Global Journal of Human Social Science, C: Sociology and Culture, Volume 23 Issue 2

thus aim to generate motivation, identification and commitment by introducing elements such as personal interests, games and flirtations into the office. The emphasis on committed subjects is also reflected in diverse regulatory mechanisms and practices ranging from team building activities to internal competition and self and peer performance assessments. These HR practices ostensively have nothing but employee satisfaction in mind, which is also recognised as a vital component of performativity. However, even the “inner preserve” protected from the corporate culture regimes, through the separation of work from personal life, has thus been claimed by the workplace and can now be used as a self disciplinary form of control. The more work is perceived as an arena for self development, fulfilment and fun, the more it demands in terms of time, effort and emotional investment. If employees’ performance is failing, this is seen to be a problem with their own values, personality or identity (Fleming & Sturdy, 2009). Enhanced and pervasive managerial control is construed as autonomy, self management, self fulfilment and fun. This reveals both the duplicitous character and ethical basis of managerialism, which posits universal self improvement and satisfaction as the promise of careful management. The notions of autonomy and selfmanagement that figure extensively in HR fit the general aim of shaping people’s subjective life in tune with the demands of management. Furthermore, the reality behind the post bureaucratic discourse often involves an idiosyncratic mix of hierarchical and new forms of organisational governance known as hybrid or soft bureaucracies. For one thing, information and communication technologies provide new means of audit and control. HR practices construed as employees’ self government often take the form of subordination to surveillance and appraisal mechanisms, tight timetables, budget constraints etc. Such surveillance and assessments turn the autonomy and self management of teams and professionals into a mechanism of compliance, because everyone must constantly meet management’s objectives and project milestones. Failure to do so means the trust and autonomy were unjustified, and careers may end or stall (Courpasson, 2000). The short term nature and quick circulation of projects requires employees to constantly strive for visibility, not only regarding their creativity and professionalism but also their ability to meet tight schedules and budgets, withstand pressures and justify the trust of their superiors. Interestingly, in such hybrid organisations, bureaucratic hierarchies with their stability, authority and formality are often reserved for senior management alone. Post bureaucratic flexibility is the lot of those on lower ranks that compete and strive to make themselves valuable (Clegg, 2011). Such post bureaucratic flattened hierarchies and networks thus contain several managerial benefits. They extend discipline and control to encompass employees’ feelings and identities, while presenting them as self fulfilment, achievement and even fun. They cast the practices of management as the means of personal improvement and universal satisfaction. And last but not least, they generate an elite global network of senior managers and professionals with high levels of education and income, that hold the best jobs and societal positions and make the most important decisions (van Dijk, 2006). Their jobs are typically composed of short term projects, shifting businesses and constant mobility while working in technology and media intensive environments. What makes this lifestyle possible are office workers living locally, as well as the self management methods based on productivity and performance monitoring, which require only 15% of managerial time to run the office (Elliott, 2016). This facilitates the creation of a new global power structure, typical of managerialism, which subsists though the opposition between mobility and groundedness, routine and contingency. Not only globalisation, as Bauman has it, but the whole managerialist social order ‘may be defined in many ways, but that of the ‘revenge of the nomads’ is as good as if not better than any other’ (Bauman, 2001, p. 35). V. C onclusion The fluid and porous character of second modernity has naturally affected social and cultural theory as well. Among else, it encouraged the view that multiple lifestyles and identities render ‘abstract modernist structures’ such as classes obsolete as factors of the social structure. The very attempt to link the different strands of second modernity into a single explanation has therefore become outmoded. Let alone using socioeconomic interests and divisions for this purpose. In the face of trendiness, however, the disorganised, decentred and pluralistic nature of second modernity only runs as deep as managerial social dominance requires. This paper found that constitutive aspects of second modernity are also emphasised and bolstered by managerial discourse and practices, which arose concurrently with them. Managerial discourse often cites uncertainty, swift changes and flexibility as an unavoidable social reality in order to present managerial practices as both necessary and applaudable. Yet, managerial theories and practices have also played an important causal role in shaping second modernity, while its character tends in turn to fortify the social power and dominance of management. The world of risks and uncertainties – many of them the outcome of corporate decisions – justifies © 2023 Global Journals Volume XXIII Issue II Version I 83 ( ) Global Journal of Human Social Science - Year 2023 C Epochal Change and Second Modernity as a Sociocultural Manifestation of Managerialism