Building on the success of its annual research days since 2019, RIPCO is renewing its event on June 6, 2024, at the ICN premises in Paris, La Défense. Researchers are invited to submit the extended abstract of their academic work as soon as possible. All themes are welcome as long as they fall within the scope of organizational behavior, encompassing individual and/or collective attitudes and behaviors within the organizational framework. We are particularly interested in the psychological processes that contribute, in one way or another, to the life and performance of work teams and organizations as a whole.

Proposals can take various forms: narrative, systematic, meta-analytic, or bibliometric literature reviews synthesizing available scientific knowledge on a topic, but also conceptual analyses proposing new theoretical frameworks, and, of course, empirical analyses conducted through experimentation, questionnaires, or qualitative case studies. Social phenomena can be studied per se or in relation to their antecedents and/or consequences. The approaches used to support the contributions belong to management sciences, particularly organizational behavior, or, where appropriate, disciplines such as psychology (including social psychology), ethnology, sociology, anthropology, philosophy, political science, economics, information technology, decision theories, etc.

This year, the Research Day will focus particularly on well-being and malaise at work. While the study of malaise at work is almost contemporary with the diffusion of Taylor's principles in organizations, the emergence of the theme of well-being in management sciences is more recent. It truly emerged at the turn of the 2000s when positive psychology invited the scientific community to study optimal human functioning (Seligman, 1999). Changes as varied as the expression of new expectations at work, the drying up of traditional managerial performance levers, the adoption of new forms of organizations and work, but also the sudden and recent intrusion of artificial intelligence in many professions, encourage refining, or even revising, the knowledge held as acquired on the subject. Also noteworthy is the recent emergence of critical literature on contemporary management (Genoud, 2024; Le Garrec, 2021) that does not spare the notion of well-being at work, which some scientists or practitioners denounce as part of new managerial strategies aimed at putting pressure on employees to make them even more productive. This recent literature enriches more traditional critical theories (see, for example: Barley & Kunda, 1992; Evans, 1999; Landsberger, 1958; Muldoon, 2017). At a time when well-being at work becomes a managerial and management issue in organizations, and is sometimes apprehended as a right rather than a privilege by many employees, we are particularly interested in at least four research avenues this year.

Proponents of positive psychology have long noticed that the prevention and treatment of negative phenomena - e.g., stress, burnout - do not mechanically induce the emergence of positive phenomena (Carson & Barling, 2009). Initiating an upward spiral cannot rely solely on stopping negative dynamics (Roberts, 2006). In life in general, it has been suggested that negative affects can even coexist with positives: for example, uncertainty about the persistence of current happiness can be a source of anxiety, kindness can expose one to the risk of exploitation, authenticity can penalize the quality of social relationships, and conversely, anger or stress can sometimes be energizing. An excess of kindness in work relationships could lead to "turning a blind eye" to certain dysfunctions and, ultimately, to penalizing the sustainability of the organization. These claims are essentially theoretical. They lack empirical support. Field data collected in the contemporary world of work could, to this end, answer questions such as:

• Well-being and malaise at work, new "bullshit" managerial phenomena or tangible and measurable realities?
• What dimensions of malaise can coexist with which dimensions of well-being in the workplace? At what individual and collective cost?
• What managerial practices explain the coexistence of well-being and malaise at work? What dimensions are incompatible with each other?
• Do new capacities arise from the interaction between positive and negative states?
• Do reactions to the professional world depend on professions, organizations, generations, or economic periods? To what extent can we influence their causes?
• Do positive and negative dynamics operate as a mirror or are they different?
• What would be the criteria for well-being and malaise at work? How does the cultural dimension allow us to relativize their scope and their ability to reach a consensus?
• What have been the recent episodes in history that have made an impression through trials, debates, controversies brought to the public's attention?
• Who are the figures, authorities, or institutions that are legitimate to intervene either by setting rules based on principles or by introducing rewards or punishments to sanction certain behaviors?
• Is well-being at work compatible with "societal malaise" (wars, conflicts, crises, solastalgia, anxieties related to climate change)?
• Are well-being and malaise at work specific to individual characteristics, professions or jobs, sectors of activity?
• Can art, creation, and creativity alter well-being and malaise at work?

If well-being and malaise at work have objective dimensions, they also constitute individual subjective constructs. These are indeed feelings that are probably not governed in all employees by the same antecedents. What suits one may not necessarily satisfy another. For instance, the autonomy granted in the workplace can be perceived as a source of fulfillment or, on the contrary, as a lack of organization and management. The employee's personal history, career path, current situation, personality, expectations, and the quality of relationships within the organized group color these interpretations. In such a context, the application of standardized managerial practices should not be recommended. The likelihood that they do not influence positive and negative affects in the same way is high. Beyond team managers, well-being and malaise at work seem to be both a collective responsibility in the sense that they also depend on the quality of the interaction between each member of the organization. Well-being at work could, in this respect, have an allocentric dimension that is still largely in the shadow of academic research. Different questions arise from these conjectures:

• Under what conditions can personal well-being at work converge with the collective well-being of the workgroup?
• How to investigate this topic to objectify facts or, conversely, leave more room for subjective representations?
• Are there criteria that seem to characterize organizations and organizational behaviors producing/leading to well-being at work and their opposites?
• How to personalize managerial practices favorable to well-being without penalizing the sense of organizational justice?
• Are well-being and malaise at work contagious?
• Well-being and malaise in their organizational context: what about the work climate and organizational culture?
• What management or human resource management practices can influence well-being and malaise?
• What are the underlying explanatory mechanisms of allocentrism in well-being at work?
• Does malaise at work have an allocentric dimension?
• Does the diversity of well-being and malaise scores in the same work team penalize collective performance? What are the underlying processes?

The sudden irruption of new information and communication technologies, as well as artificial intelligence (AI), in the world of work could disrupt many social balances found so far. These new technologies still suffer from an unstable definition today. Nothing abnormal about that if we consider that there are many forms of human intelligence. Despite these still uncertain foundations because they are always evolving, very many professions could, or not (Andler, 2024), be transformed in the very short term. The positioning of employees in this unprecedented digital environment will have to be rethought. The effects on their well-being/malaise have not yet been systematically questioned. Will "augmented employees" (Gaillard, 2024) be happier at work because they are more productive, or on the contrary stressed at the idea of being replaced by the Machine? The questions, not to say fears, are numerous as the potential for functionalities and possible uses is still difficult to grasp:

Are new information and communication technologies, and in particular AI, sources of new forms of well-being or malaise at work?

• Under what conditions can AI improve the well-being experienced in workplaces? What uses are, on the contrary, not recommended?
• What does AI do to us?
• How to describe, interpret, and understand AI outside the technical and technological framework?
• Does AI make employees smarter, more productive, and happier at work?
• What changes does AI introduce within the hierarchy of professions in organizations?
• What are the individual and collective effects of the organizational implementation of new information and communication technologies and AI on psychological health at work?
• What are the consequences in terms of well-being/malaise of the encounter between artificial intelligence, algorithmic and calculative, and human intelligence, whose cognitive biases are described by Kahneman (2012)?
• Are new forms of technological dependence developing at work?
• Could AI reinforce or, on the contrary, weaken professional inequalities?
• Could AI put an end to bullshit jobs?
• Could AI reinforce or even generalize the impostor syndrome (Chassangre, 2015)?
• Can art, creation, and creativity change the sense of dispossession caused by AI?

The fourth theme we wish to specifically address is sectoral. It concerns the well-being/malaise of teaching and research staff in higher education management sciences (Schools, Universities). It should, therefore, interest most participants in the research day. Hyper-competitiveness and rapid internationalization for some, bureaucratization and impoverishment for others, have given rise to new forms of pressure on staff. Individual and collective resilience has become a sine qua non in this sector. Even though there is not yet a national observatory instituted at this level of study like the one set up in school institutions (Bechichi & Blouet, 2024), numerous testimonies reveal a situation where professional vocation coexists with more or less latent malaise. In this logic, many gray areas deserve to be illuminated:

• How to explain the malaise of at least some teaching and research staff whose status is nevertheless envied by the general public?
• What does work consist of today for teaching and research staff? How are work teams composed? How are tasks, responsibilities, and duties distributed?
• Is there an adequacy between the means and objectives available in the components, laboratories, and teams? What criteria allow objectifying this situation? Can we observe an evolution over the last decades and years?
• Should we select more or differently at the entrance to the university?
• Is the "publish or perish" principle a source of bad conscience for some and professional exhaustion for others? How to position oneself to preserve one's well-being?
• What are the professional and organizational issues specific to the profession of teaching and research staff in higher education management sciences (Schools, Universities) affecting psychological health in this sector?
• Are teaching and research staff replaceable by online devices or robots?
• Does the job security in force in universities have its social shadow side?
• Should the specialization of teaching and research staff be strengthened or attenuated?
• What individual defense mechanisms can be developed in the academic environment to preserve professional conscience and well-being at work?
• What must we learn anew to exercise our profession honorably and to our personal satisfaction?

• Andler, D. (2024). Intelligence artificielle, intelligence humaine: la double énigme. Ed. Gallimard, Paris.
• Barley, S.R. & Kunda, G. (1992). Design and devotion: Surges of rational and normative ideologies of control in managerial discourse. Administrative science quarterly, 37(3), 363-399.
• Bechichi N. & Blouet L. (2024). Les leviers du bien-être au travail des enseignants du second degré - Les enseignements du Baromètre du bien-être au travail des personnels de l’éducation nationale. Note d'Information, n° 23.42, DEPP.
• 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.
• Chassangre, K.& & Callhan, S. (2015). Traiter la dépréciation de soi - Le syndrome de l'imposteur. Ed. Dunod, Paris.
• Evans, P.A.L. (1999). HRM on the edge: A duality perspective. Organization, 6(2), 325-338.
• Gaillard, R. (2024). L’homme augmenté, Futur de nos cervaux. Ed. Grasset, Paris.
• Genoud, C. (2024). Leadership, agilité, bonheur au travail. Bullshit! En finir avec les idées à la mode et revaloriser (enfin) l’art du management. Paris: Vuibert.
• Guillandre, H. (2017). Intelligence artificielle : Homme augmenté ou homme substitué ? Humanisme, 316, 25-30.
• Kahneman, D. (2012). Système 1 / Système 2 : les deux vitesses de la pensée. Ed. Flammarion,
  Paris.
• Landsberger, H. A. (1958). Hawthorne Revisited: Management and the Worker, Its Critics, and Developments in Human Relations in Industry. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University.
• Le Garrec, S. (2021). Les servitudes du bien-être au travail. Toulouse: Editions érès.
• Muldoon, J. (2017). The Hawthorne studies: An analysis of critical perspectives, 1936-1958. Journal of Management History, 23(1), 74-94.
• Roberts, L. M. (2006). Shifting the lens on organizational life: The added value of positive scholarship. Academy of management review, 31(2), 292-305.
• Seligman, M. E. (1999). The president’s address. American psychologist, 54(8), 559-562.

Extended abstracts must be written in French or English and should be between 2,000 and 4,000 words in length, single-spaced, using 12 pt Times New Roman font. To inform the decision of the scientific committee of the research day, these summaries must mandatorily contain the following information: the title, the theme, the names of all authors, their affiliation(s) and contact details, the study context, the research question, the methodological instrumentation (if applicable), the main results, the primary conclusions, the limitations, and the references presented according to APA standards accessible on the RIPCO website. As one of the goals of the day is to foster exchanges and discussions between researchers and practitioners, proposals for communications may correspond to ongoing research. However, they must be original, meaning not published by a journal as of the submission date.

Authors are also asked to provide a short biography and their contact details to facilitate networking.

Proposals must be submitted exclusively by email to the following address: soumission_jr2024@ripco-online.com

The research day will take place on June XX, 2024. It will be held in person this year to promote scientific interactions and exchanges.

• Deadline for submission of the extended abstract: April 19, 2024
• Feedback from the RIPCO scientific committee: Mai 6, 2024

The best papers addressing the Focus of the Day themes will be shortlisted for inclusion in a special issue of RIPCO. The pre-selection of a paper does not constitute a final acceptance for publication in the special issue.  The authors of these papers will have three months after the research day to submit full papers on the journal website: ripco.manuscriptmanager.net/ripco. Manuscripts must follow the guidelines for manuscript preparation and submission: ripco-online.com/EN/submission.asp. They will follow the usual double-blind editorial process.

Papers on a different theme may be invited to be submitted for publication in regular issues of the journal.