Guest Editors:
Mikael Ottosson, Lund University (Sweden)
Simon Fietze, University of Southern Denmark
Wenzel Matiaske, Helmut-Schmidt-University/University of the Federal Armed Forces Hamburg (Germany)

Seminar at the IUC Dubrovnik (April 8-12, 2019) & Special Issue

Since several decades, researchers are giving more attention to organizational culture – or more precisely the values, rituals, symbols and heroes of the organizations. This is a development that has been accelerated by the trend towards flexible organizations and men in the era of new decentralization. This development is recently reinforced by the digitization of working life. In relation to these concepts, we see a renewed interest in the concept of (industrial) paternalism.

In organizational studies, a frequent interpretation of paternalism is the analysis of the use of different social welfare benefits. This is also a phenomenon with historical roots. In early industrial rural contexts, it was common for workers to have access to corporate-owned housing, food supply, healthcare etc. According to the research, these paternalistic benefits – or management techniques – aimed to stabilize the workforce and create an internal labour market. But many scholars in the field give the term paternalism a significantly broader meaning that includes a moral relationship between the employee and the employer. This position implies that the organization is given a different meaning, in the sense that it is based on a wider social relationship than a strict economic between the employee and the employer. The social conditions of the paternalistic organization are often compared to those in a family. The owner of the company (represented by the director or manager) is analysed in terms of to be the father – or the head – and the employees are like the children – or the body of the organization.

Within the framework of an essentially social-historical discussion, the British historian E. P. Thompson once noted that paternalism is a problematic concept. Central to his criticism was that it is a loose, unclear and descriptive term. Furthermore, he argued that using the concept implies the risk of identifying patterns of consensus rather than patterns of conflict in the social relations of production. This does not mean that researchers should avoid the term in a historical and socio-economic analysis, but rather that the concept is needed to be filled with content and discussed theoretically as well as empirically.

Paternalism, in some contexts termed welfare capitalism, is a term used in various academic disciplines, such as anthropology, history, sociology and economics. The purpose of this seminar and the special issue of management revue – Socio-Economic Studies is to highlight the historical and contemporary relevance of the concept in cross-disciplinary discussions. Some context to discuss in order to clarify the concept of paternalism are listed below:

• paternalism as a historical phenomenon
  
• moral economy
  
• management practices
  
• labour market relations
  
• the welfare state
  
• paternalism in an international comparison
  

These are just some ideas and not an exhaustive list. The seminar welcomes empirical studies as well as theoretical papers and provides sufficient time for discussion and reflection.

Deadline
Potential contributors to the seminar at the IUC Dubrovnik are encouraged to submit an abstract of 5 pages before December 31st, 2018 electronically via the online submission system of management revue – Socio-Economic Studies using ‘IUC Dubrovnik’ as article section: http://www.mrev.nomos.de/

All contributors to the seminar are invited to submit their paper for the special issue of management revue – Socio-Economic Studies. Full papers must be submitted by July 31st, 2019. All contributions will be subject to a double-blind review. Papers invited to a ‘revise and resubmit’ are due October 31st, 2019.

Hoping to hear from you!
Mikael Ottosson
Simon Fietze
Wenzel Matiaske

Guest Editors:
Dorothea Alewell, University of Hamburg (Germany)
Simon Fietze, University of Southern Denmark
Wenzel Matiaske, Helmut-Schmidt-University/University of the Federal Armed Forces Hamburg (Germany)

Special Issue

Standards of good work – in economics, law, sociology and industrial psychology – are rooted in ideas of protecting labour against exploitation and alienation. Certainly, these basic ideas have not lost their importance. However, organisations as socio-technological systems have radically changed during the last decades, which entails the need for revision of the implications formulated in the 1960s. The front against Taylorism and the bureaucratic phenomenon will prove fruitless in times of the flexible organisation and subsequently flexible women and men. E. g.:

• Technical progress may result not only in a reduction of workload but also in a devaluation of human capital which is bounded to persons, relatives and communities. New sourcing strategies of enterprises for example via crowd and click work platforms will change the structure of relevant labour markets.
• Labour law may foster the unintended effect of building up a non-core workforce which is excluded from regulations which protect regular employees. The questions of how protection can be organised elsewhere, and whether monetary instruments as an unconditional minimum wage are a good remedy are still debated intensely.
• The additional margin for manoeuvre intended as a resource enabling coping in models of work-related stress has converted to a stressor itself in flexible organisations.
• Changes of value orientations, which are out of the perspective of social research since decades, may result in altered individual demands and hence on answers to the question what makes a good job.
• The same is true for the change in the structure of the workforce, for example concerning age, gender, generation and religious orientation, on the collective level.

This is not an exhaustive list.

The special issue welcomes empirical studies as well as theoretical papers.

Deadline
Full papers for this special issue of management revue – Socio-Economic Studies must be submitted by August 31st, 2018. All contributions will be subject to double-blind review. Papers invited to a “revise and resubmit” are due January 31th, 2019. The publication is scheduled for issue 3/2019. Please submit your papers electronically via the online submission system at http://www.mrev.nomos.de/ using “SI Standards of Good Work” as article section.

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 journal’s website and submit the papers electronically by sending a “blind” copy of your manuscript (delete all author identification from this primary document).

Hoping to hear from you!
Dorothea Alewell
Simon Fietze
Wenzel Matiaske

Guest Editors:
Dorothea Alewell, University of Hamburg (Germany)
Simon Fietze, University of Southern Denmark
Wenzel Matiaske, Helmut-Schmidt-University/University of the Federal Armed Forces Hamburg (Germany)

Seminar at the IUC Dubrovnik (April 3-7, 2018) & Special Issue

Standards of good work – in economics, law, sociology and industrial psychology – are rooted in ideas of protecting labour against exploitation and alienation. Certainly, these basic ideas have not lost their importance. However, organisations as socio-technological systems have radically changed during the last decades, which entails the need for revision of the implications formulated in the 1960s. The front against Taylorism and the bureaucratic phenomenon will prove fruitless in times of the flexible organisation and subsequently flexible women and men. E. g.:

• Technical progress may result not only in a reduction of workload but also in a devaluation of human capital which is bounded to persons, relatives and communities. New sourcing strategies of enterprises for example via crowd and clickwork platforms will change the structure of relevant labour markets.
• Labour law may foster the unintended effect of building up a non-core workforce which is excluded from regulations which protect regular employees. The questions of how protection can be organised elsewhere, and whether monetary instruments as an unconditional minimum wage are a good remedy are still debated intensely.
• The additional margin for manoeuvre intended as a resource enabling coping in models of work-related stress has converted to a stressor itself in flexible organisations.
• Changes of value orientations, which are out of the perspective of social research since decades, may result in altered individual demands and hence on answers to the question what makes a good job.
• The same is true for the change in the structure of the workforce, for example concerning age, gender, generation and religious orientation, on the collective level.

This is not an exhaustive list.

The seminar welcomes empirical studies as well as theoretical papers and provides sufficient time for discussion and reflection.

Deadline
Potential contributors to the seminar at the IUC Dubrovnik are encouraged to submit an abstract of 5 pages before February 28th, 2018 electronically via the online submission system of management revue – Socio-Economic Studies using ‘IUC Dubrovnik’ as article section: http://www.mrev.nomos.de/guidelines/submit-manuscript/

All contributors to the seminar are invited to submit their paper for the special issue of management revue – Socio-Economic Studies. Full papers must be submitted by July 31st, 2018. All contributions will be subject to a double-blind review. Papers invited to a ‘revise and resubmit’ are due October 31st, 2018.

Hoping to hear from you!
Dorothea Alewell
Simon Fietze
Wenzel Matiaske

Aims and Topics
The IAB Graduate School’s 10th interdisciplinary Ph.D. Workshop “Perspectives on (Un-) Employment” endeavours to bring together young researchers from different disciplines. This international workshop will provide an opportunity for Ph.D. students to present and discuss their research in a constructive atmosphere, incorporating feedback and advice from a number of experienced researchers.
Keynote Speakers
Professor Richard Blundell (University College London, Institute for Fiscal Studies)
Professor Thomas Hinz (University of Konstanz)
Deadline for submission is 15 October 2017.
For more Information see:
http://www.iab.de/en/veranstaltungen.aspx

Guest Editors:
Sascha Ruhle, Heinrich-Heine-Universität Düsseldorf, Düsseldorf (Germany)
Stefan Süß, Heinrich-Heine-Universität Düsseldorf, Düsseldorf (Germany)

Special Issue

Flexibility has been an ongoing issue for various fields of research and practice and a considerable amount of literature dealing with the concept of flexibility has developed. This diversity has led to various perspectives on dimensions and aspects of flexibility. However, two major fields of flexibility can be distinguished. The organizational perspective understands workplace flexibility as the degree of adaptability of an organization in an uncertain and changing environment (Dastmalchian & Blyton 2001). In addition, workplace flexibility can encompass the individual perspective of the workforce, especially the degree of flexibility regarding aspects of where, when, and how work is performed (Hill et al. 2008). Within both streams of research, various aspects of flexibility have been addressed, such as organizational structures (Feldman & Pentland 2003), type of employment (Lepak et al. 2003; Sayah & Süß 2013), management and strategic human resource management (Wright & Snell 1998), time and location of work (Allen et al. 2013), demands towards employees (Vahle-Hinz et al. 2013) and work (Ruiner et al. 2013), leadership (Barrow 1976), and the role of Communication Technologies (Diaz et al. 2012).

Regarding the consequences of flexibility, literature often assumes positive results for both iindividualand organization, when flexibility increases. For example, evidence has been found that flexibility at work is positively related to self-reported health (Butler et al. 2009). Furthermore, it can increase organizational attractiveness (Nadler et al. 2010; Thompson et al. 2015), profit (Kesavan et al. 2014) and firm performance (Martínez Sánchez et al. 2007). However, there is also a missing consensus and ongoing discussion regarding possible consequences of flexibility. Research has identified potential downsides of flexibility, such as blurred work-life boundaries (Pedersen and Lewis 2012), the risk of stigmatization (Cech & Blair-Loy 2014), unsupportive work climate and inequitable implementation (Putnam et al. 2014). Other relationships, for example between flexibility and work-family conflict (Allen et al. 2013; Shockley & Allen 2007), remain unclear. Further, if the flexibility is only an organizational facade (Eaton 2003; Nystrom & Starbuck 1984) which is communicated but not lived in the organization, even more, negative consequences such as violations of psychological contracts might occur, especially when flexibility is used as a facade to justify the transformation of standard work arrangements to non-standard work arrangements.

Subsequently, a lot of questions remain unanswered:

• What is the core of flexibility in organizations?
• Which origins can be identified of the ongoing need for various types of flexibility?
• What types of flexibility can be systematized and how are those different types related to organizational consequences, such as success or attractiveness?
• How useful are flexible work arrangements and how can positive consequences be promoted and negative consequences be avoided, or at least weakened?
• Which consequences result from a gap between offered and truly supported types of flexibility, e.g. the role of organizational facades?
• How does embeddedness of Information and Communications Technologies in work practices enable and assist workplace flexibility?
• What are the consequences of the ongoing flexibilization of work on the economic and social level?

Potential authors

The aim of this special issue is to increase our understanding of the above-mentioned aspects of workplace flexibility, especially from an organizational perspective. We encourage empirical – qualitative or quantitative – submissions from various research fields, such as business administration, industrial and organizational psychology, work sociology and other disciplines dealing with the topic of the Special Issue.

Deadline

Full papers for this special issue of management revue must be submitted by 31 December 2017. All contributions will be subject to double-blind review. Papers invited to a ‘revise and resubmit’ are due 31 May 2018. Please submit your papers electronically via the online submission system at http://www.mrev.nomos.de/ guidelines/submit-manuscript/ using ‘SI Workplace Flexibility’ as article section.

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.mrev.nomos.de/guidelines/ and submit the papers electronically by sending a ‘blind’ copy of your manuscript (delete all author identification from this primary document).

We look forward to receiving your contribution!

Sascha Ruhle
Stefan Süß

Guest Editors:
Simon Fietze, University of Southern Denmark
Wenzel Matiaske, Helmut-Schmidt-University/University of the Federal Armed Forces Hamburg (Germany)
Roland Menges, Technical University Clausthal (Germany)

Special Issue

Trust is the currency that creates markets. This is knowledge of the merchants at the latest since modern markets have emerged along the medieval trade routes. Quality and reliability in the business are also building blocks of trust and the assumption of responsibility for the social and ecological consequences of entrepreneurial activity. Whether the latter should be integrated into social and legal relations and norms in the form of voluntary corporate responsibility, has been the subject of economic discussion since the beginnings of the discipline and since the separation of the spheres of economic and moral action in the Scottish moral economy.

Over the past decades, both supra-national organisations such as the UN and the EU have been focusing on soft law – from the global compact through the AA1000 to the Green Paper of the EU Commission – as well as the national states, to promote social and environmental responsibility for companies in the age of globalisation. These initiatives have led to lively activities and debates both in the business world and in different scientific disciplines. For companies, it has now become a “fashion” to campaign social and ecological responsibility using the concept of “Corporate Social Responsibility”. This commitment has meanwhile led to the fact that CSR activities should partly contribute to value creation instead of aligning them with corporate objectives and values. Such a development leads to the loss of trust and the assumption of responsibility becomes a “fake”.

Against this backdrop, some of the social and economic observers remained sceptical, advocating tougher legal norms or fiscal implications. Finally, lawyers pointed out that (successful) standardisations often develop not only from the “top” but also from the “bottom”, i.e. they emerge from the action routines of the economic actors as emergent effects. However, not only the recent scandals – from the ENRON case to the VW case – raise questions about the effectiveness of co-operative self-commitment as well as external control.

Moreover, corporate responsibility is related to the concept of consumer responsibility. Whereas market-optimists believe that reliable changes in consumption patterns rely on responsible individual action, more market-skeptics warn of a counterproductive “privatisation of sustainability”.

In this light, this special issue will be on theoretical and empirical contributions to the topic “Corporate responsibility: In the dilemma between trust and fake?” from economic, sociological, (economic) historical and legal perspectives. Possible topics are:

• Economic and history of ideas cases and questions of corporate responsibility
• The “pseudo” corporate responsibility
• Organisational and sociological theories and findings on corporate responsibility
• Theory and empiricism of the audit
• Theoretical and empirical studies on consumer responsibility
• Criminal law considerations for corporate actors
• Institutional factors of corporate responsibility
• The trust of social entrepreneurship

This is not an exhaustive list.

Deadline
Full paper for this special issue of management revue must be submitted by September 30th, 2017. All contributions will be subject to a double-blind review. Papers invited to a ‘revise and resubmit’ are due January 31st, 2018. Please submit your papers electronically via the online submission system using ‘SI Corporate Responsibility’ as article section.

Hoping to hear from you!
Simon Fietze
Wenzel Matiaske
Roland Menges