LISTSERV 16.0 - AIB-L Archives

Dear colleagues (apologies for cross-posting),

The purpose of this email is to provide you with an update on what’s happening at Human Resource Management Journal (Wiley-Blackwell). There has been a range of editorial changes over the past 12 months that we would like to keep you abreast of and to remind you of recent and forthcoming special issues and our provocation paper series. This email also serves as a General Call for high quality articles on any aspect of employment studies but especially those focused on issues related to the management of people at work. Qualitative, quantitative and mixed method studies are all welcome. Finally, we are delighted to announce a call for submissions to our new Review & Provocation Paper Section. While we have had an invited provocation paper series in place for a few years (you can access these papers here) we are now opening that up and adding a review paper option (for full details see below and here).

HRMJ Overview

Human Resource Management Journal (HRMJ) is a scholarly journal, published by Wiley-Blackwell, which aims to promote the theory and practice of HRM, to provide an international forum for discussion and debate, and to stress the critical importance of people management to a wide range of economic, political and social concerns. HRMJ’s focus lies in providing a critical link between high quality academic research and the practical implications for business practice. Over the last decade, HRMJ has broadened its editorial scope to become more globally orientated and has strengthened the international character of its Editorial Team and Board.

HRMJ seeks to publish well-written, well-researched and well-informed articles on any aspect of employment studies but especially those focused on issues related to the management of people at work. Articles should appeal both to practitioners and academics by virtue of their contribution to contemporary issues, the good use of theory and research and well-founded conclusions and practical implications. HRMJ is open to qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods approaches

HRMJ operates a minimum of double blind-review. Our review system seeks to provide constructive, critical and timely feedback (average days from submission to final decision is less than 90 days) on submissions.

HRMJ is accessed by almost 5,000 institutions and libraries worldwide. HRMJ articles average 130,000 annual downloads.

In 2016, we had almost 360 original submissions and our paper acceptance rate stands at 9.8%.

Journal Reputation and Rankings

HRMJ’s one-year ISI impact factor is currently 1.845, ranking us 6^th out of 26 journals in the "industrial and labor relations" category, and 71^st out of 192 journals in the “management” category.

The journal is ranked as a "4", reserved for journals that “publish the most original and best-executed research” in the current Association of Business Schools (ABS) Academic Journal Guide (UK). The journal is also ranked ‘A’ by the Australian Business Deans Council journal list.

Editorial Team

Over the past year, the editorial team has changed significantly at HRMJ. We now have 4 Editors-in-Chief:

Co Editors-in-Chief

· Elaine Farndale, The Pennsylvania State University, USA [[log in to unmask]] / Tilburg University, The Netherlands

· Anthony McDonnell, University College Cork, Ireland [[log in to unmask]]

· Dora Scholarios, University of Strathclyde, UK [[log in to unmask]]

· Adrian Wilkinson, Griffith University, Australia [[log in to unmask]]

We have also increased our Associated Editorial Team owing to the increase in paper submissions in recent years:

Associate Editors

· Katie Bailey, University of Sussex, UK

· Edel Conway, Dublin City University, Ireland

· Anders Dysvik, BI Norwegian Business School, Norway

· Martin Edwards, King's College London, UK

· Kaifeng Jiang, Mendoza College of Business at University of Notre Dame, USA

· Gill Kirton, Queen Mary University of London, UK

· Mila Lazarova, Simon Fraser University, Canada

· Helen Liu, Pennstate College of the Liberal Arts, USA

· Ashly H. Pinnington, The British University in Dubai, UAE

· Amanda Pyman, Monash University, Australia

· B. Sebastian Reiche, IESE Business School, Spain

· Andrew Timming, University of St Andrews, UK

We have also recently expanded the number and improved the diversity and international coverage of our Editorial Board, the names of which are detailed below:

cid:<a href= [log in to unmask]">

Recent and Forthcoming Special Issues

In Issue 2, 2016 we published a special issue on ‘Understanding Mediating Variables & Their Outcomes’. This was guest edited by Peter Boxall, James Guthrie and Jaap Pauuwe. You can access these papers here.

We also have a forthcoming special issue on HRM and Innovation being readied which will be published in 2017.

There are two current special issue call for papers open. Details can be found in the attached document and at the weblinks below. Please do promote these calls and consider submitting your best quality work to them. We are very excited about the potential impact these issues may have.

· Exploring trade-offs between employee well-being and organizational performance: The role of Human Resource Management.
Guest Editors: Karina Van De Voorde, Marc Van Veldhoven and Riccardo Peccei

Submission deadline: 1 March 2017. Manuscripts can be submitted from February 1.

Call for papers can be accessed by clicking here.

· New Avenues in International Careers Research
Guest Editors: Adam Smale, Jon Briscoe, Michael Dickman, Wolfgang Mayrhofer and Emma Parry
Submission deadline: 3 April 2017. Manuscripts can be submitted from March 1.

Call for papers can be accessed by clicking here.

Review and Provocation Section

We would like to invite authors to submit extended abstracts for our new Review & Provocation Section. We began the provocation series as part of our volume 21 and the invited series has been very successful. The objective of the provocation series was in stimulating debate in key areas of HRM. Details on all published provocation papers can be found by clicking here.

We will continue to invite such pieces but are now seeking to open the opportunity to others, so we are inviting extended 1,000 word abstracts from those interested to be submitted between June 1, 2017 and July 1, 2017 via HRMJ’s online submission portal (please be sure to select Review/Provocation as the submission type).

In addition, we are also starting a new section on Reviews. We invited John Delery and David Guest to start us off but are seeking to open this out too now. These inaugural review papers are forthcoming in the first issue of 2017. Consequently, we also are inviting extended 1,000 word abstracts to be submitted by 1 July 2017. We do not seek to impose a single structure on our reviews. There could be a number of ways of contributing conceptually – a systematic review (which could link to policy or practice issues), a conceptual review proposing new research questions/propositions, or thought pieces which foreshadow new directions.

The process for the Review and Provocation Section will be that the extended abstracts will be evaluated by the editors and those invited to submit full papers will be subject to standard editorial review. Full papers should be submitted within 6 months of the invitation.

Please note that proposals may not be submitted until June 1, 2017 and HRMJ will not be able to consider late submissions. Full details, including guidance on evaluation criteria and expectations of elements required in the extended abstracts, on the call for submissions to this new section can be found in the attachment.

Recently Published Papers

Text and metatext in the resource-based view

Jay B. Barney and Alison Mackey

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1748-8583.12123/full

This paper distinguishes between text and metatext in the resource-based view (RBV) – that is, the actual words and logic fundamental to the RBV (the text) and the traditions, interpretations and applications of the theory (the metatext). It argues that Kaufman's (2015) criticism of the RBV as applied to strategic human resource management actually focuses on RBV metatext and not text. Indeed, unlike some RBV metatext, RBV text actually has a great deal to say about research and practice in strategic human resource management.

Will the real RBV please stand up?

Bruce E. Kaufman

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1748-8583.12124/full

This paper continues a dialogue between Kaufman and Barney and Mackey about the resource-based view (RBV). Specifically, Kaufmann offers a response to a range of points raised by Barney and Mackey in their criticism of Kaufman’s (2015) paper published at HRMJ.

Note: The original article - The RBV theory foundation of strategic HRM: critical flaws, problems for research and practice, and an alternative economics paradigm - published in HRMJ that brought these papers (debate) can be accessed here: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1748-8583.12085/full

EARLY VIEW PAPERS

Does contingent pay encourage positive employee attitudes and intensify work?

Chidiebere Ogbonnaya, Kevin Daniels and Karina Nielsen

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1748-8583.12130/full

This article explores the relationships between three dimensions of contingent pay – performance-related pay, profit-related pay and employee share-ownership – and positive employee attitudes (job satisfaction, employee commitment and trust in management). The article also examines a conflicting argument that contingent pay may intensify work, and this can detract from its positive impact on employee attitudes. Of the three contingent pay dimensions, only performance-related pay had direct positive relationships with all three employee attitudes. Profit-related pay and employee share-ownership had a mix of negative and no significant direct relationships with employee attitudes, but profit-related pay showed U-shaped curvilinear relationships with all three employee attitudes. The results also indicated that performance-related pay is associated with work intensification, and this offsets some of its positive impact on employee attitudes.

Employee development and voluntary turnover: testing the employability paradox

Jill Nelissen, Anneleen Forrier and Marijke Verbruggen

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1748-8583.12136/full

The employability paradox is a concern among employers. It states that development activities enhancing employees' employability also increase the risk for employee turnover. This study examined this paradox and probed the relationship between six development activities and voluntary turnover mediated by perceived employability. We tested both a turnover-stimulating path via perceived external employability (i.e. perceived job alternatives with other employers) and a retention path via perceived internal employability (i.e. perceived job alternatives with the current employer) by using two-wave longitudinal data from 588 employees. The results put the turnover risk into perspective: only upward job transition positively influenced turnover via perceived external employability. Also, the retention path via perceived internal employability was not supported: several development activities were positively related with perceived internal employability, but perceived internal employability did not influence turnover. We did, however, find a direct retention effect of skill utilisation. Overall, the results downplay the employability paradox.

Human resource business partner lifecycle model: exploring how the relationship between HRBPs and their line manager partners evolves

Martin McCracken, Paula O'Kane, Travor C. Brown and Mark McCrory

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1748-8583.12125/full

The human resources business partner (HRBP) role is advocated as a way for human resource (HR) professionals and the HR profession to become more strategic and less transactional, necessitating the development of different competencies. Few researchers have examined how the HRBP Model plays out in practice, over time, from the perspective of HR professionals and their line manager partners (LMPs). We collected data through interviews and focus groups with both these stakeholders at three UK organisations to understand the dynamics of the individual HRBP–LMP relationship. After analysing the data, we propose an HRBP Lifecycle Model. The model suggests the relationship between the parties is dynamic, complex and dependent upon the organisational culture as well as the skills and competencies of the main stakeholders in the partnership.

Managing five paradoxes of knowledge exchange in networked organizations: new priorities for HRM?

Christopher Mabey and Shasha Zhao

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1748-8583.12106/full

The life-blood of most organizations is knowledge. Too often, the very mechanisms set up to facilitate knowledge flow militate against it. This is because they are instituted in a top-down way, they are cumbersome to manage and the bridges of trust fail to get built. In their thirst for innovation, the tendency is for firms to set up elaborate transmission channels and governance systems. As a result, staff are drowned in a deluge of mundane intranet messages and bewildered by matrix structures, while off-the-wall ideas and mould-breaking insights are routinely missed. Added to this is the challenge of operating across professional, cultural, regional and linguistic boundaries, where ways of sharing knowledge differ markedly, even within the same project team. Drawing upon extensive research with scientists in the ATLAS collaboration (a high-energy particle physics experiment comprising 3,500 scientists from 38 countries), we explore five paradoxes associated with knowledge exchange in global networks. Each paradox leads to a proposition which takes the theory and practice of knowledge management in a fresh direction. We conclude by outlining a number of HRM priorities for international knowledge-intensive organizations.

Best wishes,

Adrian, Anthony, Dora & Elaine (Co Editors-in-Chief)

Dr Elaine Farndale

Associate Professor of Human Resource Management

Co-Editor-in-Chief of Human Resource Management Journal: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/journal/10.1111/(ISSN)1748-8583

Founder and Director, Center for International Human Resource Studies: http://ler.la.psu.edu/cihrs

School of Labor and Employment Relations

The Pennsylvania State University

501c Keller Building, University Park, PA 16802, USA

email: [log in to unmask]; phone: +1 814-867-3320

webpage: http://ler.la.psu.edu/directory/euf3

---