and practices of HRM. It is argued that these stem from the epistemological limitations of modernist methodologies employed to`identify' and`®x' HRM. The proposed`solution' involves visualizing the phenomenal forms taken by HRM through the metaphor of the hologram and re-understanding HRM from a holographic perspective. This permits the well-known`contradictions' to dissolve and HRM is reconstituted as a complex holistic process refracting the politico-managerial changes attendant oǹ globalization'. INTRODUCTIOǸ

This article addresses the question of what might constitute Critical Human Resource Management (CHRM). Consideration is given to ideas from critics of HRM, both from within the field and those external to it, in particular Critical Management Studies, and to mainstream scholars who have voiced concerns regarding the moribund and limited nature of mainstream HRM. CHRM is advanced in order that HRM might be better contextualized within the prevailing socio-economic order of capitalism; managerialist assumptions and language may be denaturalized and challenged; and that voices excluded in mainstream HRM, such as workers (especially minorities and those in nonstandard employment), trade unions and those involved outside large Western corporations, may be heard. The analytical coherence of CHRM builds from a theorization of the employment relationship and requires acknowledgement of the sociological, psychological, economic, political and ethical aspects of working, managing and organizing. In our view, HRM research will be enriched by the variety of methodological and theoretical approaches of CHRM and by the inclusion of a wider range of different research settings and research questions. However, a fruitful and reflexive engagement between CHRM and mainstream HRM seems unlikely until the latter critically assesses rather than assumes the managerial perspective.

No abstract