Call for papers – RFG – Special Issue – Gouvernance et financement des firmes entrepreneuriales innovantes: nouvelles perspectives

Gouvernance et financement des firmes entrepreneuriales innovantes: nouvelles perspectives

Rédacteurs invités:

Véronique Bessière, Université de Montpellier, IAE, MRM

Eric Stéphany, Université de Montpellier, IAE, MRM

Peter Wirtz, Université de Lyon, iaelyon school of management, Magellan

Date limite de soumission : 31 janvier 2020

 Creativity and Innovation Management – Call for Papers SI – Digital Two-Sided Platforms – Unveiling Research and Business Opportunities

Call for Papers – Digital Two-Sided Platforms

Unveiling Research and Business Opportunities

Special Issue Guest Editors

Politecnico di Milano

School of Management

Milan, Italy

Trinity College Dublin

Trinity Business School

Dublin, Ireland

Audencia Business School

Nantes, France

Politecnico di Milano

School of Management

Milan, Italy



This special issue calls for the submission of conceptual and empirical studies that tackle the specificities presented by digital platforms. We seek contributions that offer insights into process, organizational, individual, network or technological level on how platform-based digital businesses transform the theories, models and managerial practices.


“How can a major business segment be invaded and conquered in a matter of months by an upstart with none of the resources traditionally deemed essential for survival, let alone market dominance? And why is this happening today in one industry after another? The answer is the power of the platform—a new business model that uses technology to connect people, organizations, and resources in an interactive ecosystem in which amazing amounts of value can be created and exchanged.”

(Parker, Van Alstyne and Choudary, Platform Revolution, 2016)

This quote refers to companies such as Uber, AirBnb, BlaBlaCar that over the last years had a significant impact on the market. Those digital platforms are challenging established companies and approach a market with different business models, marketing philosophy, and supply chain configuration, all of which challenges decades of management research.

Yet, the business configuration behind these companies has a long history in the economic literature known as two-sided platforms. A two-sided platform (or formerly a two-sided market) is a business “in which one or several platforms enable interactions between end-users, and try to get the two (or multiple) sides ‘on board’ by appropriately charging each side” (Rochet and Tirole, 2006, p. 645). In other words, these businesses act as match-makers between two (or more) different but interconnected groups of customers: travelers and hosts for Airbnb or riders and drivers for Uber, creating indirect network effects (Katz and Shapiro, 1985).

The peculiarities of this market structure have been investigated over the last two decades in the economic literature. In particular, specific attention has been devoted to the pricing mechanisms and the role of the network externalities (Rochet and Tirole, 2006; Parker and Van Alstyne, 2005). The more recent literature highlights how the resource configuration behind these businesses is significantly different from the companies based on linear value chains (Amit and Zott, 2015) or how the development process can be particularly challenging (Perks et al., 2017). Furthermore, these companies need to design and manage complex business models based on a double value proposition (Muzellec et al., 2015), requiring to bring on board different kinds of customers at the same time to avoid the chicken-and-egg paradox (Strummer et al., 2018).

Two-sided platforms have also been used to describe a wide array of situations, being flexible to numerous configurations (Tauscher and Laudien, 2018) – for example having end users on both sides, or having consumers on one side and businesses on the other. The same structure has also been used to unveil the opportunities of digital services, opening new avenues to foster business model innovation (Trabucchi et al., 2017, 2018).

Innovation scholars leveraged this concept mainly to deal with users’ community and open innovation projects (e.g., Parmentier and Gandia, 2013; Wang et al., 2018) or dealing with the sharing economy phenomenon (Richter et al., 2017).

In particular, this call for papers aims to explore and exploit the opportunities related to multi-sided platforms, which are being boosted by digital technologies (such as mobile apps or the blockchain) and cultural trends (such as sharing or gig economy). Indeed, there is the need for rigorous and theoretically relevant research, being also practice based, in order to enhance the knowledge for all the players (scholars, practitioners, policy makers) involved in this innovative business models. Therefore, this call for papers aims to enlarge the discussion on the topic from a managerial perspective, embracing mainly an innovation perspective, to dig into the distinctiveness of multi-sided digital platforms.


In this special issue, we welcome both conceptual and empirical studies, using a wide variety of methods. Possible topics include, but are not limited to:

Process level

  • How to design and implement a platform-based digital business model?
  • How does the development of a platform-based digital business differ from a traditional product-based one?
  • What is the life-cycle perspective of two-sided digital businesses?
  • What are the key peculiarities of the different lifecycle phases (design, start-up, scale-up, mature stage etc.)?
  • How to manage ambidexterity and tensions between the multiple sides?


Organizational level

  • What are the challenges and opportunities of creating a multi-sided digital platform?
  • What are the challenges and opportunities of managing a multi-sided digital platform?
  • How to transform traditional business models in a digital ecosystem and platform-based perspective?
  • Which forms of leadership are needed to manage these complex ecosystems of relationships?
  • Which organizational forms are suitable to manage such businesses?


Individual level

  • What are the motivational drivers of either side for joining the platform?
  • How those motivational drivers differ between the two sides?
  • How do customers perceive the complementary (or contradictory?) value propositions proposed by the platform for each side?
  • How can we assess the value appropriation by users and customers, with regards to the value proposition?


Network level

  • How to collaborate across organizations with similar or different business models?
  • How those multi-sided digital platforms enhance the foundations of business ecosystems literature?
  • What is the role of coopetition dynamics in such digital environments?
  • What is the role of multi-sided platforms in the emergence of business ecosystems?


Technological level

  • What is the role of User Generated Big Data in such an environment?
  • How the mobile and App economy revise our understanding of multi-sided business models?
  • What may be the impact of emerging technologies (e.g., blockchain, deep-learning and IA) on these digital business configurations?


Submission Deadline and Review Process

The deadline for the submission of full papers is 31st August 2019.

All submissions should follow the author guidelines for CIM as published on the Journal website, see For any further information, please visit the Journal website or contact the special issue guest editors.


Amit, R., & Zott, C. (2015). Crafting business architecture: The antecedents of business model design. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 9(4), 331-350.

Katz, M. L., & Shapiro, C. (1985). Network externalities, competition, and compatibility. The American Economic Review, 75(3), 424-440.

Muzellec, L., Ronteau, S., & Lambkin, M. (2015). Two-sided internet platforms: A business model lifecycle perspective. Industrial Marketing Management, 45, 139-150.

Parker, G. G., & Van Alstyne, M. W. (2005). Two-sided network effects: A theory of information product design. Management Science, 51(10), 1494-1504.

Parker, G. G., Alstyne, M. W., & Choudary, S. P. (2016). Platform revolution: How networked markets are transforming the economy and how to make them work for you. WW Norton.

Parmentier, G., & Gandia, R. (2013). Managing sustainable innovation with a user community toolkit: The case of the video game Trackmania. Creativity and Innovation Management, 22(2), 195-208.

Perks, H., Kowalkowski, C., Witell, L., & Gustafsson, A. (2017). Network orchestration for value platform development. Industrial Marketing Management, 67, 106-121.

Richter, C., Kraus, S., Brem, A., Durst, S., & Giselbrecht, C. (2017). Digital entrepreneurship: Innovative business models for the sharing economy. Creativity and Innovation Management, 26(3), 300-310.

Rochet, J. C., & Tirole, J. (2006). Two‐sided markets: a progress report. The RAND Journal of Economics, 37(3), 645-667.

Rysman, M. (2009). The economics of two-sided markets. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 23(3), 125-43.

Stummer, C., Kundisch, D., & Decker, R. (2018). Platform launch strategies. Business & Information Systems Engineering, 60(2), 167-173.

Täuscher, K., & Laudien, S. M. (2018). Understanding platform business models: A mixed methods study of marketplaces. European Management Journal, 36(3), 319-329.

Trabucchi, D., Buganza, T., & Pellizzoni, E. (2017). Give away your digital services: Leveraging big data to capture value. Research-Technology Management, 60(2), 43-52.

Trabucchi, D., Buganza, T., Dell’Era, C., & Pellizzoni, E. (2018). Exploring the inbound and outbound strategies enabled by user generated big data: Evidence from leading smartphone applications. Creativity and Innovation Management, 27(1), 42-55.

Wang, K., Nickerson, J., & Sakamoto, Y. (2018). Crowdsourced idea generation: The effect of exposure to an original idea. Creativity and Innovation Management, 27(2), 196-208.

RSG – Numéro Spécial Parution : 2020 L’entreprise libérée aujourd’hui : enjeux et perspectives

Rédacteurs en chef invités
Pr. Annabelle JAOUEN
Montpellier Business School

Pr. Sylvie SAMMUT
Université de Montpellier

Pr. Isaac GETZ
ESCP Europe Business School

RSG appel à publi

L’entreprise libérée rencontre de plus en plus d’adeptes depuis quelques années. Ceux-ci voient en elle des innovations organisationnelles, managériales, voire sociales majeures (Getz, 2009 ; Getz & Carney, 2012 ; Jacquinot & Pellissier-Tanon, 2015 ; Vandermissen, 2015 ; Holtz, 2016). Cette démarche part du principe que d’autres formes d’organisation et de management sont nécessaires, notamment dans un contexte VUCA: l’un des postulats de ces approches, bien que différente, de l’entreprise libérée (p.ex. organisation agile, holacracy, organisation opale), est que le modèle classique d’entreprise a oublié l’homme. La Révolution Industrielle, qui a inauguré le modèle de la hiérarchie bureaucratique fondé sur la subordination et le contrôle, a été suivie de plusieurs évolutions, le taylorisme, le fordisme, la direction par objectifs ou encore la financiarisation de l’entreprise (Gomez, 2014). Toutes ont visé l’optimisation économique en traitant les salariés comme une ressource — la ressource humaine (Dupuis, 2015). Mesurée par l’augmentation du niveau de vie, cette optimisation a triomphé comme jamais encore aucune organisation de travail dans l’histoire (Maddison, 1991, 2004). Toutefois, au début du milieu des années 2000, l’adéquation du modèle classique au monde VUCA, aux attentes de jeunes générations ainsi que de la société en générale est mise en question (Halévy, 2013), tandis que les entreprises cherchent des approches organisationnelles et managériales différentes (Jaouen & Le Roy, 2013 ; Aigouy & Granata, 2017) et la société questionne les pratiques des entreprises qui laissent peu de place à l’homme et au sens (voir l’émergence des entreprises à mission, celles de « conscious capitalism », etc).

Une entreprise libérée est définie comme « une forme d’organisation dans laquelle les salariés sont totalement libres et responsables dans les actions qu’ils jugent bon d’entreprendre » (Getz, 2009, p. 35). Elle est donc un concept philosophique défini à partir de la fonction de l’entreprise (permettre la liberté et la responsabilité d’initiative) et non un modèle (ensemble de caractéristiques structurelles et organisationnelles) (Getz, ibid.). Le rôle d’un leader libérateur consiste justement à articuler la philosophie de l’entreprise libérée pour coconstruire avec les salariés le mode d’organisation libérée unique de leur établissement (Getz, 2012, 2017 ; Holtz, 2016). Ces entreprises font confiance à l’intelligence des salariés, reconnaissent la richesse et les dons de chacun et permettent que chacun puisse s’auto-diriger (Getz, 2009 ; Vanhée, 2013 ; Trouvé, 2014 ; Jacquinot & Pellissier-Tanon, 2015). Par conséquent–et non pas à cause d’un modèle quelconque imposé—ces entreprises possèdent moins de structures hiérarchiques et de pratiques de contrôle.


Dans le passé, un grand nombre d’approches organisationnelles alternatives au modèle classique ont été avancées sur le plan théorique (p.ex., sociocracy, empowerment, équipes semi-autonomes). Toutefois, la mise en place de ces approches ne se faisait que marginalement jusqu’au milieu des années 2000. La mise en place de l’entreprise libérée, bien que non-conceptualisée à l’époque, restait aussi marginale (Getz, 2009). C’est à partir du milieu des années 2000que la mise en place massive de l’entreprise libérée a vu le jour. L’entreprise libérée est aujourd’hui déployée à différents degrés dans des centaines d’entreprises et organisations, y compris de grandes institutions comme Airbus, Décathlon, Michelin ou la Sécurité Sociale, et surtout en France (Getz, 2017). En 2016, elle était jugée par un échantillon de 1600 managers français comme le sujet de management le plus important en France (Kalika et al., 2016). L’adoption de l’entreprise libérée exige une transformation majeure des pratiques traditionnelles de l’entreprise, celles-ci étant initiées et défendues par la direction (Holtz, 2016), la co-construction de l’organisation libérée se faisant avec les salariés (Breu, et al., 2001 ; Dyer & Shafer, 1999 ; Goldman & Nagel, 1993 ; Shafer, 1997 ; Shafer, et al., 2001 ; Van Oyen, Gel & Hopp, 2001), ainsi que le travail du dirigeant sur son lâcher prise et sa posture (Davids, Carney & Getz, 2018 ; Vanhee, 2013).

Ce numéro spécial vise à avancer l’état de l’art sur le sujet de la libération des entreprises. Il privilégiera les articles fondés sur une forte connaissance du terrain des entreprises libérées et/ou de leurs dirigeants (données primaires), mais n’écartera pas des articles susceptibles de mettre la philosophie de l’entreprise libérée dans une plus large perspective théorique. Au-delà de sa popularité, cette philosophie d’entreprise pose nombreuses questions. Plusieurs thématiques pourront être abordées :

  • Processus de libération et rôle du leader libérateur,
  • Conditions de faisabilité et prérequis organisationnels,
  • Motivation de dirigeants et de managers pour adopter ce process,
  • Conséquences humaines, organisationnelles et stratégiques de la libération de l’entreprise,
  • Place du salarié dans l’entreprise libérée,
  • Libération des PME : la petite taille facilite-t-elle les processus ? Quelles spécificités du processus de libération dans ce contexte ?

Au plan pratique, le processus d’adoption des concepts de l’entreprise suscite également un certain

nombre de questions :

  • Qu’est-ce qui motive les dirigeants d’entreprises à adopter cette philosophie d’entreprise
  • spécifique ?
  • Quels sont les traits caractéristiques de ces dirigeants ?
  • Comment impliquer les salariés et les managers dans le processus ?
  • Y’a-t-il des cas d’adoption initiés par les salariés ou partenaires sociaux sur le mode du corporate hacking ou autre ?
  • Comment accompagner la libération ?


Malgré le caractère massif de l’adoption du concept d’entreprise libérée par les praticiens de l’entreprise, ces processus d’adoption sont à l’origine de nombreux défis (Getz, 2012, 2017 ; Gilbert et al., 2017). Quelques démarches de libération se sont, par exemple, arrêtées malgré des succès économiques et sociaux reconnus (Henry et al., 2017). Ces défis constituent également autant de thématiques qui pourront être abordées dans ce numéro spécial :

  • Quel travail sur soi, quel changement de posture, ont conduit, ou pas, les leaders à adopter les concepts d’organisation alternative fondés sur la confiance ?
  • Quel accompagnement ont-ils proposé, ou pas, à leurs managers ?
  • Quelle attitude ont-ils adopté vis-à-vis des managers et/ou des salariés qui n’ont pas souhaité participer au processus de l’adoption ?
  • Ont-ils procédé, ou pas, à l’élaboration et au partage d’une vision, du « pourquoi » de leur
  • entreprise ?
  • Ont-ils travaillé, ou pas, avec les RH et les partenaires sociaux ?
  • Ont-ils impliqué ou pas leurs actionnaires ou organismes de tutelle ?
  • Comment mesurent-ils la réussite de leurs démarches ?



  • Réception des propositions d’articles : 30 juin 2019
  • Retour des évaluations aux auteurs : 15 octobre 2019
  • Réception des versions révisées : 30 janvier 2020
  • Retour des 2ndes évaluations aux auteurs : 30 avril 2020
  • Envoi des versions finales : 30 juin 2020
  • Date de parution du numéro spécial : Automne 2020

Consignes aux auteurs

Les propositions devront être conformes à la politique éditoriale de la revue, ainsi qu’aux normes de présentation. Les consignes de mise en forme sont accessibles sur le site internet de la revue ou sur le lien suivant :

Les propositions à envoyer à : Pr. Annabelle JAOUEN, Montpellier Business School,

Les propositions feront l’objet d’une évaluation en double aveugle. Les rédacteurs en chef invités s’engagent à respecter un délai rapide d’évaluation.



Aigouy C. & Granata J. (2017). L’implémentation de la simplification en tant qu’innovation organisationnelle et première étape d’un processus de libération : le cas de Volkswagen Groupe France, Revue Internationale de Psychologie et Comportements Organisationnels, vol. 23, n°56, p. 63-85.

Breu, K., Hemingway, C. J., Strathern, M., & Bridger, D. (2001). Workforce agility: The new employee strategy for the knowledge economy. Journal of Information Technology, vol.17, n°1, p. 21-31. Dupuy, F. (2015). La faillite de la pensée managériale. Paris : Seuil.

Dyer, L., & Shafer, R. A. (1999). From human resource strategy to organizational effectiveness: Lessons from research on organizational agility. In M. A. Wright, L. Dyer, J. Boudreau & G. Milkovich Strategic human resource management in the 21st century, Research in Personnel and Human Resource Management, Supplement 4 (p. 145-174). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Getz, I., (2009), Liberating leadership: how the initiative-freeing radical organizational form has been successfully adopted. California Management Review, vol. 51, n° 4 (traduit dans Getz, I. (2017), L’entreprise libérée : Comment devenir un leader libérateur et se désintoxiquer des vieux modèles, Fayard, p. 24-88).

Getz I. (2012), La liberté d’action des salariés : une simple théorie ou un inéluctable destin ?, Gérer et comprendre, n° 108, p. 27-38.

Getz I. (2017), L’entreprise libérée, Paris : Fayard.

Getz, I., Carney, B., (2012). Liberté & Cie : Quand la liberté des salariés fait le succès des entreprises. Paris :Fayard.

Gilbert, P., Teglborg, A. C., & Raulet-Croset, N. (2017). L’entreprise libérée, innovation radicale ou simple avatar du management participatif ? Gérer et comprendre, n° 1, p. 38-49.

Goldman, S. L., Nagel, R. N. (1993). Management, technology and agility: The emergence of a new era in manufacturing, International Journal of Technology Management, Vol. 8, n° 1-2, p. 18-38.

Halévy, M. (2013), Prospective 2015-2025, L’après-modernité, Paris : Éditions Dangles, Hamel G. (2008), La fin du management, Paris : Vuibert.

Henry, B., Godart, F., Berrada, M. (2017). Biscuits Poult SAS: Can Alternative Organizational Designs be Successful? INSEAD Case Study.  Holtz, T. (2016), Les pratiques managériales dans les entreprises libérées. Quelles singularités ? Quels impacts sur la qualité de vie au travail ? Le cahier des RPS, vol. 27, p. 27-38.

Jacquinot, P., Pellissier-Tanon A., (2015), L’autonomie de décision dans les entreprises libérées de l’emprise organisationnelle. Une analyse des cas de Google et de la Favi, Revue Internationale de Psychosociologie et de gestion des comportements organisationnels, vol 21, n°52, p. 365-384.

Jaouen, A., Le Roy, F. (Dirs.) (2013), L’innovation managériale, Paris : Dunod.

Kalika M., Liarte, S., Moscarola, J. (2016), Enquête FNEGE sur l’impact de la recherche en management, Paris : FNEGE.

Maddison, A. (1991), Dynamic forces in capitalist development, Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Maddison, A (2004), Contours of the world economy and the art of macro-measurement 1500-2001, Ruggles Lecture, IARIW 28th General Conference, Cork, Irlande.

Shafer, R. A. (1997). Creating organizational agility: The human resource dimension. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Cornell University.

Shafer, R. A., Dyer, L., Kilty, J., Amos, J., & Ericksen, J. (2001). Crafting a human resources strategy to foster organizational agility: A case study. Human Resource Management, Vol. 40, n° 3, p. 197- 211.

Trouvé, P. (2014), Observer les entreprises utopiques. Un exercice d’assouplissement mental ? Relief, vol 45, p. 67-87

Vandermissen, V., (2015). L’entreprise libérée : Un nouveau modèle de management pour l’économie sociale ?, Bruxelles : PLS.

Vanhée, L. (2013), Happy RH. Bruxelles : La Charte.

Van Oyen, M. P., Gel, E. G. S, Hopp, W. J (2001). Performance opportunity for workforce agility in collaborative and noncollaborative work system. IIE Transactions, Vol. 33, n° 9, p. 761-778.

 CALL FOR PAPERS Journal of Family Business Management Special Issue on “Responsible Ownershipin Family Firms: a focus on the Family”

SI_JFBM_Responsible Ownership_Final

Guest Editors:

Luis Díaz-Matajira (, Universidad de los Andes, Colombia

Kathleen Randerson (, Audencia Business School, France

Joshua J. Daspit (, Texas State University, USA

Cristina Aragón-Amonarriz (, Deusto Business School, Spain

Manuscript Submission Deadline: OCTOBER 1, 2019

The family’s involvement in firm governance is noted as a core driver that creates heterogeneity among family firms (Daspit, Chrisman, Sharma, Pearson, & Mahto, 2018). This form of governance allows the family to exert decision-making influence and control in the firm, while also pursuing actions that are for the good of the family (Carney, 2005). Although this governance form allows the family to exert control over the firm, the goals of the family and firm are not always aligned, and, in fact, can be quite divergent. Thus, for both the business and the family to succeed, responsible decision-making and responsible actions are paramount.

Responsible ownership is defined as the “active and long-term commitment to the family, the business, and the community, and [the ability to balance]these commitments with each other” (Lambrecht & Uhlaner, 2005). A responsible owner engages in behavior that serves the collective good of both the owners and the firm (Uhlaner, Flӧren, & Geerlings, 2007). When the family is in a governance role, responsible family ownership manifests when the family, as a group, is committed to balancing the rights and privileges of ownership with a long-term commitment to family and other (nonfamily) stakeholders of the firm (Aragón-Amonarriz, Arredondo, & Iturrioz-Landart, 2017).

Although studies are beginning to examine the effect of responsible ownership on family firm assets and outcomes (e.g., Berent-Braun & Uhlaner, 2012), even less is known about how family firms develop and sustain responsible ownership across generations. For example, Aragón-Amonarriz et al. (2017) suggest that family social capital preserves responsible family ownership across generations, yet Bergamaschi and Randerson (2016) note that differing types of family firms yield varied preferences for engaging in socially responsible actions. Further, while researchers are beginning to examine the various pathways used by families to instill responsible ownership in the future generation, these processes, intentions, and norms vary greatly across geographical and cultural contexts (e.g., González Couture & Díaz Matajira, 2015).

In all, given the nascent nature of insights and the growing importance of responsible governance, a special issue on responsible ownership promises to offers a substantial advancement to the field of family business. The objective of this special issue is to publish theoretical and empirical work that highlights notable progress and furthers understanding of responsible ownership in the family firm. A non-exhaustive list of possible topics includes:

  • How do family members become responsible owners? How do family firms strategicallyprepare current and next generation owners?
  • What is the role played by family values and/or different types of reciprocity in developingresponsible ownership that is sustainable in the family firm?
  • What theories from family science offer advanced understanding of how responsible familyownership is developed and leveraged in the family firm?
  • What are the effects of cultural, economic, institutional, and other contextual influences onresponsible ownership and the family?
  • How do family owners balance the responsibility of serving multiple stakeholders with oftendivergent interests?
  • How does responsible family ownership (simultaneously) affect family and firm financial,nonfinancial internal, and nonfinancial external outcomes?


Submission Guidelines: All submissions are subject to a standard double-blind review process. Manuscripts must be original, unpublished works not concurrently under review for publication at another outlet and are expected to follow the standard formatting guidelines for Journal of Family Business Management. Final manuscripts are to be submitted via the journal’s submission system ( no later than October 1, 2019. Authors should indicate “Special Issue” as the manuscript type and must clearly specify that the submission is for the special issue on “Responsible Ownership in Family Firms” in the cover letter. Publication of this Special Issue is expected for 2021. Workshop: Authors interested in further developing an idea for this special issue are encouraged (but not required) to submit an abstract to the European Institute for Advanced Studies in Management (EIASM) meeting that will be held at Audencia Business School in Nantes, France, May 23-25, 2019. The deadline for submitting conference abstracts is January 21, 2019. All conference submissions are to be made via the EIASM submission system ( Please note that acceptance to the workshop does not guarantee nor is it required for acceptance to the special issue. REFERENCES

Aragón-Amonarriz, C., Arredondo, A. M., & Iturrioz-Landart, C. (2017). How can responsible family ownership be sustained across generations? A family social capital approach. Journal of Business Ethics. DOI 10.1007/s10551-017-3728-7

Bergamaschi, M., & Randerson, K. (2016). The futures of family businesses and the development of corporate social responsibility. Futures, 75, 54-65.

Carney, M. (2005). Corporate governance and competitive advantage in family-controlled firms. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 29(3), 249–265

Berent-Braun, M. M., & Uhlaner, L. M. (2012). Family governance practices and teambuilding: Paradox of the enterprising family. Small Business Economics, 38(1), 103-119.

Daspit, J. J., Chrisman, J. J., Sharma, P., Pearson, A. W., & Mahto, R. V. (2018). Governance as a source of family firm heterogeneity. Journal of Business Research, 84, 293-300.

González Couture, G., & Díaz Matajira, L. (2015). The next generation: Pathways for preparing and involving new owners in Colombian family businesses. In P. Sharma, N. Auletta, R.-L. DeWitt, M. J. Parada, & M. Yusof (Eds.), Developing Next Generation Leaders for Transgenerational Entrepreneurial Family Enterprises (p. 49-75). Northhampton, MA: Edward Elgar.

Lambrecht, J. & Uhlaner, L.M. (2005). Responsible ownership of the family business: State-of-the-art, position paper prepared for FBN-

IFERA World Academic Research forum, EHSAL, Brussels, September.

Uhlaner, L.M., Flören, R. & Geerlings, J.R. (2007). Ownership commitment, family ownership and performance in the privately-held firm, Small Business Economics Journal, 29(3), 275-293.

Entreprendre & Innover Numéro Spécial :“Entreprise familiales et familles en affaires : L’entrepreneuriat est-il une affaire de famille ? ”

Appel à contribution numéro spécial

Site internet de la revue :

“Entreprise familiales et familles en affaires : L’entrepreneuriat est-il une affaire de famille ? ”

Rédacteurs :

Miruna Radu-Lefebvre (Audencia Business School) –

Céline Barrédy (Université de Lorraine) –

Alain Fayolle (EM-Lyon Business School) –

Numéro Spécial Entrepreneuriat familial – EI

Description du Numéro Spécial

Les entreprises familiales représentent la grande majorité des entreprises au niveau mondial que ce soit dans les pays développés ou émergents1. Selon Fanny Letier, directrice de l’activité PME à la banque publique Bpifrance2, 83% des entreprises françaises en font partie, toute taille et secteur confondus. Pourtant, ce n’est que depuis quelques décennies que le champ disciplinaire du « family business » a vu le jour et démarré son développement, en parallèle et souvent de manière étanche par rapport au champ disciplinaire connexe, celui de l’entrepreneuriat. Ces deux champs se sont structurés et développés séparément, avec leurs propres spécialistes et leurs propres terrains, leurs modèles théoriques, leurs journaux et leurs conférences dédiées. Pourtant, leur proximité est réelle3 et leur dialogue nécessaire en raison du rôle reconnu joué par la famille dans la genèse et la transmission de l’esprit entrepreneurial et des compétences entrepreneuriales, également de l’intention entrepreneuriale ou encore des comportements entrepreneuriaux4. C’est ce qui explique l’émergence, lors des dernières années, d’un nouveau champ de recherche, « l’entrepreneuriat familial », situé à l’intersection de l’entrepreneuriat, du family business, de la sociologie et de la psychologie de la famille.

Si le champ du family business s’intéresse aux entreprises familiales caractérisées comme des entreprises dont la propriété et/ou le contrôle reviennent majoritairement à une ou des famille(s) dont l’intention est de transmettre l’entreprise de génération en génération5, l’entrepreneuriat familial englobe ce champ tout en le dépassant. Il pose comme objet d’étude central le phénomène entrepreneurial au sein des familles en affaires et des entreprises familiales. Le focus de l’entrepreneuriat familial relève ainsi de l’étude des pratiques et des comportements entrepreneuriaux des individus, des familles, et des entreprises6.

Pourquoi s’intéresser au phénomène entrepreneurial dans ce cadre précis de la famille et des entreprises familiales ? En effet, il a été montré que la pérennité et la croissance des entreprises familiales multigénérationnelles dépendent étroitement de la présence et de l’importance des pratiques et des comportements entrepreneuriaux chez les membres de la famille, comme chez les employés et les managers externes7.

L’environnement sociodémographique, légal, économique et culturel des familles en affaires évolue rapidement au travers du monde. Ces évolutions influencent à la fois le comportement des membres des familles en affaires mais également celui des entreprises familiales elles-mêmes. Des enjeux de définition de la famille, des questions liées au genre et aux nouvelles ambitions et revendications des femmes, l’intérêt croissant à la fois de la sphère économique et de la sphère politique pour les impacts sociaux et environnementaux des entreprises transforment en profondeur le paysage dans lequel les entreprises familiales opèrent aujourd’hui. Les contours légaux de la famille au premier rangs desquels les familles recomposées, l’adoption ainsi que leurs évolutions récentes comme le mariage homosexuel ou encore la procréation médicalement assistée pour toutes les femmes, interrogent les dynamiques entrepreneuriales et leur évolutions consécutives dans le cadre de l’entreprise familiale. Pour bien comprendre les dynasties familiales, il faut prendre en compte le droit de la famille8. les dispositifs institutionnels de soutien de l’entrepreneuriat et du repreneuriat, ainsi que le cadre institutionnel relatif à la transmission intergénérationnelle de la propriété de l’entreprise familiale affectent les choix relatifs à la création et à la transmission de ces entreprises dans le cadre de la famille ou à un tiers9.

Les propositions traiteront, entre autres, des sujets suivants :

  • Comment se transmet l’esprit entrepreneurial au sein des familles en affaires ? Quels rôles jouent l’histoire familiale, les interactions avec le dirigeant, les apprentissages formels et informels dans cette transmission ?
  • Quelles pratiques entrepreneuriales peut-on observer au sein des familles en affaires et comment peut-on les étudier et les appréhender, à travers quels choix méthodologiques et quelles approches théoriques ?
  • Quel est l’impact des comportements entrepreneuriaux (ou intrapreneuriaux) du dirigeant, du successeur, ou des managers externes sur la performance des entreprises familiales ?
  • Comment les membres des familles en affaires gèrent-ils la superposition de rôles sociaux appartenant à des univers distincts (famille, entreprise, actionnariat) lorsqu’ils lancent de nouvelles activités au sein de l’entreprise ou souhaitent introduire des innovations, changer d’orientation stratégique ou revisiter l’identité organisationnelle ?
  • Quels outils formels et informels la famille mobilise-t-elle pour transmettre et / ou générer l’esprit d’entreprendre au sein des nouvelles générations ?
  • Les doctrines institutionnelles conduisent-elles à des comportements entrepreneuriaux distincts au sein des familles ?


Consignes aux auteurs

Vous trouverez l’intégralité des consignes sur le site de la revue :


Ligne éditoriale

La revue Entreprendre et Innover est une revue de vulgarisation de haut niveau dans le domaine de l’entrepreneuriat et de l’innovation édité par DeBoeck Université. Son ambition est de mettre à la portée d’un lectorat de cadres, entrepreneurs, professionnels des réseaux de création d’entreprises et dirigeants d’entreprises, des articles originaux, solides sur le plan scientifique ou innovants sur le plan des idées exprimées, sans s’accaparer des oripeaux des publications académiques. La revue est ouverte à TOUTES les disciplines et à TOUS les points de vue qui s’intéressent à l’entrepreneuriat et à l’innovation.

Dans la mesure où cette revue s’adresse en priorité à des praticiens, nous restons attentifs à ce que les contributions aient une préoccupation d’applications pratiques, d’implications entrepreneuriales et/ou de recommandations en matière politique.

Dans cet esprit, les contributions devront :

  • Avoir une section faisant explicitement référence à ces préoccupations : le lecteur doit toujours pouvoir se dire en fin de lecture : et alors ? en quoi cet article m’aide à agir ou à mieux réfléchir pour mon action future ?
  • Adopter un langage plus concret et opérationnel qu’il n’est d’usage dans les revues académiques : la théorie ne doit pas être absente mais vulgarisée, c’est-à-dire traduite en termes simples. Les concepts abstraits doivent être explicités et/ou illustrés par des exemples pratiques.
  • Ne pas accumuler les références scientifiques : le but est de choisir quelques auteurs de référence utiles pour comprendre le propos, non de montrer l’exhaustivité de la littérature académique sur le sujet. Les références scientifiques doivent être exclusivement citées grâce aux notes de bas de page.



Les principales dates à retenir sont les suivantes : Soumission des textes originaux31 Mars 2019
Retour vers les auteurs30 Juillet 2019
Date limite d’envoi des textes révisés30 Octobre 2019
Publication du numéroDécembre 2019



1 Gedajlovic, E., Carney, M., Chrisman, J. J., & Kellermanns, F. W. (2012). The adolescence of family firm research taking stock and planning for the future. Journal of Management, 38 (4): 1010–1037.

2 Arriver, D., & Jacquot, B. (2016). Les entreprises familiales toujours au coeur de l’économie, Le Figaro, 14 décembre.

3 Sharma, P., Hoy, F., Astrachan, J. H., & Koiranen, M. (2007). The practice-driven evolution of family business education. Journal of Business Research, 60(10), 1012-1021.

4 Aldrich, H. E., & Cliff, J. E. (2003). The pervasive effects of family on entrepreneurship: Toward a family embeddedness perspective. Journal of business venturing, 18(5), 573-596.

Fayolle, A., & Bégin, L. (2009). Entrepreneuriat familial: croisement de deux champs ou nouveau champ issu d’un double croisement?. Management international, 14(1), 11-23.

5 Chua, J. H., Chrisman, J. J., & Sharma, P. (1999). Defining the family business by behavior. Entrepreneurship theory and practice, 23(4), 19-39.

6 Bégin, L., Chabaud, D., & Richomme-Huet, K. (2010). Vers une approche contingente des entreprises familiales. Revue française de gestion, (1), 79-86.

Bettinelli, C., Sciascia, S., Randerson, K., & Fayolle, A. (2017). Researching Entrepreneurship in Family Firms. Journal of Small Business Management, 55(4), 506-529.

Chabaud, D. (2013). Les entreprises familiales au coeur de l’entrepreneuriat?. Le grand livre de l’entrepreneuriat. Paris, Dunod, 157-172.

Chabaud, D., & Sammut, S. (2014). Entrepreneuriat et entreprises familiales, de la proximité à un champ de recherche spécifique. Revue de l’entrepreneuriat, 13(3), 7-10.

Radu-Lefebvre, M.., & Lefebvre, V. (2016). Anticipating intergenerational management transfer of family firms: A typology of next generation’s future leadership projections. Futures, 75, 66-82.

7 Randerson, K., Bettinelli, C., Fayolle, A., & Anderson, A. (2015). Family entrepreneurship as a field of research: Exploring its contours and contents. Journal of Family Business Strategy, 6(3), 143-154.

Randerson, K., Dossena, G., & Fayolle, A. (2016). The futures of family business: family entrepreneurship. Futures, (75), 36-43.

8 Marcus, G. E. (1991). Law in the development of dynastic families among American business elites: The domestication of capital and the capitalization of family. Family Business Review, 4(1), 75-111.

9 Barrédy, C. (2016). In search of future alternatives for family business: Family law contributions through Civil and Common Law comparison. Futures, 75, 44-53.

Jaskiewicz, P., Combs, J. G., & Rau, S. B. (2015). Entrepreneurial legacy: Toward a theory of how some family firms nurture transgenerational entrepreneurship. Journal of Business Venturing, 30(1), 29-49.


CfP – Journal of Management Inquiry Developmental Conference – Enhancing Entrepreneurship Education research and practice

Enhancing entrepreneurship education research and practice: Challenging taken-for granted assumptions and dominant perspectives

Journal of Management Inquiry Developmental Conference and Dialogue Call For Papers.

Convenors and Guest editors

Alain Fayolle – – EMLYON Business School

Michela Loi – – Department of Economic and Business Sciences – University of Cagliari

 Dialogue JMI pmdeh AF 09072018

Convenor and JMI supervising Editor

Pablo Martin de Holan – – MBS College of Business & Entrepreneurship, Saudi Arabia


Financial Times: Do you have any advice to young would-be Entrepreneurs who want to emulate your success?

Gerald Cavendish Grosvenor (Duke of Grosvenor, Chairman of Great Portland Estates, Owner of Grosvenor group): Make sure they have an ancestor who was a very close friend of William the Conqueror.


Background and objectives of the Dialogue

Entrepreneurship has been taught for over 50 years in business schools, engineering schools and universities worldwide (Katz, 2003; Solomon 2007; Vesper & Gartner, 1997), and is becoming a core pillar of several Business Schools around the world. Over the years, the teaching of entrepreneurship has developed into a branch of research, namely, entrepreneurship education (EE), the interest of which is to understand what, how and to whom entrepreneurship should be taught (e.g. Fiet, 2001; Honig, 2004; Neck & Green, 2011) and what results should be expected from these kinds of programmes (Peterman & Kennedy, 2003; Pittaway & Cope, 2007). Several contributions have focused on the nature of EE as a research field, questioning its maturity and legitimacy (Katz, 2003; Kuratko, 2005) or its standards (Katz, Hanke, Maidment, Weaver, & Alpi, 2016).

EE research is currently facing a particular challenge; not only it lacks academic legitimacy but it is also striving to achieve relevance in practice (Fayolle, Verzat, & Wapshott, 2016). Consequently, and as Fayolle (2013) states, EE needs more robust theoretical and philosophical foundations that draw on both entrepreneurship and education fields to support the development of effective courses and programmes, and to distinguish between those that are, and those that are not.

For instance, the literature in EE often describes the structure and content of entrepreneurship courses and programmes but fails to appropriately question their philosophical and methodological foundations, which might be important if we were to better understand the essence of entrepreneurship (Johannisson, 2016). Another important concern is the vagueness of EE goals (Hoppe, 2016), and, in some cases, its disconnect with larger social forces, such as inequality. Some studies, for example, affirm that EE is becoming increasingly complex as its contexts of application (with respect to the heterogeneity of both the locales where entrepreneurship is taught, but also the type of people who receive EE and the specificities of their backgrounds) are diverse and each of them might be highly peculiar (Lindh & Thorgren, 2016) with boundary conditions that may make generalizations problematic.

This concern concurs with the inherent difficulty of developing effective EE programmes along with the assessment of its results. The impact of EE is, indeed, a relevant issue for several studies in this field (Nabi, Liñán, Fayolle, Krueger, & Walmsley, 2017). Empirical observations reveal contrasting findings in that respect (Walter & Block, 2016), suggesting that multiple truths might coexist regarding the effects of EE on people and territories. This could kindle scholars’ interest in different questions that shift the emphasis from ‘whether’ to ‘when’ or ‘for whom’ EE is effective or ineffective (e.g., Lyons & Zhang, 2018) so as to help determine to what extent entrepreneurship can be taught, what dimensions of it can and should be taught, and with what methodologies. Consequently, we wish to ask a broad question: how should the field develop to tackle these drawbacks and to increase its relevance and impact from a theoretical and practical perspective?

Here, we invite scholars to highlight the taken-for-granted assumptions that beset the field of EE, and to reflect on how to break away from them and move this field forward.

The principal aim of this reflection is to offer new propositions and perspectives that challenge the previous ones, and bring more texture and nuance to the field of EE. In this vein, we would like to open a debate around the major shortcomings of EE and open the space for new questions, new solutions and new research paths to be developed. To this end, we call for papers that embrace a critical approach in discussing their perspectives. By following previous critical approaches in entrepreneurship (e.g., Fayolle, Landström, Gartner, & Berglund, 2016; Frank & Landström, 2016), we consider perspectives that offer alternative ways of knowing and understanding in the field of EE to be critical.

Without limiting the creative insights of those authors who wish to participate in this debate, we highlight three areas that bring together possible ideas to guide scholars to identify and address the assumptions that have been taken for granted in EE: Newness, Diversity and Ethics.1

New ideas have an important role in scientific progress (Kuhn, 1970); they might challenge previous positions and open paths for new questions. In this call for papers, Newness is intended as the fact of not having existed before and includes questions that reflect on what represents innovation for EE. The questions are intended to highlight issues that require a deeper consideration in this field. Examples of these questions are as follows:

  • What is really ‘New’ in EE and why might this newness be of interest to EE? Is “new” systematically better?
  • Is there something that we have forgotten to study?


We claim that Diversity, intended as a range of many people or things that are very different from each other, is a peculiarity of EE. The field stems from and merges together two different scientific domains, namely, education and entrepreneurship. EE is applied in very different contexts (universities vs professional associations); is oriented towards different targets (students, nascent entrepreneurs and entrepreneurs) and has different goals (Bae, Qian, Miao, & Fiet, 2014; Liñán, 2004). While this variety might be a source of richness for new ideas to arise, it might also prevent the process of defining EE objectives and impacts. In this call for papers, Diversity is meant to cover questions that try to address the complexity of EE, to recompose the fragmented puzzle and to make its multiple dimensions more understandable:

  • What is the role, as well as impact, of theoretical and practical diversity in EE?
  • How does diversity in geographical contexts, educational settings, institutions, people, audiences, teachers and programmes influence EE?


Ethics, intended as moral principles or rules of behaviour, becomes a central issue in EE. This is due to its centrality in policymakers’ discourse that emphasises the quality of being entrepreneurial as a resource for the social and economic progress of society. The potential impact of these policies should call scholars to reflect on the influence of their research that is thought to enlighten the political agenda. In this call for papers, Ethics embraces all those questions that reflect on the implications and consequences of EE programmes in relation to their pedagogical approaches, evaluation methods, goals and so on. Possible questions are as follows:

  • Do we think about moral principles and rules when we address the teaching of entrepreneurship? Under what conditions or circumstance EE leads to immoral or amoral behaviours?
  • What does it mean to be ethical when students are taught or educated regarding entrepreneurship? How to educate Ethical Entrepreneurs? How does EE affect ethical intentions and behaviours among students?
  • How do EE teachers and researchers deal with their assumptions that they have taken for granted?

Authors are requested to try to connect these three areas to present an original contribution to the field of EE. Both theoretical and empirical contributions are welcomed.



This call for papers is divided into two parts: an earlier one for a developmental conference, and a second one for the Dialogue itself. Initially, we are inviting scholars to submit manuscripts that are finalized or relatively advanced. Each contribution will be evaluated through a double-blind review process but using a developmental lens: the objective of this initial review is to facilitate the Academic conversation around the theme, and help authors develop their manuscripts.

Accepted contributions and their authors will be invited to be presented and discussed at a mini-conference that will be held in February/March 2019 at the EMLYON Business School (Lyon-France). This conference is developmental in nature, and seeks to ensure that a robust, high-quality academic dialogue emerges among participants around a common conversation. Authors will be invited to present their manuscript and will receive feedback for development. After the conference, the best contributions (a maximum of six) will be invited for inclusion in the Dialogue Section of the Journal of Management Inquiry.

The papers presented for consideration in order to be included at the EMLYON Developmental Conference should adhere to the guidelines of the Journal of Management Inquiry, requiring that manuscripts to conform to the Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association (6th edition) (Guidelines for authors can be found here:

The papers invited for publication will follow the standard format of JMI´s “Dialogue” section. Please find here additional information about the Journal of Management Inquiry:; and a sample of the “Dialogue” section:


Submission process

  • Paper submission: 31 December 2018
  • Round 1 review: 30 January 2019
  • Mini-conference: February/March 2019
  • Submission of the revised papers: 02 June 2019
  • Selection of the papers: 30 September 2019
  • Publication date: 2020

For any further information, please contact the editors at the email addresses provided above.




Bae, T. J., Qian, S., Miao, C., & Fiet, J. O. (2014). The relationship between entrepreneurship education and entrepreneurial intentions: A meta‐analytic review. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 38(2), 217-254.

Fayolle, A. (2013). Personal views on the future of entrepreneurship education. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 25(7-8), 692-701.

Fayolle, A., Landstrom, H., Gartner, W. B., & Berglund, K. (2016). The institutionalization of entrepreneurship: Questioning the status quo and re-gaining hope for entrepreneurship research. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 28(7-8), 477-486.

Fayolle, A., Verzat, C., & Wapshott, R. (2016). In quest of legitimacy: The theoretical and methodological foundations of entrepreneurship education research. International Small Business Journal, 34(7), 895-904.

Fiet, J. O. (2001). The pedagogical side of entrepreneurship theory. Journal of Business Venturing, 16(2), 101-117.

Frank, H., & Landström, H. (2016). What makes entrepreneurship research interesting? Reflections on strategies to overcome the rigour–relevance gap. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 28(1-2), 51-75.

Honig, B. (2004). Entrepreneurship education: Toward a model of contingency-based business planning. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 3(3), 258-273.

Hoppe, M. (2016). Policy and entrepreneurship education. Small Business Economics, 46(1), 13-29.

Johannisson, B. (2016). Limits to and prospects of entrepreneurship education in the academic context. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 28(5-6), 403-423.

Katz, J. A. (2003). The chronology and intellectual trajectory of American entrepreneurship education: 1876–1999. Journal of Business Venturing, 18(2), 283-300.

Katz, J. A. (2008). Fully mature but not fully legitimate: A different perspective on the state of entrepreneurship education. Journal of Small Business Management, 46(4), 550-566.

Katz, J. A., Hanke, R., Maidment, F., Weaver, K. M., & Alpi, S. (2016). Proposal for two model undergraduate curricula in entrepreneurship. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 12(2), 487-506.

Kuhn, T. S. (1970). The structure of scientific revolutions (Second Edition). Chicago: University Press of Chicago.

Kuratko, D. F. (2005). The emergence of entrepreneurship education: Development, trends, and challenges. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 29(5), 577-598.

Lindh, I., & Thorgren, S. (2016). Entrepreneurship education: The role of local business. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 28(5-6), 313-336.

Liñán, F. (2004). Intention–based models of entrepreneurship education. Piccola Impresa/Small Business, 3, 11–35.

Lyons, E., & Zhang, L. (2018). Who does (not) benefit from entrepreneurship programmes?. Strategic Management Journal, 39(1), 85-112.

Nabi, G., Liñán, F., Fayolle, A., Krueger, N., & Walmsley, A. (2017). The impact of entrepreneurship education in higher education: A systematic review and research agenda. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 16(2), 277-299.

Neck, H. M., & Greene, P. G. (2011). Entrepreneurship education: known worlds and new frontiers. Journal of Small Business Management, 49(1), 55-70.

Peterman, N. E., & Kennedy, J. (2003). Enterprise education: Influencing students’ perceptions of entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 28(2), 129-144.

Pittaway, L., & Cope, J. (2007). Entrepreneurship education: a systematic review of the evidence. International Small Business Journal, 25(5), 479-510.

Solomon, G. (2007). An examination of entrepreneurship education in the United States. Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development, 14(2), 168-182.

Vesper, K. H., & Gartner, W. B. (1997). Measuring progress in entrepreneurship education. Journal of Business Venturing, 12(5), 403-421.

Walter, S. G., & Block, J. H. (2016). Outcomes of entrepreneurship education: An institutional perspective. Journal of Business Venturing, 31(2), 216-233.

Appel à Contributions Territoire inclusif – Rimhe – Chaire Entrepreneuriat Territoire & Innovation

RIMHE en partenariat avec la Chaire ETI invite les contributeurs à présenter des résultats de travaux théoriques et empiriques récents permettant d’orienter les pratiques de management en favorisant l’émergence de territoires inclusifs.

Le développement de partenariats sur un territoire fait l’objet de nombreuses études. Appréhendé comme une zone d’activités ou un écosystème entrepreneurial, le territoire représente alors un espace dédié au développement économique. Les répercussions en matière de création d’emplois sont bien identifiées et définissent bien souvent la seule dimension sociale des initiatives locales.

Dans cet appel à contributions, nous souhaitons renverser le rapport entre l’économique et le social pour aborder le territoire comme porteur d’un projet de société inclusive dont il s’agit de définir les modes de développement économique.

  • L’inclusion est souvent définie comme le négatif de l’exclusion et ramenée à l’insertion des demandeurs d’emploi ou des groupes discriminés. Quelles sont les approches novatrices ?
  • La notion de territoire suppose l’existence de frontières ou de délimitations. Le territoire inclusif est-il un territoire ouvert ? Comment se différencie-t-il d’un territoire porteur d’exclusion ?
  • Comment développer le caractère inclusif des territoires ? Quels sont les marges et les leviers d’action des managers et des entrepreneurs ? ceux de l’Etat, des collectivités territoriales et autres formes d’organisations ?

Ces orientations ne sont pas limitatives des soumissions attendues. Le comité de rédaction constitué pour cet appel à contributions accueillera avec grand intérêt toutes les pistes de réflexion sur cette thématique en privilégiant la présentation de résultats d’études empiriques permettant de développer de nouveaux modèles de management ou de nouvelles pratiques.

La RIMHE, la Revue Interdisciplinaire, Management, Homme & Entreprise (Management & Human Enterprise) est une revue scientifique dont l’objectif est de publier sous forme numérique et imprimée des articles de recherche sur le management des entreprises dans tous les domaines de gestion et suivant une conception plaçant les êtres humains au coeur de ses préoccupations.

Une priorité est accordée aux travaux menés par des équipes pluridisciplinaires sur les problématiques propres aux sciences de gestion.

En complément des contributions sélectionnées après évaluation en double aveugle par deux à trois membres de notre comité scientifique et plusieurs tours de relecture, trois autres rubriques peuvent être ouvertes dans chaque numéro publié pour : – des chercheurs d’autres disciplines ou des experts reconnus sollicités en “auteurs invités” ; – une “note de lecture” sur un nouvel ouvrage de référence ; – un “retour d’expérience” rédigé par des professionnels.

Quatre numéros sont publiés par an avec une parution datée par saison : hiver, printemps, été, automne.


Rédacteur invité pour cet appel :

Didier Chabaud

Date limite d’envoi des articles :

15 octobre 2018

Adresse mail d’envoi des textes complets :

Normes de publication : Le format de la RIMHE est à respecter dès la 1ère soumission.

Un workshop sera organisé à l’IAE de Paris le 29 novembre pour les auteurs dont l’article aura été inscrit dans le processus d’évaluation de la RIMHE après soumission de leur proposition.

Appel à contribution: Entreprendre & Innover – Special issue on “hybrid entrepreneurship”

Entreprendre & Innover, revue trimestrielle, va publier un dossier spécial en anglais sur le thème: “hybrid entrepreneurship”.

Pour consulter le contenu original du site de la revue :

Invited editor:

– Marcus Drescher (AGER Consultant)


– Alain Fayolle (EM-Lyon business school) fayolle @

– Bernard Surlemont (HEC-Liège Business school from Liège University) b.surlemont @

Special issue

Over the last decades, entrepreneurship became a very popular topic in most developed countries. Despite this success, academics still fail to reach a consensus about the definitions of Entrepreneurship and Entrepreneurs. For example, questions such as: “Are Intrapreneurs, entrepreneurs?” or “Are Franchisees real entrepreneurs?” are still debated among many researchers. Over the last few years the emergence of new phenomena have blurred the frontiers of entrepreneurship even further. The number of part-time entrepreneurs and freelancers has surged all over the world. In many developed countries the legal framework of social status is evolving in such a way that the frontier between the employee status and the self-employed status is fading away. Not to mention, the consequences of the booming phenomenon of the, so called, sharing economy. The « uber’s » and « airbnb’s » of this world are contributing to the emergence of new forms of “self-employment”, micro-entrepreneurs and business models that are challenging most industry incumbents and policy makers. Finally, students and retired persons tend to be more and more engaged into jobs that could be characterized as entrepreneurial or, at least, self-employed. All these emerging phenomena could be labeled under the umbrella of “Hybrid Entrepreneurship”.

In this special issue, we would like to invite contributions that could help our community to a better understanding of these phenomena and to enlighten their implications for entrepreneurs, support organizations and policy makers. Any research, interview, data analysis, opinion, cases that could contribute to achieve this are welcome. To pilot this special issue with the editorial board we invited as a guest editor, Marcus Drescher. He is the European coordinator of the Amway Global Entrepreneurship Report (AGER). This international study measures the public pulse of self-employment around the world[1] and is providing policy recommendations in many countries to favor self-employment.

While Entreprendre & Innover is a review that is usually published in French, this special issue will be published in English in order to address an international audience.

Editorial line

« Entreprendre & innover » is a high level outreach review in the entrepreneurship and the innovation field, edited by an International Publisher. Its aim is to publish strong scientific and innovative articles to corporate executives, entrepreneurs and business leaders, without the artifacts of academic publications.

The review addresses all fields of studies and all the different points of view that are related to entrepreneurship and innovation. As this review targets practitioners, we are very cautious that contributions have practical implications and include some recommendations being for entrepreneurs, supports organizations, managers or policy markers.

As a consequence, contributions are expected to:

  • Have a section referring to these concerns: The reader should always tell himself after the reading: « Then what? » “How does this article helps me through acting or thinking better about my future actions?”
  • Use a concrete and operational language than the one used in Academic reviews. Theory should not be absent, but rather popularized. Which means to be translated into simple terms. Abstract concepts must be explicit, explained and/or illustrated with practical examples.
  • Not to accumulate scientific references. The purpose is to choose some useful key opinion authors to better understand the topic, and not to show the completeness of the Academic literature. The scientific references must be exclusively mentioned in footnotes.

Each edition offers a very specific theme, which is used as a guideline for the reader. However, “ out of context” contributions remain welcomed for the review.

We are looking for contributions for a special edition to be published in March 2018.


Intention of communication (to give and confirm interest, summary of the topic within a few lines and the kind of contribution)End of June 2017
Submission of the textsAt the latest the 1st of October 2017.
Final selections of contributionsJanuary 2018
ReleaseMarch 2018

You can communicate your propositions/suggestions via e-mailing

– Marcus Drescher (

– Alain Fayolle (

– Bernard Surlemont (

Kind of contributions

The contributions will be from different kind and are complementary.

  1. Research articles with a sharp managerial/entrepreneurial slant.
  2. Articles presenting studies results or key figures.
  3. Articles representing international benchmarks. The purpose is take advantage of the international nature of the redaction Committee to show and offer different experiences from different countries about a given topic.
  4. The summary of a recent publication for purpose of a reader’s digest.
  5. Substantive articles or analyses based on the experience or the authors.
  6. Iconoclasts or provocative articles that generate a debate with different points of views.
  7. Interviews
  8. Case studies
  9. Articles translated « in extenso » or summed up from the master copy articles published in some international professional reviews.

The authors are specifically asked to conclude their articles with a minimum 15-line section to present the practical implications (Entrepreneurial or policy) of their contribution and/or a concluding comment expressing a personal opinion from the author about the discussed topic.

Directives for authors

1° Articles format


ARIAL – or equal

Size 12 preferred

Double interlining

Numbered pages (Function « insertion/pages numbers »)

2° Presentation

Articles Title

Always suggest at least one, even if it might be modified because for the purpose of balancing the table of contents. The title should not exceed six words.


To type after the title: names and surnames, duties, establishment or attachment organism, address, email and phone numbers.


A few lines about your background and your articles will help the editorial team to write a short biography.


Use the « Insertion/note » from Word. Notes and references, in « Entreprendre & Innover » are shown in the bottom of the pages, and not as a standard bibliography at the end.

Be careful to the length of notes: the review is designed for practitioners. It is not an academic review, be concise!

Diagrams, tables, graphs

Diagrams, tables, graphs are welcomed.

The PowerPoints will be send separately, together with the text.

Boxed texts

They enable to reduce the text and highlight some key elements. The boxed texts could be examples, good practices, testimonials, …

The boxed texts should not exceed 2,000 to 2,500 characters. They might be three or four by article.


The review editorial board is responsible for the “Headings” (subtitles, main points, …)

Nevertheless, you are more than welcome to suggest some.

3° Calibration

The respect of is essential to be edited. Calibration is calculated “including spaces” and covers all texts, boxed texts included.

Size of contribution should not exceed:

Editorial: 2 700 characters                        Articles: Between 18 000 and 28 000 characters

Interviews:12000 characters                      Books reviews: 12000 characters 

4° Style and visibility rules


The typographic code is the following Domenach (Jean-Luc) and Richer (Philippe), China, Paris, Le Seuil, 2008, p. 175-183.

Plan article announcements

Avoid introducing your text in this way: “In the first part of this article we will speak of this and secondly, we will explain that” …

In that vein, it is unnecessary to write “Introduction” and “Conclusion”. If the reasoning is limpid, the reader doesn’t need to be taken by the hand.

Headlines levels

Avoid paragraphs numbering like:



However, it is strongly recommended to use styles to highlight the reading levels.

For example: Title (body of the text: 16 bold, centred)

Inter (body of the text 14, bold)

Inter 2 (body of the text 12, underline, indent)

  • Bullet point

Normally, three reading levels are enough/

Style of the review

Being designed for professionals, the review is intended to be simple, direct and concrete. That must be apparent with the style of the writing. Avoid repetitions of subordinates (“we use to think that… “we have found that…”), avoid spells and convoluted words too (especially when they do not figure in the dictionary).

5° Rereading and Rewriting

The submitted articles are valued by at least one member of the editorial board. They must fit with a readership composed of practitioners and are supposed to respect some editorial rules (layout, police, etc.). For those reasons, articles are likely to be rewrite, modified or shortened. These potential modifications are strictly form changes. The articles content will never be changed without prior consent of the authors.