Guest Editors:
Paola Vola, University of Eastern Piedmont, Novara, Italy
Sylvia Rohlfer, CUNEF, Madrid, Spain
Lucrezia Songini, University of Eastern Piedmont, Novara, Italy

The competitive landscape of the twenty-first century is dynamic, highlighting the need for organizations to be entrepreneurial. Thus, a scientific dialogue on entrepreneurial orientation and spirit in family businesses and SMEs has emerged as a relevant topic. However, the capacity to conjugate entrepreneurial spirit of family businesses and smaller enterprises with the managerialization of the organizational structure and mechanisms as well as the professionalization of people involved in the company is critical for the long-term survival and development of those firms.

Research on managerialization of SMEs and family firms points out that they are characterized by a lower adoption of managerial mechanism, as a consequence of the strong linkages between the owners/managers and the enterprise; and/or the lack of managerial knowledge at the ownership, governance and management levels. It is commonly underlined that the management in these firms is characterized by some degree of informality and that individual and social control systems are more suited to these enterprises, due to common shared values and languages, informal relationships etc. (Marlow, Taylor and Thompson, 2010; Saundry, Jones and Wimberley, 2014; Rohlfer, Munoz and Slocum, 2016).

However, some authors stated that formal mechanisms could help family owned businesses to cope with the interests and problems of both the company and the family, and their specific agency costs (Rue and Ibrahim, 1996; Schulze et al., 2003; Songini, Gnan et Malmi, 2013; Della Torre and Solari, 2013). Literature on family firms recognizes the importance of managerialization and professionalization in smoothing succession’s process.

This special issue of Management Revue and the corresponding Track 03_09 – Entrepreneurship and Managerialization in SMEs and family firms, under SIG 03 – Entrepreneurship, at EURAM 2017, provides an opportunity to take stock of developments on these issues, particularly on the adoption of management mechanisms and the professionalization of SMEs and family firms and their balance with entrepreneurial spirit.

We are looking for contributions that explore the ability of successful SMEs and family business to maintain fresh entrepreneurial spirit while consolidating management and control mechanisms, and introducing professional managers, but also for contributions that analyze the consequences of losing momentum in that balance.

Thus, we invite papers that make an important theoretical and/or empirical contribution to our understanding of such issues; international and comparative papers are particularly welcome. Areas of interest include but are not limited to:

• How and why SMEs and family firms restructure and reorganize the management of the firm in the light of managerialization and professionalization?
• How can SMEs and family firms balance entrepreneurial spirit and managerialization/ professionalization? How do they maintain this balance along time and during generations?
• What is the role of family members and non-family members in balancing entrepreneurial spirit and managerialization/ professionalization?
• What is the role of women (family and non-family members) in such a balance?
• What is the role of managerial mechanisms and professional managers in SMEs and family firms’ development and growth?
• What are the implications of managerialization and professionalization on key employee relations characteristics, such as pay and conditions, employee voice and labor management relations?
• How and why owner/managers ́ approaches to managerialization and professionalization vary in relation to issues such as firm, sector, national contexts and employee characteristics, among others?
• What are the implications for owner-managers and other stakeholders, including employees?
• Which theories can best help us explain and understand managerialization and professionalization in SMEs and family firms, and the relation with entrepreneurship?

This is not an exhaustive list.

Management Revue is a peer-reviewed, interdisciplinary European journal publishing both qualitative and quantitative work, as well as purely theoretical papers that advances the study of management, organization, and industrial relations. Management Revue publishes articles that contribute to theory from a number of disciplines, including business and public administration, organizational behavior, economics, sociology, and psychology. Reviews of books relevant to management and organization studies are a regular feature (http://www.management-revue.org/).

European Academy of Management
The European Academy of Management (EURAM) is a learned society founded in 2001. It aims at advancing the academic discipline of management in Europe. With members from 49 countries in Europe and beyond, EURAM has a high degree of diversity and provides its members with opportunities to enrich debates over a variety of research management themes and traditions (http://euramonline.org/programme2017/tracks/sig-03-entrepreneurship-ent.html).

Potential authors
Authors are encouraged to submit research manuscripts that are likely to make a significant contribution to the literature on entrepreneurship and managerialization and professionalization in SMEs and family firms for a double-blind review process. Contributors to the Track 03_09 “Entrepreneurship and Managerialization in SMEs and family firms” at EURAM 2017 Conference are encouraged to discuss their sub- mission prior or during the conference. Even if conference participants will benefit from a fast review process, submissions are not solely restricted to conference participants.

Deadlines
Full papers for this special issue of Management Revue must be with the editors by 31 July 2017. All submissions will be subject to a double-blind review process. Papers invited for a “revise and resubmit” are due on the 30 November 2017. Final decision will be made by May 2018. The special issue will be published in late 2018.

Submission and guidelines
Please submit your papers electronically via the online submission system at http://www.management-revue.org/submission/ using SI “Managerialization” as article section.

The guest editors welcome informal enquiries by email:
Paola Vola
Sylvia Rohlfer
Lucrezia Songini

Literature

Aldrich, H. & Cliff, J. (2003). The pervasive effects of family on entrepreneurship: toward a family embeddedness perspective, Journal of Business Venturing, 18(5), 573-596.

Bettinelli, C., Fayolle, A. & Randerson, K. (2014). Family entrepreneurship: a developing field. Found. Trends Entrep., 10(3), 161–236.

Brannon, D. L., Wiklund, J. & Haynie, J. M. (2013). The varying effects of family relationships in entrepreneurial teams. Entrep. Theory Practice, 37(1), 107–132.

Chenall, R. (2003). Management control system design within its organizational context: findings from contingency-based research and directions for the future, Accounting Organizations and Society, 28 (2-3), 127-168.

Corbetta, G., Marchisio, G. & Salvato C. (2005). Fostering Entrepreneurship in Established Family Firms – Crossroads of Entrepreneurship, Springer.

Della Torre, E. & Solari, L. (2013). High-performance work systems and the change management process in medium-sized firms. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 24(13), 2583-2607.

Durán-Encalada, J. A., San Martín-Reyna, J. M. & Montiel-Campos, H. (2012). A Research Proposal to Examine Entrepreneurship in Family Business. Journal of Entrepreneurship, Management and Innovation, 8(3), 58-77.

Fayolle, A. (2016). Family entrepreneurship: what we need to know. In K. Randerson, C. Bettinelli, G. Dossena, & A. Fayolle (eds.), Family Entrepreneurship: Rethinking the Research Agenda (pp. 304–306). Abingdon, UK: Routledge.

Hoy, F. & Sharma, P. (2010). Entrepreneurial Family Firms. New York, NY: Prentice Hall.

Jennings, J. E. & McDougald, M. S. (2007). Work–family interface experiences and coping strategies: implications for entrepreneurship research and practice. Academy of Management Review, 32(3), 747-760.

Malmi, T., & Brown, D. A. (2008). Management control system as package – Opportunities, challenges and research directions. Management Accounting Research, 19(4), 287-300.

Marlow, S. Taylor, S & Thompson, A. (2010). Informality and formality in medium-sized companies: contestation and synchronization. British Journal of Management, 20(4): 954-966.

Randerson, K., Bettinelli, C., Fayolle, A. & Anderson, A. (2015). Family entrepreneurship as a field of research: exploring its contours and contents. Journal of Family Business Strategy, 6(3), 143–154.

Randerson, K., Dossena, G. & Fayolle, A. (2016). The futures of family business: family entrepreneurship. Futures, 75, 36–43.

Rohlfer, S., Muñoz Salvador, C. and Slocum, A. (2016). People management in micro and small organizations – a comparative analysis. FUNCAS: Estudios de la Fundación. Series Análisis, no. 79.

Sharma, P. (2016). Preface. In K. Randerson, C. Bettinelli, G. Dossena, & A. Fayolle (eds.), Family Entrepreneurship: Rethinking the Research Agenda (p. xiv). Abingdon, UK: Routledge.

Songini L. (2006). The professionalization of family firm: theory and practice. In Poutziouris P., Smyrnios K. & Klein S. (eds.), Handbook of Research in Family Business (pp. 269-297). UK: Edward Elgar Publishing.

Songini, L. & Gnan, L. (2009). Glass ceiling and professionalization in family SMEs, Journal of Enterprising Culture, 17(4), 1-29.

Songini, L., Gnan, L., & Malmi, T. (2013). The role and impact of accounting in family business, Journal of Family Business Strategy, 4, 71-83.

Songini, L. & Gnan, L. (2014). The glass ceiling in SMEs and its impact on firm managerialization: A comparison between family and non-family SMEs, International Jounal of Business Governance and Ethics, 9(2): 287-312.

Songini, L. & Vola, P. (2014). The role of Managerialization and Professionalization in Family Busines Succession: Evidences from Italian Enterprises, in L. Gnan, H. Lundberg, L. Songini & M. Pelllegrini (eds.) Advancing European Entrepreneurship Research (169-196), IAP, Information Age Publishing Inc.

Songini, L. & Vola, P.(2015) The Role of Professionalization and Managerialization in Family Business Succession. Management Control, 2015/1, 9-43

Songini, L. & Gnan, L. (2015). Family Involvement and Agency Cost Control Mechanisms in Family Small and Medium-sized Enterprises, Journal of Small Business Management, 53(3), 748–779.

Seminar at the IUC Dubrovnik (April 3-7, 2017) & Special Issue

Seminar Organizers & 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)

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 organizations 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 globalization. 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 skeptical, advocating tougher legal norms or fiscal implications. Finally, lawyers pointed out that (successful) standardizations 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 “privatization of sustainability”.

In this light, this year’s seminar at the IUC Dubrovnik 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
• Organizational 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
Potential contributors to the seminar at the IUC Dubrovnik are encouraged to submit an abstract of 1-2 pages before February 28th, 2017 electronically via online submission system of Management Revue using ‘IUC Dubrovnik’ as article section: http://www.management-revue.org/submission/

All contributors to the seminar are invited to submit their paper for the special issue of Management Revue. Full papers must be submitted by July 31st, 2017. All contributions will be subject to a double-blind review. Papers invited to a ‘revise and resubmit’ are due October 31st, 2017. 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

Special Stream of Management Revue (MREV)
Echoes of an Era – A Century of Organisational Studies

Managing Editor:
Wenzel Matiaske, Helmut-Schmidt-University Hamburg (Germany)

Hundred years ago, Henri Fayols “Administration Industrielle et Générale”, a milestone in the history of organizational thought, was published. This centenary motivates the editors of the Management Revue to launch a stream on the history of organiational studies. In the forthcoming volumes, and rather on an infrequent basis, we would like to publish contributions which not only introduce the reader to one or several, interrelated seminal works of organizational theory, but also provide accompanying commentaries and an analysis of their history of effects.

The reason for this format is, given our discipline’s forgetfulness of history, to provide orientation, which not only serves teaching and young management scholars. While reference to classic thought contributes to scientific advancement in other fields of the social sciences, in our field some research issues are being addressed over and over again – without putting the associated arguments and findings in an adequate historical context. In this respect, addressing the history of thought should be understood as a contribution to the advancement of management research.

We would like to avoid a strict delimitation of the era being addressed. Contributions on contemporaries of Fayol like Frederik Winston Taylor, Frank B. and Lillian Gilbreth or Henry L. Gantt und Karol Adamiecki are as welcome as contributions are on Fayol’s predecessors or successors. By  no means we are exclusively committed to the “engineers of the organisation”; economists, legal scholars and particularly the labour science community and psychologists should also be given due attention. A temporal upper boundary shall nevertheless be the 1970s, when, most notably induced by Alfred D. Chandler, strategic management and the reflection on it started to thrive.

This stream will be open to submissions until the end of 2017 in the first place. It will be maintained and edited by Wenzel Matiaske (Helmut-Schmidt-University Hamburg, Germany). Submissions shall accord with the formatting guidelines of the Management Revue. Please submit your manuscripts electronically via our online submission system using “SI Organisation Studies” as article section.

Looking forward to your contribution!
Wenzel Matiaske

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