【工商管理类】SCI期刊专刊截稿信息4条

工商管理

BRQ Business Research Quarterly

Call for papers: Talent Management: Quo Vadis?

全文截稿: 2017-08-30

影响因子: 1.325

期刊难度: ★★

CCF分类: 无

网址: www.journals.elsevier.com/brq-business-research-quarterly

Fundamental definitional challenges lie at the heart of many of the contestations that have arisen to date. Although by now the definition by Collings and Mellahi (2009) is among the most widely accepted in terms of establishing the boundaries of the phenomenon and field, talent management has not yet fully shed its foundational quality. This has brought about commentaries suggesting that it may involve elements of re-branding which will run their course as a management fashion. Additionally, as a portmanteau term, talent management is employed in such a diversity of studies with the result that, though employing the same label, they may not necessarily be studying the same phenomenon. This is something which can be expected to increase as a challenge in the time ahead and may act as a constraint on the coalescing of the field as the umbrella term becomes the chosen point of departure for an increasingly diverse, loosely connected, range of studies of various individual and systems phenomena in different organizations and contexts.

Arising from the definitional challenge is an underlying conceptual ambiguity which may partly be accounted for by the lack of a “stable theoretical foundation” (Thunnissen, 2016) and “overlooked talent philosophies” (Meyers and van Woerkom, 2014). There is little doubt that, from a conceptual perspective, progress identifying levels and lenses through which the phenomenon can be observed, assessed and evaluated has been made over the past decade (Collings and Mellahi, 2009; Farndale et al, 2010; Farndale et al, 2014; Gallardo-Gallardo et al, 2013; Sparrow and Makram, 2015; Tarique and Schuler, 2010), but few would disagree with the premise that more fundamental theoretical scaffolding is merited in order to fully appraise its place in the lexicon of management scholarship. Empirically, a great deal has also been attempted but it does have a bricolage type quality. This has prompted calls for a more evidence based approach (Allen et al, 2010; Briner, 2015). In addition, there have been calls for a more critical perspective on talent management, something which could pay dividend in terms of markedly improving “the quality of talent conversations in organizations” (Lewis and Heckman, 2006, p. 152) and could shape the direction of academic enquiry.

Overall, early criticisms pointing to the disjointed nature of the field remain (McDonnell et al, 2017), questions referring to the “theoretical pedigree, the empirical foundations and the practical implications for stakeholders to the process remain open” (Morley et al, 2015: 3) and “there is limited robust evidence on effectiveness” (Powell et al, 2013: 292).It is also argued that it is a field that is maturing as a result of significant debates about its breadth and focus (Sparrow and Markam, 2015) and it is precisely this growth and development that now provides the opportunity to reflect on the implicit value claims and to take stock of what has been achieved in a critical manner in order to move the field forward.  

Against the backdrop of these on-going debates, we invite manuscripts for this special issue which critically reflect on what has been accomplished in talent management. In adopting a more critical perspective, it is important to identify alternative approaches that can help us to understand the phenomena in question. In particular, we are interested in manuscripts that offer deeper insights on appropriate theoretical lenses that unearth the conceptual utility of talent management, along with empirical contributions that clarify and evaluate the operationalisation and the impact of talent management practices, processes and systems in a range of contexts and on different stakeholders. Potential questions that manuscripts for this special issue might address could include, but are not limited to, the following:

- What is the conceptual utility of talent management and what is the evidence regarding the establishment of the boundaries of the phenomenon?

- Which theoretical lenses offer explanatory power in explicating the mechanisms governing talent management approaches and systems?

- How has the body of work on talent management furthered our understanding of the contemporary employment relationship at micro, meso and macro levels?

- What specifically does the adoption of talent management within the organizational setting entail and how has it been witnessed?

- How have constructs and research designs been employed to capture talent management practices and their consequences?

- What contextual exigencies shape talent management processes and preferred practices in different settings and locations?

- Does empirical work support practitioner claims about the value of talent management as a practice-led phenomenon?

- Does a globalised HR architecture distinguish the contribution of the talent management function and enhance alignment in talent management systems?

- What has empirically been established about the unintended consequences of talent management systems and how have they been resolved?

- Has the work on talent management served to advance previously generated insights from proximal fields such as strategic human resource planning and competency based management?

- To what extent have we captured different stakeholder perceptions and priorities in talent management?

- What is the cumulative evidence arising from evaluation studies with respect to the impact of the adoption of talent management on performance?

- We are especially interested in critically reflective manuscripts which examine and test key assumptions inherent in the literature to-date. We are open to conceptual and empirical pieces and a range of methods that address these issues and evaluate the evidence base regarding the utility and value of the phenomenon, theoretically and practically.

工商管理

Journal of Business Venturing

Entrepreneurship & Wellbeing

全文截稿: 2017-08-31

影响因子: 5.774

期刊难度: ★★★★★

CCF分类: 无

网址: www.journals.elsevier.com/journal-of-business-venturing

The guest editors invite papers for consideration for publication in the Journal of Business Venturing for a special issue on the topic “Entrepreneurship & Wellbeing.”

Entrepreneurship is a unique and challenging human endeavor. As a process of self-organizing, entrepreneurship is closely associated with wellbeing (Shir, 2015). Despite this realization, we still know very little about the relationship between entrepreneurship and wellbeing (Uy, Foo & Song, 2013). Most attempts to examine and conceptualize the link between entrepreneurship and wellbeing have been offered by economists. But indicators such as GDP, or household income, fall short of capturing many aspects of the good, flourishing life. Wellbeing is a multidimensional concept that covers a variety of human experiences and conditions (e.g., life satisfaction, positive affect, vitality, meaning, purpose, self-esteem, optimism, and positive engagement). These prominent themes in psychological research on wellbeing that have yet to make their way into entrepreneurship research (e.g., Diener, 1984; Ryff, 1989; Deci and Ryan, 2000; Keyes, 2002)

Wellbeing is not only an important individual phenomenon, it is also an important indication of socio-economic progress and constitutes an important social resource. Starting with the seminal work of the Commission on the Measurement of Economic and Social Progress in 2009, a variety of initiatives around the world have been launched that aim to provide a more complete picture of socio-economic progress. The OECD, for example, is now tracking “how life is going” in eleven distinct quality of life categories using both objective and subjective indicators of wellbeing.

Consequently, understanding which factors of the entrepreneurial process drive wellbeing may offer new and valuable insights, not only for researchers analyzing and working with entrepreneurship, but also for policy makers and for those analyzing and working with employees in large and established organizations, as well as for families and individuals who wish to get the most out of their lives. As Shepherd (2015) suggests, one of the most promising avenues for future entrepreneurship research will be where “the head engages the heart.”

The goal of this special issue is to encourage new interdisciplinary research between these two emerging fields. What can entrepreneurship researchers learn from wellbeing scholars and what can wellbeing scholars learn from the entrepreneurship literature?

Research topics suitable for the special issue include but are not limited to:

- Wellbeing dimensions. Wellbeing is a multi-dimensional concept that captures both objective and subjective aspects of the human experience. How does entrepreneurship contribute to each of the various dimensions of wellbeing (i.e., to cognitive, affective, and psycho-physiologic experiences of wellbeing)? And in turn, what role does the different dimensions of wellbeing play in entrepreneurship?

- Connecting between-level to within-level variation. Do different entrepreneurs and different situational conditions lead to different wellbeing experiences along the entrepreneurial process? What are the underlying mechanism that can explain this relationship and how do they function?

- Entrepreneurial wellbeing. Previous research on wellbeing in the workplace has not identified experiences of wellbeing in entrepreneurship as distinguished from more general measures of wellbeing in work and life (cf., Diener et al., 1985; Warr et al., 1979). Can context-specific measures of wellbeing such as entrepreneurial satisfaction, meaning, purpose, thriving, and/or positive engagement be incorporated into the entrepreneurship research agenda.

- The upside of our dark side. What is the role of negative emotions and lower wellbeing for entrepreneurship? Does the darker side of human wellbeing have an upside? For example, how important is it to feel dissatisfied, afraid, anxious, and doubtful in entrepreneurship? Or is it crucial to experience the right balance of positive and negative wellbeing experiences for the best outcomes?

- Is it independence or is it freedom? What sort of freedoms are more important for wellbeing and what role entrepreneurs play in creating such freedoms, opportunities? Research in psychology, for instance, points out that too much negative freedom (independence) can lead to decision paralysis and lower level of psychological wellbeing. Is there an optimal amount of opportunity and choice for individual/entrepreneurial wellbeing?

- Judgmental and evaluative aspects. A large body of research in social psychology and economics suggests that human behavior is driven to a great extent by relative considerations (e.g., Michalos, 1986). What are the standards involved in the judgments that entrepreneurs make in evaluating their wellbeing? Who do entrepreneurs compare themselves to and what is the effect of social comparison on entrepreneurial wellbeing?

- Longitudinal and causality concerns. In light of recent evidence that wellbeing is more than just a mere outcome but rather an important psychological resource (Lyubomirsky et al., 2005), it appears sensible to question whether the relationship between entrepreneurship and wellbeing is spurious or otherwise suffers from selection bias. Longitudinal and systematic investigation into the dynamics of entrepreneurship and wellbeing remains desperately needed.

- Entrepreneurial utility vs wellbeing. Under what conditions are entrepreneurs’ preferences linked with their experienced wellbeing? Given that wellbeing is a valuable end in entrepreneurship, does the effects of entrepreneurship on wellbeing result from conscious processes of decision making and utility maximization, or any other socio-psychological processes? How could we use data on entrepreneurs’ wellbeing to reveal inconsistent preferences?

- Other topics. In addition to the questions listed above, we welcome papers that investigate other topics that fit the theme of the special issue.

工商管理

Journal of Vocational Behavior

Call for papers: Managing visibility and invisibility in the workplace

全文截稿: 2017-09-01

影响因子: 2.555

期刊难度: ★★★

CCF分类: 无

网址: www.journals.elsevier.com/journal-of-vocational-behavior

Members of marginalized social groups (e.g., women, racial minorities, sexual minorities, low social class individuals) are more likely than members of privileged social groups to be in low status occupations (e.g., service and janitorial occupations). Even when they are in high status occupations, these individuals often face challenges at work, including discrimination, harassment, and identity-based microaggressions (Sue, 2010). As a result, members of marginalized social groups also experience unique challenges related to (in)visibility. Their group memberships increase experiences of heightened visibility (i.e., being noticed more than others because they are numerically underrepresented, Kanter, 1977) and invisibility (i.e., being noticed less than others). Individuals also engage in a variety of behaviors designed to manage their visibility to others (Simpson & Lewis, 2007), such as impression management and strategic attempts to be less visible (Lollar, 2015). Individuals may also engage a variety of strategies to mitigate the ways in which others heighten or diminish recognition of their accomplishments and contributions (Stead, 2013). Further, visibility experiences and visibility management may have important consequences for employee psychological well-being and organizational outcomes as such experiences are likely to impact their work productivity, organizational commitment, and their sense of belonging and authenticity at work (Wingfield & Wingfield, 2014).

The purpose of this special issue is to advance scholarship on the ways in which particular social identities, and particular organizational settings and contexts, render individuals visible or invisible to others and how individuals manage marginalizing experiences by engaging in behaviors and tactics to control how they are seen at work and with coworkers. Papers in this special issue may be theoretical or empirical in nature, and empirical papers can use a diversity of methodological approaches (both quantitative and qualitative research methods are welcome) and theoretical perspectives.

Examples of potential topics include, but are not limited to the following:  

- Theoretical papers proposing novel frameworks for understanding visibility and invisibility in the workplace

- Invisible work (e.g., “dirty work”) and invisible workers (e.g., immigrant laborers)

- Hypervisibility of workers in particular organizational contexts (e.g., Black women in leadership)

- Intersectional invisibility, that is, the extent to which members of multiple marginalized social groups are invisible in particular contexts

- Ways in which those with organizational power construct the visibility of workers and the labor that they do

- Use of visibility, invisibility or voice in managing hostile work environments

- Strategies employees use to heighten or limit their visibility at work

- Impression management and disclosure of stigmatized social identities

- Strategies organizational leaders use to increase visibility and equity of underrepresented employees

- Employee, employer and organizational costs of employee visibility experiences and visibility management

工商管理

Sport Management Review

Managing Sport for Health

全文截稿: 2017-09-15

影响因子: 2.128

期刊难度: ★★★

CCF分类: 无

网址: www.journals.elsevier.com/sport-management-review

Sport has been historically positioned as a mechanism for health promotion. With increased societal focus on physical activity promotion as a way to reduce global obesity rates, sport participation has become nearly universally encouraged. Additionally, sport participation has been linked with increased social connectedness, reduced engagement in risk behaviours, and better mental health outcomes. Based on these connections, sport has become a popular policy tool for social outreach, intervention, and prevention for all, but especially among populations considered “at risk” for poor physical, mental, and social health outcomes. Despite the idealistic view of sport’s health benefits often espoused by sport governing bodies and policy makers, the evidence to support sport’s efficacy to deliver universally positive health outcomes has been inconsistent. Both supporters and critics of sport as a health promotion tool have been limited in their definitions of sport and failing to examine the contexts within which sport is managed, governed, and marketed. The ability for sport to promote health is largely dependent on the community, social, and organisational setting. Exploring how sports are managed and governed related to health outcomes may help develop a more complete understanding of how sport may contribute to health outcomes or what barriers prevent sport from promoting health benefits.

The proposed special issue focuses onmanaging, marketing,andgoverningsport for health.In this sense, this special issue is interested in the management and governance contexts that promote or inhibit sport’s efficacy to promote health as opposed to evaluations of the impact of sport programs, activities, or events on individual or community health outcomes.We specifically encourage scholars to examine sport management theory, policy, and practice critically to understand what management, marketing, and governance practices prevent sport from promoting health (and might be modifiable), as well as those best practices that may promote positive health outcomes.

For the purposes of this special issue, we suggest using the World Health Organization’s (1946) definition of health as “a state of complete physical, mental, and social well-being and not merely the absence of disease and infirmity”.

Possible topics include (but are not limited to):

- Comparisons of organisational settings (e.g., recreation centre, school, sport club) and program type (e.g., competitive vs. non-competitive) and sport type on health goals and outcomes;

- Managing sport to promote health among under-served populations;

- Role of organisational culture in promoting healthy or unhealthy behaviours in sport programs;

- Implementation of sport programs to promote health in communities;

- Organisational learning and adoption of best practices for health promotion;

- How national governing body sport policy shapes attitudes and practices to promote health through sport at grassroots levels;

- Stakeholder engagement and perspectives related to health goals of sport;

- Corporate social responsibility as a framework to develop healthy sport programs and practices;

- How organisational capacity facilitates or inhibits promotion of health goals in sport;

- Intersection among sport and other community organisations to promote health;

- Communicating health information through sport programs and organisations;

- The role of coach certification in health promotion in sport;

- Disparities in access to health promoting sport;

- Managing sport to provide healthier environmental conditions (e.g., green sport initiatives);

- New product development targeting sport for health; and

- Partnerships in sport for health, among others.

下载Call4Papers App，获取更多详细内容！