**** Apologies for any cross-postings ****

*Call for Papers: **Workplace Flexibility*

*Guest Editors:*

Sascha Ruhle, Heinrich-Heine-Universität Düsseldorf, Düsseldorf (Germany)
Stefan Süß, Heinrich-Heine-Universität Düsseldorf, Düsseldorf (Germany)

*Special Issue*
Flexibility has been an ongoing issue for various fields of research and
practice and a considerable amount of literature dealing with the concept
of flexibility has developed. This diversity has led to various
perspectives on dimensions and aspects of flexibility. However, two major
fields of flexibility can be distinguished. The organizational perspective
understands workplace flexibility as the degree of adaptability of an
organization in an uncertain and changing environment (Dastmalchian &
Blyton 2001). In addition, workplace flexibility can encompass the
individual perspective of the workforce, especially the degree of
flexibility regarding aspects of where, when, and how work is performed
(Hill et al. 2008). Within both streams of research, various aspects of
flexibility have been addressed, such as organizational structures (Feldman
& Pentland 2003), type of employment (Lepak et al. 2003; Sayah & Süß 2013),
management and strategic human resource management (Wright & Snell 1998),
time and location of work (Allen et al. 2013), demands towards employees
(Vahle-Hinz et al. 2013) and work (Ruiner et al. 2013), leadership (Barrow
1976), and the role of Communication Technologies (Diaz et al. 2012).

Regarding the consequences of flexibility, literature often assumes
positive results for both individual and organization, when flexibility
increases. For example, evidence has been found that flexibility at work is
positively related to self-reported health (Butler et al. 2009).
Furthermore, it can increase organizational attractiveness (Nadler et al.
2010; Thompson et al. 2015), profit (Kesavan et al. 2014) and firm
performance (Martínez Sánchez et al. 2007). However, there is also a
missing consensus and ongoing discussion regarding possible consequences of
flexibility. Research has identified potential downsides of flexibility,
such as blurred work-life boundaries (Pedersen and Lewis 2012), the risk of
stigmatization (Cech & Blair-Loy 2014), unsupportive work climate and
inequitable implementation (Putnam et al. 2014). Other relationships, for
example between flexibility and work-family conflict (Allen et al. 2013;
Shockley & Allen 2007), remain unclear. Further, if the flexibility is only
an organizational facade (Eaton 2003; Nystrom & Starbuck 1984) which is
communicated but not lived in the organization, even more, negative
consequences such as violations of psychological contracts might occur,
especially when flexibility is used as a facade to justify the
transformation of standard work arrangements to non-standard work

Subsequently, a lot of questions remain unanswered:

   - What is the core of flexibility in organizations?
   - Which origins can be identified of the ongoing need for various types
   of flexibility?
   - What types of flexibility can be systematized and how are those
   different types related to organizational consequences, such as success or
   - How useful are flexible work arrangements and how can positive
   consequences be promoted and negative consequences be avoided, or at least
   - Which consequences result from a gap between offered and truly
   supported types of flexibility, e.g. the role of organizational facades?
   - How does embeddedness of Information and Communications Technologies
   in work practices enable and assist workplace flexibility?
   - What are the consequences of the ongoing flexibilization of work on
   the economic and social level?

*Potential authors*
The aim of this special issue is to increase our understanding of the
above-mentioned aspects of workplace flexibility, especially from an
organizational perspective. We encourage empirical - qualitative or
quantitative - submissions from various research fields, such as business
administration, industrial and organizational psychology, work sociology
and other disciplines dealing with the topic of the Special Issue.

Full papers for this *special issue of management revue* must be submitted
by *31 December 2017*. All contributions will be subject to double-blind
review. Papers invited to a ‘revise and resubmit’ are due *31 May 2018*.
Please submit your papers electronically via the online submission system
at guidelines/submit-manuscript/ using ‘SI
Workplace Flexibility’ as article section.

*Submission Guidelines*
Manuscript length should not exceed 8,000 words (excluding references) and
the norm should be 30 pages in double-spaced type with margins of about 3
cm (1 inch) on each side of the page. Further, please follow the guidelines
on the website and submit the papers
electronically by sending a ‘blind’ copy of your manuscript (delete all
author identification from this primary document).

*We look forward to receiving your contribution!*
Sascha Ruhle ([log in to unmask])
Stefan Süß ([log in to unmask])

Med venlig hilsen/Kind regards
*Simon Fietze*
Adjunkt/Assistant Professor

T +45 6550 1748
[log in to unmask]

Syddansk Universitet/University of Southern Denmark
Institut for Entreprenørskab og Relationsledelse/Department of
Entrepreneurship and Relationship Management
Alsion 2, A2
6400 Sønderborg

*Latest publications:*

   - Fietze, S., & Boyd, B. (2017). Entrepreneurial intention of Danish
   students: A correspondence analysis. *International Journal of
   Entrepreneurial Behavior & Research*, 23(4). DOI:
   10.1108/IJEBR-08-2016-0241 <>
   - Fietze, S., & Matiaske, W. (Eds.) (2016). *Dimensions and Perspectives
   on Financial Participation in Europe.* Baden-Baden: Nomos
   Verlagsgesellschaft mbH & Co. KG. DOI: 10.5771/9783845259413-1
   - Fietze, S., Matiaske, W., & Tobsch, V. (2016). Financial participation
   in Germany: Management's and works councils' view. In S. Fietze, & W.
   Matiaske (Eds.), *Dimensions and Perspectives on Financial Participation
   in Europe* (pp. 145-176). Baden-Baden: Nomos Verlagsgesellschaft mbH &
   Co. KG. DOI: 10.5771/9783845259413-144
   - Ortlieb, R., Matiaske, W., & Fietze, S. (2016). Employee share
   ownership in Germany: A cluster analysis of firms' aims. *Management
   Revue*, 27(4), 285-303. DOI: 10.1688/mrev-2016-Ortlieb

AIB-L is brought to you by the Academy of International Business.
For information:
To post message: [log in to unmask]
For assistance:  [log in to unmask]
AIB-L is a moderated list.