Special Issue of Management Revue
Post-Growth Organization

Guest Editors:
Matthias Rätzer, Technical University Chemnitz, Germany
Ronald Hartz, Technical University Chemnitz, Germany
Ingo Winkler, University of Southern Denmark

For a couple of years now growth-driven societies have been in a permanent state of crisis. Since 2007 the global financial crisis and its aftermath are challenging our ideas of growth, well-being, consumption and work within global capitalism. Consequently, critical scholars in management and organization studies have begun to advocate alternative forms of organization and to problematize the collective imagination that ‘there is no alternative to growth’ (Parker et al. 2014; Atzeni 2012).

One important analytical dimension within the search for alternatives relates to the limits of growth in its economic, ecological and social dimension. For example, Meadows et al. (2004) explicate that a finite (world) system cannot handle an everlasting orientation toward growth without running into a collapse. Hirsch (1976) argues that social rise in a stratified society smolders, leading to social imbalances in the long term. Several authors discuss economic restrictions under the name of de-growth (Georgescu-Roegen 1977; Latouche 2009; Martínez Alier et al. 2010; Schneider et al. 2010; Kallis 2013). Schneider et al. (2010) point towards unfulfilled expectations in the context of creating win-win-situations and question the possibility of sustainable growth through technological and efficiency improvements. Relative to the social context, others discuss the label steady-state-economy, which challenges the relationship between growth and labor, solvency and consolidated public finances (Daly 1972, 1973; Lawn 2011; Blauwhof 2012).

However, there exist only few contributions discussing organizational alternatives to an orientation toward growth (Cheney et al. 2014). Some authors address growth neutral enterprises (Bakker et al. 1999; White/White 2012). Others note that neither governments nor private sector executives have any incentives supporting the development of a post-growth environment (e.g. Latouche, 2006; Ayres, 2008; Martínez Alier 2009). Therefore, the specific aim of this special issue is to substantiate the debate on post-growth, steady-state and de-growth from an organizational perspective. How can organizations respond to the limits of economic growth? How can organizations, from a post-growth perspective, promote their social worth as opposed to their monetary worth? How can organizations implement the elements of a post-growth economy, such as cutting-down and slowing down, a balance between sufficiency and dependency on consumption, institutional innovations for the society, the environment and regional economy (Paech, 2016)?

In addressing post-growth organizations (PGOs), we assume alternative organizations, featuring individual autonomy and respect, an orientation towards solidarity and cooperation, and responsibility to the future (Parker et al., 2014) to constitute a fertile ground for PGOs. Furthermore, we could imagine PGOs to develop from associations, growth neutral enterprises, co-operations, solidarity organizations, grass-root movements or even ‘traditional’ enterprises. Eventually, we do not restrict our focus on PGOs to the economic domain, but also take social and ecologic concerns, such as social entrepreneurs, into account. We call for contributions discussing different perspectives on PGOs, investigating their characteristics and limits. Furthermore, we embrace contributions investigating the range and coverage of PGOs as an organizational possibility in a future, post-growth society.

The contributions to this special issue should address one or more of the following questions:

• What characterizes the organization and the management of ‘post-growth organizations’ (PGOs)?
• Which role do the principles of autonomy, solidarity and responsibility play in PGOs? What kind of problems, contradictions and conjoint amplification are observable regarding these principles?
• Do PGOs enable us to cure some of the organizational ills created by a narrow focus on economic growth?
• What are the limits and prospects of PGOs in the transformation of capitalism?
• What organizational practices, tools and instruments are important in PGOs (e.g. accounting practices, compensation practices, decision making, regulations of working time, work-life balance, forms of participation etc.)?
• Is it possible to turn traditional organizations into PGOs?
• Which strategies (e.g. overcoming of externally defined difficulties, internal processes of storytelling, micro politics, adjustment of power) can be identified in the constitution and management of PGOs and which practices in PGOs are working well and which are not?
• This is not an exhaustive list.

Deadline
Potential contributors to the Special Issue of Management Revue are encouraged to submit an abstract of 1-2 pages before 30 September 2016 electronically via the online submission system at http://www.management-revue.org/submission/ using ‘Post-Growth Organization’ as article section. Contributors will receive feedback and an invitation to submit a full paper by the end of October 2016.

Full papers must be submitted by 31 March 2017. All contributions will be subject to a double-blind review. Papers invited to a ‘revise and resubmit’ are due 31 August 2017.

Looking forward to hearing from you!
Matthias Rätzer
Ronald Hartz
Ingo Winkler

9./10. März 2017 in Duisburg

Das Rhein-Ruhr Promovendensymposium ist eine Veranstaltung, die das Institut Arbeit und Qualifikation (IAQ) und das Institut für Soziologie (IfS) der Universität Duisburg-Essen organisieren. Das Organisations- und Programmkomitee besteht aus PD Dr. Martin Brussig (IAQ) und Prof. Dr. Marcel Erlinghagen (IfS). Eine Förderung bei der Hans-Böckler-Stiftung wurde beantragt und in den Vorjahren bewilligt.

Die jährlich ausgerichtete Veranstaltung richtet sich an Promovendinnen und Promovenden unterschiedlicher sozialwissenschaftlicher Disziplinen und angrenzender Fächer (z.B. Soziologie, Wirtschaftswissenschaft, Politikwissenschaft), deren laufende Doktorarbeit einen Zusammenhang mit mindestens einem der beiden Oberthemen „Arbeit“ oder „Soziale Sicherheit“ aufweist. Im Rahmen des Symposiums besteht für die Teilnehmerinnen und Teilnehmer die Möglichkeit, ihre im Entstehungsprozess befindliche Arbeit vorzustellen und mit erfahrenen Wissenschaftlerinnen und Wissenschaftlern sowie anderen Doktorandinnen und Doktoranden intensiv zu diskutieren. Dabei sind sowohl theoretisch-konzeptionelle als auch empirische oder sozialpolitische Arbeiten gleichermaßen erwünscht.

Interessierte Promovendinnen und Promovenden können sich für die Präsentation ihrer Arbeit bewerben, indem sie bis zum 15. September 2016 eine Zusammenfassung ihres Vorhabens (maximal 3.000 Zeichen) einreichen. Eine Entscheidung über die Annahme des Vortragsvorschlags fällt spätestens bis zum 15. November 2016. Angenommene Bewerberinnen und Bewerber müssen den Organisatoren dann bis spätestens 31. Januar 2017 einen zusammenhängenden Aufsatz (maximal 60.000 Zeichen) zusenden.

Die ausgewählten Teilnehmerinnen und Teilnehmer werden auf dem Symposium in maximal 20 Minuten wesentliche Aspekte ihrer Arbeit vortragen. Dieser Vortrag und der zuvor eingereichte Aufsatz werden anschließend durch eine(n) erfahrene(n) Forscher(in) kommentiert und im Plenum diskutiert. Für eingeladene Teilnehmerinnen und Teilnehmer übernehmen die Organisatoren die anfallenden Fahrt- und Hotelkosten.

Bitte senden Sie Ihre Bewerbung in elektronischer Form an:

Prof. Dr. Marcel Erlinghagen
c/o Silke Demmler (Sekretariat)
Institut für Soziologie
Universität Duisburg-Essen

Special Issue of Management Revue
Demands in the modern workplace

Guest Editors:
Sascha Ruhle, Heinrich-Heine-Universität Düsseldorf, Düsseldorf, Germany
Johannes Siegrist, Heinrich-Heine-Universität Düsseldorf, Düsseldorf, Germany
Stefan Süß, Heinrich-Heine-Universität Düsseldorf, Düsseldorf, Germany
Eva-Ellen Weiß, Heinrich-Heine-Universität Düsseldorf, Düsseldorf, Germany

The flexibility of work organization and employment, the growing need for training and development, digitalization of work, the increasing blurring boundaries between work and private life – the list of developments that have shaped the modern working world in recent years is long. Those developments will continue to affect employees as well as organizations and economies. Especially for employees, several of these developments are challenges rather than improvements. Various approaches have increased our understanding of these and similar challenges, including the job demand-control model (Karasek, 1979), leader-member exchange (Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995; Hesselgreaves & Scholarios, 2014), the effort–reward imbalance model (Siegrist, 2002) and the concept of work-family conflict (Barnett, 1998).

There are numerous indications that demands in the modern work place lead to elevated stress experiences (Sparks et al., 2001; Sverke et al., 2002; Stansfeld & Candy, 2006) and related health consequences (e.g. Schnall et al., 2009; Siegrist & Wahrendorf, 2016). Sources of stress may, for example, be rooted in role overload or even role underload depending on the type of demands (Shultz et al., 2010). Further, research shows that changing working conditions can provoke conflicts between work and private life (e.g., Byron, 2005). In the long run, impairments of job satisfaction and health can result as well in reduced work engagement and elevated turnover intentions (e.g., Kinnunen, 2008; Li et al., 2015). Thus, organizations increasingly aim at improving working conditions in order to keep their employees healthy and productive.

Divers options exist for organizations to tackle these challenges. For example, both supervisor and coworker support have been shown to reduce the negative consequences of demands (Luchman & González-Morales, 2015), and the same holds true for a transformational leadership style (Weiß & Süß, 2016), while an increase in time flexibility might even further strain the individual (e.g., Biron & van Veldhoven, 2016). Another way to deal with workplace demands might be the development of personal resources, which in turn can decrease burnout (Huang et al., 2015) or the adequate design of employees’ task fields (Shultz et al., 2010).

Yet, to answer challenges resulting from demands in the modern workplace, research might benefit from considering not only results from a single discipline, but a combined perspective. Multiple disciplines, like business administration, psychology, sociology, and occupational medicine contribute to, e.g., research on stress and resulting strain (e.g., Ganster & Rosen, 2013). A joint approach might further enhance our understanding of the prevention, occurrence, and the consequences of work demands as multiple perspectives on the area of research are being combined.

Therefore, prospective papers may address, but are not restricted to, the following questions:

• Which individual and organizational consequences result from the various developments that characterize the modern working world? And how might organizations manage the different technological and economic changes in order to reduce negative consequences for employees?
• Under what circumstances do particularly problematic work demands arise? What are the differences between various forms of employment and their influences on work demands?
• How can organizations manage the various demands in the workplace and which approaches are the most promising ones? What possible help can leadership or co-worker support provide to face increasing work demands?
• What are the socio-structural and economic antecedents of and consequences caused by work demands? Are there burdens which are unequally distributed among different social or occupational classes that account for differences in the exposure to changing demands?

Potential authors
Authors are encouraged to submit research manuscripts that are likely to make a significant contribution to the literature on demands in the modern workplace. The focus of the Special Issue is empirical – qualitative or quantitative – evidence, and we welcome contributions from business administration, industrial and organizational psychology, work sociology, and occupational medicine as well as other disciplines dealing with the topic of the Special Issue.

Deadline
Full papers for this special edition of “management revue” must be with the editors by 31 January 2017. All submissions will be subject to a double-blind review process. Papers invited for a “revise and resubmit” are due on 31 May 2017. Final decision will be made by September 2017. The special edition will be published in 2017 or 2018. Please submit your papers via email to Sascha Ruhle and Stefan Süß, using “management revue” as a subject.

Submission Guidelines
Manuscript length should not exceed 8,000 words (excluding references) and the norm should be 30 pages in double spaced type with margins of about 3 cm (1 inch) on each side of the page. Further, please follow the guidelines on the website http://www.management-revue.org/authors_guidelines.php and submit the papers electronically by sending a “blind” copy of your manuscript (delete all author identification from this primary document), and in a second document information that would typically appear on the document’s title page (title, author names, complete postal addresses, titles, affiliations, contact information including email, and phone).

We look forward to receiving your contribution!
Sascha Ruhle, Johannes Siegrist, Stefan Süß & Eva-Ellen Weiß

Special Issue of Management Revue
Digital Working Life

Guest Editors:
Mikael Ottosson, Lund University (Sweden)
Calle Rosengren, Lund University (Sweden)
Doris Holtmann, Helmut-Schmidt-University Hamburg (Germany)
Wenzel Matiaske, Helmut Schmidt University Hamburg (Germany)

Working life is undergoing a radical change in which new digital technologies are changing the nature of labour and its organizational forms in a pervasive manner, regardless of whether it concerns qualified professionals or labourers. The framework, which previously regulated the content of work, as well as when, where and how it would be conducted is being reconsidered. A process that presents both challenges and possibilities.

One fundamental aspect of ICT is that it can make employees more accessible to others and allow work to become more available to the employee. Easy access to ICT functions (e.g., email, text and voice messages), for example, enable employees to continue working after leaving the office for the day. This ease of access may have both positive and negative effects. Although much of the research focus to date has concentrated on how ICT may act as demands, stressors or certain characteristics of ICT can enhance work-life balance, employee satisfaction, well-being and productivity.

Another aspect of new digital technologies concerns the manner in which the work process is monitored and controlled. Surveillance in the workplace is not a novelty. Nor is it unreasonable to expect that employers have both rights and reasons to do so. To a certain extent, of course. However, increasing availability of relatively inexpensive and easy to use technology, for example software monitoring programs, enables employers to expand the range and scope of their control over their employees’ activities. The increase in potential methods to track and monitor employee behaviour poses questions that concern where the borders for personal integrity are drawn. Who has the right to personal details, and at what point? In what way does this monitoring affect the social relations between employer and employee in terms of control, autonomy and trust?

Digital technology, in computers, phones or in the “Internet of things” also provides tools that enable the standardization of work on a completely different level than previously. For some workers, we see a degradation and depletion of work, and also that the control of work is increasing; a development that is usually described using the concept of “Digital Taylorism.” How does this development affect the working man or the working class?

In the special issue we would like to discuss our topic in an appropriately broad and interdisciplinary manner. We are particularly interested in questions such as:

• Virtual work and stress
• Digital technologies and work-family boundaries
• Virtual teams and E-leadership
• Digital Taylorism
• Virtual work and trust
• Digital surveillance

This is not an exhaustive list.

Deadline
Full papers for this Special Issue of Management Revue must be submitted by September 30th, 2016. All contributions will be subject to a double-blind review. Papers invited to a ‘revise and resubmit’ are due January 31st, 2017. Please submit your papers electronically via the online submission system at http://www.management-revue.org/submission/ using ‘SI Digital Working Life’ as article section.

Looking forward to hearing from you!
Mikael Ottosson
Calle Rosengren
Doris Holtmann
Wenzel Matiaske