Search results

Organizational researchers studying well-being – as well as organizations themselves – often place much of the burden on employees to manage and preserve their own well-being. Missing from this discussion is how – from a human resources management (HRM) perspective – organizations and managers can directly and positively shape the well-being of their employees. The authors use this review to paint a picture of what organizations could be like if they valued people holistically and embraced the full experience of employees’ lives to promote well-being at work. In so doing, the authors tackle five challenges that managers may have to help their employees navigate, but to date have received more limited empirical and theoretical attention from an HRM perspective: (1) recovery at work; (2) women’s health; (3) concealable stigmas; (4) caregiving; and (5) coping with socio-environmental jolts. In each section, the authors highlight how past research has treated managerial or organizational support on these topics, and pave the way for where research needs to advance from an HRM perspective. The authors conclude with ideas for tackling these issues methodologically and analytically, highlighting ways to recruit and support more vulnerable samples that are encapsulated within these topics, as well as analytic approaches to study employee experiences more holistically. In sum, this review represents a call for organizations to now – more than ever – build thriving organizations.

We explore the lived experience of organizational scholars who have conducted fieldwork in unsettling contexts. Through analyzing our interviews with these scholars, we find themes around the causes and consequences of unsettling fieldwork, and the coping strategies employed. We reflect on the often overlooked emotional and relational aspects of conducting and coping with unsettling fieldwork, and offer some suggestions for how scholars might support each other, especially given the increasing prevalence of organizational scholarship that pushes boundaries by engaging unconventional topics and settings.

The purpose of this paper is to understand how the meanings of veal change from 1989 to 2014 in the pages of two major newspapers.

Articles in The Guardian and The Daily Telegraph that use the word “veal” were selected (n=1,387). Articles were read for emergent themes and each use of the word veal was coded. Each newspaper had phases of popularity in the use of the word “veal,” and unique words for each of these phases were identified. The context of these unique words was examined in order to illustrate changes in what to eat and why, as well as how to access food and act toward it.

This paper illustrates how readers are meaningfully encouraged to engage in food politics in ways that may be incrementally transformative, but do not involve demanding food as a right.

This paper illustrates that normalizing scandalous food involves complexity and subtle changes. Shifts in messages are detected and analyzed using the related concepts of subsistence standards and practices of reciprocity.