From the pioneering work by Martin Seligman (1999) and Cameron et al. (2003), work devoted to positive organizational behavior scholarship (Caza, 2015)within organizations rapidly spread across the world. These works explore the factors unlocking the potential of individuals by stressing their strengths. Sense needs to be created, positive emotions and qualitative workplace relations have to be cultivated in order to harvest all of individuals’ psychological resources and guarantee the organization’s proper functioning (Spreitzer & Cameron, 2012). The studied areas have three irreducible characteristics: they can be potentially developed, evaluated, and linked to performance at work. The levels of analysis can draw on experiences, subjective positive states or even on ‘virtuous’ (Fineman, 2006) institutions and organizations.

Within a POS perspective, care and treatment of negative phenomena, such as stress, work-related illnesses, and degraded relationships do not necessarily induce the emergence of positive scholarship (Carson & Barling, 2009, p. 680).  Mitigating work dissatisfaction is not enough to insure well-being at work. More generally, the cohabitation and interaction between positive and negative behavior could even explain the building of new skills (Fredrickson & Losada, 2005). The general ambition of this research field is to initiate an ascending spiral by developing positive scholarship rather than simply trying to stop the negative dynamics.

Many concepts fall within this scope. Some are already familiar in the field: satisfaction, commitment, creativity, trust, justice and organizational citizenship, support, cooperation, etc. Others seem more innovative in the field of management science: it is the case for well-being at work, psychological boundaries, that is to say resilience (an all-the-rage concept in the COVID-19 pandemic context), but also for optimism, self-efficiency, forgiveness and hope, and vitality (Wohlers, Hartner & Hertel, 2017), emotional intelligence (Kotsou et al, 2018),  collective bravery (Quinn & Worline, 2008), positive deviance (Leigh & Melwani, 2019), endogenous resourcefulness (Feldman, 2004), of compassion (Lilius et al., 2012), organizational virtue (Meyer, 2018), etc. These new propositions may overlap with traditional concepts. If it is not the case, each of these notions should have its own way of showing that the individual, the group, and the organization might find new growth levers in wisdom, enthusiasm, positive energy, generosity, gratitude, empowerment, empathy, joy, pleasure, perseverance, tolerance and compassion. These propositions have already been at the heart of many debates within the most-renowned academic journals such as the Academy of Management Review. Special issues like the Journal of Organizational Behavior and academic lectures were devoted to these different themes in America. The francophone world is rather absent from these discussions. Is it due to a strong cultural imprint: the positive organizational behavior scholarship field would only make sense across one side of the Atlantic? The development of these positive states however, have both an economic and social consequences potentially able to unlock the potential of individuals with organizations. In this respect, they are of interest to management sciences.

The following list offers potential research questions authors could explore for RIPCO Research Day: (The list is not meant to be exhaustive.)

• What are the boundaries of the « positive » organizational behavior scholarship?
• What are the existing differences and overlap between OB’s traditional concepts and those who appear more innovative?
• How should we measure novel concepts such as positive deviance, organizational energy, sustainable value, etc.?
• What are universally positive phenomena? Which phenomena are independent from cultural and organizational contexts?
• How could a positive state emerge from negative phenomena? More generally, what are the antecedents and mechanisms during which positive states develop?
• What are the respective roles of personality and individual traits and the organization in the development of positive phenomena?
• What are the personal and organizational consequences of positive states?
• What role(s) can staff representative bodies in general and trade unionism in particular play in developing and sustaining positive attitudes and behaviors?
• Which HRM approach is best suited for achieving which positive state(s)?
• Which training practices transform individuals’ attitudes and influence positive behaviors?
• How to transform the innovative concepts of this field into management and consulting practices?

The proposals can be submitted in the form of an extended abstract or full paper (in a Word document or PDF format).

The proposals can be written in French or in English and should not exceed 1,500 words, 1.5 line spacing in Times New Roman font 12pt. They must contain the following information: the title, the theme (positive organizational scholarship or other themes), the names of all the authors, their institutions, their contact information, the context, the issue, the methodological instrumentation, the main results and conclusions, the limits and references (in the APA norm). The full texts, in English or French must comply with the RIPCO submission guidelines. Go to ripco-online.com/en/soumission.asp for more information.

The proposals are only submitted via email at: soumission_jr2021@ripco-online.com

The best research works dealing with positive organizational scholarship will be pre-selected in order to be published into a RIPCO special issue. Having your paper pre-selected does not signify that it has been selected for a definitive publication in the special issue.  The authors of these proposals will be given a 3-month period beyond the Research Day to submit the full texts of their works on the journal’s website: ripco.manuscriptmanager.net/ripco. The manuscripts must comply with the submission guidelines at RIPCO: ripco-online.com/en/soumission.asp. They will follow the usual double-blind peer reviewing process.

The best papers dealing with other themes will be considered for publication in the journal’s regular issues.

Bright, D., S. & Exline, J.,J. (2012). Forgiveness at four levels: interpersonal, relational, organizational, and collective-group. In K.S., Cameron and G.M., Spreitzer (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of positive organizational scholarship (pp. 244–259), New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Caza, B., B. (2015). An introduction to positive organizational scholarship. In A.J.G. Sison (Ed.), Handbook of virtues ethics in business and management (pp. 1-14). Dordrecht: Springer Ed.
Cameron, K.,S., Dutton, J.,E., & Quinn, R.,E. (2003). Positive organizational scholarship: Foundations of a new discipline. San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler Publishers Inch.
Carson, J., & Barling, J. (2009). Work and well-being. In S.R. Clegg and C.L. Cooper (Eds.), The Sage handbook of organizational behavior. California: Thousand Oaks.
Feldman, M.,S. (2004). Resources in emerging structures and processes of change. Organization Science, 15(3), 295-309.
Fineman, S. (2006). On being positive: Concerns and counterpoints. Academy of Management Review, 31(2), 270-291.
Fredrickson, B., & Losada, L. (2005). Positive affect and the complex dynamics of human flourishing. American Psychologist, 60(7), 678-686.
Leigh, A. & Melwani, S. (2019). Black employees matter: Mega-threats, identity fusion, and enacting positive deviance in organizations. Academy of management review, 44(3),  564-591.
Lilius, J., M., Kanov, J., M., Dutton, J. E., et al. (2012). Compassion revealed: What we know about compassion and work (and where we need to know more) In K.S., Cameron & G.M. Spreitzer (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of positive organizational scholarship, (pp. 273–287). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Meyer, M. (2018). The evolution and challenges of the concept of organizational virtuousness in positive organizational scholarship. Journal of Business Ethics, 153(1), 245-264.
Quinn, R. W., & Worline, M. C. (2008). Enabling courageous collective action: Conversations from United Airlines flight 93. Organization Science, 19(4), 497-516.
Kotsou, I., Mikolajczak, M., Heeren, A., Grégoire, J., & Leys, C. (2019). Improving emotional intelligence: A systematic review of existing work and future challenges. Emotion Review, 11(2), 151-165.
Seligman, M. E. (1999). The president’s address. American psychologist, 54(8), 559-562.
Spreitzer, G., & Cameron, K. (2012). Applying a POS lens to bring out the best in organizations. Organizational Dynamic, 2(41), 85–88.
Wohlers, C., Hartner, M., & Hertel, G. (2017). The Relation between activity-based work environments and office workers’ job attitudes and vitality. Environment and Behavior, 51(2), 167-198