Call for Papers zum Themenschwerpunkt für das Heft 1/2022 der Zeitschrift für Diversitätsforschung und -management

Digitalisierung der Arbeitswelt: Hindernisse und Chancen mit Blick auf Chancengleichheit, Diversität und Inklusion

Herausgeber:innen
Daniela Rastetter, Anna Mucha und Stephan Schmucker (Universität Hamburg) sowie Angela Kornau, Vanessa Bernauer und Barbara Sieben (Helmut-Schmidt-Universität/Universität der Bundeswehr Hamburg)

Digitalisierung ist allgegenwärtig und stellt die Art und Weise, in der wir arbeiten und organisieren, grundlegend in Frage (Brougham/Haar 2018; Hagel et al. 2017). Während der Begriff in technischer Hinsicht zunächst die Umwandlung analoger in digitale Informationen bezeichnet (im englischen digitization) wird die Digitalisierung von Organisationen definiert als „the socio-technical process of exploiting digitization potentials for operational and/or strategic purposes“ (Strohmeier 2020: 349). Der damit verbundene digi-tale Wandel betrifft sämtliche Aspekte des Arbeitsalltags und verändert organisationale Praktiken wie die des Personalmanagements (HRM) (Bondarouk/Brewster 2016; Bondarouk et al. 2019; Strohmeier 2020) sowie Kanäle und Formen der Kommunikation in Organisationen (Martin et al. 2015). Beispielsweise wer-den künstliche Intelligenz, Algorithmen (z.B. Duggan et al. 2020), Web-Apps oder Gaming-Elemente (z.B. Ellison et al. 2020) im Rahmen der Personalgewinnung und -auswahl, Personalbeurteilung und -entwicklung eingesetzt. Social-Media-Plattformen ergänzen oder ersetzen die Kommunikation von Angesicht zu Angesicht (Martin et al. 2015; Mennie 2015) und Teamarbeit wird zunehmend virtuell organisiert (Kre-mer/Janneck 2013). Verstärkt werden diese Dynamiken durch die COVID-19-Pandemie, die Menschen auf der ganzen Welt dazu veranlasst, im Home-Office zu arbeiten (World Economic Forum 2020), wodurch die virtuelle Arbeit zur „neuen Normalität“ wird (Hofmann et al. 2020).

In jüngster Zeit wächst das Interesse an der Frage, wie sich die Digitalisierung von Organisationen auf Chancengleichheit am Arbeitsplatz auswirkt (vgl. Georgiadou et al. 2020). Einerseits können Exklusionen durch den ungleichen Zugang zu digitalen Technologien entstehen (DiMaggio et al. 2004), durch technologische Verfahren, die mittels „algorithmic bias“ (Rastetter 2020: 164) Stereotypen aufrechterhalten, an-statt sie abzubauen (vgl. auch Daugherty et al. 2019; Meyer 2018), oder durch die fehlende Berücksichti-gung von Diversität bei der Entwicklung solcher Verfahren (Büchel 2018; Simonite 2018, vgl. auch Kutz-ner/Schnier 2017). Auf der anderen Seite kann die Digitalisierung auch Potenziale zur Förderung von Diver-sität und Inklusion in Organisationen bieten (Rastetter 2020), beispielweise wenn direktere, dezentrale und flexible Möglichkeiten der Zusammenarbeit und Partizipation an Entscheidungsprozessen geschaffen werden (Bernauer/Kornau 2020; Carstensen 2020; Kutzner/Schnier 2017).

Mit diesem Themenschwerpunkt möchten wir eine Diskussion über Hindernisse und Potenziale der Digi-talisierung für Chancengleichheit, Diversität und Inklusion in Organisationen anregen. Beiträge aus ver-schiedenen nationalen Kontexten, Organisationsformen und Disziplinen sind willkommen. Sie können bei-spielsweise die folgenden Themen und Fragestellungen aufgreifen:

• Auf welche Weise (re)produzieren elektronische oder digitale HRM-Praktiken (Un-)Gleichheiten? Wie wirken sich z.B. elektronische Auswahl- oder Beurteilungspraktiken auf Benachteiligungen nach Ge-schlecht, Rasse/ethnischer Herkunft, Behinderung und anderen Dimensionen aus? Auf welche Weise können digitale Verfahren dazu beitragen, vorurteilsbehaftete Wahrnehmungsverzerrungen zu über-winden?
• Welche Rolle spielen die Intersektionen von Geschlecht, Rasse/ethnischer Herkunft, Behinderung und anderen Dimensionen bei digitalen Praktiken? Was ist erforderlich und kann getan werden, um  Mehrfachdiskriminierungen aufgrund von Geschlecht und ethnischer Herkunft durch Gesichtserkennungsalgorithmen
  im Rahmen von Rekrutierungsprozessen zu verhindern?
• Wie wirkt sich ein durch die Digitalisierung verändertes Führungsverständnis (z.B. Shared Leadership in virtuellen Teams) auf die Inklusion und Partizipation verschiedener (marginalisierter) Beschäftigtengruppen aus? Welche Chancen und Hindernisse lassen sich identifizieren?
• Wie wirkt sich digitalisierte Kommunikation im weiteren Sinne (z.B. soziale Medien, virtuelle Teamsitzungen, Konferenzen, Unterricht) auf die Inklusion und Partizipation verschiedener Gruppen aus? Wo liegen Chancen und Herausforderungen?
• Welche Unterschiede gibt es in der Umsetzung digitalisierter Praktiken und deren Auswirkungen auf Chancengleichheit unter verschiedenen organisationalen Rahmenbedingungen? Sind bestimmte Organisationsformen besser geeignet, Potenziale der Digitalisierung zur Förderung von Chancengleichheit, Diversität und Inklusion zu nutzen (z.B. Start-ups, Internet-Kollektive)?
• Welche Variationen sehen wir in verschiedenen Länderkontexten? Auf welche Weise werden in Diskursen über Digitalisierung der Arbeitswelt politisches Handeln und Widerstand gegen potentiell diskriminierende Wirkungen angesprochen?
• Welche innovativen Ideen gibt es in Forschung und Praxis, um proaktiv das Bewusstsein und die Kompetenzen in Bezug auf Chancengleichheit, Diversität und Inklusion durch digitale Technologien (z.B. Apps, Spiele) zu stärken?

Für den wissenschaftlichen Teil dieses Schwerpunktheftes wünschen wir uns Beiträge sowohl theoretischkonzeptioneller als auch empirischer Ausrichtung im Umfang von 35.000 bis max. 45.000 Zeichen (inkl. Leerzeichen). Für die Kategorie „Forschungsskizzen und Positionen“ können Ideen und Entwürfe zu Forschungsprojekten sowie pointierte Stellungnahmen und (gern provokante) Positionen eingereicht werden. Solche Beiträge sollen zwischen 12.000 und 15.000 Zeichen (inkl. Leerzeichen) umfassen. Wir begrüßen ausdrücklich auch Praxisbeiträge zu diesem Thema, ebenfalls im Umfang von 12.000 bis max. 15.000 Zeichen (inkl. Leerzeichen).

Weitergehende Hinweise zur Gestaltung Ihres Beitrags und zu Einreichungsmodalitäten für diese und weitere Ausgaben der Zeitschrift für Diversitätsforschung und -management finden Sie auf der Webseite zdfm.budrich-journals.de. Bitte reichen Sie alle Beiträge in dem Onlinetool auf der Seite https://www.jdrm.de/ ein (Anleitung unter: zdfm.budrich-journals.de).

Die Frist zur Einreichung für wissenschaftliche Vollbeiträge zu diesem Themenschwerpunkt ist der 01.07.2021. Forschungsskizzen und Positionen sowie Praxisbeiträge können bis 01.09.2021 eingereicht werden.

Nachfragen richten Sie bitte vorab an daniela.rastetter@uni-hamburg.de

Call for Papers

The effects of human-made climate change and ways of tackling it are inextricably linked to issues of inclusion and exclusion. Be it in terms of which actors are most responsible for and most affected by the current climate crisis (Diffenbaugh & Burke, 2019; Neumayer & Plümper, 2007), in terms of scientific knowledge production and accompanying recommendations (Ergene et al., 2018; Goodall, 2008; Tuana, 2013), and in terms of actors who feel empowered to be part of potential solutions such as adaptation and mitigation plans (e.g., Buck et al., 2014): different facets of the climate crises are connected to the reproduction and even reinforcement of asymmetrical inclusion/exclusion dynamics. At the same time, efforts of creating a more inclusive society are increasingly affected by the climate crisis. Not only is the climate movement perceived as a “threat to the masculinity of industrial modernity” (Anshelm & Hultman, 2014: 84) and encounters open misogyny and anti-environmentalism (Gelin, 2019), also certain forms of ‘climate crisis management’ might diminish, hinder or even reverse inclusion efforts for particularly marginalized groups (e.g., Wang, 2016).

Organizations hereby represent a crucial bottleneck for both issues: they are judged as one of the main causes for the climate crisis, but also for the reproduction of social inequalities (Avent-Holt & Tomaskovic-Devey, 2019; Wright & Nyberg, 2017). At the same time, organizations – and various practices of organizing – represent one of the biggest hopes for tackling societal “grand challenges” (George et al,. 2016). While climate scientists and policy makers have long paid attention to the interrelationship between social inclusion and climate change, this connection is largely neglected in organization studies. For instance, the principle of equity and inclusivity is firmly anchored in the United Nations climate negotiations (e.g., Schüßler et al., 2014), but many have argued that this principle stifles negotiation success (e.g., Schroeder & Boykoff, 2012). To date, we understand little about the suitable organizational mechanisms for avoiding ‘gridlock’ in such ‘inclusive organizations’. Also, women and indigenous people are not only recognized as some of the most vulnerable groups affected by the climate crisis, they are also seen as providing important knowledge for policy solutions, such as the use of an indigenous territorial ontology (Schroeder & Gonzáles, 2019). Generally, a variety of NGOs, trade unions, business, women’s and youth organizations, cities and regions, indigenous people communities and different religious groups play an increasingly important role in climate policy development (Kuyper et al., 2018) – but knowledge about how their organizational inclusion can be organized to develop more effective policy solutions is limited.

Furthermore, climate change is related to other earth processes such as land use and fresh water, which in turn are highly linked to social inequality. Consequently, there is a need for comprehensive systems thinking to fully grasp the interconnectivity of economic, political, social and ecological issues (Williams et al., 2017). As shown regarding the issue of inequality, for instance, the inclusion of diverse voices can support a process of scaffolding that eventually stabilizes as a new social order (Mair et al., 2016). Thus, there is evidence that social inclusion matters for grand challenges more generally, and for understanding the drivers and effects of climate change more specifically. In particular, both climate change as well inclusion and exclusion dynamics, while (re-)produced locally, are phenomena exacerbated by global entanglements of actors, practices and institutions. Organizations hereby face tensions between local (e.g., providing employment) and global (e.g., enhance competitiveness) demands (Greenwood et al., 2010). Also, in practice organizational attempts at becoming more inclusive or climate-smart often oscillate between the assumption that enhancing inclusivity or tackling climate change can be compatible with a ‘business case’ (Carroll & Shabana, 2010; Ferdman & Deane, 2014), and that organizations need to undergo substantial structural reforms that actually question ‘business as usual’ (Dobusch, 2014; Wright & Nyberg, 2017). Whether and how these tensions can be reconciled and which (new) forms of organizing might be suitable for this purpose represents a pressing issue for both fields of research.

New theoretical frameworks that are sensitive to cross-level feedback effects such as complex adaptive systems theories (Williams et al., 2019) or a systems-paradox lens (Schad & Bansal, 2018) as well as those that engage with “a-more-than-human-world perspective” (Calás & Smirchich, 2018: 415) might be required to better understand the interconnectedness of social-ecological systems. In sum, we believe that jointly looking at the issues of climate change and inclusion/exclusion from an organization studies perspective is not only an urgent necessity in terms of its practical relevance, but can also stimulate cross-pollination at the intersection of climate and inclusion studies in theoretical and empirical terms. Papers may address, but are not limited to the following topics:

• What do we empirically know about the relationship between current organizational approaches to tackle climate change and those to enhance inclusivity? How can we conceptually and theoretically understand this relationship?
• How inclusive are climate-smart organizing approaches? How climate-smart are approaches to inclusive organizing? When does the relationship between inclusive organizing and climate-smart organizing become mutually exclusive, when mutually stimulating?
• How inclusive are climate change movements? What are cross-field dynamics among multiple societal movements that intersect in the climate crisis?
• What are drivers and barriers for organizations in moving away from a “tradeoffs”-perspective between social, environmental, and economic goals towards alternative forms of organizing?
• What are examples of forms of organizing, working and ways of living that allow for a relationship with the nonhuman world that is not based on domination, exploitation, and objectification?
• What are suitable conceptual and institutional frameworks to address the interrelatedness among multiple social-ecological systems on different levels?

In the spirit of our sub-theme, we aim to have a practical impact and strive for an inclusive and climate-friendly organizing approach. We would like to ask participants to submit a 60 second video statement about the practical relevance of their research and to publish these videos before our sub-theme’s start (of course under consent), inviting the public to send us questions for discussion and reporting on this discussion on a blog afterwards.

Further information:

https://www.egosnet.org/jart/prj3/egos/main.jart?rel=de&reserve-mode=active&content-id=1566433211083&subtheme_id=1574543973863

Scholars in organization studies are increasingly uneasy with how our discipline is evolving in universities and business schools (Bothello & Roulet, 2019; Contu, 2019; Harley, 2019; Tourish, 2019). Pursuing a return to meaning (Alvesson et al., 2017), many academics are leaving the comfort of their desks to focus on problem driven research (Gehman et al., 2016; George et al., 2016; Schüssler et al., 2014), engaged and participatory action research (Dover & Lawrence, 2010; van de Ven, 2007;), responsible innovation (Voegtlin & Scherer, 2017) or even activist research (Reedy & King, 2019; Whiteman & Cooper, 2016;). The motivation is not only to develop a knowledge base that is relevant for audiences other than academics and to contribute to the solution of pressing societal and wicked problems, but also to be at the forefront of such changes.

Academic movements such as RRBM (2017), or OS4Future (2019) are focusing both on elaborating solutions to grand challenges and on integrating these very research insights in the practices of academia, i.e. in research, teaching, conference travel and local campus practices. This reorientation is also an attempt to take the lead in defining the buzzword third mission of universities (in addition to the primary missions of research and teaching), and to avoid the narrow conceptualization of research impact that is often the product of particular interests in society (Rhodes et al., 2018).

These developments require us to reassess and develop our skills on several fronts. Specifically, we need to:
Reflect on axiology, i.e. the normative underpinning of our discipline, and the ethical entanglements generated by becoming actors in the contested fields we study (Überbacher & Delmestri, 2019);
Create space for those of us that endorse value commitments such as compassion, courage and justice in addition to personal integrity, curiosity and intellectual rigor (Adler & Hansen, 2012; Svejenova, 2019; Whiteman, 2010);
Draw from existing experiences (Flyvbjerg, 2002; Flyvbjerg et al., 2012; Gray & Purdy, 2018) and develop new methods to conduct engaged scholarship at the level of organizational fields or society, the loci where the solutions to grand societal challenges are negotiated or contrasted and leverage existing methods (e.g., collaborative autoethnographies; Glozer et al., 2018) that enable tracing sustainability processes;
Follow recent examples (Mair et al., 2016; Sharma & Bansal, 2020) in understanding how to combine engaged forms of scholarship (such as action research or activist research) with the capacity to publish in theory driven journals that have an exclusively academic audience;
Enlarge the range of identities that are considered legitimate and desirable in our profession.

We are interested in research that addresses the above themes and in particular is generative of new solutions and not only uses past trends to predict the future but are also dares to imagine and design new futures by being able to consider and “integrate values of different kinds” (Monaci & Magatti, 2017: 376). This kind of research stays true to the phenomenon, addresses empirical puzzles and considers theory as a way to better understand and influence the processes observed (Pawlak et al., 2019). We are also interested in papers in essay format and in papers that directly address methodological issues. Accordingly, the format of the sub-theme will sustain dynamic generativity in our own work at EGOS.

The following are non-exhaustive examples of the kind of question we would like to see addressed in the submitted papers:

• How can studies be generative for theory and methods targeted at addressing societal issues (rather than just for the sake of theory or methods themselves)?
• How to package papers in terms of theory and methods to get them published also in theory driven journals?
• What are the pitfalls in engaged scholarship and how to avoid them?
• How to conduct participatory action research at field level?
• How to conduct activist research and avoid its pitfalls?
• How was a specific societal or environmental challenge resolved in a specific context?
• What have we learned from the reactions to the COVID-19 crisis and their aftermath
• How can an autoethnography of a sustainability change process in your own institutions be conducted?
• What other research methods are useful for conducting engaged scholarship?
• What factors impede our scientific societies to address more directly the climate crisis and how could these be overcome?

Further information:

https://www.egosnet.org/jart/prj3/egos/main.jart?rel=de&reserve-mode=active&content-id=1566433211083&subtheme_id=1574543970522

Organization Studies Special Issue Call for Papers: “Organizing Sustainably: Actors, Institutions and Practices”.

Editors: Rick Delbridge, Markus Helfen, Andi Pekarek, Elke Schuessler, Charlene Zietsma

The objective of this special issue is to go beyond established ways of thinking about sustainability and towards understanding how new forms of organizing – such as more participatory and distributed models (Ferraro, Etzion & Gehman, 2015) – can contribute to the sustainable usage of environmental, social, and economic resources in ways that avoid their degradation and exhaustion through models that will themselves be enduring. This includes addressing the questions of why unsustainable forms of organizations persist, how established organizations can be restructured sustainably, and what makes alternative forms of organization (un)sustainable.

We invite submissions related to a broad set of topics including (but not limited to): the practices and politics of the sustainable organization; alternative forms of organizing and societal grand challenges, work and employment in the sustainable organization; and conventions, ideas and logics surrounding the sustainable organization. We seek contributions from a wide range of theoretical perspectives and methodological approaches. Specifically, our intention is to bridge diverse but established areas for sustainability research such as corporate social responsibility, diversity management, employment relations, employee health and wellbeing, environmentalism and business ethics with wider organizational scholarship on social movements, non-governmental and third sector organizations, public policy and local community organizing and, more broadly, research on the post-corporate economic organization and economic and social transformation.

Deadline: November 30, 2020.

Call for Papers

Journal of East European Management Studies (JEEMS)
Special Issue 2020
Challenges of Management in the COVID-19 Reality

Guest Editors: Monika Wieczorek-Kosmala (University of Economics in Katowice), Thomas Steger (University of Regensburg), Igor Gurkov (Higher School of Economics Moscow)

Deadlines for Submission: October 31, 2020 (Paper Proposals), December 31, 2020 (Full Papers)

Since the onset of the new millennium, the world has been threatened by the occurrence of outbreaks of infectious diseases (e.g., SARS in 2008, swine flu in 2009, Ebola in 2013–2014, and Zika in 2015) igniting a discussion on whether we are prepared for the possible consequences of pandemic risk in societal and economic dimensions (Estrada et al. 2016; Woolnought and Kramer 2007).

However, the consequences of the COVID-19 pandemic outbreak are unprecedented in numerous dimensions. The virus spread globally with ease, and on 12 March 2020, the WHO officially announced the outbreak of the pandemic (WHO 2020), calling countries to take rapid actions to control the situation. The social-distancing restrictions, border closures, ban on mass events, and the lockdown were implemented, leading to severe disturbances in the operating activities of numerous businesses worldwide. Although the most severe restrictions, COVID-19 continues with undefined persistence, as we are unable to predict when and where we may expect the next peaks of infections, what measures will be then implemented to stop its spread (another lockdown?), or when an effective vaccine will be available. In the managerial dimension, COVID-19 also created the risk of questionable reversibility, as it has caused disruptions in business activity that require substantial change.

For this special issue, we are calling for original, state-of-the-art research papers that consider the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic outbreak on organizational management issues in Central and Eastern Europe from a variety of managerial perspectives. We encourage scholars to look at both the consequences and challenges of COVID-19 within (but not restricted to) the following areas:

• HRM (e.g., distant work, leadership, temporary shut-downs, lay-offs)
• Strategic management (e.g., resilience strategies, recovery and adaptation)
• Finance (e.g., liquidity tensions, bankruptcy threat)
• Crisis management (e.g., organizational measures to soften the consequences of the pandemic)
• Multinational companies (e.g., headquarter-subsidiary relationships under restrictions of international mobility, urgent revision of operational plans)
• Small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) (e.g., survival tactics)

The proposed special issue is subject to a tight planning schedule; this is particularly due to the high actuality of the topic. Thus, paper proposals (i.e., extended abstracts) must be submitted by October 31, 2020. Full paper submissions are required by December 31, 2020. The publication of the Special Issue is scheduled for summer/autumn 2021.

All papers are required to follow the Author Guidelines of JEEMS (https://www.jeems.nomos.de) and will be submitted to a double-blind review process. The length of the papers should not exceed 8,000 words (including tables, figures and references). Shorter papers (max. length 5,000) may be considered as research notes.

Submissions and all further correspondence regarding the special issue should be directed to thomas.steger@ur.de.

Call for Papers

Call for Papers / The Leadership Quarterly

„Beyond the ritualized use of questionnaires: Toward a science of actual behaviors and psychological states”

This Special Issue is dedicated to reinvigorating and advancing investigations into actual behaviors and psychological states manipulating or objectively measuring them so that our field can take a similar leap forward. Contributions may include (but are not limited to) the following types of theoretical, methodological, or empirical work in a social science (e.g., leadership or management more broadly)—context:

1. Studies developing clear definitions of important constructs that were heretofore typically captured via questionnaire measures but can be manipulated and objectively coded. The substantive change in the conceptualization of charismatic leadership and how it can be experimentally manipulated is an illustration of such an approach (e.g., see Meslec, Curseu, Fodor, & Kenda, 2020, who also employ consequential outcomes).

2. Studies systematically comparing empirical analyses based on questionnaire measures to those based on unobtrusive or archival measures (e.g., observing real behavior). Chatterjee and Hambrick’s (2007) work on non-questionnaire-based measures of narcissism is a case in point.

3. Studies systematically identifying types of questionnaire measures that are less prone to (conscious or unconscious) misreporting. For instance, Gioia and Sims (1985) developed a measure of leader behaviors that is not prone to bias due to performance cues and people’s implicit leadership theories.

4. Studies using direct observational measures or real-time measures of behavior, archival data, and neurophysiological measures for variables relevant to the study of leadership or other social science phenomena (e.g., Antonakis, 2017; Gerpott et al., 2018, Wenzel &Van Quaquebeke, 2018).

5. Eliciting preferences and attitudes by using list experiments (Blair & Imai, 2012) and randomized response protocols (Greenberg et al., 1969), which are useful in measuring true states in contexts where social desirability and social norms may constrain true responses.

6. Experimental research in the field or laboratory to highlight biases, demand effects, or endogeneity issues originating from questionnaire measures, as well as the use of game-theoretic designs that consider costs and benefits of choices and actions (Zehnder, Herz, & Bonardi, 2017).

7. Studies purging questionnaire measures that serve as explanatory variable from endogeneity by instrumenting them with experimentally randomized instrumental variables (Meslec et al., 2020; Sajons, 2020) or measured variables that are exogenous (Cavazotte, Moreno, & Hickmann, 2012), whether in laboratory or field settings.

8. Reviews of research to identify problematic areas in studying real behaviors and psychological states and to chart new territory for researchers. Such reviews could serve as go-to guides for scholars developing their studies and seeking to jettison questionnaires.

9. Theoretical articles that contribute to the development of constructs and measures that foster the study of real behaviors in situ. Conceptual work on event-based approaches to studying leadership and management are a case in point (e.g., Hoffman & Lord, 2013; Morgeson, Mitchell, & Liu, 2015).

Special Issue Co-editors:
• Thomas Fischer, Geneva School of Economics and Management, University of Geneva, thomas.fischer@unige.ch
• Donald C. Hambrick, Smeal College of Business, The Pennsylvania State University, dch14@smeal.psu.edu
• Gwendolin B. Sajons, ESCP Business School, gsajons@escp.eu
• Niels Van Quaquebeke, Kühne Logistics University & University of Exeter, Niels.Quaquebeke@the-klu.org

Here you can find the CfP with more information on the submission process:

https://www.journals.elsevier.com/the-leadership-quarterly/call-for-papers/beyond-the-ritualized-use-of-questionnaires-toward-a-science