Announcements

Notice

“Due to the pandemic of COVID19, the 2021 AAOM Conference is now changed to be held in June 2022. Lanzhou University (China) will still be localhost. If the pandemic situation no longer creates difficulties in traveling, the Call for Paper will be announced in the middle of 2021.”

Call for paper 

Special Issue

Asia Pacific Journal of Management

 Diversity and Minority in Organizations in Asia: Towards a More Inclusive Workplace?

Guest editors:

Kelly Z. Peng (Hong Kong Shue Yan University & Lanzhou University, This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.)

Fang Lee Cooke (Monash University, This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.)

Xuhua Wei (Lanzhou University, This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.)

Diversity and its relevance in the Asia Context

The development experience in the world over the last century has shown that economic growth cannot be sustained without better minority socioeconomic and political accommodations, which underpins the diversity and inclusion policy and practice as part of human resource management (HRM) at the organizational level. However, despite the growing interest in diversity and inclusion management in both research and practice in various parts of the world, attention on diversity management in general and on minorities specifically in Asian countries remains limited. Minority groups exist in various organizations in a wide range of societies. The minority can be defined as a group that people who have or are believed to have an attribute that marks them as different and leads them to be devalued in the eyes of others (Major & O’Brien, 2005). They are members of the out-group that can be exploited for in-group gain (Kurzban & Leary, 2001). Asia is the most populated and diverse continent in terms of political systems, historical tradition, races, religions and cultural heritage (Cooke & Kim, 2018). Managing gender and sexual orientation in the workplace may also be much more complicated in most Asian countries due to traditional societal perceptions towards women and sexual orientations. While many Asian countries have gender equality regulation and policy in place (though often not well enforced), their laws are much more opaque regarding the protection on sexual orientation. Therefore, developing a deeper understanding of the diversity issue involving various types of minority groups is of particular importance and relevance to business organizations in Asia.

Extant research has found that workplace discrimination on various minorities was directly and indirectly associated with higher psychological distress (e.g., Velez, Cox, Polihronakis, & Moradial, 2018). It is consistent with minority stress theory that posits that disproportionate stress related to marginalized status of minority is linked to their psychological health and well-being (e.g., Meyer, 2003; Holman, 2018). Gender inequality has been a main issue in many Asian societies and workplaces (United Nations Development Programme, 2020). For example, pregnant working women are viewed as being more emotional, less competent, less committed to, and more likely to withdraw from, the organization (Cunningham & Macan, 2007). And the enactment of the two-child policy in China since the mid-2010s has led to a new wave of recruitment discrimination against female university graduates (Cooke, 2017).

            Nevertheless, minorities could influence the workplace in certain circumstances. For example, ethnic-racial minority employees are often treated unequally. Once they have power or leader position, they may attempt to reduce these inequalities (Cook & Glass, 2015). Although it has been argued that workforce diversity can enhance group performance and individual outcomes (e.g., Dreachslin, Weech & Dansky, 2004), the specific roles of the minorities are seldom mentioned, even less in Asian contexts. One theoretical possibility may come from minority influenced theory in sociology (Nemeth, 2012), in order to shed light on the role of minority in workplace diversity management. It is argued that it is possible for minority influence to overcome majority influence (Moscovici, 1980). Minority influence refer to a form of social influence, it takes place when a member of a minority group influences the majority to accept the minority’s beliefs or behaviour. So if minority groups appear flexible and compromising, they will be seen as less extreme and more reasonable, having a better chance of changing majority views (Mugny & Papastamou, 1980). People may not publicly agree with the minority position but they may state it privately, later or in a different form (David & Turner, 2001). Thus, we are curious about a question: what explanatory power does this and other theoretical perspectives have in conceptualizing workplace diversity management on minorities in workplaces in Asia?  

In this special issue, we call for research to shed light on diversity issues and practices in minorities to extend our knowledge in this field of research as well as to better integrate minorities at workplaces in the Asian setting. We welcome conceptual papers and empirical research related to minority groups (ethic and racial, gender, age, sexuality, etc.). Studies may adopt a wide range of theoretical perspectives and research methods to investigate minority issues at various levels, including cross-industry and cross-country analysis. In short, we would like to know more about “what is happening”, “why does this happen”, “what may the future hold”, “how minorities are influenced at work or influencing the workplace”, and “so what” for minority research, policy and management in Asia.

Examples of research topics

Specific topics that are relevant for this proposed special issue may include, but not restricted to, the following in the Asia context:

1. Obstacles hindering the effective management of diversity issues;
2. Factors contributing to the effective integration of minorities in organizations;
3. The phenomenon and effects of discrimination on minorities and trends of anti-discrimination in the workplace;
4. Differences in work perception, attitudes, behaviors, and experiences among the majority and minority groups;
5. Comparison of diversity management practices on minorities with non-Asian countries;
6. When and how minorities could influence the majorities at workplaces to build an inclusive culture;
7. The impact of having minorities participating in the top level governance of Asia organizations;
8. Any other topics that are relevant to the diversity and inclusion issues.

Submission deadline:  August 30, 2021

Submission Process and Highlights:
* All manuscripts submitted to this Special Issue will be reviewed by the normal process of APJM. Manuscripts must be submitted on or before August 30, 2021 to be included in this Special Issue.

* The guest editors of this Special Issue will arrange Professional Development Workshop (PDW) at the June 2021 Asia Academy of Management Meeting. Authors of papers submitted to this Special Issue may be invited to participate in this PDW so that they can meet the guest editors.

* For informal inquires related to the Special Issue, the PDW in AAOM 2021, proposed topics and potential fit with the Special Issue objectives, please contact the guest editors.

References

Cook, A., & Glass, C. 2015. The power of one or power in numbers? Analyzing the effect of minority leaders on diversity policy and practice. Work and Occupations, 42(2): 183–215.

Cooke, F. L. 2017. The two-child policy in China: A bless or a curse for the employment of female university graduates? In D. Grimshaw, C. Fagan, G. Hebson, & I. Tavora (Eds.), Making work more equal: A new labour segmentation approach (pp. 227–245). Manchester: Manchester University Press.

Cooke, F. L. and Kim, S. H. 2018. Routledge handbook of human resource management in Asia. London: Routledge.

Cunningham, J., & Macan, T. 2007. Effects of applicant pregnancy on hiring decisions and interview ratings. Sex Roles, 57(7–8): 497–508.

David, B., & Turner, J. C. 2001. Self-categorization principles underlying majority and minority influence. In J. P. Forgas & K. D. Williams (Eds.), Social influence: Direct and indirect processes (pp. 293–314). Philadelphia, PA: Psychology Press.

Dreachslin, J. L., Weech-Maldonado, R., & Dansky, K. H. 2004. Racial and ethnic diversity and organizational behavior: A focused research agenda for health services management. Social Science & Medicine, 59(5): 961–971.

Holman, E. 2018. Theoretical extensions of minority stress theory for sexual minority individuals in the workplace: A cross‐contextual understanding of minority stress processes. Journal of Family Theory & Review, 10(1): 165–180.

Kurzban, R., & Leary, M. R. 2001. Evolutionary origins of stigmatization: The functions of social exclusion. Psychological Bulletin, 127(2): 187–208.

Major, B., & O'Brien, L. 2005. The social psychology of stigma. Annual Review of Psychology, 56(1): 393–421.

Meyer, I. H. 2003. Prejudice, social stress, and mental health in lesbian, gay, and bisexual populations: conceptual issues and research evidence. Psychological Bulletin, 129(5): 674–697.

Moscovici, S. 1980. Toward a theory of conversion behavior. In L. Berkowitz (Eds.), Advances in experimental social psychology, (Vol. 13, pp. 209–237). New York, NY: Academic Press.

Mugny, G., & Papastamou, S. 1980. When rigidity does not fail: Individualization and psychologization as resistances to the diffusion of minority innovations. European Journal of Social Psychology, 10(1): 43–61.

Nemeth, C. J. 2012. Minority influence theory. In P. A. M. Van Lange, A. W. Kruglanski, & E. T. Higgins (Eds.), Handbook of theories of social psychology (pp. 362–378). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. 

United Nations Development Programme. 2019. Human development report 2019. Retrieved from http://hdr.undp.org/sites/default/files/hdr2019.pdf

Velez, B., Cox, R., Polihronakis, C., & Moradi, B. 2018. Discrimination, work outcomes, and mental health among women of color: The protective role of womanist attitudes. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 65(2): 178–193.

Special Issue Call for Papers

Organizing Organization for Responsible Innovation in Asia

Asia Pacific Journal of Management

Guest Editors:

Sanjay Kumar Singh, Ph.D.

College of Business, Abu Dhabi University, Abu Dhabi, UAE

Email: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

Manlio Del Giudice, Ph.D.

University of Rome “Link Campus”, Rome, Italy

Email: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

Arvind Malhotra, Ph.D.

Kenan-Flagler Business School, The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, USA

Email: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

Ann Majchrzak, Ph. D.

University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA

Email: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

Background and focus

Responsible innovation (RI) refers to taking interest in future through collaborative management of science and innovation in the present context (Stilgoe, Owen & Macnaghten, 2013). RI has focused on socio-ecological needs & challenges and committed to continuously engage relevant stakeholders to anticipate potential problems, mutual learning and improved decision-making (Wickson & Carew, 2014). Thus, the technological innovation needs to have any harmful consequences for the well-being the society and the environment at large (Swierstra & Jelsma, 2006). However, the evidences suggest for time lag between development of technology & understanding their positive & negative impacts, if any, on the health and the environment (Owen, Baxter, Maynard, Depledge, 2009). This suggests the need to invest in technological forecasting (Deuten, Rip & Jelsma, 1997) to minimize if any, the harmful effects of technological innovation. At the same time, we also find a mention of the inherent limitations associated with the regulatory frameworks and the risk management techniques to minimize the harmful consequence of technological innovation. To overcome these limitations, it has been suggested that the actors engaged in technological innovation act virtuously to realize the idea of responsible innovation (Pandza & Ellwood, 2013). Therefore, the business organization engaging in the process, service, & product innovation(s) while leveraging scientific research and technological developments in the field should be responsible for its potential negative consequences, if any, on the human being, the society, and the planet. In other words, responsible innovation asks agents involved in technology innovation to follow regulatory & societal rules, norms, and principles (Pandza & Ellwood, 2013).

The collective role of innovators and/or innovating organization(s), especially as social actors, needs to be responsive to each other from ethical, sustainable and societal desirability perspectives.  Responsible innovation is not a new concern but remains an important theme of research and innovation practice with different framing across the time and the place (Genus & Stirling, 2018; Stilgoe et al., 2013). The literature on responsibilities, risk, and governance of science & technology goes back many years (Jonas, 1984). However, the four key dimensions of responsible innovation - anticipation, reflexivity, inclusion, and responsiveness (Stilgoe et al. 2013), require a fresh thinking and requires unpacking of theorizing responsible innovation in the context of organizing innovation-focused organizations in to address the triple bottom line (i.e., the people, the profit, and the planet) so as to satisfy concerns of all relevant stakeholders.

According to Stilgoe et al. (2013), anticipation (i.e., the systematic proactive thinking for socially robust risk research), reflexivity (i.e., the moral responsibility that asks for openness and leadership), the inclusion (i.e., inclusion of all impacted stakeholders), and the responsiveness (i.e., addressing grand societal challenges) is required for the governance of science & innovation. Extant literature suggests that organizations with focus on responsible innovation deploy innovative structures to engage with its stakeholders (Malhotra, Majchrzak & Niemiec, 2017), practices environmentally focused HRM practices (Singh, Del Giudice, Chierici & Graziano, 2020). Furthermore, the previous literature suggest responsible innovation to depend upon corporate ethical policies (Singh, Chen, Del Giudice & El-Kassar, 2019), use knowledge management tools (Santoro, Thrassou, Bresciani & Del Giudice, 2019) and proactively addressing the dark side of innovative business model (Malhotra & Van Alstyne, 2014).

Having said that, we know little about how to organize organization in Asian context to have reflexive character, engage in inclusive dialogues with key stakeholders, and be responsive to both present and future grand societal challenges. Similarly, the UN Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific (UNESCAP) argues for “most critical shift” necessary to attain ambitious 2030 Agenda that calls for integration of ‘people’, ‘planet’, and ‘prosperity’ components of sustainable development “in and through” science, technology and innovation (STI) policy (UNESCAP, 2016). UNESCAP (2016) makes it a point for the Governments in Asia and Pacific region of the world to institutionalize action-orientated STI programs in sync with the development strategies to attain the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) of the United Nations. Of course, it goes without saying that organizations across industry in Asia are mandated to organize themselves in a manner suited well to integrate ‘people’, ‘planet’, and ‘prosperity’ components of sustainable development goals of the UN through responsible innovation. In other words, the UNESCAP (2016) calls for contextualized management research with Asia relevance towards global contribution to scholarship on responsible innovation. Therefore, while building on bridging policy studies and innovation (Kern et al. 2019), digital transformation of innovation (Nambisan et al. 2019), inter-organizational relationship (Zhou, Wu & Li, 2019) and the bright & dark-side of political ties (Wang, Zhang, & Shou, 2019), this special issue focuses on questions that investigate how to organize an organization for responsible innovation in Asia. Adding to policy issues and digital transformation related to innovation, this special issue also aims to explore governance issues related to responsible innovation in Asia. Possible questions that this special issue intends to explore, but is not limited to, are:

• Does responsible innovation in an organization in Asia require responsible leadership across all the levels and the functions to be responsive to the grand societal challenges? And, if so, what kind of leadership is required for responsible innovation in organization in Asian context? 

• How can an organization in Asia reinforce a shift in responsible thinking amongst the actors wherein they reflexively and proactively consider what not do to more responsibly, going beyond just focusing on what to do, especially when it comes to the design of processes and products? 

• How should an organization be organized in Asia to absorb creative tension between technically feasible and societally viable innovation? Should an organization in Asia provide guidelines and frameworks for deployment and use of innovatively designed processes and market offerings to minimize negative societal impacts? What should such guidelines and frameworks be in Asia? 

• How can an organization be organized to anticipate societal impacts and making tradeoffs between commercial interests and societal interests in Asia? What are some of the processes and practices that enable proactively and reflexively making such tradeoffs in Asia? 

• What characterizes responsible HR systems in organization in Asia context to attract, develop, sustain, and retain talented actors who crave for openness and responsible leadership within cultures of science and innovation, especially in a multi-generational workplace, whereby each generation has a different notion of what is responsible innovation? 

• What dynamic capabilities help an organization in Asia to adjust its course of actions in response to new knowledge in the field, emergent viewpoints, and norms, and rapidly changing external context? 

• What kind of leadership and organizational culture develop and sustain systematic thinking to increase resilience, to decipher new opportunities for responsible innovation in Asia and to shape schemas for socially robust risk research? 

• What makes a value-sensitive organization in Asia that encourages the culture of openness and transparency to serve the aim of responsible innovation? 

• What organizational culture frameworks inculcate and strengthen social, ethical and political stakes of the organization in Asia that accompany techno-scientific advances? 

• What organizational design promotes institutional reflexivity in the governance of science and innovation in Asia? 

• What techno-structural interventions should an organization in Asia engage in to preempt the detrimental consequences of new technologies and new processes on the people and the planet? 

• Which organizational design in Asia encourages and sustains continuous engagement with relevant stakeholders and even inclusion of “non-experts” on scientific advisory boards with a clear purpose to expand the inputs to and delivery of governance of science and innovation? 

Submission Processes & Deadline:

• The paper submission deadline is July 31, 2021.
• Submissions be prepared as per Asia Pacific Journal of Management (APJM) submission guidelines: https://www.springer.com/journal/10490/submission-guidelines
• All submission to undergo APJM’s standard reviews & revisions after initial screening by the Guest Editors.

References

Deuten, J.J., Rip, A., & Jelsma, J. 1997. Societal embedding and product creation management. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 9(2): 131-148.

Genus, A., & Stirling, A. 2018. Collingridge and the dilemma of control: Towards responsible and accountable innovation. Research Policy, 47(1), 61-69.

Jonas, H. 1984. The imperative of responsibility: In search of an ethics for the technological age. Chicago: Chicago University Press.

Kern, F., Rogge, K. S., & Howlett, M. 2019. Policy mixes for sustainability transitions: New approaches and insights through bridging innovation and policy studies. Research Policy, 48(10), 103832.

Malhotra, A., & Van Alstyne, M. 2014. The dark side of the sharing economy… and how to lighten it. Communications of the ACM, 57(11): 24-27.

Malhotra, A., Majchrzak, A., & Niemiec, R. M. 2017. Using public crowds for open strategy formulation: mitigating the risks of knowledge gaps. Long Range Planning, 50(3): 397-410.

Nambisan, S., Wright, M., & Feldman, M. 2019. The digital transformation of innovation and entrepreneurship: Progress, challenges and key themes. Research Policy, 48(8): 103773.

Owen, R., Baxter, D., Maynard, T., Depledge, M. 2009. Beyond regulation: risk pricing and responsible innovation. Environmental Science & Technology, 43(14): 6902–6906.

Pandza, K., & Ellwood, P. 2013. Strategic and ethical foundations for responsible innovation. Research Policy, 42(5): 1112-1125.

Santoro, G., Thrassou, A., Bresciani, S., & Del Giudice, M. 2019. Do knowledge management and dynamic capabilities affect ambidextrous entrepreneurial intensity and firms’ performance?. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management. https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/abstract/document/8705657

Singh, S. K., Chen, J., Del Giudice, M., & El-Kassar, A. N. 2019. Environmental ethics, environmental performance, and competitive advantage: Role of environmental training. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 146: 203-211.

Singh, S. K., Del Giudice, M., Chierici, R., & Graziano, D. 2020. Green innovation and environmental performance: The role of green transformational leadership and green human resource management. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 150, 119762.

Stilgoe, J., Owen, R., & Macnaghten, P. 2013. Developing a framework for responsible innovation. Research Policy, 42(9): 1568-1580.

Swierstra, T., & Jelsma, J. 2006. Responsibility without moralism in technoscientific design practice. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 31(3): 309-332.

United Nation Economic and Social Council for Asia and the Pacific (UNESCAP 2016). Science, Technology and Innovation for Sustainable Development, Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific. Bangkok, Thailand. Available at https://www.unescap.org/sites/default/files/E72_32E.pdf (accessed May 12, 2020).  

Wang, T., Zhang, T., & Shou, Z. 2019. The double-edged sword effect of political ties on performance in emerging markets: The mediation of innovation capability and legitimacy. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 1-28. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10490-019-09686-w

Wickson, F., & Carew, A. L. (2014). Quality criteria and indicators for responsible research and innovation: Learning from transdisciplinarity. Journal of Responsible Innovation, 1(3): 254-273.

Zhou, J., Wu, R., & Li, J. 2019. More ties the merrier? Different social ties and firm innovation performance. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 36(2), 445-471.

Bio of Guest Editors:

Sanjay Kumar Singh, Ph.D. is an Associate Professor of Management in College of Business, Abu Dhabi University, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates (UAE). His research interests include HRM, knowledge, innovation, performance, sustainability and ethics. Dr. Singh has published in Journal of Business Research, The International Journal of Human Resource Management, Asia Pacific Journal of Management, Personality and Individual Differences, Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Journal of Knowledge Management, International Journal of Information Management, IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, and International Marketing Review. He can be reached at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.  

Manlio Del Giudice, Ph. D. is a Professor of Management, University of Rome “Link Campus” in Italy. He is affiliated as Research Full Professor of Entrepreneurship and Management at the Paris School of Business, in Paris, France. His research interests include knowledge management, entrepreneurship, Innovation, technology transfer, and cross-cultural management. Professor Del Giudice has published in Journal of World Business, Journal of International Management, Journal of Business Research, Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Journal of Knowledge Management, R & D Management, IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, The Journal of Technology Transfer, and International Marketing Review. He can be reached at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

Arvind Malhotra, Ph.D. is a Professor of Strategy and Entrepreneurship at Kenan-Flagler Business School, The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, USA. His area of research focus on crafting innovation problems, open innovation approaches, crowd creativity, crowdsourcing for innovation, using crowds to solve complex societal problems and the future of work. Dr. Malhotra’s research has been published in leading academic journals such as Harvard Business Review, Sloan Management Review, Academy of Management Perspectives, Information Systems Research, MIS Quarterly, Journal of Service Research, Journal of Services Marketing, Journal of Academy of Marketing Sciences, Manufacturing and Service Operations Management, Journal of Management Information Systems, Journal of Knowledge Management and Communications of the ACM. He can be reached at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

Ann Majchrzak, Ph.D. is a Professor of Data Science and Operations at USC Marshall School of Business, CA, USA. She researches on knowledge integration, digital and open innovation. Dr. Majchrzak has been published in MIS Quarterly, Journal of Management Information System, Academy of Management Perspectives, Academy of Management Review, Academy of Management Discoveries, Organization Science, Human Resource Management, California Management Review, Sloan Management Review, and Long Range Planning. She can be reached at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.