Academy of Management

AMP Open Call for Papers
2026-01-01 00:00 - 2027-01-31 23:59 (America/New_York) | Kopaonik
Submission Deadline: 31 January 2026

Submit to AMP

ATTENTION! Please disengage the autopilot. Check the muscle memory. We do not want more of the same. Academy of Management Perspectives (AMP) is different.

Are you thinking of submitting a manuscript to AMP? We appreciate your interest. We have a terrific global team of engaged editors eagerly awaiting the opportunity to help develop your work. But please send us papers that fit our unique mission.

AMP publishes papers that matter to managers. Our field has called for managerially relevant work for decades. AMP is here to help realize this important goal. Problem is, our field is not accustomed to relevance. And so out of habit, many send us papers that don’t fit our mission.

If your paper is theory driven, it is NOT suited to AMP. AMP is a journal of first choice for papers that inform managerial practice and policy. We are not a backstop for papers that miss at AMJ, AMR, or other top theory-driven journals. It’s not enough to add managerial implications onto a paper rejected at such journals. AMP papers must be managerially driven from the start.

Do the contents of your paper inform the practice of management in a specific and significant way? After reading your paper, did we learn something new and meaningful about an important aspect of how to manage and govern an organization? Does your paper provide evidence ample to drive managers (including policy makers) to reconsider a particular practice? We will assess your paper by these criteria, and so should you. But be as honest and objective about the relevance of your work as possible. Don’t fool yourself with vague sentiment about broad influence on generic aspects of management. Ask others for their views of your work – especially practitioners. Consider co-authoring with practitioners. But understand: If it is not relevant to managers, then it is not relevant to AMP.

While relevance is our most prominent characteristic, it does not come at the expense of rigor. AMP does NOT publish papers that lack rigorous original analysis. Though our mission differs, our analytical standards are the same as those of other elite journals. Opinions, overviews, descriptive arguments, philosophical treatise, etc. are not within our purview, even if they convey interesting perspectives on management. The managers who rely on AMP content need evidence, not conjecture. So, the claims of an AMP paper must be supported with stringent scholarly analysis. This robust analysis may be empirical (quantitative or qualitative) or conceptual.

Finally, AMP does NOT use the exact same format as other AOM journals. Yes, the fonts and indents and all that good stuff are the same. But because AMP papers must be accessible to a non-specialized audience, we do a few things differently. For one, we use endnotes. For another, we place detailed analyses in supplements and only summarize them in the body of the paper. This allows AMP manuscripts to run about 20 body pages in length, not the standard 30+. We also favor plain language over jargon. And, of course, rather than tack on managerial implications at the end of a paper, AMP papers make the practical case from the start.

To sum up, AMP papers are RELEVANT, RIGOROUS, and READABLE. This means that they must do all of the following:

Inform an issue of evident importance to managerial practice and/or policy, and

Engage in rigorous and original conceptual or empirical analysis, and

Concisely and clearly convey key ideas to a non-specialized audience

For more details, please see these editorials:

(Re)building a Bridge between Scholars and Practitioners: Get AMPed!

Management Practice and Policy: A Guide to Writing for AMP

Mattering Matters: Explaining what Fits at Academy of Management Perspectives

An AMP paper must achieve all of the above criteria, but there is no single format for doing so. Below, we provide a sample format. If you have a better way, we are all ears – so long as it produces a rigorously relevant & readable paper.

Sample Format for an AMP Manuscript

Abstract and title. An AMP paper begins with an engaging but accurate title and a concise abstract of no more than 200 words. Provide potential readers with enough, but only just enough, information to quickly and accurately determine if the article is relevant to them. The abstract should state: a) the important managerial issue motivating the paper; b) how the paper analyzes this important issue; c) what the analysis finds; and d) how these findings substantively affect practice/policy.

Introduction. The content of an introduction overlaps with that of an abstract, but the introduction adds detail. Nevertheless, as with all aspects of an AMP paper, it should be concise. View it as a sort of executive summary. Open with a paragraph or two that draws the reader in, then briefly overview the paper’s structure. Limit the introduction to two double-spaced pages.

Problem statement. The key feature of an AMP paper is its focus on an important managerial issue. From the start, clearly articulate the focal issue and make a convincing case for its importance. In addition to scholarly literature, authors may refer to practitioner and government reports, as well as credible media accounts, to validate the importance of the issue. This section should fill two to four double-spaced pages.

What we know. Next, review relevant literature to accurately portray baseline knowledge about the issue. Consider literatures beyond one’s usual disciplinary base, especially if insights are limited within the focal discipline. Again, official reports and statistics from government agencies, NGOs, consulting firms, analysts, etc. may be referenced, so long as they are credible. The length of this section will vary, depending upon how established, multidisciplinary, and debated the issue, but it should not exceed four double-spaced pages. Use summary tables where needed to save space. Anything more can be placed in a supplement.

What we don’t know. What is missing? Make a strong, objective case for omissions, flaws, points of debate or other aspects of the literature that leave the focal issue inadequately explained. This section should be no longer than two double-spaced pages.

Conceptual or empirical analysis. This is the core work of the paper: scientific analysis that provides evidence to bridge the gap in understanding of this problem. The length of this section will vary with the type of conceptual or empirical analysis undertaken. Once again, though, it must be concise. Use plain language and summary charts, figures, and graphs. The usual artifacts of a robust scholarly study are required, but they are placed in a supplement.

What we have learned. This is the paper’s core contribution. Expound on how the findings advance understanding of the focal issue. Delve into implementation steps if the study provides such insights. Discuss boundary conditions, noting where the findings hold and distinguishing contexts in which they do not. Specify constraints on interpretation based upon limitations in data and analysis. Clarify aspects of the issue that remain open and require further analysis. Consider charts, figures, and other ways to visually display the results. Though focused on practical implications, the findings may also bring to light flaws and gaps in theory that warrant mention. This should be the longest section of the paper but, yes, also concise.

Conclusion. Within the space of one or two paragraphs, restate what the paper has done and remind readers why it matters. Do not simply restate the abstract. Conclude on a high note, perhaps with a call to action.

Please heed what we have written above before submitting a manuscript to AMP. Thanks!

Deadline, Submission, and Review Process

The submission deadline is 31 January 2027. Papers must be submitted on the AMP website at https://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/amp.

All papers will be reviewed according to the current policies of Academy of Management Perspectives. AMP papers should be grounded in evidence or robust conceptual frameworks, address relevant real-world managerial and policy issues, offer actionable insights, avoid theory fetish, and be written in a style accessible to non-specialists and practitioners.

Please feel free to contact AMP Editorial Office with any questions.

Be sure to review our Style Guide for manuscript requirements, prior to submitting.

Call for Submissions: AMD Discoveries-through-Prose
2026-01-01 00:00 - 2026-12-31 23:59 (America/New_York) | Kopaonik
Learn More about AMD Discoveries-through-Prose

Discoveries-through-Prose empower authors to craft their manuscripts in nontraditional ways that make for tighter, more engaging narratives. Click the button to see more information about AMD Discoveries-through-Prose.

Call for Submissions: AMD Registered Reports
2026-01-01 00:00 - 2026-12-31 23:59 (America/New_York) | Kopaonik
Learn More About AOM Registered Reports

In cases in which results, whether present or not, may have important theoretical or practical implications, scholars are encouraged to submit a Registered Report. In this type of submission, authors submit the introduction, methods, measurement info, and analysis plan (but not the results) of a completed or planned study. This abbreviated paper is then evaluated on the basis of the importance of the topic, the merit of the selected analytic approach, methodological rigor and quality, and potential for impacting down-the-road theorizing and/or practice/policy. As results are not included in the registered report, what was or is likely to be found has no bearing on the outcome of the evaluation. This is in line with AMD’s willingness to publish papers reporting negligible or non-effects (see Miller & Bamberger, 2016).

CAP: 20th International Symposium on Organizational Sciences - SymOrg 2026
2026-06-10 00:00 - 2026-06-12 23:59 (America/New_York) | Kopaonik, Serbia, Kopaonik, Serbia
Content is protected.

86th Annual Meeting of the Academy of Management (AOM 2026)
2026-07-31 00:00 - 2026-08-04 00:00 (America/New_York) | Kopaonik
The Annual Meeting of the Academy of Management is the premier event for scholarly engagement, and the largest gathering of management and organization scholars in the world.

The AOM community will gather in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania for the 86th Annual Meeting of the Academy of Management (AOM 2026). Known as the “Birthplace of America,” Philadelphia offers a perfect blend of rich history, vibrant neighborhoods, and world-class dining—all within a walkable, transit-friendly city.

Philadelphia—the host city for the 2026 Annual Meeting—is poised to connect the AOM community in the heart of the East Coast with iconic landmarks such as Independence Hall, the Liberty Bell, and the scenic Delaware River waterfront.

Visit the Annual Meeting section and the AOM 2026: Philadelphia page for updates and information as it becomes available.

AMP Call for Special Issue Papers: Managing Under Political Turbulence
2026-09-01 00:00 - 2026-09-30 00:00 (America/New_York) | Kopaonik
Submission Deadline: 30 September 2026

Submit via the AMP Manuscript Central Site

Guest Editors:

Jonathan Doh, Villanova University

Srividya Jandhyala, ESSEC Business School

Yadong Luo, University of Miami

Grazia D. Santangelo, Copenhagen Business School

AMP Associate Editor:

Tazeeb Rajwani, University of Surrey

Background

Political turbulence is on the rise, as evidenced most dramatically in violent conflicts (e.g., wars, terrorism attacks), volatile political transitions (e.g., dramatic regime change, cuts to government employees, new geopolitical alliances, coups), and geopolitical tensions (e.g., trade wars, democratic backsliding, sanctions). This escalated political turbulence exacerbates geopolitical risks for organizations and their stakeholders.1 How should they handle it?

Whether anticipatory (e.g., fear of cyberattacks) or actual (e.g., ongoing trade wars, competition over territories), rising geopolitical risks affect organizations in many ways.2 The rise of techno-nationalism,3 driven by national security and ideological concerns, challenges the resilience of global technology supply chains. With the rapid development of AI comes misinformation and disinformation that further aggravate political tensions and ideologies. Tariffs, sanctions, and protectionist trade restrictions bring escalating compliance risks. Rising populist sentiment drives immigration restrictions and is creating a shortage of high-skill talent for MNEs.4

Political turbulence has long been a strategic consideration in some sectors such as energy and defense, but it is now affecting organizations in nearly all sectors,5 both at home and abroad. At home, organizations encounter scrutiny from civil society for their operations in countries with questionable international standing.6 Abroad, they may face interventions by host country governments that vary with their country of origin or type of ownership. All of this presents considerable challenges for managers and their organizations.

This special issue aims to provide actionable, evidence-based insights that clearly and credibly guide managers and their organizations in navigating the political turbulence that increasingly characterizes the international, national, and subnational landscape. We seek to fill in the “glaring white space” of how organizations can best operate under political turbulence, providing robust insights on which practitioners and policy makers can rely.

Please note that AMP’s mission and format differ from many other leading academic journals. AMP papers are managerially driven, not theory driven. Successful submissions clearly define the managerial issue from the outset and make a compelling case for its importance. They do not simply tack managerial implications onto a standard academic study. Rather, AMP papers evidence actionable insights that can credibly guide managerial behavior and influence policy decisions. We strongly encourage potential authors to review AMP’s guidelines before submission. Note that we also welcome Practitioner Perspectives essays and Constructive Confrontations papers for this special issue. Guidance for all formats is on our website.

Scope and Open-Ended Research Questions

For this special issue, we welcome rigorous and insightful submissions that address a broad range of political turbulences associated with various adverse events that disrupt organizations, such as national security clashes, trade conflicts, territorial wars, terrorism, misinformation, removal of government officials, reductions in civil liberties, etc. Our focus is on providing actionable, evidence-based insights of how organizations and managers can best comprehend, influence, internalize, adapt, or mitigate the political risks associated with these changes. Such insights can address firms’ efforts to influence politics and respond to political turbulence, as well as the impact of political turbulence on firms, their employees, and other stakeholders.

Below we provide a set of open-ended questions to evoke topics germane to this special issue. These are starting points and are neither comprehensive nor exclusive, but they’re a good start!

Understanding Different Types and Forms of Political Turbulence. Scholars have distinguished between political risk and uncertainty. Is this classification scheme effective at helping managers understand political turbulence and how to act upon it? Are there better frameworks?

Rethinking Corporate Political Strategies. How should firms integrate corporate political activities (e.g., bridging, lobbying, alliance-building, campaigning, political contributions, regulatory engagement) to best navigate different types of political turbulence? How should firms address covert political activities (e.g. bribery, misinformation, deep fakes)? Which strategies best enable firms to balance global and local political pressures? How should firms deploy corporate diplomacy and activism in an increasingly polarized environment?

Reorganizing and Realigning Geographically Diversified Operations. How can organizations from various regions, countries, and sectors respond and adapt to rapid and often unforeseen political change? How can managers prepare for and be more resilient in the face of these changes? Which organizational structures best support flexibility and resilience in uncertain environments? How should leaders determine which operations to decouple or restructure?

Managing Stakeholder Nationalism. Nationalist sentiment can influence consumer and shareholder behavior and penalize organizations for their political stands and countries of origin. Under what conditions should organizations disengage from, reduce, or change their political activities? Which strategies can organizations adopt to avoid being perceived as political actors?

The Role of New Technologies. What are the best ways to use AI, blockchain, and other digital technologies and intelligence to inform decision-making and improve risk management in a politically turbulent environment? Can firms use such technologies for regulatory compliance and operational agility at the same time? Which new methods (e.g., AI/machine learning, field experience, political training) are best suited to providing an early warning system? What are the trade-offs between quality of insights versus cost of development for such systems?

Managing Corporate Innovation. Groundbreaking innovation often requires combining knowledge and innovation from different sources and locations. How can organizations preserve innovation opportunities despite the increased national security focus? How should organizations evaluate the trade-offs in local versus global efforts in innovation? Which strategies allow them to exploit innovations in new technologies such as AI, quantum computing, and biotechnology while balancing regulatory/political obligations?

Navigating the Race for Talent. The knowledge and social capital of highly skilled migrant workers provides critical insights and valuable connections across borders. Yet political turbulence fosters a populism sentiment that drives anti-immigration policies. How should firms manage talent across borders under these conditions?

We welcome both conceptual and empirical papers that are grounded in rigorous analysis and directly evidence specific and significant managerial and policy actions. We welcome accounts of embodied, lived experiences of specific political turbulence and the use of reflexive methodologies. Quantitative analyses of large databases, qualitative comparative analyses, and extensive data analysis using linguistic programs and algorithms are also fair game. In short, we want papers that prove what can or does work in ways that managers and policymakers can use.

Deadline, Submission, and Review Process

The final deadline is 30 September 2026 at 23:59 ET (DST+1, UTC-4). All submissions must be uploaded to the AMP Manuscript Central website between 1 September 2026 and 30 September 2026, inclusive.

All papers will be reviewed according to the current policies of Academy of Management Perspectives. AMP papers should be grounded in robust empirical evidence or conceptual frameworks, address relevant real-world managerial and policy issues, offer actionable insights, avoid theory fetish, and be written in a style accessible to non-specialists and practitioners.

We intend to host a Paper Development Workshop for selected authors to further develop their manuscripts. Participation in this workshop is neither a guarantee nor a prerequisite for publication.

Endnotes

1. G.K. Adarkwah, S. Dorobantu, C.A. Sabel, and F. Zilja, “Geopolitical Volatility and Subsidiary Investments,” Strategic Management Journal 45, no. 11 (2024): 2275–2306.

2. P. Sun, J.P. Doh, T. Rajwani, and D. Siegel, “Navigating Cross-Border Institutional Complexity: A Review and Assessment of Multinational Nonmarket Strategy Research,” Journal of International Business Studies 52, no. 9 (2021): 1818–53.

3. Y. Luo, “Illusions of Techno-Nationalism,” Journal of International Business Studies 53, no. 3 (2021): 550–67.

4. D. Nayak, S. Moreira, and R. Mudambi, “Restrictive Immigration Policies and MNE Innovation,” Journal of International Business Studies 56, no. 1 (2025): 84–104.

5. S. Jandhyala, The Great Disruption: How Geopolitics Is Changing Companies, Managers, and Work (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2025).

6. M. Mol, L. Rabbiosi, and G. Santangelo, “Should I Stay or Should I Go? How Danish MNEs in Russia Respond to a Geopolitical Shift,” AIB Insights 23, no. 1 (2023), https://doi.org/10.46697/001c.68337.

AMLE Call for Special Issue Papers: Rethinking Business School Structures, Standards, and Success for Neuroinclusive Management Learning and Education
2026-11-01 00:00 - 2026-12-14 23:59 UTC | Kopaonik
This Call for Papers is available to download in these languages:

Chinese

English

Hindi

Spanish

Guest Editors

Miriam Moeller (she/her), University of Queensland (Australia)

Dana L. Ott (she/her), University of Otago (New Zealand)

Matevž (Matt) Rašković, (he/him) University of Technology Auckland (New Zealand)

Sophie Hennekam (she/her), Audencia Business School (France)

Timothy J. Vogus (he/him), Vanderbilt University (USA)

Joy E. Beatty (she/her), Eastern Michigan University (USA)

Judith Clair (she/her), Boston College (USA)

AMLE Editor

Katrin Mühlfeld (she/her), University of Trier (Germany)

Call for Papers

Business schools around the world are undergoing rapid transformation, reflecting questions about their social license (Starkey & Tempest, 2025; University Chancellors Council, 2025), legitimacy and identity (Alajoutsijärvi et al., 2015), changing student demographics (Zhang et al., 2016), technological developments (Clegg & Sarker, 2024; Hughes & Davis, 2024), and evolving understandings of social justice, equity, inclusion, and belonging (Fiset et al., 2025). Amid this period of re-evaluation and change, recognition is growing that an estimated 15-20% of the global population is neurodivergent (Doyle, 2020). With more than half of Gen Z (1997-2012) now identifying as neurodivergent (Palumbo, 2025), it underscores the urgency of advancing theoretical, empirical, and pedagogical conversations about whom business school systems of teaching, assessment, and professional formation are designed to serve – and how they might evolve to achieve greater neuroinclusion.

Neurodiversity, a term collectively developed by neurodivergent individuals (Botha et al., 2024), refers to the full spectrum of natural variation in human cognitive functioning. Individuals who diverge from dominant neurocognitive norms are often described as neurodivergent, encompassing cognitive profiles such as Autism Spectrum Conditions (ASC), Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD), dyslexia, dysgraphia, dyscalculia, dyspraxia, Tourette Syndrome, and other forms of neurodivergence (Doyle et al., forthcoming; Quigley & Gallagher, 2025). These forms of neurodivergence are not deficits to be ‘fixed’ but reflect different patterns of perception, attention, memory, and communication, which may entail both distinct challenges and unique strengths in educational and workplace settings (Kersten et al., 2025; Shaw et al., 2024). ADHD individuals, for example, may excel in high-energy, fast-paced problem-solving (Doyle, 2020) but face difficulties with sustained concentration during lengthy case discussions or traditional assessments. Dyslexic learners often demonstrate strong visual-spatial reasoning and creativity (LeFevre-Levy et al., 2023) yet may encounter barriers when coursework relies heavily on time-pressured reading and written tasks.

There has been a marked increase in the number of neurodivergent learners entering higher education in recent years, driven by rising awareness and improved access pathways (McDowall & Kiseleva, 2024). In the UK, for example, up to 2% of university students may meet diagnostic criteria for ASC, with an additional 2-8% potentially being ADHD (Ahmann et al., 2018; Anderson et al., 2019). Dyslexia is also widespread, with approximately 5% of higher education students being dyslexic (Clouder et al., 2020). Nonetheless, these figures likely underestimate the true prevalence of neurodivergence in business and higher education as many learners remain undiagnosed or choose not to disclose their neurodivergent status (Clouder et al., 2020; Kennedy et al., 2025).

Business schools traditionally tend to privilege narrow forms of learning, expression, and social interaction (Clouder et al., 2020; Hennekam et al., 2025; McDowall & Kiseleva, 2024) that assume neurotypicality and place the burden of adaptation on neurodivergent individuals (Milton, 2012; Milton et al., 2022). This approach fails to recognize that the challenges of neurodiversity are fundamentally breakdowns in mutual understanding between neurodivergent and neurotypical people grounded in differences in their patterns of attention, communication, and interpretation of social information (e.g., Williams, 2021)—a double empathy problem (Milton, 2012; Milton et al., 2022) rather than one party’s mind blindness or lack of empathy. Failing to see the double empathy problem produces pedagogical expectations that can disadvantage those whose strengths and needs do not align with these implicit norms, limiting their ability to fully participate and succeed. For example, a neurotypical academic staff member may misunderstand a neurodivergent student’s lack of eye contact or neutral facial expression as signs of lack of preparation or disinterest rather than intentional strategies to effectively manage sensory input and attentional resources.

Pedagogically, group work, a core element of many business schools, similarly assumes strong relational and communication skills, which may not align with all neurocognitive profiles. Similarly, particularities of neurodivergent students, such as hyperfocus among those with ADHD or monotropism, referring to the tendency to focus one’s attention on a small or singular number of interests, common among autistic students, are often ignored or positioned as irrelevant (Wood, 2023). Moreover, challenges faced by neurodivergent learners are intensified for postgraduate students, mature learners, and those diagnosed later in life, who often encounter disbelief, inconsistent support, or are completely overlooked by institutions (Butcher & Lane, 2024; Coneyworth et al., 2020).

Even when available, neurodivergent learners may be unaware of available support or may refrain from requesting accommodations to which they are entitled due to the fear of stigmatization (Clouder et al., 2020). These students often attempt to conform to neurotypical norms, masking their difficulties or distinctive traits (Hennekam et al., 2025). They consequently tend to manage their challenges by themselves (Mirfin-Veitch et al., 2020), a strategy that may prove unsustainable over time for them and their support groups (Hennekam et al., 2025). As a result, and despite being academically capable, degree completions remain low (Chown et al., 2018). For many, the consequences extend beyond poorer academic outcomes to diminished access to meaningful employment (Bury et al., 2024), an issue particularly stark for autistic individuals whose employment rates remain among the lowest of any disability group (ABS, 2022; Alemany & Vermeulen, 2023; Austin & Pisano, 2017; Ezerins et al., 2024; Moeller et al., 2021).

While several excellent special issues have advanced the conversation on neurodiversity in management and organizations, this special issue offers a fundamentally distinct vantage point. Whereas prior collections—such as those in the Journal of Management & Organization (2019), Human Resource Management (2025), and the forthcoming issues in Academy of Management Discoveries, Personnel Review, International Journal of Management Reviews, and Group & Organization Management—center primarily on neurodiversity in relation to employment, inclusion practices, and organizational systems and outcomes, this Academy of Management Learning & Education special issue uniquely foregrounds the importance of reimagining management learning and education to better serve all minds and to develop neurodiversity-informed managers who are equipped to make organizations more neuroinclusive.

For this special issue, we encourage conceptual and empirical work that envisions business schools as models of neuroinclusion. Our call also shifts the focus from ‘accommodating and managing difference’ to ‘learning through difference’ and understanding how difference, as a form of diversity, enhances learning and group capabilities. In doing so, it extends the dialogue beyond workplace adaptation to examining how neurodiversity both challenges and enriches the processes through which management knowledge is constructed, taught, and understood by learners, and how this also impacts emergent group functions (i.e., decision-making and morality). We therefore invite a more inclusive understanding of learning and knowing in management education, one that values diverse cognitive styles and experiences as integral to the co-creation of knowledge and practice.

In this vein, we invite contributors to explore diverse perspectives that enrich and expand conversations on neurodiversity in management learning and education. In particular, we encourage submissions that move beyond single-diagnosis approaches recognizing the breadth within and across neurodivergences, including: developmental (e.g., ADHD, dyslexia, dyspraxia, dyscalculia), acquired (e.g., traumatic brain injury, epilepsy), mental health (e.g., anxiety, obsessive-compulsive disorder; Edwards et al., 2024), and physical health conditions (e.g., chronic fatigue syndrome, hearing or vision impairment). These categories are not mutually exclusive and neurodivergent conditions often co-occur. For example, those who present with ADHD and anxiety, or those who are dyspraxic and autistic, may experience both distinctive challenges and synergies in learning and workplaces.

Furthermore, this special issue welcomes contributions that embrace conceptual plurality, engaging with alternative or adjacent conceptualisations of neurodiversity – whether framed as natural variation and ecology (Chapman, 2021) or through disability (Brown & Leigh, 2020), misfit (Billsberry et al., 2023), being ‘different’ or other evolving terms that capture the complex ways individuals experience (mis)alignment with institutional learning environments and how this also impacts emergent group functions and group-level outcomes. Embracing such plurality also requires turning the lens toward academic and professional staff who shape these environments. Doing so exposes a broader empirical and theoretical blind spot in understanding the attitudes and experiences of academic and professional staff with disabilities (Anderson, 2006; Brown & Leigh, 2020; Little et al., 2023) and, in particular, those with neurocognitive conditions (Alexander, 2024).

Of interest in this special issue also are how inclusive pedagogy, constructive alignment, Universal Design for Learning (UDL), and learner partnership models can transform educational design and practice to better serve the full spectrum of learners (CAST, 2024; Rose & Meyer, 2006). For example, a management educator might offer students multiple ways to demonstrate learning, such as a written essay, an infographic, or forms of digitalization (Walkowiak, 2024), or a recorded presentation, thereby valuing diverse modes of cognition and communication. Similarly, predictable course rhythms and clearly scaffolded tasks can reduce cognitive load and anxiety for neurodivergent students while increasing engagement and clarity for everyone. Finally, incorporating learner partnership models—where students collaborate with educators to co-design learning activities, assessment criteria, or feedback processes—can cultivate a sense of shared ownership, agency, and belonging across the entire student cohort. For business schools, this will result in very real considerations of workload models, academic and professional staff training, and the redistribution of institutional resources to ensure that inclusive pedagogical intentions are supported by genuine structural and financial commitment.

Attention should likewise be directed to an intersectional perspective on neurodivergence (Gottardello et al., 2025), which acknowledges that intersecting identities—such as gender, race, and culture—interact and fundamentally shape how neurological differences are understood and enacted. For example, the experience of a dyslexic woman of color in academia or that of a neurodivergent international student navigating an unfamiliar education system may reveal unique intersections of cognitive, cultural, and structural differences (Crenshaw, 1991; Lewis & Arday, 2023; Rivera, 2022), which offers an opportunity to explore the interactions of dispositional and circumstantial diversity. In particular, we encourage research and reflections from diverse cultural and national contexts which support and extend ecological understandings of neurodiversity and challenge dominant epistemological assumptions. Consequently, we provide a space to decenter Eurocentric and Anglophone paradigms of management learning and education, enabling more culturally grounded understandings of neurodivergence (Atherton et al., 2023; Bernier & McCrimmon, 2022; de Leeuw et al., 2020; Felix & Hennekam, in press; Ott et al., 2025; Tupou et al., 2024). These perspectives will ultimately challenge dominant Western deficit discourses and offer novel pathways for pedagogical and institutional inclusion, as well as opening promising frontiers for the application of institutional theory (Cook, 2024) and intersectionality research (Gottardello et al., 2025).

At a theoretical level, management learning and education continues to be informed by approaches that presume and privilege neurotypicality and associate neurodivergence with medicalized deficits rather than as part of a natural ecology. We posit that institutions that implement inclusive teaching practices often do so without interrogating the deeper epistemic assumptions that define what counts as legitimate knowledge, effective pedagogy, or “good” learning. To illustrate, efforts to engage neurodiversity in practice and management learning and education research have largely been narrow and at the individual-level, overlooking a more ecological perspective that focuses on the interplay of factors at micro, meso, and macro levels (Chapman, 2021). Drawing on Bronfenbrenner’s (2000) ecological systems theory—which posits that individual development is shaped by multiple, interrelated environmental layers—may offer a valuable lens for examining how business schools can become more inclusive. For this special issue, we therefore encourage pursuing the above-mentioned ideas and contexts from various theoretical perspectives, epistemological assumptions, and levels of analysis.

In conjunction with the ecological systems view, a range of theoretical lenses, such as social identity theory and identity work, critical race or critical disability theories, queer theory and power lenses, but also decolonial perspectives may be pertinent to studying intersectional identities, forms of oppression, and co-occurring conditions (Mallipeddi & Van Daalen, 2022). Social learning theory and especially self-efficacy beliefs (Bandura, 1997), learned helplessness (Kapp, 2022), and the internalization of negative beliefs about their competencies or stigma (Hennekam et al., 2025) might likewise be relevant to studying educational outcomes as well as the school-to-work transition of neurodivergent students in business schools (O’Byrne et al., 2019). This is supported by empirical research showing that neurodivergent students often report lower self-efficacy than their neurotypical peers, which may hinder confidence and career readiness (Buckley et al., 2024).

In sum, we encourage contributions that critically examine how insights from neuroscience and neuro-ethics can inform, but should not uncritically determine, approaches to neuroinclusive management learning and education (Cavanaugh et al., 2016; Lindebaum et al., 2018). We invite scholars, educational practitioners, business school leaders, policymakers, and even practitioners from across inclusive education, disability studies, critical management studies, organizational behavior and theory, and other fields to enrich neurodiversity discourse and contribute to a more expansive, socially just, and humanizing vision of management learning and education.

Illustrative Themes and Research Questions

In the context of the Business of Business Schools, the following questions could be explored:

How does neurodiversity help reimagine social justice and DEI in business schools?

What tensions emerge between performance metrics and inclusion for neurodivergent students, academic and professional staff, and how are such trade-offs effectively managed?

How do policies on reasonable accommodations align (or conflict) with institutional objectives and wider institutional logics?

How is neurodiversity effectively addressed in non-WEIRD (Western, Educated, Industrialized, Rich, and Democratic) environments and institutional settings in higher education contexts?

How does a country’s legal context shape the expectations, obligations, and opportunities for business schools to develop and deliver more neuroinclusive pedagogy?

How can existing practices and processes within business schools be adjusted and/or redesigned to be more neuroinclusive (e.g., recruiting and selection, onboarding, networking, and organizational culture)?

How can business schools attract and retain neurodivergent talent (learners, academics and professional staff)?

How can business schools support neurodivergent academic and professional staff and challenge ableism as an organizational paradigm?

How do business schools address the neurodiversity of learners, academic, and professional staff at different levels (i.e., undergraduate, postgraduate, executive education) and in different cultural and institutional contexts?

In the context of management learning, the following questions could be explored:

How do neurodivergent learners, academic and professional staff experience management learning processes differently and what unique challenges do they face?

What are the experiences of learners and academic and professional staff with intersectional social identities involving neurodiversity?

What is the role of institutional logics/culture, pedagogy, peer learners, and academic and professional staff in the way neurodivergent individuals and groups experience and navigate their management education, including from an intersectionality perspective?

What insights can be gleaned from the experiences of neurodivergent learners and academic and professional staff regarding neurotypical norms in management education? What role do visibility and representation specifically play in this?

How can cross-neurotype (between neurodivergent and neurotypical individuals) collaboration and connection be fostered and leveraged in the classroom and outside it (i.e., bridging the “double empathy problem,” Milton, 2012)?

How do neurodiverse groups of learners (i.e., those with neurotypical and neurodivergent members) work together (e.g., the biases experienced or avoided, the interpersonal challenges) and perform (e.g., task performance, creativity)?

How do neurodivergent individuals experience the transition into the workforce as well as from secondary school into management education? What practices, supports, and tools aid more successful transitions? How do these transitional practices vary across global cultures?

What role does executive functioning, sensory processing, or divergent social cognition play in shaping reflection and feedback loops within learning processes?

In what ways can experiential learning or study abroad be adapted for neurodivergent learners and educators?

How does neurodiversity inform alternative models of learner identity and transformation?

What is the impact of educational support on academic achievements and the employability of neurodivergent individuals?

What role do internships and mentoring play in the academic achievements and work-readiness of neurodivergent management learners?

How can business schools foster neuro-inclusion as a leadership and management capability?

In the context of management education, the following questions could be explored:

How can universal design for learning and inclusive pedagogy reshape management education?

How can constructive alignment more effectively incorporate the needs and experiences of neurodivergent learners and educators across different levels and contexts?

What can we learn from neuro-inclusive education in other fields? What best practices, policies, and procedures can be identified?

How do assessment and participation norms impact neurodivergent learners’ educational outcomes?

How does neurodiversity intersect with other (potentially) stigmatizing attributes or sources of social identities, such as gender, age, race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, or other disabilities among management learners?

How do individuals with multiple co-occurring neurocognitive conditions navigate higher management education?

What teaching innovations have emerged in neurodiversity-informed business courses and programs?

How important is visibility and representation among academic and professional staff?

How may internalized ableism and embodied pedagogy affect neurodivergent academic and professional staff?

How do inclusive pedagogies engage with issues of masking, disclosure, and psychological safety?

How can technology, and in particular artificial intelligence, be meaningfully leveraged to support neurodivergent learners in management education? How can such technologies be used to enhance cross-neurotype collaborations and relationships?

How are higher education institutions and educators adapting AI-driven educational technologies to support neurodivergent learners in management programs?

Submission types

For this special issue, we invite submissions to all of the Academy of Management Learning & Education’s peer-reviewed sections, including Research and Reviews, Essays, and Book and Resource Reviews. We particularly welcome research studies based on extensive data—qualitative, quantitative, and mixed method—using any well-executed and rigorous methodology and strong theoretical framing. Finally, related to the issue of representation, we especially encourage submissions from neurodivergent authors and author teams. Submissions will be subject to the normal editorial decision-making and peer-review processes. All the journal’s standard formatting and peer review guidelines will apply.

Inquiries

If you have any questions or would like to discuss a possible submission, please contact Miriam Moeller and Dana L. Ott. Please note that such consultation is not a precondition, requirement, or guarantee of acceptance for any submission. Authors who have not consulted with the Guest Editor Team are equally welcome to submit.

Submission details

We invite special issue submissions to occur between 1 November 2026 and 14 December 2026 through the AMLE’s manuscript central system.

Prior to submission, we will hold an optional virtual professional development workshop at the end of May 2026, for interested authors to receive feedback on their ideas. Those interested in participating in the workshop should e-mail a 3,000-word proposal (including references) to Miriam Moeller and Dana L. Ott by 13 May 2026.

We also plan to offer workshops to discuss this special issue at the European Academy of Management in June 2026 (Kristiansand, Norway), the European Group of Organisational Studies in July (Bergamo, Italy), the Academy of International Business conference in July 2026 (Manchester, UK), the Academy of Management conference in August 2026 (Philadelphia, Pennsylvania) and the Brazilian Academy of Management in October 2026. We will share more details about these and other opportunities when available via the AMLE website and various listservs.

While we encourage interested contributors to participate in these opportunities, they are not a prerequisite for, or a guarantee of, eventual acceptance in the special issue.

Acknowledgments

This Call for Papers was translated using an Artificial Intelligence (AI) Translator tool developed by The University of Queensland in collaboration with the Association for Information Systems Taskforce on AI Translation for Inclusive, Impactful Science. We thank James Boyce, David Goyeneche Ramirez, Luis Alfredo Arango Soler, Marut Jain, Pooja Madaan, Saarwani Komanduri, Hetiao Xie, and Gloria Zheng for cross-checking and refining the AI-translated version to ensure linguistic and contextual accuracy.

References

ABS. 2022. Autism in Australia 2022. https://www.abs.gov.au/articles/autism-australia-2022.

Ahmann, E., Tuttle, L. J., Saviet, M., & Wright, S. D. 2018. A descriptive review of ADHD coaching research: Implications for college students. Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability, 31(1), 17-39.

Alajoutsijärvi, K., Juusola, K., & Siltaoja, M. 2015. The legitimacy paradox of business schools: Losing by gaining? Academy of Management Learning & Education, 14(2), 277-291.

Alemany, L., & Vermeulen, F. 2023. Disability as a source of competitive advantage. Harvard Business Review, 101(7-8), 106-115.

Alexander, D. A. 2024. The dyslexic academic: Uncovering the challenges faced as neurodiverse in academia and establishing a research agenda. Disability & Society, 39(11), 3036-3041.

Anderson, A. H., Stephenson, J., Carter, M., & Carlon, S. 2019. A systematic literature review of empirical research on postsecondary students with Autism Spectrum Disorder. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 49(4), 1531-1558.

Anderson, R. C. 2006. Teaching (with) disability: Pedagogies of lived experience. The Review of Education, Pedagogy, and Cultural Studies, 28(3-4), 367-379.

Atherton, G., Morimoto, Y., Nakashima, S., & Cross, L. 2023. Does the study of culture enrich our understanding of autism? A cross-cultural exploration of life on the spectrum in Japan and the West. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 54(5), 610-634.

Austin, R. D., & Pisano, G. P. 2017. Neurodiversity as a competitive advantage. Harvard Business Review, 95(3), 96-103.

Bandura, A. 1977. Social learning theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Baron-Cohen, S. 2011. Zero degrees of empathy: A new theory of human cruelty. London, England: Allen Lane.

Bernier, A. S., & McCrimmon, A. W. 2022. Attitudes and perceptions of Muslim parents toward their children with autism: A systematic review. Review Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 9(3), 320-333.

Billsberry, J., Hollyoak, B. M., & Talbot, D. L. 2023. Insights into the lived experience of misfits at work: A netnographic study. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 32(2), 199-215.

Botha, M., Chapman, R., Giwa Onaiwu, M., Kapp, S. K., Stannard Ashley, A., & Walker, N. 2024. The neurodiversity concept was developed collectively: An overdue correction on the origins of neurodiversity theory. Autism, 28(6), 1591-1594.

Bronfenbrenner, U. (2000). Ecological systems theory. American Psychological Association.

Brown, K. R., & Leigh, J. 2020. Ableism in academia: Theorising experiences of disabilities and chronic illnesses in higher education. Disability & Society, 35(1), 1-16.

Buckley, E., Sideropoulos, V., Pellicano, E., & Remington, A. 2024. Higher levels of neurodivergent traits associated with lower levels of self-efficacy and wellbeing for performing arts students. Neurodiversity: 2.

Bury, S. M., Hedley, D., Uljarević, M., Li, X., Stokes, M. A., & Begeer, S. 2024. Employment profiles of autistic people: An 8-year longitudinal study. Autism, 28(9), 2322-2333.

Butcher, L., & Lane, S. 2024. Neurodivergent (Autism and ADHD) student experiences of access and inclusion in higher education: An ecological systems theory perspective. Higher Education.

CAST. 2024. The UDL Guidelines. https://udlguidelines.cast.org/

Cavanaugh, J. M., Giapponi, C. C., & Golden, T. D. 2016. Digital technology and student cognitive development: The neuroscience of the university classroom. Journal of Management Education, 40(4), 374-397.

Chapman, R. 2021. Neurodiversity and the social ecology of mental functions. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 16(6), 1360-1372.

Chown, N., Joanna, B.-R., Liz, H., Nicola, C. K., & Byrne, P. 2018. The ‘high achievers’ project: An assessment of the support for students with autism attending UK universities. Journal of Further and Higher Education, 42(6), 837-854.

Clegg, S., & Sarker, S. 2024. Artificial intelligence and management education: A conceptualization of human-machine interaction. International Journal of Management Education, 22(3), 101007.

Clouder, L., Karakus, M., Cinotti, A., Ferreyra, M. V., Fierros, G. A., & Rojo, P. 2020. Neurodiversity in higher education: A narrative synthesis. Higher Education, 80(4), 757-778.

Coneyworth, L., Rachel, J., Pauline, M., & White, G. 2020. The overlooked cohort? – Improving the taught postgraduate student experience in higher education. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 57(3), 262-273.

Cook, A. 2024. Conceptualisations of neurodiversity and barriers to inclusive pedagogy in schools: A perspective article, JORSEN, 24(3), 627-636.

Crenshaw, K. 1991. Mapping the margins: Intersectionality, identity politics, and violence against women of color. Stanford Law Review, 43(6), 1241-1299.

de Leeuw, A., Happé, F., & Hoekstra, R. A. 2020. A conceptual framework for understanding the cultural and contextual factors on autism across the globe. Autism Research, 13(7), 1029-1050.

Doyle, N. 2020. Neurodiversity at work: A biopsychosocial model and the impact on working adults. British Medical Bulletin, 135(1), 108-125.

Doyle, N., McDowall, A., Hennekam, S., Lewis, C., Moeller, M., Santuzzi, A.M., Szulc, J., & Tomczak, M.T. (forthcoming). Concepts, language, and framing. The Handbook of Neurodiversity at Work. Sage Publications.

Edwards, M. S., Cox, L. E., Martin, A. J., & Ashkanasy, N. M. 2024.Introduction and historical review. Research Handbook of Academic Mental Health, edited by Marissa S. Edwards, Angela J. Martin, Neal M. Ashkanasy, & Lauren E. Cox. Cheltenham, United Kingdom: Edward Elgar Publishing, 1-30.

Ezerins, M. E., Simon, L. S., Vogus, T. J., Gabriel, A. S., Calderwood, C., & Rosen, C. C. 2024. Autism and employment: A review of the “new frontier” of diversity research. Journal of Management, 50(3), 1102-1144.

Felix, B., & Hennekam, S. in press. The unsustainable nature of the career ecosystem of autistic individuals in Brazil. Career Development International.

Fiset, J., Al Hajj, R., Petersen, B.K., & Oldford, E. 2025. Do business schools walk the talk? A critical examination of espoused values and reputational facades. Academy of Management Learning & Education.

Gottardello, D., Calvard, T., & Song, J-W. 2025. When neurodiversity and ethnicity combine: Intersectional stereotyping and workplace experiences of neurodivergent ethnic minority employees, Human Resource Management, 64(3), 841-859.

Hennekam, S., Kulkarni, M., & Beatty, J. E. 2025. Neurodivergence and the persistence of neurotypical norms and inequalities in educational and occupational settings. Work, Employment and Society, 39(2), 449-469.

Hughes, H. P. N. & Davis, M. C. 2024. Preparing a graduate talent pipeline for the hybrid workplace: Rethinking digital upskilling and employability. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 23(4), 578-599.

Kapp, S. K. 2022. Models of helping and coping with autism. In The Routledge International Handbook of Critical Autism Studies (pp. 255-269). Routledge.

Kennedy, L. J., Richdale, A. L., & Lawson, L. P. 2025. Comparing disclosure and supports used by higher-education students with neurodivergent or mental health conditions. Autism in Adulthood.

Kersten, A., Scholz, F., van Woerkom, M., Krabbenborg, M., & Smeets, L. 2025. A strengths‐based human resource management approach to neurodiversity: A multi‐actor qualitative study. Human Resource Management, 64(1), 229-245.

LeFevre-Levy, R., Melson-Silimon, M., Harmata, R., Hulett, A. L., & Carter, N. T. 2023. Neurodiversity in the workplace: Considering neuroatypicality as a form of diversity. Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 16, 1-19.

Lewis, C. J., & Arday, J. 2023. We’ll see things they’ll never see: Sociological reflections on race, neurodiversity and higher education. The Sociological Review, 71(6), 1299-1321.

Lindebaum, D., Al-Amoudi, I., & Brown, V. L. 2018. Does leadership development need to care about neuro-ethics? Academy of Management Learning & Education, 17(1), 96-109.

Little, C., Pearson, A., & Gimblett, K. 2023. Reasonable adjustment, unfair advantage or optional extra? Teaching staff attitudes towards reasonable adjustments for students with disabilities. Journal of Perspectives in Applied Academic Practice, 11(2), 135-146.

Mallipeddi, N. V., & Van Daalen, R. A. 2022. Intersectionality within critical autism studies: A narrative review. Autism Adulthood, 4(4), 281-289.

McDowall, A., & Kiseleva, M. 2024. A rapid review of supports for neurodivergent students in higher education. Implications for research and practice. Neurodiversity, 2.

Milton, D. E. 2012. On the ontological status of autism: The ‘double empathy problem’. Disability & Society, 27(6), 883-887.

Milton, D., Gurbuz, E., & López, B. (2022). The ‘double empathy problem’: Ten years on. Autism, 26(8), 1901-1903.

Mirfin-Veitch, B., Jalota, N., & Schmidt, L. 2020. Responding to neurodiversity in the education context: An integrative literature review. New Zealand: Donald Beasley Institute.

Moeller, M., Ott, D. L., & Russo E. 2021, September 8. Neurodiversity can be a workplace strength – if we make room for it. The Conversation. https://theconversation.com/neurodiversity-can-be-a-workplace-strength-if-we-make-room-for-it-164859.

O’Byrne, C., Caroline, J., & and Lawler, M. 2019. Experiences of dyslexia and the transition to university: a case study of five students at different stages of study. Higher Education Research & Development, 38(5), 1031-1045.

Ott, D. L., Moeller, M., & Koveshnikov, A. 2025. Incorporating neurodiversity into International Business research. Critical Perspectives on International Business.

Palumbo, J. J. 2025, January 19. How AI is transforming education for neurodivergent children. Forbes. https://www.forbes.com/sites/jenniferpalumbo/2025/02/19/the-business-case-for-neurodivergent-leadership/

Quigley, E., & Gallagher, T. 2025. Neurodiversity and higher education: Double masking by neurodivergent students. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 1-17.

Rivera, H. R. 2022. The intersection of gender diversity and neurodiversity: How to support gender diverse youth and young adults on the Autism Spectrum in the educational setting (Doctoral dissertation, Alliant International University).

Rose, D. H., & Meyer, A. 2006. A Practical Reader in Universal Design for Learning. US: Harvard Education Press.

Shaw, S. C. K., Brown, M. E., Jain, N. R., George, R. E., Bernard, S., Godfrey‐Harris, M., & Doherty, M. 2024. When I say… neurodiversity paradigm. Medical Education, 59(5), 466.

Starkey, K., & Tempest, S. 2025. The business school and the end of history: Reimagining management education. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 24(1), 111-125.

Tupou, J., Ataera, C., Wallace-Watkin, C., & Waddington, H. 2024. Supporting tamariki takiwātanga Māori (autistic Māori children): Exploring the experience of early childhood educators. Autism, 28(3), 705-717.

University Chancellors Council. 2025, July. Social licence initiative. Retrieved July 31, 2025, from University Chancellors Council website: https://ucc.edu.au/social-licence

Walkowiak, E. 2024. Digitalization and inclusiveness of HRM practices: The example of neurodiversity initiatives. Human Resource Management Journal, 34(3), 578-598

Williams G. L. 2021. Theory of autistic mind: A renewed relevance theoretic perspective on so-called autistic pragmatic ‘impairment’. Journal of Pragmatics, 180, 121-130.

Wood, R. 2023. Autism, intense interests and support in school: From wasted efforts to shared understandings. In Mapping the Field (pp. 332-352). Routledge. Zhang, M. M., Xia, J., Fan, D., & Zhu, J. C. 2016. Managing student diversity in business education: Incorporating campus diversity Into the curriculum to foster inclusion and academic success of international students. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 15(2), 366-380
