Short Overview:

What goes on in workers’ minds after a stressful work day and what is it about their jobs that got them thinking like this? This Special Issue of the German Journal of Human Resource Management (GHRM) aims to bridge the gap between research on cognitive recovery processes (e.g., detachment, work reflection, rumination, problem-solving pondering) that were mainly examined in Occupational Health Psychology, and research on employee stress and working times (Blagoev et al., 2018) in the field of Human Resource Management. We hope that this integration will not only stimulate theoretical advancement concerning recovery from work but also uncover important practical implications that help organizations respond to currently pressing HR challenges. 

Recent changes in workplaces may lead to greater work stressors and can harm employee wellbeing, health, motivation and work performance (Kubicek and Tement, 2016; Sonnentag, 2018). Previous research has shown that recovery during (Syrek et al., 2018; Wendsche et al., 2016) and after work (De Bloom et al., 2009) is important to attenuate potential adverse effects. Following this line, scholars have focused on work cognitions during recovery periods from different perspectives: cognitive distancing from work and engaging in work-related thoughts during recovery periods.

They invite submissions to this Special Issue from either psychological, sociological or economic perspectives. They welcome empirical studies, systematic reviews or conceptual papers which promote theoretical advancement.

Deadlines:

• Submission deadline (extended abstracts): October 31^st, 2019
• Expected date of publication: February 2021

For further information

Here you can find a summary of the content of the newly published Februrar issue of the GHRM.

Short Overview:

Based on the seminal insight that legitimate political decisions need to be connected to a communicative exchange of reasons between the affected parties, the concept of deliberative democracy (Curato, Dryzek, Ercan, Hendriks, & Niemeyer, 2017) has received growing attention over the past years in business ethics as well as in management and organization studies. While the so-called “systemic turn” in deliberative thinking captured the attention of many political scientists (Dryzek, 2016; Owen & Smith, 2015; Parkinson & Mansbridge, 2012; Warren, 2012), business ethicists as well as management scholars discussed the merits of a democratization of corporategovernance (Goodman & Arenas, 2015; Scherer, 2015; Schneider & Scherer, 2015; Stansbury, 2009). Reinvigorating past research on organizational and workplace democracy (Harrison & Freeman, 2004; Landemore & Ferreras, 2015), Battilana et al. (2018) argue that deliberative forms of corporate governance are particularly relevant for so-called “multi-objective organizations” (Mitchell, Weaver, Agle, Bailey, & Carlson, 2016). These organizations reject monistic notions of stakeholder value (Harrison & Wicks, 2013) and aim for multiple objectives, such as financial, social, and environmental objectives simultaneously. Starting from the assumption that deliberative decision-making processes can foster the integration of these sometimes contradicting values, deliberative democracy appears to be particularly suitable for sustainability-oriented organizations. However, the implementation of deliberative democracy within such organizations is neither without obstacles (King & Land, 2018) nor without instrumental as well as normative shortcomings (Hielscher, Beckmann, & Pies, 2014; Johnson, 2006).

Against this background, this call for submissions invites for consideration papers that discuss the challenges and prospects of deliberative democracy for corporate sustainability and responsibility.

Key Dates:

• Manuscript development workshop deadline: June 15, 2019
• Manuscript development workshop convenes: August 2019 in Boston (specific day TBA)
• BEQ special issue submission window: December 1, 2019, through January 31, 2020
• Publication: 2021 (est.)

Guest Editors:

Dirk Ulrich Gilbert, University of Hamburg

Andreas Rasche, Copenhagen Business School

Maximilian J. L. Schormair, University of Hamburg

Abraham Singer, Loyola University Chicago

For further information

Wenn es empirisch zutrifft, dass sich die Wirtschaftswissenschaften mit Knappheit befassen, dann ist Streit über Theorien und Methoden, Wertungen und Gestaltungsmaßnahmen naheliegend oder gar unvermeidlich. Immer wieder taucht in den Auseinandersetzungen der Begriff der Ideologie auf. Nicht selten wird er als polemischer Kampfbegriff verwendet, der all diejenigen Aussagensysteme als ideologisch diskreditiert, die nicht den eigenen Vorstellungen entsprechen. Terry Eagletons drastische Formulierung bringt es anschaulich auf den Punkt: „… Ideologie (ist) wie Mundgeruch immer das, was die anderen haben“ (Eagleton, T. 2000: Ideologie. Eine Einführung. Stuttgart: Metzler, S. 8). Ein solches, rein denunziatorisches Konzept dürfte ebenso wenig sinnvoll wie eine weite Vorstellung, die Ideologie ganz allgemein als umfassenderes Wert-Wissens-System, als Weltbild oder Denksystem, begreift. Wir legen folgende Arbeitsdefinition zugrunde: Ideologisch sind solche Aussagen zu nennen, die (i) Wahrheit suggerieren, dabei gleichzeitig schwer überprüfbar ist und sich sogar gegen eine Überprüfung immunisieren, (ii) die ein Bild erzeugen, das zumindest zum Teil falsch ist und zudem (iii) die Funktion hat, bestimmte Interessen angebbarer gesellschaftlicher Gruppen zuverschleiern oder zu affirmieren. Die Absicht einer Verschleierung ist nicht auszuschließen, sie ist jedoch kein notwendiges Definitionsmerkmal des Ideologischen, denn eine Menge von Aussagen kann unbeabsichtigt positive Wirkungen für eine Gruppe (und negative für andere) entfalten.

Die Leitfrage des geplanten Bandes lautet: Produzieren die Wirtschaftswissenschaften Ideologie? Wie geschieht dies? Und was kann man dagegen tun? Kann Wirtschaftswissenschaft auch als Gegenmittel gegen Ideologien eingesetzt werden, welche Merkmale müssten solche wissenschaftlichen Perspektiven und Analysen aufweisen?

Die Herausgeber des Ende 2020 erscheinenden Bandes sind Wenzel Matiaske und Werner Nienhüser. Für das im Metropolis-Verlag erscheinende Jahrbuch Ökonomie und Gesellschaft sollen wissenschaftliche Beiträge zum Thema „Ökonomie und Ideologie eingereicht werden.

Einreichungsfrist: Zusammenfassung (Abstract von max. 1500 Wörtern) bis zum 31.05.2019

Weitere Informationen

Call for Special Issue Proposals

Corporate Governance: An International Review invites proposals for special issues that focus on a specific area of research that has broad appeal and fits with the aims and scope of the journal. The mission of CGIR is to publish cutting-edge international business research on the phenomena of corporate governance throughout the global economy. We define corporate governance broadly as the exercise of power over corporate entities so as to increase the value provided to the organization’s various stakeholders, as well as making those stakeholders accountable for acting responsiblywith regard to the protection, generation, and distribution of wealth invested in the firm.

Special issue subjects have to be broad enough to attract general interest and sufficiently focused to be dealt within a single issue. In general, special issues should avoid a too narrow geographic focus and be open to contributions with various disciplinary framings, methods or levels of analysis. Special issues have to be the outcome of an open call for papers and must not be restricted to scholars who can attend a particular conference. Nonetheless, offering a paper development workshop for submitted manuscripts or revised submissions could be helpful (but is not necessary) in increasing the quality of contributions and meeting the high standards of CGIR that accepts less than 8% of all submissions.

Deadline for Submissions of Proposals: June 1, 2019

For further information

Call for Proposals: Review Issue 2021

Corporate Governance: An International Review seeks proposals for review articles that consolidate and advance current knowledge of subjects in line with the mission of the journal. The mission of CGIR is to publish cutting-edge international business research on the phenomena of corporate governance throughout the global economy. We define corporate governance broadly as the exercise of power over corporate entities so as to increase the value provided to the organization’s various stakeholders, as well as making those stakeholders accountable for acting responsibly with regard to the protection, generation, and distribution of wealth invested in the firm.

Review articles should be high-impact scholarly surveys of important streams of governance research. They should compile the state of corresponding knowledge, integrate related literatures and provide promising avenues for future research. Their scope should be broad enough to attract general interest and sufficiently focused to be dealt with in a single article.

Deadline for Submissions of Proposals: September 1, 2019

For further information 

Soon after the fall of the Iron Curtain, it became clear that the end of state socialism in Eastern Europe did not necessarily imply the end of state domination over the economy and firm practices. Early studies found, that the post-socialist state – through its control over the banking system for instance – continued to influence firm-level strategies regarding product innovation, restructurings, supply chains, and human resource management (Whitley & Czaban, 1998a, 1998b). More generally, management scholars, political scientists, and sociologists found that the role of the state in post-socialist economies remained much more prominent and much more complex than initial optimistic accounts of “transition” and the “retreat of the state” had suggested (Martin, 2002, 2013; Schoenman, 2005; Stark, 1996; Stark & Bruszt, 2001). Thus, the initial retreat of the socialist state was slower than expected during the early 1990s. More recently, various transition economies may even experience a return of the state as an active player in the economy in its own right (Bremmer, 2008; Kurlantzick, 2016; Musacchio, Lazzarini, & Aguilera, 2015l; Sallai & Schnyder, 2018). In such cases, the state does not only intervene as a regulator – as the ideal-typical idea of liberal capitalism would have it – , but also as an owner of large companies, and designer of industrial policy directed towards promoting certain industries over others (see Hofman, Moon, & Wu, 2017).

This special issue invites papers addressing questions related to these three topics: 

• The impact of the role of the state in post-socialist and post-soviet countries on firm-level outcomes and strategies
• firms’ non-market strategies in response to post-socialist states
• state-business relationships in post-socialist countries

Submission deadline:

June 15, 2019 5pm CET

For further information