Category Archives: Call for Papers

Call for Papers: Special Issue on Creativity in Innovation Management

International Journal of Innovation Management (IJIM)

Call for Papers:
Special Issue on Creativity in Innovation Management

Guest Editors

In order to reflect the interdisciplinary character of creativity, the Editors of this special issue cover three fundamental areas:

Why and for what can we use creativity: Business and managerial aspects
Alexander Brem, University of Southern Denmark, Sønderborg, Denmark

How can we interact in creative settings: Psychological and social aspects
Rogelio Puente-­‐Diaz, Universidad Anahuac Mexico Norte, Estado de Mexico, Mexico

How can we activate creative thinking: Cognitive and neural aspects
Marine Agogué, HEC Montréal, Montréal, Canada

Background

In  today’s  business  world  creativity  has  become  one  of  the  most  important  success  factors (Florida, 2002). The understanding of “organizational creativity as the creation of  a  valuable,  useful  new  product,  service,  idea,  procedure,  or  process  by  individuals  working together in a complex social system” (Woodman et al., 1993) is vital for the innovation  process  of  a  company  and  serves  as  a  mainspring  especially  at  the  early  beginning of an innovation (Bilgram et al., 2008). Innovation as the practical application of created ideas in turn is a critical success factor for a company’s competitive advantage and long-­‐term success.

Creativity  has  been  studied  across  several  disciplines  including  psychology,  social  sciences, economics, education and the arts. However, a homogenous definition and classification of the term creativity has often been neglected (Plucker & Beghetto, 2004; Puccio & Cabra, 2012; Simonton, 2013). Moreover, creativity has been recognized as not manageable for a long time. Therefore, studies on creativity have looked at factors that “can manage for creativity” (Amabile & Mukti, 2008) such as leadership competencies or a  working  environment  that  positively  influences  and  supports  or  hampers  creative  processes in an organization. A further shortcoming of creativity research has been that it has traditionally distinguished between two generic types of creativity. The everyday creativity inherent in the average person (e.g. Richards, 2007) and the creative genius, associated with famous talents in certain fields (e.g. Simonton, 1997). Especially in the context of business and management literature, there is still need for further research to demystify  creativity  as  being  a  natural  force  without  control,  and  to  elaborate  its  role  within the management of innovation.

Hence, the question arises how this multifaceted and interdisciplinary topic of creativity can be included in innovation management, which is the focus of this Special Issue.

Subject coverage

In  this  context,  theoretical  and  conceptual  papers  on  creativity  in  innovation  management from different disciplines are welcome. Interdisciplinary research is as well  encouraged.  Empirical  studies  that  feature  examples  and  results  of  creativity  in  innovation management are encouraged, as well as papers on success factors and risks. Comparative studies that examine similarities and differences between different sectors and countries are also welcome.

  • Suggested topics for this special issue are:
  • Definition and measurement of creativity
  • Integration in the Front End of Innovation
  • Insights into creative processes and creative cognition
  • Levers on creative thinking during ideation
  • Creativity along the innovation process
  • Linkage of creativity with prototyping and manufacturing
  • Business Model Innovation and Creativity
  • Management of networks for creativity
  • Incentivation for creativity
  • Research on creativity techniques
  • Use of collaboration tools for creativity
  • Role of innovation culture on creative processes
  • Boundaries of creativity and design
  • Individual and (interdisciplinary) team creativity
  • Similarities/differences between facilitating creativity and innovation

Moreover, studies on country comparisons influence of industry and firm size as well as gender-­‐related differences are in the scope of this Call for Papers.

Notes for prospective authors

Submitted  papers  must  not  have  been  previously  published  or  be  currently  under  consideration for publication elsewhere. All papers will be refereed by an international Special Issue Editorial Board through a double-­‐blind peer review process.

A  guide  for  authors,  sample  copies  and  other  relevant  information  is  available  at  http://www.worldscinet.com/ijim

In  addition,  selected  articles  will  be  invited  being  released  in  a  book  published  by  Imperial College Press.

Important Dates

Submission of manuscripts: April 1, 2015
Notification to authors: July 15, 2015
Revisions due: August 15, 2015
Second round decisions: October 15, 2015
Revisions due: NOvember 15, 2015
Final Editorial Decision: December 15, 2015
Journal publication: Spring 2016

References

Amabile, T. M., & Mukti, K. (2008). Creativity and the role of the leader. Harvard Business Review, 86(10), 100-­‐109.

Bilgram,  V.,  Brem,  A.,  &  Voigt,  K.-­‐I.  (2008).  User-­‐centric  innovations  in  new  product  development:  Systematic identification of lead users harnessing interactive and collaborative online-­‐tools. International Journal of Innovation Management, 12 (3), 419-­‐458.

Florida, R. (2002). The rise of the creative class. New York: Basic Books.

Plucker, J.A., & Beghetto, R.A. (2004). Why creativity is domain general, why it looks domain specific, and why the distinction doesn’t matter. In R.J. Sternberg, E.L. Grigorenko, & J.L. Singer (Eds.), Creativity: From potential to realization (pp. 153-­‐167). Washington, DC: American Psychology Association.

Puccio,  G.  J.,  &  Cabra,  J.  F.  (2012).  Idea  generation  and  idea  evaluation:  Cognitive  skills  and  deliberate  practices. In M. Mumford (Ed.), Handbook of Organizational Creativity (pp. 189-­‐215). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Richards, R. (2007). Everyday creativity: Our hidden potential. In R. Richards (Ed.), Everyday creativity and new views of human nature (pp. 25–54). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Simonton, D. K. (1997). Creative productivity: A predictive and explanatory model of career trajectories and landmarks. Psychological Review, 104, 66–89.

Simonton,  D.  K.  (2013).  What  is  a  creative  idea?  Little-­‐C  versus  Big-­‐C  creativity.  In  K.  Thomas  &  J.  Chan  (Eds.), Handbook of Research on Creativity (pp.69-­‐83). Cheltenham, GL: Edward Elgar Publishing Limited.

Woodman, R. W., Sawyer, J.E., & Griffin, R.W. (1993). Toward a theory of organizational creativity. Academy of Management Review, 18(2), 293-­‐321.

 

 

 

Call for Papers: Perspectives on Sustainable Consumption (Seminar & Special Issue of Management Revue)

Call for Papers

Seminar at the IUC Dubrovnik (April 20-24th, 2015) & Special Issue of Management Revue
Perspectives on Sustainable Consumption

Ortrud Leßmann, Helmut-Schmidt-University Hamburg (Germany)
Torsten Masson, Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research – UFZ Leipzig (Germany)
Wenzel Matiaske, Helmut-Schmidt-University Hamburg (Germany)
Simon Fietze, University of Southern Denmark

The problem of sustainability has received serious attention since the Club of Rome pointed to the limits of growth in 1972. Addressing ecological, economic and social issues, it is still a major – perhaps the biggest – challenge humanity faces. The problem demands attention by actors from all social levels. On the micro-level, sustainable consumption is often regarded as the major way how individual consumers can contribute to sustainable development. By now a growing number of people are aware that many consumption habits have to be changed because they are in conflict with the goal of sustainable development. Yet, there is a gap between knowledge and action. Much research has been done in the last 30 years on sustainable consumption, exploring the motivations, practices, opportunities, and drivers for sustainable consumption from economic, psychological and sociological perspectives. Despite this multidisciplinary effort and the often interdisciplinary nature of research on sustainable consumption, there is room for broadening the perspectives further. In particular, the link between political participation and sustainable consumption as a political statement as well as the link between various forms and objectives of political consumption deserves more attention. Further, the impact of societal inequality on sustainable consumption has not gained much attention. Especially research on the interaction between inequality, issues of security and precariousness, political participation and consumption behavior is lacking.

In the special issue and the corresponding seminar (IUC Dubrovnik, http://www.iuc.hr/, 20.-24. April 2015), we would like to discuss our topic in an adequately broad and interdisciplinary way.  We are particularly interested in questions such as:

  • Inequality (e.g., precariousness) and sustainable consumption
  • Citizenship and consumption
  • Sustainable consumption as a political statement
  • Quantitative and qualitative empirical studies on these issues

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 January 31st, 2015 electronically via Management Revue’s online submission system at http://www.management-revue.org/submission/ using ‘IUC Dubrovnik’ as article section.

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, 2015. All contributions will be subject to a double-blind review. Papers invited to a ‘revise and resubmit’ are due October 31st, 2015. Please submit your papers electronically via the online submission system at http://www.management-revue.org/submission/ using ‘SI Sustainable Consumption’ as article section.

Hoping to hear from you!

Ortrud Leßmann (o.lessmann@hsu-hh.de),
Wenzel Matiaske,
Torsten Masson,
Simon Fietze

Call for Papers: The long and winding road of employee ownership

The 9th International Conference in Critical Management Studies, Leicester, 8-10 July 2015

Call for Papers for the Sub-Theme:

The long and winding road of employee ownership –

What can we learn from the experiences with Employee Share Ownership and Employee Owned Companies in Central and Eastern Europe before, during, and after transformation?

Team of convenors: Olaf Kranz[1], Mihaela Lambru[2], Claudia Petrescu[3], Thomas Steger[4]

The academic literature on ESOP and EOC in CEE is characterized by at least two omissions. First, it remains rather silent about the relationship between EOC and ESOPs in CEE countries, though ESOP has been widely used as an instrument of mass privatization in several CEE countries and has led to majority employee share ownership (ESO) in a large number of firms. This neglect reminds us of the fact that despite close topical, theoretical, and empirical associations, the phenomena of EOC and ESOP have scarcely been discussed together in the academic discourse at all. Ironically, while the EOC literature stresses the negative aspects of this specific employee ownership form, such as the degenerative tendencies and a limited viability of EOCs, the ESOP literature propagates the positive aspects of ESO, such as identification with the firm or productivity gains.

Second, the academic discussion on the role of ESOPs and EOCs in the transformation process in CEE countries is rather disconnected from the traditional discourse about the emancipatory role of ESOPs and EOCs in the Western world. Moreover, there are hardly any references made to the debate about ‘labor-managed-firms` in ‘labor-managed’ or ‘mixed’ economies, which had a very strong theoretical basis in terms of the “Illyrian Firm” (B. Ward) or the “pure rental firm” (M.C. Jensen & W.H. Meckling) . Ironically, in particular neoliberal scholars have suggested that ESOPs or even EOC could work well as instruments for mass privatization during the economic transformation in CEE. Thus, participatory ways of organizing are utilized by politics and management as a vehicle to transform firms towards the normal corporate form. Moreover, the implications of the rather sharp and fast decline of ESO and EOCs in the CEE countries following privatization has not been systematically reflected in the literature yet.

Thus, our current understanding of ESOPs and EOCs in CEE is limited by a lack of coherent empirical data, by a lacking connection of the experiences in CEE during transformation to the strong theoretical tradition, and by a lack of studies comparing the experiences made in CEE with the experiences made in Western countries. Against this background, the sub-theme aims (a) to advance our knowledge on the structures and processes at the individual, organizational, and societal levels that are germane to participatory types of organization; (b) to draw lessons from the CEE experiences for western countries; and (c) to learn about the behavior of participatory types of organization and of individuals in such organizations in different institutional settings.

For this purpose, we are looking for both theoretical and empirical studies that focus on micro, meso or macro levels of analysis based on qualitative and/or quantitative methods. Contributions may include, but are not limited to, the following topics:

  • The influence of public discourse about EOCs and matters pertaining to the political legitimacy of privatization on the emergence and development of EOCs
  • Traces of the ‘Illyrian Firm’ or ‘pure rental firm’ in a setting of free markets, private ownership, and political democracy
  • Comparative studies on institutional conditions for EOCs in CEE countries and their outcomes with respect to the viability of EOC
  • The influence of different (countries’) experiences with worker’s self-management on the viability of EOCs after privatization
  • Comparative case-studies about the emergence of EOC during privatization and their development depending on institutional context, participatory culture, experiences with worker’s self-management and individual ownership rights
  • Transfer of EOC & ESOP models from West to East and vice versa; adaptation of models and learning barriers between East and West
  • Comparative studies about EOC as a privatization instrument in East and West
  • History, development, distribution, and outcomes of ESOP in CEE
  • The impact of ESOP on the viability of EOCs in CEE.

Submission Guidelines

Please submit abstracts (maximum 500 words; in .doc or .pdf) by 31th January 2015 via email to: Olaf Kranz. Abstracts should contain the author(s) name(s), the institution and position as well as e-mail address. Notification of paper acceptance: 28th February 2015. Full papers (maximum 8000 words) will be expected by 10th June 2015.

For any questions, please feel free to contact Olaf Kranz at olaf.kranz@wiwi.uni-regensburg.de

[1] Olaf Kranz, Dr., University of Regensburg, Senior Lecturer at the Chair of Business Administration, especially Leadership and Organization, email: olaf.kranz@wiwi.uni-regensburg.de.

[2] Mihaela Lambru, Dr., University of Bucharest, Senior Lecturer at the Faculty of Sociology and Social Work, email: mihaela.lambru@sas.unibuc.ro.

[3] Claudia Petrescu, Dr., Principal Researcher, Romanian Academy, The Research Institute for Quality of Life, email: claudia.petrescu@iccv.ro.

[4] Thomas Steger, Prof. Dr., University of Regensburg, Chair of Business Administration, especially Leadership and Organization, email: Thomas.steger@wiwi.uni-regensburg.de.

Call for Papers: Employee Share Option Programs and Employee-Owned Companies in Central and Eastern Europe

Call for Papers
Organizacija
Employee Share Option Programs and Employee-Owned Companies in Central and Eastern Europe
Deadline for Submission of Abstracts:
December 15, 2014

The academic literature on employee share option programs (ESOP) and employee-owned companies (EOC) in Central and Eastern Europe (CEE) is characterized by at least two omissions. First, there is a remarkable silence about the relationship between EOC and ESOPs in CEE countries—with some exceptions that prove the rule (Mygind 2012)—though ESOP has been widely used as an instrument of mass privatization in several CEE countries and has led to majority employee share ownership (ESO) in a large number of firms (Aghion & Blanchard 1998). This neglect reminds us of the fact that despite close topical, theoretical, and empirical associations, the phenomena of EOC and ESOP have scarcely been discussed together in the academic discourse at all (Dow 2003). Ironically, while the EOC literature stresses some rather negative aspects of the specific employee ownership form, such as the degenerative tendencies and a principally limited viability of EOCs, the ESOP literature mainly propagates the positive aspects of ESO, such as the positive effects on identification with the firm or productivity gains.
Second, the academic discussion on the role of ESOPs and EOCs in the transformation process in CEE countries is rather disconnected from the long standing discourse about the potentially emancipatory role of ESOPs and EOCs in the Western world (Backhaus 1979). Moreover, there are hardly any references to the previously prominent debate about ‘labor-managed-firms` in either ‘labor-managed’ or ‘mixed’ economies, which had had a very strong theoretical basis in terms of the “Illyrian Firm” (Ward 1958; Vanek 1970; Meade 1972) or the “pure rental firm” (Jensen & Meckling 1979) despite reflecting “some degree of ideological commitment” (Hansmann 1996: 7) during the Cold War. Moreover, the implications of the rather sharp and fast decline of ESO and EOCs in the CEE countries following privatization have not yet been systematically reflected in the Western literature (Kalmi 2003).

Thus, our current understanding of ESOPs and EOCs in CEE is not only limited by the lack of coherent empirical data, but also by the lack of a connection to the strong theoretical tradition, and by the lack of studies that compare the experiences made in CEE with the experiences made in Western countries. However, if one is interested in developing and experimenting with some alternative forms of organizing, with different forms of material and immaterial employee participation, and with democratic governance structures, the experiences with ESOPs and EOCs in the CEE countries can be analyzed more rigorously, thereby connecting them more strongly with the Western discourse and tradition.

Against this background, Organizacija aims to publish a Special Issue on ESOP and EOC in CEE. The aims of this Special Issue are (a) to advance our knowledge on the structures and processes at the individual, organizational, and societal levels that are germane to participatory types of organization; (b) to draw lessons from the CEE experiences for the western regions; and (c) to learn about the behavior of participatory types of organization and of individuals in such organizations in different institutional settings. For this purpose, we are looking for theoretical and empirical contributions from economics, history, industrial relations, management studies, political science, and sociology, amongst others.

We welcome both theory-based empirical studies grounded in any methodological tradition (qualitative as well as quantitative), and conceptual contributions that focus on micro, meso or macro levels of analysis. Moreover, we encourage both studies that extend current theories and those questioning or even disconfirming taken-for-granted beliefs about participatory types of organization on theoretical or empirical grounds. Papers may include, but are not limited to, the following topics:

  • The influence of public discourse about EOCs and matters pertaining to the political legitimacy of privatization on the emergence and development of EOCs
  • Traces of the Illyrian Firm or pure rental firm in a setting of free markets, private ownership, and political democracy
  • Specific country studies and comparative studies on institutional conditions for EOCs in CEE countries and their outcomes with respect to the viability of EOC
  • The influence of specific contexts of corporate governance in CEE countries on the ownership and control of EOCs
  • The influence of industrial relations in the CEE context on the viability of EOCs in CEE and the influence of EOCs on industrial relations practices
  • Efficiency and effectiveness of EOCs in CEE
  • The influence of different (countries’) experiences with worker’s self-management on the viability of EOCs after privatization
  • Comparative case-studies about the emergence of EOC during privatization and their development depending on institutional context, participatory culture, experiences with worker’s self-management and individual ownership rights
  • Transfer of EOC & ESOP models from West to East and vice versa; adaptation of models and learning barriers between East and West
  • Comparative studies about EOC as a privatization instrument in East and West
  • History, development, distribution, and outcomes of ESOP in CEE
  • The impact of ESOP on the viability of EOCs in CEE

Procedures

The following deadlines have to be observed:

  • 15th December 2014: Submission of abstracts (maximum 1000 words) to the guest editors (thomas.steger@ur.de or olaf.kranz@wiwi.uni-regensburg.de)
  • 31st January 2015: Invitations to submit full papers sent out
  • 31st May 2015: Submission of full papers (according to the journal’s guidelines http://www.degruyter.com/view/j/orga, maximum 8000 words)
  • 30th September 2015: Feedback to authors
  • 31st December 2015: Submission of full papers with revisions
  • 2016: Journal volume to be published

Any further questions may be addressed to the guest editors:
Thomas Steger / Olaf Kranz
Department of Leadership and Organization
University of Regensburg

References
Aghion, P. & Blanchard, O.J. (1998) On privatization methods in Eastern Europe and their implications. Economics of Transition, 6, 87-99.
Backhaus, J. (1979) Ökonomik der partizipativen Unternehmung. Vol. I. Tübingen: Mohr/Siebeck.
Dow, G.K. (2003) Governing the firm. Worker’s control in theory and practice. Cambridge: CUP.
Hansmann, H. (1996) The ownership of enterprise. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Jensen, M.C. & Meckling, W.H. (1979) Rights and production functions: An application to labor-managed firms and codetermination. Journal of Business, 52, 469-506.
Kalmi, P. (2003) The rise and fall of employee ownership in Estonia, 1987-2001. Europe-Asia Studies, 55, 1213-1239.
Meade, J. (1972) The theory of labour-managed firms and of profit sharing. Economic Journal, 82, 402-428.
Mygind, N. (2012) Trends in employee ownership in Eastern Europe. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 23, 1611-1642.
Vanek, J. (1970) The general theory of labor-managed market economies. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
Ward, B. (1958) The firm in Illyria: Market syndicalism. American Economic Review, 48, 566-589.

Call for Papers: Work and Organization in the Age of Global Economic Crisis: Industrial Relations in the Post-Socialist Societies of Europe

Call for Papers

European Journal of Industrial Relations

Work and Organization in the Age of Global Economic Crisis:
Industrial Relations in the Post-Socialist Societies of Europe

Guest Co-editors: Anna Soulsby, Graham Hollinshead, Thomas Steger

In this special issue, we invite comparative studies that examine growing insecurities in the fields of work, organization and employment in Central and Eastern Europe (CEE), including the effects of migration, in the context of the international ‘crisis of capitalism’. We are interested in research that investigates local responses (at the levels of the workplace, establishment or industry) to the spread of uncontrolled market forces in the region and makes connections to debates in the wider social sciences. We are particularly interested in studies which analyse the latest phases of transition in CEE as subject to contestation and negotiation by a plurality of groupings within economy and society, and which bring to the fore the significance of class, gender and ethnicity. We welcome submissions which capture the unevenness of developments since the financial crisis through comparative analysis of changes in the institutional arrangements impinging on work and employment. We also wish to explore whether, and how, the particularly hostile environment for trade unionism in CEE is creating new avenues for renewal and reinvention, and whether the resourcefulness and imagination exhibited by trade unionists in the region offer real learning opportunities for the international labour movement.

Key Dates and Contact Details:
Submission of extended abstracts (maximum 1000 words not including references):
29 December 2014.
Submission of full papers: 31 July 2015.

Please contact one of the guest co-editors, or the Editor, for any queries. The abstract submission should be sent by e-mail attachment to the following:
anna.soulsby@nottingham.ac.uk
G.hollinshead@herts.ac.uk
thomas.steger@wiwi.uni-regensberg.de
r.hyman@lse.ac.uk

Call for Papers: Organizing mindfulness across organizations, networks, and clusters (EURAM 2015)

T_06-01: Organizing mindfulness across organizations, networks, and clusters
SIG: Innovation

Organizing mindfulness across organizations, networks, and clusters

The concepts of mindfulness and mindful organizing have proved to be beneficial for explaining how to manage unexpected events as a specific domain of uncertainty (Argote, 2006; Weick & Sutcliffe, 2007). Mindfulness seems to enhance change readiness and the capacity to sense and seize opportunities in an uncertain environment (Gärtner 2011, 2013). Existing research on mindfulness has mostly studied the individual or group level and is rooted in psychological accounts of mindfulness. This literature conceives of mindfulness as cognitive differentiation and conceptualizes knowledge and learning in terms of mental cognition (Vogus & Sutcliffe, 2012). Only a few studies take the level of organizations as collectives of groups or interorganizational networks as unit of analysis (Sydow, Müller-Seitz, & Provan 2013). While there is apt evidence that individuals, groups and organizations do not work in isolation, there is little research about the interrelations between organizations and the ‘higher’ analytical levels of networks and clusters (Gittell & Weiss 2004). Thus, we know little about how mindfulness can be established across organizations, networks and clusters in order to harness the opportunities of uncertainty.

Considering other forms of ‘knowledge’ (e.g., rules, routines, tools and technology) seems to be useful in order to explain how organizations, networks and clusters screen their environment and benefit from uncertainty (see Becker & Knudsen 2005; Salvato & Rerup 2011; Antonacopoulou et al. 2012). For example, research in the field of innovation management advocates tools like technological forecasting or roadmapping to remain sensitive about technological trends and developments that might impact corporate, network, or cluster strategies (e.g., Reger 2001). Other research has documented the importance of regional embeddedness for knowledge creation, spillovers, learning and harnessing opportunities of temporary or permanent disruptions (Cooke 2001; Audretsch, Hülsbeck, & Lehmann 2012; Berthod, Müller-Seitz, & Sydow 2014).

The aim of this track is to foster exchange of theoretical ideas and empirical insights that might be conducive to further understand multi-level mechanisms of organizing for mindfulness. It seeks to bring together researchers who study organizational and interorganizational sensemaking, distributed knowledge and learning, as well as mindful decision making in organizations, networks, and clusters.

Possible topics for contributions include, but are not limited to, the following issues:

  • Conceptual and/or empirical analyses of multi-level perspectives on mindful organizing, for example, building an overarching theoretical framework for how mindfulness emerges across multiple levels of analysis and how this differs from mindfulness on the individual- or group-level
  • The interplay among sensemaking and/or decision making processes between different levels of analysis
  • The role of socio-cultural and economic institutions as initial conditions for coping with and harnessing opportunities of uncertainty
  • Forms of organizational, inter-organizational and inter-cluster responses to unexpected events and their development over time
  • The role of (distributed) knowledge and knowledge flows between (organizational) actors in a cluster in order to harness opportunities of uncertainty
  • The different types of tools and their role in mindful organizing and managing uncertainty

Literature

Antonacopoulou, E., Güttel, W., Kaiser, S., Macpherson, A., Mèric, J.; Müller-Seitz, G. (2012).: Strategic Organizational Learning in Turbulent Times: Ambidexterity and Absorptive Capacity (book), Publisher: International Journal of Knowledge Management Studies, 5 (1/2), 2012

Argote, L. (2006). Introduction to mindfulness. Organization Science, 17(4), 501-501

Audretsch, D. B., Hülsbeck, M., & Lehmann, E. E. (2012). Regional competitiveness, university spillovers, and entrepreneurial activity. Small Business Economics, 39(3), 587-601.

Becker, M. C. & Knudsen, T. (2005). The role of routines in reducing pervasive uncertainty. Journal of Business Research, 58(6), 746-757.

Berthod, O., Müller-Seitz, G., Sydow, J. (2014). Out of nowhere? Interorganizational assemblage as the answer to a foodborne disease outbreak. sbr, 16.

Cooke, P. (2001). Regional innovation systems, clusters, and the knowledge economy. Industrial and Corporate Change, 10(4), 945-974.

Gärtner, C. (2011): Putting new wine into old bottles: Mindfulness as a micro-foundation of dynamic capabilities. Management Decision, 49(2), 253-269.

Gärtner, C. (2013). Enhancing readiness for change by enhancing mindfulness. Journal of Change Management, 13(1), 52-68.

Gittell, J. H. & Weiss, L. (2004). Coordination networks within and across organizations: A multi-level framework. Journal of Management Studies, 41(1), 127-153.

Müller-Seitz, G. (2014). Practising uncertainty in the face of large-scale disease outbreaks. Journal of Management Inquiry, 23(3), 276-293.

Weick, K. E. & Sutcliffe, K. M. (2007). Managing the unexpected: Resilient performance in an age of uncertainty. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Reger, G. 2001. Technology foresight in companies: From an indicator to a network and process perspective. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 13(4), 533-553.

Salvato, C. & Rerup, C. (2011). Beyond collective entities: Multilevel research on Organizational routines and capabilities. Journal of Management, 37(2), 468-490.

Sydow, J., Müller-Seitz, G., & Provan, K.G. (2013): Managing uncertainty in alliances and networks – From governance to practice. In: Das, T.K. (eds.): Managing knowledge in strategic alliances. IAP. Greenwood, Conn., 1-43.

Vogus, T. J. & Sutcliffe, K. M. (2012). Organizational mindfulness and mindful organizing: A reconciliation and path forward. Academy of Management Learning & Education 11(4), 722-735

Proponents

Christian Gärtner (Helmut-Schmidt-University)
Iain Munro (Newcastle Business School)
Gordon Müller-Seitz (TU Kaiserslautern)
Marcel Hülsbeck (University of Witten/Herdecke)

Further information

Call for Papers: 3. Rhein-Ruhr Promovendensymposium “Arbeit und Soziale Sicherheit”

Call for Papers

3. Rhein-Ruhr Promovendensymposium
“Arbeit und Soziale Sicherheit”

12./13. März 2015 in Duisburg

Das Rhein-Ruhr Promovendensymposium ist eine Veranstaltung, die gemeinsam vom Wirtschafts- und Sozialwissenschaftlichen Institut (WSI) in der Hans-Böckler-Stiftung, Düsseldorf sowie dem Institut Arbeit und Qualifikation (IAQ) und dem Institut für Soziologie (IfS) der Universität Duisburg-Essen organisiert wird. Das Organisations- und Programmkomitee besteht aus Prof. Dr. Brigitte Unger (WSI), PD Dr. Martin Brussig (IAQ) und Prof. Dr. Marcel Erlinghagen (IfS).

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 dem Oberthema „Arbeit und 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 2014 eine Zusammenfassung ihres Vorhabens (maximal 3.000 Zeichen) einreichen. Eine Entscheidung über die Annahme des Vortragsvorschlags fällt spätestens bis zum 15. November 2014. Angenommene Bewerberinnen und Bewerber müssen den Organisatoren dann bis spätestens 31. Januar 2015 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)
Universität Duisburg-Essen

WSI-Herbstforum 2014: Call for Papers – Arbeitszeiten der Zukunft: Selbstbestimmt, geschlechtergerecht, nachhaltig!

CALL FOR PAPERS
WSI-Herbstforum 2014
Arbeitszeiten der Zukunft: Selbstbestimmt, geschlechtergerecht, nachhaltig!

27. – 28. November 2014, Berlin

Das diesjährige WSI-Herbstforum widmet sich den Herausforderungen zur (Neu-)Gestaltung von Arbeitszeiten vor dem Hintergrund bedeutender wirtschaftlicher, betrieblicher und sozialer Entwicklungen der letzten Jahre. Zum einen besteht derzeit eine massive Arbeitslosigkeit in Europa, insbesondere in Südeuropa, die evtl. über eine Umverteilung der Arbeitszeit reduziert werden könnte. Zum anderen erfordern aber auch technologische und betriebswirtschaftliche Entwicklungen ein Umdenken. So hat die Nutzung neuer Technologien und neuer Formen der Arbeitsorganisation (z. B. Leistungssteuerung der Beschäftigten über Marktkennzahlen) zu einem signifikanten Anstieg der Arbeitsverdichtung und weiterer psychischer Arbeitsbelastungen geführt. Auch kommt es mit dem Anstieg der Frauenerwerbsarbeit zur Herausforderung, Arbeit und Familie bzw. Pflegetätigkeiten zu verbinden. Aber auch der demografische Wandel stellt Herausforderungen an die Arbeitsorganisation. Ältere Mitarbeiter werden immer unverzichtbarer für Arbeitgeber, jedoch ist ihre Beschäftigungsfähigkeit häufig begrenzt.

Die wachsenden Qualifikationsanforderungen führen darüber hinaus zur Notwendigkeit kontinuierlicher Aus- und Weiterbildung der Beschäftigten während und außerhalb der Erwerbstätigkeit. Dies ist mit hoher Wochenarbeitszeit in Verbindung mit der Erwartung flexibler Einsatzbereitschaft schwer umzusetzen. Nicht zuletzt verändern sich aber auch die Arbeitszeitbedürfnisse von Beschäftigten. Männer wollen mehr Zeit für die Familie und Aktivitäten außerhalb der Arbeit haben, Frauen wollen mehr Zeit in ihre Erwerbstätigkeit und ihr berufliches Fortkommen investieren.

Diese Entwicklungen bedürfen einer vertieften Auseinandersetzung mit Optionen für kürzere und an den Interessen der Beschäftigten orientierte Arbeitszeiten. Flexible Arbeitszeiten und Arbeitszeitoptionen können Beschäftigte unterstützen, z. B. bei der Integration von Arbeit und Leben. Flexible Arbeitszeiten bringen jedoch auch Probleme für die Beschäftigten mit sich: die Intensivierung von Arbeit, zunehmende psychische Erkrankungen und Vereinbarkeitsprobleme deuten darauf hin. Neue Konzepte darüber, wie wir zukünftig arbeiten wollen und wie viel Zeit wir in Arbeit investieren wollen, müssen entwickelt werden. Die Zunahme der Frauenerwerbsarbeit macht zudem die Umverteilung von Arbeitszeiten im Job und im Haushalt unerlässlich.

Das WSI-Herbstforum diskutiert diese Herausforderungen in einer interdisziplinären Perspektive. Die Zeitbedarfe verschiedener Beschäftigtengruppen, Zeit für Familie und Freizeit ebenso wie die Verteilung der Arbeitszeiten von Männern und Frauen stehen im Fokus der Debatte.

Wir interessieren uns vor allem für:

  • Unterschiede zwischen der tatsächlichen Arbeitszeit von Beschäftigten und ihrer Arbeitszeitpräferenzen im Lebensverlauf
  • Konzepte zur Gestaltung betrieblicher Leistungspolitik und Arbeitszeit
  • bessere Integration von Arbeit und Leben
  • Konzepte zur Gewährleistung von Zeitsouveränität der Beschäftigten
  • Genderspezifische Arbeitsarrangements
  • Konzepte zur Arbeitszeitverkürzung

Beiträge für das WSI-Herbstforum 2014 können in Form eines Abstracts (max. 300 Wörter) bis zum 30.06.14 an Toralf Pusch oder Yvonne Lott gesendet werden. Vorträge sind in Deutsch und Englisch willkommen.

Management Revue: Call for Papers – Labour Time – Life Time

Call for Papers

Wenzel Matiaske, Helmut-Schmidt-University Hamburg (Germany)
Simon Fietze, University of Southern Denmark, Sønderborg
Gerd Grözinger, University of Flensburg (Germany)
Doris Holtmann, Helmut-Schmidt-University Hamburg (Germany)

Special Issue of Management Revue
Labour Time – Life Time

Ever since the beginning of industrialization the fight for the reduction of working hours was considered the way out of the “kingdom of necessity”. It was only in the 1980s, in the course of a decentralized organization in worldwide networks, that the paradigm changed to more flexible forms of working time management. This is no longer an issue of the collective actors alone but also of the individuals who have to cope with the increasing time flexibility in a socio-structurally differentiated way. From trust-based working hours to on-call duty, from the core workforce with a 35-hour week to temporary work: the contemporary organization of working time took since long already various forms. In addition, the ongoing economic crisis leads in many European countries to forced over-employment and under-employment at the same time.

At the same time the topics are changing under which the problems of the “flexible character” in balancing different aspects of life are discussed in (human resource) management, psychology and sociology. Role conflicts, the balance of work, free time and family or burnout as a possible consequence are keywords which show that work and work time cannot be separated from life time.

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

  • Disparities of working time and desired working hours in the course of time
  • Quantitative and qualitative working-time regimes
  • Time-related stress and wealth in time
  • Balancing life domain work conflict
  • Models of labour time re-distribution
  • Externalities of problematic working time arrangements, e.g. influences on family life, happiness, fertility etc.

This is not an exhaustive list.

Deadline
Full papers for this special edition of ‘management revue’ must be with the editors by July 31st, 2014. All submissions will be subject to a double blind review process. Please submit your papers electronically via the journal submission system using ‘Labour Time – Life Time’ as article section.

Hoping to hear from you!

Wenzel Matiaske,
Simon Fietze,
Gerd Grözinger,
Doris Holtmann

Call for Papers: Periphere Arbeit im Zentrum

Call for Papers

Periphere Arbeit im Zentrum
AKempor Tagung
6./7. November 2014, HSU Hamburg
Organisation: Axel Czaya, Wenzel Matiaske

 Das Begriffspaar “Peripherie” und “Zentrum” erschließt nicht nur die sozial-räumliche Dimension von Arbeit. Darüber hinaus soll es um die Positionierung von Arbeit im Raum sozialer Ungleichheit gehen, der nicht nur durch Einkommensunterschiede, sondern auch durch ungleiche Verteilung sozialen und kulturellen Kapitals charakterisiert ist. Zum Verständnis der Genese und Entwicklung sozial-struktureller Ungleichheit ist darüber hinaus die Zentralität von Organisationen in der Gesellschaft zu berücksichtigen.

Vom Wanderarbeiter über Mitarbeiter mit Behinderungen und Filialleiter in der Provinz reicht das Spektrum peripherer Positionen. Wohingegen schlechtbezahlte Praktikanten im renommierten Architekturbüro, Chefsekretäre in der Zentrale oder Industriemeister im Stammhaus in bestimmter Dimension zentrale Positionen einnehmen. Organisationsgröße und Kontrolle über kritische Ressourcen des Wirtschaftslebens moderieren Arbeitsbedingungen, Karrierewege und Einflusschancen der Beschäftigten. Doch auch jenseits der Welt der Organisation finden sich die strukturierenden Kraftlinien von Peripherie und Zentrum im Feld der selbständigen und der freien Berufe vom Toilettenmann, der Künstlerin, dem Arzt oder der Rechtsanwältin und ihrer Lebenswelten.

Die Exploration der skizzierten Felder bedarf der theoretischen Anleitung. Im Mittelpunkt des Interesses stehen jedoch nicht theoretisch konzeptionelle, sondern primär – quantitative und qualitative – empirische Arbeiten aus den Sozial- und Wirtschaftswissenschaften, ebenso wie aus den Kulturwissenschaften.

Die Tagung interessiert sich wie immer auch für methodische Fragen. Im Kontext unseres Themas sind dies u.a. Methoden der Regional- und Netzwerkanalyse, aber auch Instrumente zur Erhebung qualitativen Datenmaterials, welche Auskunft über Peripherie und Zentrum in durch Organisationen geprägten Feldern geben.

Beiträge können in Form von Abstracts oder als Full Paper bis zum 31. August 2014 eingereicht werden.

Weitere Informationen