Introduction to “Breaking New Ground: Social Movement Theory and the Cincinnati Union Co-ops”

Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal -     

Introduction to “The Dual-Agency Problem of Labor Union Pension Fund Shareholder Activism”

Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal -     

A Limitless Urban Theory? A Response to Scott and Storper's ‘The Nature of Cities: The Scope and Limits of Urban Theory'

The recent article in this journal by Scott and Storper (2015) suggested that the field of urban studies currently contains a multitude of varied theoretical viewpoints and argued for a unified general urban theory encompassing all urban scholarly work. Their proposal is that such a theory is based upon a foundational understanding of agglomeration and clustering. This response counter‐argues this, suggesting that such a proposal leaves urban theory too instrumental, deterministic and economistic. Moreover, Scott and Storper argue that there is a need to isolate the urbanization process from a wider suite of social, cultural and economic processes in which the urban is said to be ‘embedded'. If we are to embrace a unified urban theory, however, it should be one which views cities as differing intensities of an urbanization process, and does not try to draw arbitrary boundaries about what is and what is not a city. If we are to strive for a general urban theory, then it would be far more beneficial to champion an ontology of an urbanization process with varying degrees of (de)intensification.     

The currency of talent management—A reply to “talent management and the relevance of context: Towards a pluralistic approach”

In this paper we provide a commentary on the article in this Special Issue by Thunnissen, Boselie, and Fruytier on the relevance of context to the field of talent management. We concur that a more critical, pluralist approach to talent management scholarship is needed, that talent management should go beyond a mere economic exchange between talent and their employer, and that further research is needed to explore the link between macro, meso and micro level considerations. Thunnissen, Boselie, and Fruytier pose insightful questions about the contribution of talent management to the social and moral development of society and legitimating talent management at meso level. For us, these questions raise issues about the extent to which individual agency in ethical issues is possible in environments designed to regulate and control talent. We suggest that underexplored notions of strategic exchange and individual identity provide a richer picture of the talent employment relationship and raise a number of possible directions for future talent management research.