Black swans are abundant these days – and white swans have become an endangered species. We continue to be surprised as we, reluctantly, discover that the world does not operate as we are used to. Has the world itself in fact become a “volatile, uncertain, complex and ambiguous (VUCA)” environment? Established principles, such as International law, are routinely disregarded in conflict and warfare, and political and strategic decision makers are left puzzled and paralyzed. Is this the time to bid farewell to static, stifling procedures and principles – and say hello to dynamic, flexible strategic thinking, means-ends analysis, and the agility of command-by-intent?

Topics of interest:

·      Risk as a concept; approaches and methods for analysis/assessment of risk

·      The preparedness cycle, including (but not limited to): planning, analysis, exercises & events, evaluation, learning, implementation

·      Crisis management & emergency response; at all levels and agencies

·      Globalization and trans-national issues concerning security & stability, crisis & conflict

·      Psychological factors related to preparedness, crisis management & societal safety/security

·      Crisis management in a context of organizational complexity (chaos theory, systems thinking)

·      Technology development, digitalization and novel practices, e.g., AR/VR and AI applications

·      Methodology development related to the above

·      Theoretical and conceptual works related to the above

Submission of paper is desired but not required. We welcome work in progress papers, extended abstracts, power point presentations, project proposals, etc., as well as full papers.

Languages: Norwegian (Scandinavian), English

Organizers:

Bjørn Tallak Bakken, INN University, bjorn.bakken@inn.no

Ole Christian Boe, PHS & USN & INN, ole.christian.boe@phs.no  

During the past few months, there has been an ongoing public debate in Norwegian media concerning the appointment of the new central bank manager – a public servant as such. As researchers, we are puzzled over the lack of data concerning appointments of governmental leaders in general. And in the Norwegian ministries in particular. Accordingly, we have therefore launched a research project (NSD-ref. 800166) that aims to explore possible differences between the public announcement texts for available leader positions and which candidates who were finally appointed. Through this project we also aim to raise a wider debate concerning ministerial and governmental leader appointments in Norway.

Topics of interest:

· The governmental appointment procedure, including (but not limited to): planning, analysis, evaluation, learning, and implementation

· Leadership factors related to appointment and recruitment procedures

· Psychological factors related to appointment and recruitment procedures

· Precise methodologies related to the above

· Theoretical and conceptual works related to the above.

Submission of paper is desired but not required. We welcome work in progress papers, extended abstracts, power point presentations, project proposals, etc., as well as full papers.

Languages: Norwegian (Scandinavian), English

Track organizers:

Ole Christian Boe (ole.boe@oslonh.no)

Johan Berg (johan.bergh@oslonh.no)

In the last decade, the world community has experienced a global pandemic, devasting wars, increasing numbers of refugees, and the imminent threat of climate change. In these tumultuous and uncertain times, the vulnerability of interdependence has been revealed and has led to an inward focus at the nation, organization, and individual level. Nationalism, discrimination, and xenophobia have grown, organizations have turned to local sources, and individuals have increasingly turned to the familiar for guidance.

The recent pandemic has shown how exposed nations and organizations are to global disruptions, and strategies have shifted to reducing dependency on global suppliers. The Russian war in Ukraine shows once again how sudden migration flows emerge. When Syrian migration increased in 2015 and 2016 the public opinion in many countries shifted from being welcoming and open, to advocating closing the borders to the migrants. The pandemic revealed how vulnerable the open borders in the Nordic countries and the Schengen area are. Cross-border workers – those living in one country but working in another neighboring country – were suddenly treated by authorities and colleagues as a potential risk. The pendulum of public opinion toward “others” leads to changing attitudes toward including refugees, migrants, and immigrants into society and organizations.

Nordic societies and organizations, need talented and competent people for their daily operations but also to solve challenges we are all facing. Challenges such as poverty, injustice, climate change, ecological questions, and decreasing biodiversity. Many industries have difficulties finding skilled people locally. At the same time, people with required skills have difficulties finding job commensurate with their abilities, because they are not seen as talents, or competent by the local employers. To close borders, or to exclude those who are seen as different and unfamiliar will not solve such problems, only exacerbate them. So, in these uncertain and difficult time how do organizations foster openness and inclusion? How can one organize for more inclusion so that organizations and individuals can contribute to handling our current wicked problems more meaningfully/effectively?

In this track we invite both research abstracts and full papers. Possible questions to address:

·      How do ideas of similarity and difference shape the work of building inclusive organizations? For instance, are some refugees included, while others are excluded?

·      What is the role of digital technology in including people at the workplace? How is this work shaped by new digital technologies such as AI and machine learning?

·      Is in-group favoritism within organizations increasing in times of uncertainty and crisis? How might this affect building inclusive organizations?

To participate in the track a paper is desired, but not required.

Track-organizers

Laura Traavik Laura.Traavik@kristiania.no

Annette Risberg – Annette.risberg@inn.no

Andreas Diedrich – andreas.diedrich@gu.se

Cathrine Seierstad - Cathrine.Seierstad@usn.no

Co-creation and associated models of New Public Governance (NPG) are increasingly adopted by national and local authorities to involve citizens as participants in active collaboration with public service-organizations, to facilitate public innovation, and thereby to improve the effectiveness and quality of public services (Henson, 2019; Osborne, 2018; Sorrentino et al., 2018; Voorberg et al., 2015). However, such NPG-models are also assumed to involve a paradigmatic change which somehow requires a new ‘modus operandi’ of public service production (Ansell & Torfing, 2021, p. 9). Hence, NPG-models may challenge professional identities, autonomy, accountability structures, and power relations within public service organizations (Mik-Meyer, 2017). An emerging research literature emphasize organizational and institutional tensions which emerge in public innovation projects adapting strategies of co-creation, often interpreted as tensions between institutional logics. That is, tension arise when new governance ideals of innovation and flexibility collide with logics of professional identities; the market; ideals of justice and democracy; and bureaucratic values of public administration and regulation (Heimburg & Ness, 2020; Mik-Meyer, 2017; Røhnebæk, 2021). Such tensions may be construed as temporary, that can be successfully addresses with adequate organizational and / or professional practices, or more fundamental facts of organizing that must be managed. We invite theoretical and empirical papers addressing these issues.

Submission of paper is desired but not required. We welcome work in progress papers, extended abstracts, power point presentations, project proposals, etc., as well as full papers.

Languages: Norwegian (Scandinavian), English

Organizers:

Trond Løyning (trond.loyning@usn.no)

Ole Jacob Thomassen (Ole.J.Thomassen@usn.no)

Annett Arntzen (Annett.Arntzen@usn.no)

Sigrunn Tvedten (Sigrunn.Tvedten@usn.no)

References 

Ansell, C., & Torfing, J. (2021). Public Governance as Co-creation: A Strategy for Revitalizing the Public Sector and Rejuvenating Democracy. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108765381 

Heimburg, D., & Ness, O. (2020). Relational Welfare: A socially just response to co-creating health and well-being for all. Scandinavian Journal of Public Health. https://doi.org/10.1177/1403494820970815 

Henson, C. R. (2019). Public value co-creation: A pedagogical approach to preparing future public administrators for collaboration. Teaching Public Administration, 37(3), 327–340. https://doi.org/10.1177/0144739419851154 

Mik-Meyer, N. (2017). The power of citizens and professionals in welfare encounters: The influence of bureaucracy, market and psychology (1st ed.). University Press. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctv18b5fh1 

Osborne, S. P. (2018). From public service-dominant logic to public service logic: Are public service organizations capable of co-production and value co-creation? Public Management Review, 20(2), 225–231. Scopus. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2017.1350461 

Røhnebæk, M. T. (2021). Competing institutional logics in collaborative innovation: A case study. Nordisk välfärdsforskning | Nordic Welfare Research, 6(02), 105–119. https://doi.org/10.18261/issn.2464-4161-2021-02-03 

Sorrentino, M., Sicilia, M., & Howlett, M. (2018). Understanding co-production as a new public governance tool. Policy and Society, 37(3), 277–293. https://doi.org/10.1080/14494035.2018.1521676 

Voorberg, W. H., Bekkers, V. J. J. M., & Tummers, L. G. (2015). A Systematic Review of Co-Creation and Co-Production: Embarking on the social innovation journey. Public Management Review, 17(9), 1333–1357. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2014.930505 

Human behavior is at the heart of many of the biggest challenges with which we grapple. Within the work domain this includes questions related to the future of work and the adaptation of employees and organizations to the challenges and opportunities that exist. The boundaries between work and home have become blurry due to a shift towards more knowledge work, rapid advancements in technology and, consequently, flexible working arrangements. This has been intensified by the COVID-19 pandemic leading to a shift toward extensive use of remote working arrangements, with little knowledge about their consequences for employees’ work functioning. Moreover, with constant developments in technology and the entry of AI, work life is constantly changing, creating uncertainty and a need for employees to increasingly adapt to their work circumstances proactively. And the list goes on. These profound changes bring various challenges and opportunities for work life, and it is crucial that organizations can adapt to secure and promote employee functioning and well-being both today and in the future of work. In this track, we aim to gather contributions towards a better understanding of employee level processes in relation to how employees and organizations can adapt and lay the basis for a sustainable and health promoting work life. The list of relevant topics includes, but are not limited to:

·      Work motivation

·      Recovery from work-related stress

·      Remote work

·      Job design

·      Job and off-job crafting

·      Leadership

Format:

Paper submission (English)

Track organizers:

Anja H. Olafsen, School of Business, University of South-Eastern Norway

Miika Kujanpää, School of Business, University of South-Eastern Norway

Baptiste P. C. Marescaux, School of Business, University of South-Eastern Norway

Etty R. Nilsen, Faculty of Health and Social Sciences, University of South-Eastern Norway

Digistainability: Digitalization for sustainability in uncertain times

Whether local or national, be it in large organisations or small, we all face the global challenges of our time and particularly the wicked grand challenge of preserving sustainable societies and organisations that will be viable in the long-term future. How do we as communities, companies, and individuals, understand and choose to deal with these uncertainties? The complexity and hazardous challenges may differ, as will the outcomes, effects, and impact on people, the planet, and profit. In a broad sense, important drivers for sustainability are digitalization and digital solutions (Miceli et al. 2021).

Digital technologies could help individuals, organizations, and nations achieve more sustainability. Digitalization has the potential to help achieve the sustainability of planetary and human systems. However, the degree to which digitalization facilitates or hinders the development of a more sustainable world is still unknown. More research is essential in this area.

The need for more profound and compound knowledge of how digitalization supports sustainability under high velocity and uncertainty conditions is vast. Digital transformation involves using technology and data to create value (Fjuk & Fosstenløkken 2021). In using the technology, Tronvoll et al. (2020) have identified three transformational shifts the organisation must conduct to manage the change.

We are seeking research papers that focus on the above themes and investigate the following:

·     Why and how does digitalization or digital transformation relate to sustainability?

·     What drivers impact an organization’s ability to realize opportunities within sustainable and digital business development and innovation?

·     How to develop digital transformation strategies and business models for sustainability

·     Identifying socio-technical factors for managing and sustaining digital transformations

·     Understanding agility and urgency in digital transformations

·     Exploring governance for digital transformations

·     Identifying enablers and barriers to managing and sustaining digital transformations

·     How to build digital resilience in the face of digital transformation and sustainability

·     What is digistainable leadership in uncertain times?

More general papers covering the combined areas of digitalization/digital transformation and sustainability are also welcome. Papers of best practice examples are appreciated.

References

Fjuk, A. & Fosstenløkken, S.M. 2021. Videreutdanning for SMB: Utvikling av dynamiske kapabiliteter i digital transformasjon. Magma – tidsskrift for økonomi og ledelse, vol.6. https://nye.econa.no/faglig-oppdatering/medlemsbladet-magma/6-2021/videreutdanning-for-smb-utvikling-av-dynamiske-kapabiliteter-i-digital-transformasjon/

Miceli, A., Hagen, B., Riccardi, M.P., Sotti, F. & Settembre-Blundo, D. 2021. Thriving, Not   Just Surviving in Changing Times: How Sustainability, Agility and Digitalization   Intertwine with Organizational Resilience. Sustainability, 13, 2052.           https://doi.org/10.3390/su13042052

Tronvoll, B., Sklyar, A., Sörhammar, D. & Kowalkowski, C. 2020. Transformational Shifts through Digital Servitization. Industrial Marketing Management, 89, 293-305.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2020.02.005

Format of submission of paper: b) Highly desired but not required

Track organizers including name, e-mail and affiliation

·     Tale Skjølsvik, Vice Dean for Innovation and Work Life/Professor, OsloMet, e-mail: talesk@oslomet.no

·     Siw Fosstenløkken, Professor, OsloMet, e-mail: siwfosst@oslomet.no

·     Bård Tronvoll, Professor, Høgskolen i Innlandet, e-mail: bard.tronvoll@inn.no

·     Annita Fjuk, Leder for samarbeid med akademia, Digital Norway, e-mail: annita.fjuk@digitalnorway.com

Av Fred Strønen og Karl Joachim Breunig, Universitetet Oslo Met

Kontakt: FredSt@OsloMet.no

Digitalisering og digital transformasjon er ikke nye temaer (Vial, 2019). Gjennom årene har vi vært vitne til bølger av tekniske forbedringer fra automatisering, robotisering og databehandling. Davenport (2014). Vi ser at digitalisering i samfunnet vårt kan sammenlignes med den industrielle revolusjonen, og den neste revolusjonen vil være i form av det økende volumet av data som er tilgjengelig for menneskeheten (Brynjulfsson og McAfee, 2014). Mange anser «digitalisering» som et snevert fagbegrep (Schmidt et al., s. 263, 2015). Men digitalisering er også nye innovative tjenester, produkter, og nye forretningsmodeller og nye former for verdiskaping (Bharadwaj et al., 2013). Digitalisering muliggjør også samskaping (Lang et al, 2015) og ulike former for delingsøkonomiske modeller (Schor, 2016). Internet of things (IoT) (Arnold et al., 2016), Digital valutaer / Block Chain, og konkurransen mellom digitale økosystemer skaper helt nye arenaer for strategi. For tiden har digital transformasjon blitt beskrevet som et forholdsvis homogent fenomen (Jesuthasan et al., 2016). Men digitalisering er mer enn å ta i bruk ny teknologi, det fordrer endringer i organisering og utførelse av arbeidsoppgaver. Som med andre organisasjonsendringer vil digital transformasjon medføre usikkerhet. Studier av digital transformasjon handler også om å analysere kontekstuell kompleksiteten i forhold til organisatorisk forhold (Schwab, 2017). Nye former for arbeidsdeling mellom menneske og maskin vil føre til nye kunnskapsområder (Chui et al., 2016). Dette innebærer at organisasjoner vil møte ulike hindringer ved bruk av digitale teknologier ulikt (Loebbecke og Picot, 2015). Selv i svært konkurransepregede nye teknologiske sektorer som FinTech, LegalTech og EduTech har vi begrenset forståelse for hvordan de digitale teknologiene brukes (Strønen et al, 2019) og hvilken effekt de har (Skjølsvik et al, 2018). Det er også spennende å se på ulik kunnskap, kompetanse og kapabiliteter knyttet til digital transformasjon (Vial, 2019). Dynamiske kapabiliteter for digital transformasjon (Konopik et al., 2022) er svært relevant i forhold til hvordan organisasjoner sikrer langsiktig overlevelse og konkurransefortrinn. Det finnes lite forskning på hvordan aktivitetene bak digitalisering utspiller seg i ulike sammenhenger (Anderson et al., 2018). Så hvordan går vi frem herfra - går vi i en usikker fremtid i møte? Vi inviterer studier som kan bidra til å forstå usikkerheten gjennom bedre kunnskapsgrunnlag om erfaringer med digitalisering og digital transformasjon i ulike bransjer og industrier. Vi ønsker konseptuelle og empiriske bidrag fra både offentlig-, privat- og frivillig sektor. Artikler akseptert for presentasjon på dette tracket kan bli vurdert for mulig publisering i et spesial nummer i tidsskriftet Beta etter konferansen. Noen mulige forskningsområder:

·      Ny digital teknologi, bruk av stor data og kunstig intelligens

·      Digital transformasjon i ulike sektorer og bransjer

·      Toppledelsens- og ansattes rolle i digitalisering

·      Digital transformasjon og undergravende (disruptive) innovasjoner

·      Ny kunnskap, kompetanse og kapabiliteter innenfor digitalisering

·      Nye forretningsmodeller

·      Studier av læring innenfor digitalisering

·      Endringer av arbeidsdeling og organisering som følge av digitalisering

·      Digitale økosystemer

·      Organisasjons- og effektivitetsendringer som følge av digitalisering

·      Strategi og styringsmodeller som påvirkes av digitalisering

·      Sammenligning mellom ulike kontekster for digitalisering

Vi ønsker fullt paper, både empiriske og konseptuelle bidrag.

Referanser

Andersson, P., Movin, S., Mähring, M., Teigland, R., and Wennberg, K. 2018. Managing digital transformation. SSE Institute for Research, Stockholm School of Economics.

Arnold, C., Kiel, D., and Voigt, K. I. 2016. How the industrial internet of things changes business models in different manufacturing industries. International Journal of Innovation Management, 20(08), 1640015.

Bharadwaj, A., El Sawy, O.A., Pavlou, P.A. and Venkatraman, N., 2013. Digital business strategy: toward a next generation of insights. MIS quarterly, pp.471-482.

Brynjolfsson, Erik, and Andrew McAfee. 2014. The second machine age: Work, progress, and prosperity in a time of brilliant technologies. WW Norton & Company.

Christensen, C. M., Wang, D., and van Bever, D. 2013. Consulting on the Cusp of Disruption. Harvard Business Review (October).

Chui, M., Manyika, J., and Miremadi, M. 2016. Where machines could replace humans - and where they can’t (yet). McKinsey Quarterly (July).

Davenport, T. 2014. Big data at work: dispelling the myths, uncovering the opportunities. Harvard Business Review Press.

Jesuthasan, R., Malcolm, T., and Zarkadakis, G. 2016. Automation Will Make Us Rethink What a “Job” Really Is. Harvard Business Review (October).

Kolbjørnsrud, V., Amico, R., and Thomas, R. J. 2016. How Artificial Intelligence Will Redefine Management. Harvard Business Review (November).

Konopik, J., Jahn, C., Schuster, T., Hoßbach, N., and Pflaum, A. 2022. Mastering the digital transformation through organizational capabilities: A conceptual framework. Digital Business, 2(2), 100019.

Lang, Karl, Richard Shang, and Roumen Vragov. 2015. "Consumer co-creation of digital culture products: business threat or new opportunity?" Journal of the Association for Information Systems 16, no. 9: 3.

Loebbecke, C., and Picot, A. 2015. Reflections on societal and business model transformation arising from digitization and big data analytics: A research agenda. The Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 24(3): 149-157.

McAfee, A., 2009. Enterprise 2.0: New collaborative tools for your organization's toughest challenges. Harvard Business Press.

Schmidt, R., Zimmermann, A., Möhring, M., Nurcan, S., Keller, B. and Bär, F., 2015, September. Digitization–perspectives for conceptualization. In European Conference on Service-Oriented and Cloud Computing (pp. 263-275). Springer, Cham.

Schor, Juliet. 2016. Debating the sharing economy. Journal of Self-Governance and Management Economics 4, no. 3: 7-22.

Schwab, K. 2017. The fourth industrial revolution. Crown Business.

Skjølsvik, T., Breunig, K. J., and Pemer, F. 2018. Ch. 7: Digitalization of Professional Services: The Case of Value Creation in Virtual Law Firms. In P. M. Andersson, Staffan Mähring, Magnus Teigland

Strønen, F. H., Holtar Rønning, V., & Breunig, K. J. 2019. Digitalisering i norsk finansbransje. Magma. 4/19, 62-69.

Vial, G. 2019. Understanding digital transformation: A review and a research agenda. The journal of strategic information systems, 28(2), 118-144.

Engelsk tittel: Digitalization of health care services – a question of organizing and leadership?

Utfordringene i helse og velferdssektoren, og spesielt i kommunal helse og omsorgstjeneste, er knyttet til både økende antall eldre og raskt voksende oppgaver i forhold til yngre hjemmeboende. Dette er kombinert med synkende antall omsorgsarbeidere og ressurser generelt.

Økt digitalisering og bruk av velferdsteknologi har lenge blitt sett på som et viktig virkemiddel til å møte denne utfordringen. Det er dessuten rimelig at også eldre og andre pleietrengende får ta del i den teknologiske utviklingen. Innovasjon i teknologi og tjenester er imidlertid både en stor mulighet og en stor utfordring innenfor helse og velferdstjenesten. Flere interessenter enn først antatt må involveres, kompetanse må økes og det er behov for nye organisasjons- og ledelsestilnærminger i sektoren. Fokus rettes mot de ansatte som ofte er de faktiske brukerne av ny teknologi og som møter krav om endring og innovasjon i en hverdag hvor trygghet og forutsigbarhet har vært mantraer.

Det er stor enighet om at digitalisering av helse- og velferdssektoren dreier seg vel så mye om organisering og ledelse og tjenesteinnovasjon som teknologi. På denne sesjonen inviterer vi bidrag som adresserer hemmere og fremmere av digitalisering knyttet til organisasjon og ledelse. Disse bidragene kan berøre, men ikke være begrenset til, følgende tema:

·     Fremveksten av digitalisring i helse- og velferdssektoren

·     Innvirkning av digitalisering på organisering og ledelse av helse og velferdssektoren

·     Organisering for en bærekraftig helse- og omsorgssektor

·     Muligheter for digitalisering og innovasjon i organisering og ledelse i helsesektoren

·     Helsefagarbeiders digitale kompetanse

·     Digitalisering – fremtidens helse og velferd

1. Paperbasert. Det vil bli utveksling av paper før konferansen, men oppnevning av opponent. De som presenterer paper vil også være opponenter.
2. Track organizers: Etty R. Nilsen, professor. Senter for helse og teknologi, Universitetet i Sørøst-Norge, etty.nilsen@usn.no. I samarbeid med førsteamanuensis Janne Dugstad, professor Hilde Eide, professor Tom Eide, professor Monika Gullslett og førsteamanuensis Karen Stendal.

Torstein.Nesheim@snf.no

I denne sesjonen tar vi utgangspunkt i staten som organisasjonsfelt, dvs. organisasjoner som inngår i staten som juridisk system. Søkelyset rettes dermed mot regjeringen, departementene, direktorater, etater og statsforvaltere, samt sentrale interessenter og samarbeidspartnere for disse organisasjonen. Fokus rettes mot dilemmaer, avveininger, spenninger og konflikter knyttet til organisering, styring og ledelse i staten. Vi inviterer forskere («paper») og ledere i staten (innlegg) til å bidra i denne sesjonen. Bidragene kan ha fokus på dilemmaer og spenninger direkte, eller på organisasjonsformer/-endringer som aktualiserer dilemmaer i staten.

Et eksempel er avveiningen mellom hensynet til kontroll og samordnet styring på den ene siden, og hensynet til autonomi, delegering og lokale tilpasninger på den andre side. Dette dilemmaet kan utspille seg både i det politiske-administrative systemet som helhet, og i de enkelte organisasjonene. Andre eksempler er forholdet mellom lojalitet/faglig uavhengighet/nøytralitet, mellom styring basert på fag/regelverk/mål, og mellom pilarene «management» og marked i New Public Management.

Dilemmaene i statens organisering kan være varige spenninger som utspiller seg over tid, de kan aktiviseres av kriser og uventede hendelser (pandemi, krigen i Ukraina), utløse eller aktualiseres av organisasjonsendringer, følge av økt utbredelse av nye organisasjonsoppskrifter (agil, team, risikoanalyse, sammenhengene tjenester osv.), eller av nye politiske initiativer eller statsråders handlinger og lederstil.

Her er noen eksempler på aktuelle organisasjonsendringer, -former eller øvrige initiativ som aktualiserer dilemmaer i statens organisering. Disse eksemplene er selvsagt ikke uttømmende. Bidrag til sesjonen kan rette søkelyset mot disse forslagene eller andre aspekter ved organisering i staten.

·     Økt betydning av kommunikasjonsenheter (og kjøp av eksterne kommunikasjonstjenester) endrer premisser for arbeidet i departementene (?).

·     Mange landsomfattende statlige etater er omorganisert, fra geografisk til en oppgave/funksjonsbasert struktur. Organiseres arbeidet på tvers av lokasjoner? Hvordan kan samspill med andre statlige etater, fylkeskommune og andre statlige etater håndteres i en slik struktur?

·     Pandemien og andre kriser har aktualisert forhold knyttet til beredskap vs krisehåndtering og stilt organisasjoner overfor store krav til raske omstillinger og fleksibilitet. Hvordan er dette blitt håndtert, i om mellom statlige organisasjoner? Hvilken betydning har fleksible strukturer vs hierarkisk styring hatt?

·     Økt fokus på innovasjon (innen, og mellom sektorer og etater) utfordrer etablerte arbeidsmåter og organisering i staten. Dette er særlig utfordrende når flere sektorer og forvaltningsnivå er involvert.

·     Det legges større vekt på tverretatlig samordning i dokumenter og strategiplaner. Akrim samarbeidet og arbeidet med livshendelser er to eksempler. Hvordan utfordrer slik samordning «på tvers» minsterstyret og systemet for mål- og resultatstyring, hvor hierarkiet og linjen har forrang, og hvordan håndteres dette?

·     Bruken av tverrfaglige team, prosjekter og agile prinsipper for organisering antas å ha økt utbredelse i staten. Hva er drivkreftene bak dette, og hvordan utfordres hierarki, linjestyring og lederroller?

·     Systemet for mål- og resultatstyring skal bidra til fokus på måloppnåelse og større grad av autonomi for enheter og etater i staten. Samtidig er det drivkrefter for økt vekt på regler og prosedyrer, og argumenter for større profesjonell autonomi og fagstyring. Hvordan spiller disse spenningene seg ut i statlige organisasjoner?

·     Statlige virksomheter bygger i stor grad på profesjonell, spesialisert kompetanse. Hvordan bygges denne spesialiserte kompetansen inn i organisasjonen; i fagbaserte avdelinger, i tverrfaglige team med stor grad av autonomi, eller i tradisjonelle avdelinger rettet mot et politikkområde? Hva ligger bak denne organiseringen, og hva er utfordringer og implikasjoner av slike strukturer?

·     Hybrid arbeid medfører et samspill mellom samlokalisering (på kontoret) og hjemmearbeid/fjernarbeid med innslag av digitale verktøy. Hva er utfordringene ved hybrid arbeid, og hvordan håndteres dette i statlige organisasjoner?

Vi inviterer forskere til å sende inn «papers» og ledere i staten (og konsulenter) til å holde innlegg om dilemmaer i statens organisering. Vi er åpne for ulike faglige tilnærminger og perspektiver, samt bruk av ulike metoder og data. Du kan delta i sesjonen, selv om du ikke bidrar med paper/innlegg. Denne sesjonen vil dermed være et mulig møtested for akademikere (med ulik faglig bakgrunn) og praktikere som er interessert i en dialog om utfordringer i staten.

Denne sesjonen kan potensielt være grunnlaget for et temanummer i et fagtidsskrift.

Ansvarlige for sesjonen

·      Tore Bakken, Høgskolen i Innlandet.

·      Petter Braathen, University of Brussels.

·      Werner Christie, Handelshøyskolen BI og NTNU.

·      Keith Peavy, Handelshøyskolen BI.

Teoretisk fokus

Komplekse samfunnsutfordringer består av en variasjon med elementer der det finnes sterke gjensidige avhengigheter mellom dem. Det er altså ikke tilstrekkelig å forstå kun delene, men vi må forstå hva som binder dem sammen og hvordan den gjensidige avhengigheten bidrar til nye observerbare fenomenet der effektene av våre handlinger til tider kan være kontradiktoriske til opprinnelig intensjon. Slike fenomener betegnes ofte som ‘wicked’. Vi går fra én tilnærming som understøttes av prediksjon og kontroll, til en annen som fremhever navigasjon i usikre kontekster og fleksibilitet i møte med det uvisse. Vi har fått et mer markant skille mellom risiko og uvisshet, mellom målbar risiko og ikke-målbar uvisshet. Kriser og risiko har etter hvert fått uvisshet som en fellesnevner.

For å kunne beskrive ovennevnte fenomener mer inngående, dvs. deres delelementer og sammenhenger, kreves en tilsvarende kompleksitet i vårt epistemiske rammeverk (Ashby, 1962). Vi trenger nye konseptuelle kart. Da er vi avhengig av bidrag fra ulike disipliner der vi kan arbeide på tvers, dels i et multi-disiplinært perspektiv for å forstå de ulike bestanddelene, og dels i et interdisiplinært perspektiv for å sammenføye kategorier og perspektiver til ny forståelse i møtet med det faktiske fenomenet. Her trenger vi bidrag fra både humaniora, samfunnsvitenskap og naturvitenskap med perspektiver og rammeverk som har inter- og transvitenskapelig potensiale. Tre retninger har vært fremtredende, men ikke begrensende:

(1) Først, perspektiver som kan beskrive organisering, dvs. hvordan organisasjoner oppstår som emergente fenomener fra systemer av interaksjoner og som gjør dem robuste og selv-opprettholdende. Organisering i denne konteksten blir å kunne håndtere denne ikke-lineære dynamikken (Simon 1990; Weick 2017). Endringsprosesser må ta hensyn til gjensidig og forsterkende avhengigheter som fører til uønskede, og noen ganger, paradoksale effekter (Braathen 2016; March 2017).

(2) For det andre retter vi søkelyset på hvordan organisering utvikles over tid, og hvilke evolusjonære prosesser som er underliggende og som fører til nye tilstander og situasjoner. Vi støtter oss her på grunnleggende teori om evolusjon. Et fasinerende trekk ved evolusjon er at den ikke foregår entydig nomologisk, men snarere fylogenetisk – som både kontinuitet og mangfoldiggjøring av strukturer. Evolusjon innbefatter en kombinasjon av variasjon, seleksjon og stabilisering og kan dermed bidra til en konseptuell forståelse av alt som har med risiko, uvisshet, kriser og konflikter.

(3) For det tredje ønsker vi å forstå hvordan lokalt agency kan føre til komplekse og selvorganiserte systemer der styring og tilpasning er distribuert i selve systemet. Vi støtter oss her på kompleksitetsteori som kan fremstilles like ubeskjedent som evolusjonsteori. Vi våger den påstand at kompleksitet bestemmer vitenskapene i det 21. århundret. Kompleksitetsforskningen er drevet frem av en evolusjonær og systemisk tankegang (Luhmann, 2013). Biologisk mutasjon kan for eksempel være en viktig faktor for å forstå mangfold ikke bare i biologiske, men også i sosiale systemer. Mange av dagens nøkkelproblemer kan knyttes til kompleksitetsproblematikken: Globale klimautfordringer, jordskjelv og tsunamier blir undersøkt i avanserte computermodeller. Nanoteknologien utvikler nye materialer av komplekse molekylære strukturer. Genteknologien analyserer DNA-informasjon som lar komplekse cellulære organismer vokse (Law et al 2002). «Life sciences» beskjeftiger seg med livets kompleksitet, «artificial life» simulerer komplekse selvorganiseringer av liv i egnete computermodeller og «social sciences» er opptatt av beslutninger som kan løse problemer til fellesskapets beste (Bakken & Brinkmann 2022; Bakken 2022; Christie 2014).

Noen mulige problemstillinger knyttet til uvisshet og konflikter

Nedenfor følger noen problemstillinger som spenner fra teoretiske til mer empiriske artikler som presenterer pågående forskning. Det kan være:

·      Tverrvitenskapelige tilnærminger til komplekse samfunnsutfordringer

·      Demokrati i krise og dets uvisse framtid

·      Mobilisering av sivilsamfunnet og lokalt deltakerdemokrati – NPG og «New Synthesis»

·      Hvordan forstå uvisshet som en fellesnevner for kriser og risiko?

·      Korona-krisen – en systemteoretisk tilnærming

·      Krig og aggresjon

·      Folkehelse og stedsutvikling

·      «Wellbeing» og sosial bærekraft som velferdsmål

·      Byutvikling – attraktive nabolag sett som komplekse økosystemer

Sesjonens form

Sesjonen legger vekt på at det leveres inn godt bearbeidede artikler og at vi går i dybden på dem og forsøker å anvise muligheter for videreutvikling.

Referanser

Ashby, W. Ross (1958). “Requisite variety and its implications for the control of complex systems”. Cybernetica, 1: 83-99.

Bakken, T. & Brinkmann, J. (2022) Krise, risiko og uvisshet. Sosiologiske refleksjoner. Cappelen Damm Akademisk.

Bakken, T. (2022) «Introduksjon: Krise sosiologisk belyst». Norsk Sosiologisk Tidsskrift, no. 3, 2022.

Braathen, P. (2016) “Paradox in organizations seen as social complex systems”, i Emergence: Complexity & Organization, 18 (2), 1-14.

Christie, W. (2014) “Politikk og fag, - på same lag? Helseledelse fra teknokrati til velferdsdannelse, i: Helsetjenestens nye logikk, Akademika.

Law, J. & Mol A. (red.) (2002) Complexities. Social studies of knowledge practices. Duke University Press

Luhmann, N. (2013) “Kompleksitet uten holdepunkt”, I Niklas Luhmann, Sosiologisk teori, Akademika, 237-255.

March, J. (2017) “Reflections on the paradoxes of modernity”, I The Oxford handbook of Organizational Paradox. Oxford University Press.

Simon, H. (1990) The sciences of the artificial. Cambridge: The MIT Press.

Weick K. E. (2017) “Evolving reactions: 60 years with March and Simon’s ‘Organizations’”. Journal of Management Studies, 1-12.

This session provides a timely opportunity to discuss and debate important issues, to rethink key concept, theories and methods within the broad field of regional studies and entreprenurship. One of the crucial topics in this respect is how industries and regions change and transform during challenging moments in time. By focusing on the dynamics, drivers and controverses of these transformation from an innovation- and/or geographical perspective, this session aim to tackle questions from a broad range of approaches. 

A relevant background is the regional innovation literature that has traditionally focused on the evolutionary approach, territorial industry dynamics and systemic characteristics in regional development (Boschma and Frenken 2006; Martin and Sunley 2006, 2010; Neffke 2011). However, micro-level explanations for the rise of development paths are largely absent (Grillitsch and Sotarauta 2020; Frangenheim, Trippl, and Chlebna 2020). This is especially true of new path development outside vibrant metropolitan regions, where innovative activity and growth are seen to be restricted by the nature and weakness of structural preconditions (Asheim and Isaksen 2002; Tödtling and Trippl 2005; Hassink 2010).

Lately, however, places that ‘don’t matter’ have attracted increasing scholarly attention (Rodríguez-Pose 2018), and depopulation, small firms, remoteness and organisational thinness are often used to determine whether a region is peripheral (Tödtling and Trippl 2005; Doloreux and Dionne 2008; Rousseau 1995). Innovation in peripheral regions (Grillitsch and Nilsson 2015; Shearmur and Doloreux 2016; Fritsch and Wyrwich 2021) has also attracted increasing attention.

This classical geographical innovation perspective has more recently been challenged by a sectoral approach paying due attention to the sectoral innovation system (SIS) and industry dynamics within different type of regions (Nilsen and Njøs 2021). Such a multi-scalar approach would be particularly pertinent in times of understanding great regional transformation processes where radical shift in knowledge bases and regional industrial structures are required.

Based on this background, we invite papers drawing on the dynamics and controverses of these societal dimensions from a geographical, sectoral, and managerial perspective. Different topics ranging from the role of entrepreneurship, sustainability, digitalization, greening of industries, geography of innovation and how multi-level innovation approaches can be linked with endogenous resources are of particular interest.

Submission of papers is desired but not required.

Asheim, B.T. and A. Isaksen. 2002. Regional innovation systems: the integration of local ‘sticky’and global ‘ubiquitous’ knowledge. Journal of Technology Transfer 27:77-86.

Boschma, R. and K. Frenken. 2006. Why is economic geography not an evolutionary science? Towards an evolutionary economic geography. Journal of Economic Geography 6:273-302.

Doloreux, D. and S. Dionne. 2008. Is regional innovation system development possible in peripheral regions? Some evidence from the case of La Pocatière, Canada. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development 20:259–283.

Frangenheim, A.; M. Trippl; and C. Chlebna. 2020. Beyond the single path view: interpath dynamics in regional contexts. Economic Geography 96:31-51.

Fritsch, M. and M. Wyrwich. 2021. Is innovation (increasingly) concentrated in large cities? An international comparison. Research Policy 50:104237.

Grillitsch, M. and M. Nilsson. 2015. Innovation in peripheral regions: do collaborations compensate for a lack of local knowledge spillovers? Annals of Regional Science 54:299-321.

Grillitsch, M. and M. Sotarauta. 2020. Trinity of change agency, regional development paths and opportunity spaces. Progress in Human Geography 44:704-723.

Hassink, R. 2010. Locked in decline? On the role of regional lock-ins in old industrial areas. In The Handbook of Evolutionary Economic Geography, ed. R. Boschma and R. Martin, 450-468. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.

Martin, R. and P. Sunley. 2006. Path dependence and regional economic evolution. Journal of Economic Geography 6:395-437.

———. 2010. The place of path dependence in an evolutionary perspective on the economic landscape., in Boschma, R. and Martin, R. (2010) The Handbook of Evolutionary Economic Geography: 62-92.Edward Elgar

Neffke, F.; M. Henning; and R. Boschma. 2011. How do regions diversify over time. Economic Geography.Volume 87, Issue 3, 237-265

Nilsen, T. And Njøs, R. 2021. Greening of regional industrial paths and the role of sectoral characteristics; A Study of the maritime and petroleum sectors in an Arctic region. European Urban and Regional Studies, 29(2), 204-221

Rodríguez-Pose, A. 2018. The revenge of the places that don’t matter (and what to do about it). Cambridge Journal of Regions, Economy and Society 11:189-209.

Rousseau, N. 1995. What is rurality? Occasional paper (Royal College of General Practitioners):1–4.

Shearmur, R. and D. Doloreux. 2016. How open innovation processes vary between urban and remote environments: slow innovators, market-sourced information and frequency of interaction. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development 28:337-357.

Tödtling, F. and M. Trippl. 2005. One size fits all? Towards a differentiated regional innovation policy approach. Research Policy 34:1203-1219.

Session organizers

Trond Nilsen, trond.nilsen@inn.no; Inland Norway University of Applied Sciences

Atle Hauge, atle.hauge@inn.no; Inland Norway University of Applied Sciences

Anne Jørgensen Nordli, anne.nordli@inn.no, Inland Norway University of Applied Sciences

Kriser som pandemi, internasjonale konflikter, og brudd på menneskerettigheter er hendelser som skaper utfordringer for idretten på nasjonalt og internasjonalt nivå. Kriser er større uheldige hendelser som bringer med seg problemer som krever mer enn vanlig organisering og handlekraft og dette tracket fokuserer på kriser som påvirker idrettsarrangementer, idrettens organisasjoner og utøvere.

De største krisene er grenseoverskridende og må håndteres av flere og på ulike nivåer samtidig (Kristiansen et al., 2022). Sport management forskning har oftest tatt for seg risikoledelse når det gjelder beredskapsspørsmål (Taylor & Toohey, 2007). Man har særlig vært opptatt av hvordan det er mulig å redusere risiko i forbindelse med idrettsarrangementer (f. eks. Hanstad, 2012; Leopkey & Parent, 2009). Gjennomføring av Tokyo-OL 2020 i 2021 viser godt hvilken krevende øvelse det kan være. Arrangøren krevde at alle som kom var fullvaksinerte og dette kravet ble innfridd ved at både Pfizer og BioNTech donerte vaksinedoser til alle utøvere og støttepersonell (IOC, 2021). Brudd på menneskerettigheter i vertsland for store idrettsarrangement, som Qatar, har skapt diskusjoner om idrettens rolle i samfunnet (Ganji, 2016). Pandemien har ført til nye krav til risikoledelse for større arrangementer (Ludvigsen & Hayton, 2022). Synkende medlemstall i idrettens organisasjoner (NIF, 2021) og økt belastninger på utøvere (Tjønndal, 2021). Krigen i Ukraina har ført til økte flyktningstrømmer og utestengelse av russiske og hviterussiske utøvere og idrettsorganisasjoner fra internasjonale konkurranser.

De nevnte krisene er eksempler på utfordringer som nasjonale og internasjonale idrettsorganisasjoner må planlegge for og håndtere. I dette tracket ønsker vi å inkludere problemstillinger som omhandler risikoledelse knyttet til kriser i idretten på internasjonalt, nasjonalt og individuelt nivå. 

Form: Presentasjon der og da

Ansvarlige: 

Trine Løvold Syversen (HINN), trine.lovold.syversen@inn.no

Svein Erik Nordhagen (HINN), svein.erik.nordhagen@inn.no

Elsa Kristiansen (USN), elsa.kristiansen@usn.no

Publisering og formidling: Målet med sesjonen i første omgang er å skape et møtepunkt for forskere med interesse for idrett, krise og beredskap. Meld dere på med et «abstract.»   

Referanser:  

Ganji, S. K. (2016). Leveraging the World Cup: Mega sporting events, human rights risk, and worker welfare reform in Qatar. Journal on Migration and Human Security, 4(4), 221-259.

Hanstad, D. V. (2012). Risk management in major sporting events: A participating national Olympic team’s perspective. Event Management, 16, 189-201.

IOC. (2021). IOC welcomes Pfizer and BioNTech’s donation of vaccines to teams heading for the Olympic and Paralympic Games Tokyo 2020. Hentet fra:  

https://olympics.com/ioc/news/ioc-welcomes-pfizer-and-biontech-s-donation-of-vaccines-to-teams-heading-for-the-olympic-and-paralympic-games-tokyo-2020

Kristiansen, E., Boe, O., & Dille, T. (2022). Beredskap og sikkerhet i idretten. Oslo: Fagbokforlaget.

Leopkey, B., & Parent, M. M. (2009). Risk management issues in large-scale sporting events: A stakeholder perspective. European Sport Management Quarterly, 9(2), 187-208.

Ludvigsen, J. A. L., & Hayton, J. W. (2022). Toward COVID-19 secure events: Considerations for organizing the safe resumption of major sporting events. Managing Sport and Leisure, 27(1-2), 135-145.

NIF (2021). Nøkkeltall rapport for 2020. Hentet fra:

https://www.idrettsforbundet.no/contentassets/9f94ba79767846d9a67d1a56f4054dc2/nokkeltallsrapport-2020.pdf

Taylor, T., & Toohey, K. (2007). Perception of terrorism threats at the 2004 Olympic Games: Implications for sport events. Journal of Sport and Tourism, 12 (2), 99-114.

Tjønndal, Anne (2021). The impact of COVID-19 lockdowns on Norwegian athletes’ training habits and their use of digital technology for training and competition purposes, Sport in Society, DOI: 10.1080/17430437.2021.2016701

This track invites participants to explore, reflect and debate on the relations between innovation, conflicts and trust. Such explorations are timely because innovation is increasingly perceived as a multi-actor, collaborative endeavour. This is captured in various concepts such as open innovation (Chesbrough, 2003), collaborative innovation (Bommert 2010; Hartley et al. 2013), co-creation of innovation (Voorberg et al. 2015), Responsible innovation (Owen et al. 2019), Third generation innovation policies (Kuhlmann & Rip 2018) and more.

Essentially, it is argued that innovation is, or should be, a ‘team sport’ and integrate resources across sectors, organizations, businesses, disciplines, and forms of expertise. The reasoning is at least twofold: First, with an ever more complex world emerges also growing numbers of complex or ‘wicked’ problems that requires cross-cutting innovative responses. Second, diversity and heterogeneity among actors is seen to foster creativity and innovation. However, while diversity and heterogeneity among actors can fuel debates, novel thinking, creativity and ultimately innovation, it can also imply conflicts and mistrust. Hence, collaborative forms of innovation can be seen to involve demanding balancing acts relating to conflicts and trust.

Moreover, development and trust or potential distrust and conflicts are crucial elements when institutions meet new ideas and creations. Acceptance and implementation of innovations rely on trust in new solutions and practices, and lack of trust tend to be an important aspect of why innovation fails to be adopted, implemented and spread (Holmen & Ringholm 2019, Røhnebæk 2019, Nilssen 2019)

The aim of this track is to bring together research from different disciplines and fields to shed light on these diverse intricacies and relations between innovation, conflict and trust. The track is open to both empirical studies with different methodological approaches as well as theoretical work. 

The track will emphasise contributions focusing on innovation set in, or involving, public sector organizations. Such papers are also likely to be eligible for submission to a new journal: Nordic Journal of Innovation in the Public Sector (NJIPS) who welcome such contributions. There is also an opportunity to create a group to develop a special issue related to this topic. See also: https://www.idunn.no/journal/njips

Session format: 

In this track we invite presentations of papers dealing with innovation, conflicts, and trust. We are open for presentation of papers at different levels of maturity, but the contributions need to actively engage with the introduced topic from a research perspective. The session would be held in English or Norwegian depending on the papers to be presented.

Track organizers:

INNOFF (Research network for Innovation in the Public Sector), by

Maria Røhnebæk (Maria.Rohnebak@inn.no)

Ann-Karin Tennås Holmen (annkarin.holmen@uis.no)

Maja Nilssen (maja.nilssen@nord.no)

References

Bommert, B. (2010). Collaborative innovation in the public sector. International public management review, 11(1), 15-33.

Chesbrough, H. (2003) Open Innovation: The New Imperative for Creating and Profiting from Technology. Harvard Business School Press.

Hartley, J., Sørensen, E., & Torfing, J. (2013). Collaborative innovation: A viable alternative to market competition and organizational entrepreneurship. Public administration review, 73(6), 821-830.

Holmen, A.K.T & Ringholm, T. (2019) Hva skjer i møterommet? I Holmen & Ringholm (red) Innovasjon møter kommune. Cappelen Damm akademiske

Kuhlmann, S., & Rip, A. (2018). Next-generation innovation policy and grand challenges. Science and public policy, 45(4), 448-454.

Nilssen, M. (2019) Stiavhengighet eller stiendring: Vedvarer innovasjoner i kommuner utsatt for eksterne sjokk? I Holmen & Ringholm (red) Innovasjon møter kommune. Cappelen Damm akademiske

Owen, R., Bessant, J. R., & Heintz, M. (Eds.). (2013). Responsible innovation: managing the responsible emergence of science and innovation in society. John Wiley & Sons.

Røhnebæk, M., and Lauritzen, T. (2019) Spredning av innovasjoner: diffusjon eller oversettelse? I Holmen og Ringholm (red) Innovasjon møter kommune. Cappelen Damm akademiske

Voorberg, W. H., Bekkers, V. J., & Tummers, L. G. (2015). A systematic review of co-creation and co-production: Embarking on the social innovation journey. Public management review, 17(9), 1333-1357.

The overall focus of this session is how human Resource Management (HRM) and leadership are affected by the Covid-19 pandemic and other challenges, what organisations can learn from this, and how these new experiences could be applied in the post-COVID period. Some key discussion themes focus on the role of distance in leadership, organisation and HR; the sustainability aspects involved; innovations and knowledge development achieved, the role of digitalisation and new requirements and possibilities for management post Covid-19 and other challenges. We are also interested in strategic processes and factors influencing the “Post COVID period”. Other topics are listed below. Papers could be both in Norwegian and English.  

Recommended topics:  

• Leadership and HRM to manage distributed working 
• Sustainable HRM (green and social) A. wellbeing, employability, careers, work engagement, stress, B. mental and physical wellbeing 
• Digitalization and HR analytics 
• Adoption and shaping of the new normal - attitudes of stakeholders 
• Performance, innovation, ambidexterity 
• Communication, dialogue, collaboration - inside and outside the organization 
• Employee and co-worker perceptions and experiences (positive and negative outcomes), including social isolation 
• Cross cultural differences (national and organizational) 
• Team aspects of virtual working 
• Virtual working and customers' experiences, including students and pupils 
• Theoretical approaches and perspectives  
• New work forms, technology and/or new organization forms

Background and focus  

The Covid-19 pandemic has caused a rapid digitalisation of working methods and cooperations with an increased use of home offices and reduced travel. Those who teleworked before the pandemic did so by choice, while those who teleworked only during and after the pandemic may have been forced or pressured to do so by national and organizational regulations associated with the Covid-19 pandemic. During Covid-19, there were no or only limited possibilities for face-to-face communication, and the use of digital services is much higher than before. New digital services, such as Zoom, Teams and Skype, played a much more important role for leaders and employees in an environment which was mostly virtual.  

Previous research has to be updated, as management and working in the post-pandemic environments may be different and may perhaps be differently perceived compared to the period before and during the pandemic. We need to have more knowledge on the long-term effects, learning and processes toward the «new hybrid normal» post Covid-19. Our session on «New Perspectives on Virtual Management and HRM for the New Normal» wants to contribute with updated knowledge on: what has been changed, what has been learned, and what can be adopted for «the New Normal».  

Submission of paper is desired but not required. 

References:  

Eurofound (2020). Telework and ICT-based Mobile Work: Flexible Working in the Digital Age, New Forms of Employment Serie, Publications Office of the European Union. European Commission (2020). Telework in the EU before and after the COVID-19: Where We Were, Where We Head to? Science for Policy Briefs. European Commission. https://ec.europa.eu/jrc/en/news/coronavirus-pandemic-reveals-large-differences-prevalence-telework-across-eu, May 15th 2021. 

Session leader:  Associate Professor Svein Bergum, Inland Norway University of Applied Sciences;  

Svein.Bergum@inn.no 

Associate Professor Tor Helge Pedersen, Inland Norway University of Applied Sciences. 

Tor.helge.pedersen@inn.no 

Organisations, and the human beings working within them, are currently facing a host of severe pressures and uncertainties, for example due to technological advancements (Ogbeibu et al., 2020), the ‘gig’ economy (Kost et al., 2020; Wong et al., 2021), new work forms and global arrangements (Jackowska & Lauring, 2021; Reiche et al., 2019), the rapidly changing nature of future of work (Perkins et al., 2021), wars, virus pandemics and their aftermath (Vera, 2020), diversity and lack of inclusion (Hansen & Seierstad, 2017; Shore et al., 2018) environmental and social concerns such as decreasing social and economic inequality and marginalisation (Alm & Guttormsen, 2021) and a call for sustainable development (Kolk, 2016).

The research group ‘New Perspective on Work-Life and Organisations’ at USN School of Business invites papers that explore the challenges and consequences relating to the changes above. This implies a particular focus on human activity and the lived experiences among the individuals who work, co-create, develop identities, organise and practice routines within organisations, and how this might impact organisational phenomena and the organisation’s performativity, formal structures and processes. This also involves the alignment and interplay with macro-environments and socio-technical systems. We see research as context-specific, reflexive, discursive, contestable and socially constructed (Wacquant & Bourdieu, 1992; Cornelissen et al., 2021). The track invites papers that explore different ways of organising around unpredictable and uncertain situations.

The track welcomes development (max. 2,000 words) and full papers (max. 8,000 words) anchored in any methodological, epistemological, and theoretical persuasion–and especially, those that exhibit

a)    an interdisciplinary outlook, drawing upon different intellectual traditions across the social sciences and humanities (and beyond) (Arjomand, 2017).

b)   a ‘phenomenon’ based orientation featuring individuals and micro-aspects as the primary unit of analysis (Malinowski, 1935, 1922).

c)    New perspectives, herein encouraging papers that avoid relying entirely on predicative approaches and hypo-deductive testing of knowledge (Ardener, 1989; Chapman 1997).

Papers are welcome to involve diverse organisational contexts, including domestic and international, public, private, governmental, non-governmental and civil society organisations. Papers are encouraged to highlight practical implications for practitioners and managers, corporate and public policy decision-makers and thought-leadership. Contributions will be organised both thematically and according to maturity, with those more open ended in workshop format, whilst those more developed and thematically overlapping will be invited to a dialogue on a special issue application. 

Track organisers including name, e-mail and affiliation

The track proposal is submitted by the research group ‘New Perspective on Work-Life and Organisations’ at USN School of Business, University of South-Eastern Norway (Campus Drammen, Campus Kongsberg):

§ Co-Chair: Dr Erik Lankut, Department of Business, Strategy and Political Sciences, USN School of Business, University of South-Eastern Norway – Erik.Lankut@usn.no

§ Co-Chair: Mr Vidar Top, Department of Business, Strategy and Political Sciences, USN School of Business, University of South-Eastern Norway – Vidar.Top@usn.no

§ Co-Chair: Dr Jon Hovland Honerud, Department of Business, Strategy and Political Sciences, USN School of Business, University of South-Eastern Norway – Jon.Hovland.Honerud@usn.no

§ Assisting Chair: Dr David S. A. Guttormsen, Department of Business, Strategy and Political Sciences, USN School of Business, University of South-Eastern Norway – David.Guttormsen@usn.no

References

Alm, K., & Guttormsen, D. S. A. (2021). Enabling the Voices of Marginalized Groups of People in Theoretical Business Ethics Research. Journal of Business Ethics, 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-021-04973-3

Ardener, E. (1989). The voice of prophecy, and other essays. Oxford: Blackwell (Ed. and intro. by M. Chapman)

Arjomand, S. A. (2017). The rise of interdisciplinary studies in social sciences and humanities and the challenge of comparative sociology. European Journal of Social Theory, 20(2), 292–306.

Chapman, M. (1997). Social Anthropology, Business Studies, and Cultural Issues. International Studies of Management & Organization, 26(4), 3–29.

Cornelissen, J., Hollerer, M., & Seidl, D. (2021). What Theory Is and Can Be: Forms of Theorizing in Organizational Scholarship. Organization Theory, 2(3), 1–19.

Hansen, K. & Seierstad, C. (2017). CSR and DM: An introduction. In K. Hansen & C. Seierstad (eds.), Corporate social responsibility and diversity management. Theoretical approaches and best practices. Series Title: CSR, Sustainability, Ethics & Governance. Springer.

Jackowska, M., & Lauring, J. (2021). What are the effects of working away from the workplace compared to using technology while being at the workplace? Assessing work context and personal context in a global virtual setting. Journal of International Management, 27(1), 100826.

Kolk, A. (2016). The social responsibility of international business: From ethics and the environment to CSR and sustainable development. Journal of World Business, 51(1), 23–34.

Kost, D., Fieseler, C., & Wong, S. I. (2020). Boundaryless careers in the gig economy: An oxymoron? Human Resource Management Journal, 30(1), 100–113.

Malinowski, B. (1922). Argonauts of the Western Pacific. London: Routledge.

Malinowski, B. (1935). Coral Gardens and their Magic. London: Allen and Unwin.

Ogbeibu, S., Emelifeonwu, J., Senadjki, A., Gaskin, J., & Kaivo-oja, J. (2020). Technological turbulence and greening of team creativity, product innovation, and human resource management: Implications for sustainability. Journal of Cleaner Production, 244, 1-15.

Perkins, G., Gilmore, S., Guttormsen, D. S. A., & Taylor, S. (2021). Analyzing the impacts of Universal Basic Income in the changing world of work: Challenges to the Psychological Contract and a future research agenda. Human Resource Management Journal, 32(1), 1–18.

Reiche, B. S., Lee, Y., & Allen, D. G. (2019). Actors, Structure, and Processes: A Review and Conceptualization of Global Work Integrating IB and HRM Research. Journal of Management, 45(2), 359–383.

Shore, L. M., Cleveland, J. N., & Sanchez, D. (2018). Inclusive workplaces: A review and model. Human Resource Management Review, 28(2), 176–189.

Vera, C. (2020). Commentary: COVID-19 will deepen global inequality. Retrieved from: https://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/commentary/coronavirus-covid-19-africa-inequality-relief-aid-oxfam-imf-g20-12651578

Wacquant, L. J. D. & Bourdieu, P. (1992). An Invitation to reflexive sociology. Chicago: University Press.

Wong, S. I., Kost, D., & Fieseler, C. (2021). From crafting what you do to building resilience for career commitment in the gig economy. Human Resource Management Journal, 31(4), 918–935.

Keywords: values, conflicts, sustainability, dilemmas, identity, hybrid

The pandemic has raised awareness about essential work and a distinction between those occupations considered critical to society or not. Many have changed their job or way of life after experiencing that work was too stressful or unfulfilling or had lack of meaning.

Researchers have for long observed how individuals seek meaningful work that transcends production and livelihood, irrespective of sector or occupation (Alvesson, 2002). Work extends beyond the traditionally demarcated lines of regulated work-hours and specific locations, permeating life in new ways, not least facilitated by technology and the ideal of flexibility (Sennett, 1998). Work as a central source of purpose and identity is a cross disciplinary topic (Sirris & Byrkjeflot, 2019). These changes resonate in the plethora of concepts describing work. While job focuses on financial rewards and necessities, and career implies advancement, calling denotes fulfilling work – with or without religious cues (Wrzesniewski, McCauley, Rozin, & Schwartz, 1997).

In order to get workers back after the pandemic, it is argued that employers have to create more meaningful jobs (De Smet, Dowling, Mugayar-Baldocchi, & Schaninger, 2022) and in order for organizational research to catch up there has to be more focus on values at work (Amis & Greenwood, 2020). Fundamental in organizations, values are explicit and implicit in leadership, organizing, communication and practices (M. S. Kraatz, Flores, & Chandler, 2020). Being an inseparable part of institutionalism (Friedland & Alford, 1991; Selznick, 1957), values are also central in instrumentally oriented approaches to organization and leadership studies (Bednarek-Gilland, 2015).

In keeping with the NEON’s theme, we are particularly interested in the various perspectives that contribute to insights connecting organizing, work, meaning and values during uncertain and conflicting times. These topics come into play in institutional pluralism and complexity (Matthew S Kraatz & Block, 2008) for example triggered by global challenges, cold and hot wars and the rapidly changing societal and technological landscape. In a post-pandemic age with a strong focus on cooperation and conflict across geographic, political, disciplinary, sectorial, and organizational borders, organizations are bound to rethink their organizing. These processes are interesting not least in constitutional hybrids (Alexius & Furusten, 2019) or recently hybridized organizations, and can lead to development and innovations that carve out new identities and understanding of values.

This track is intended to provide the opportunity for organizational scholars to appreciate the meaning and values dimension of work in their research phenomena in organizations. We are open to variety of approaches. Both conceptual and empirical contributions are welcome. In particular, we invite approaches focusing on, but not limited to, the following issues:

·     Essential work

·     Making work meaningful in the perspective of employer and/or employee

·     The challenges of researching meaningful work in leadership and organizations demarcating different sectors, disciplines, and theories

·     Values clashes and dilemmas in organizations or in sectorial cooperation, like private-public or public-civic organizations

·     Values conflicts in hybrid organizations

·     How institutional logics interact, influence and/or integrate organizational, managerial and professional identities and values

·     Institutional work and values work as emerging processes affected by and responding to current changes

·     Institutional, managerial and professional responses to societal challenges

·     Institutional changes, technical development and institutionalizing of innovations and co-production of knowledge in organizational and professional practices

·     Conceptual papers framed in the context of institutional theory, institutional work, institutional logics

References

Alexius, S., & Furusten, S. (2019). Exploring constitutional hybridity. In Managing Hybrid Organizations (pp. 1-25). Palgrave Macmillan, Cham.

Alvesson, M. (2002). Understanding organizational culture. London: SAGE.

Amis, J., & Greenwood, R. (2020). Organisational change in a (post-) pandemic world: Rediscovering interests and values. Journal of management studies.

Bednarek-Gilland, A. (2015). Researching Values with Qualitative Methods: Empathy, Moral Boundaries and the Politics of Research. England: Ashgate Publishing, Ltd.

De Smet, A., Dowling, B., Mugayar-Baldocchi, M., & Schaninger, B. (2022). Gone for now, or gone for good? How to play the new talent game and win back workers. The McKinsey Quarterly.

Friedland, R., & Alford, R. R. (1991). Bringing society back in: Symbols, practices and institutional contradictions. In W. W. Powell & P. J. DiMaggio (Eds.), The new institusionalism in organizational analysis (pp. 232-263). Chicago: Chicago University Press.

Kraatz, M. S., & Block, E. S. (2008). Organizational implications of institutional pluralism. In R. Greenwood, C. Oliver, T. B. Lawrence, & R. E. Meyer (Eds.), The Sage handbook of organizational institutionalism (Vol. 840, pp. 243-275).

Kraatz, M. S., Flores, R., & Chandler, D. (2020). The value of values for institutional analysis. Academy of Management annals, 14(2), 474-512.

Selznick, P. (1957). Leadership in administration: a sociological interpretation. Evanston, Illinois: Row Peterson.

Sennett, R. (1998). The corrosion of character: The transformation of work in modern capitalism. New York and London: Norton Company

Sirris, S., & Byrkjeflot, H. (2019). Realising calling through identity work. Comparing themes of calling in faith-based and religious organisations Nordic Journal of Religion and Society

32(2), 132-147.

Wrzesniewski, A., McCauley, C., Rozin, P., & Schwartz, B. (1997). Jobs, careers, and callings: People's relations to their work. Journal of research in personality, 31(1), 21-33.

Form: Paper is required

Responsible for the track:

Stephen Sirris

stephen.sirris@vid.no tlf: 95797297

Sirris is professor at VID Specialized University, Oslo, where he also serves as the director for Centre for Values-Based Leadership and Innovation (SVLI). His research interest includes values and ethics in leadership, organizational identity and identity work, hybrid third sector organizations, and management in professional organizations. He is co-editor of Understanding Values Work (Palgrave, 2020) and Researching Values (Palgrave, 2022).

Haldor Byrkjeflot

haldor.byrkjeflot@sosgeo.uio.no tlf: 90657112

Byrkjeflot is professor of sociology at the University of Oslo (UiO). He was the academic director of UiO:Nordic, one of three strategic priority areas at UiO (2015-2019). Byrkjeflot has published on comparative management and employment systems, the knowledge foundations of management, the Nordic model, the globalization of the MBA, changing knowledge regimes in universities, the role of bureaucracy in modern societies and organizational dynamics in health and education.

There are not yet any plans for a distinct publication. 

How does platformization impact the organizing of ecosystems? How are strategies for ecosystem development conditioned by platforms?

Platforms are increasingly dominating an extensive number of sectors and industries. Examples are Über in transportation, Airbnb within accommodation and Foodora in food delivery. Platform based business models are continuously being introduced in new areas and do in many instances build on network externalities the lead to dominance by the largest players (Parker, Van Alstyne, & Choudary, 2016). This dominance often disrupts existing industries and sectors and, in some cases, eradicate incumbents. Platforms are also posed as high-end disruptors (Sampere, 2016), which have high impact and over time include existing players in their ecosystems.

Digital platforms, platform-oriented infrastructures and ecosystems have become widespread. Platforms allow a flexible approach to scalability, and have therefore spread beyond social media, consumer-oriented platforms, to corporate IT landscapes and public and not-for profit contexts. For instance, commercial software products have become “platformized” and opened for third party developers in order to expand the market and user base through growing ecosystems of apps and app developers around them (Wareham, Fox, & Giner, 2014). Also, user organizations have started to employ platform notions when restructuring their application portfolios (Bygstad & Hanseth, 2018; Rolland, Mathiassen, & Rai, 2018). Platformization, as understood by Benlian, Kettinger, Sunyaev, and Winkler (2018, p. 374)) “builds on decoupling and characterizes the process in which an entity (a provider organization) creates access and interaction opportunities centred around a core bundle of services (the platform) within an ecosystem of consumers, complementors, and other stakeholders”. 

Platformization is also occurring for public services through government platforms. To organize the large range of different types of government platforms, Thompson and Venters (2021) use a spectrum from fully centralized to fully decentralized and identify six different types of platforms. The fully centralized is called “government as platform builder”, where the government build and provide an internal platform for innovation in order to engage other organizations. The fully decentralized platform at the other end of the spectrum, is where the government is a decentralized partner, and the platform type is a government platform ecosystem, where a commercial platform supplier assist government to become an affiliated ecosystem (Thompson & Venters, 2021).

A platform ecosystem consists of a core platform and an ecosystem of complementors, which can be seen as a a “organization of organizations” – a meta-organization connecting several organizations, actors, activities, and interfaces (Ciborra, 1996; Gawer, 2014). Platform ecosystems can be understood as a meta-organizations since authority relations are found outside the formal organization (Gawer, 2014). Authority and governance drive the platform ecosystem evolution, which is often dynamic and without clear governance relationships among the actors.