BEGIN:VCALENDAR
VERSION:2.0
PRODID:-//Academy of Management  - ECPv6.15.17.1//NONSGML v1.0//EN
CALSCALE:GREGORIAN
METHOD:PUBLISH
X-ORIGINAL-URL:https://www.aom.org
X-WR-CALDESC:Events for Academy of Management 
REFRESH-INTERVAL;VALUE=DURATION:PT1H
X-Robots-Tag:noindex
X-PUBLISHED-TTL:PT1H
BEGIN:VTIMEZONE
TZID:America/New_York
BEGIN:DAYLIGHT
TZOFFSETFROM:-0500
TZOFFSETTO:-0400
TZNAME:EDT
DTSTART:20240310T070000
END:DAYLIGHT
BEGIN:STANDARD
TZOFFSETFROM:-0400
TZOFFSETTO:-0500
TZNAME:EST
DTSTART:20241103T060000
END:STANDARD
BEGIN:DAYLIGHT
TZOFFSETFROM:-0500
TZOFFSETTO:-0400
TZNAME:EDT
DTSTART:20250309T070000
END:DAYLIGHT
BEGIN:STANDARD
TZOFFSETFROM:-0400
TZOFFSETTO:-0500
TZNAME:EST
DTSTART:20251102T060000
END:STANDARD
BEGIN:DAYLIGHT
TZOFFSETFROM:-0500
TZOFFSETTO:-0400
TZNAME:EDT
DTSTART:20260308T070000
END:DAYLIGHT
BEGIN:STANDARD
TZOFFSETFROM:-0400
TZOFFSETTO:-0500
TZNAME:EST
DTSTART:20261101T060000
END:STANDARD
BEGIN:DAYLIGHT
TZOFFSETFROM:-0500
TZOFFSETTO:-0400
TZNAME:EDT
DTSTART:20270314T070000
END:DAYLIGHT
BEGIN:STANDARD
TZOFFSETFROM:-0400
TZOFFSETTO:-0500
TZNAME:EST
DTSTART:20271107T060000
END:STANDARD
END:VTIMEZONE
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=America/New_York:20251101T000000
DTEND;TZID=America/New_York:20251130T235900
DTSTAMP:20260416T005136
CREATED:20260226T041307Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20260226T041308Z
UID:10000027-1761955200-1764547140@www.aom.org
SUMMARY:AMD Special Research Spotlight: Neurodiversity in Management and Organizations
DESCRIPTION:Submission Deadline: 30 November 2025 \n\n\n\nSubmission window for Special Research Spotlight: 1–30 November 2025 \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nGuest Editors\n\n\n\n\nDusya Vera\, Ivey Business School (AMD Associate Editor)\n\n\n\nHala Annabi\, University of Washington\n\n\n\nRobert D. Austin\, Ivey Business School\n\n\n\nTimothy J. Vogus\, Vanderbilt University\n\n\n\n\nOverview\n\n\n\nThe past two decades have seen the emergence and spread of activities that recognize and support neurodiversity in organizations. A primary focus has been on hiring and employment initiatives designed to remove barriers to employment for the roughly 20% of the global population (Doyle & McDowall\, 2021) considered neurodivergent (e.g.\, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder\, autism spectrum disorder\, dyslexia). Historically\, neuro-differences have been viewed through the prism of the “medical model of disability” as deficit\, pathology\, and weakness\, as well as departures from population norms that need to be redressed or eliminated through intervention (Nelson\, 2021; Doyle\, 2020; Fisher & Goodley\, 2007). Unsurprisingly\, given the prevalence of this view\, research suggests disproportionately high under- or unemployment rates among neurodivergent people (Ameri et al.\, 2018; Roux et al.\, 2013; Taylor & Seltzer\, 2011; Krzeminska et al.\, 2019; Doyle\, 2020). Despite significant barriers\, many neurodistinct  people have great interest in employment and possess employment-relevant strengths including average or above abilities and skills\, some in high demand but scarce in the job market (Doyle\, 2020). \n\n\n\nThe late 1990s saw increasing calls for framing neurodivergence and associated conditions in terms of difference rather than pathology and refocusing based on strengths rather than weaknesses (Singer\, 1997; Kapp et al.\, 2013; Bruyère and Barrington\, 2012). That is\, there has been an embrace of neurodiversity based on the conclusion that there is natural variation in neurocognition in human minds inclusive of neurodivergence. Building on the “social model of disability” (Oliver\, 1990)\, proponents of a growing neurodiversity movement have advocated the view that organizational and societal conditions\, rather than individual deficits (weaknesses)\, have been responsible for the high under- and unemployment rates of neurodistinct individuals. These proponents also have argued that organizations and social institutions should take responsibility for addressing the barriers inherent in existing ableist systems that preclude neurodistinct people from employment. Prominent business organizations\, such as Ernst & Young (EY)\, JP Morgan Chase\, Microsoft\, SAP\, and others have responded by developing targeted hiring and employment approaches that attempt to redesign hiring practices and workplace conditions with a focus on being more inclusive of neurodiversity. These initiatives have deployed alternative recruiting\, skills assessment\, onboarding\, on-the-job support\, career management\, and other processes (Khan et al.\, 2023; Annabi et al.\, 2021) to minimize biases that historically have prevented many neurominorities from accessing and working effectively in organizations (Austin & Pisano\, 2017). Ultimately\, the collective effort of neurodiversity employment initiatives morphed into a campaign known as the Neurodiversity@Work movement. \n\n\n\nThe employers involved in the movement estimate that their neuro-inclusion activities have led to more than 15\,000 jobs newly accessible to neurodistinct candidates since 2004 (Austin et al.\, forthcoming). Although the focus of much practical activity is on improving employment access and outcomes for neurodistinct people in specific firms\, the high incidence of neurodivergent conditions in the population makes it certain that neurodistinct people are already present in all organizations (LeFevre-Levy et al. 2023)\, though many are likely “masking” (Kidwell et al.\, 2023)\, i.e.\, using cognitive or behavioral strategies to hide their neurodistinct traits from neurotypicals thereby conforming to conventions of neurotypical social behavior (Barkley\, 2010; Sedgewick et al.\, 2021). The implications of masking on the well-being of these employees\, the organization’s effectiveness\, and other outcomes are poorly understood. Adopting neuro-inclusive approaches have led neurodistinct employees\, who may have been masking or camouflaging indicators of being neurodistinct\, to come forward and disclose their neurodistinct conditions and organize into networks within firms\, but the effects are not entirely known (Austin\, et al.\, forthcoming). Moreover\, despite these very significant developments\, theorizing about neurodiversity within organizations has badly lagged practice. How neurodiversity manifests within management and organizations remains ripe for discovery (LeFevre-Levy\, et al.\, 2023). There is\, of course\, an established and evolving tradition of general DEI research (see Roberson\, 2019 for a review)\, but the degree to which that body of work is relevant to neurodiversity and neuro-inclusion is also unclear. Indeed\, much of what is written about neurodiversity in employment is spread across many academic disciplines and\, with a few exceptions (e.g.\, Drader-Mazza et al.\, 2024; Ezerins et al\, 2024; Krzeminska et al.\, 2019; Johnson & Joshi\, 2016)\, work on this topic has been largely absent from management journals (LeFevre-Levy et al. 2023). \n\n\n\n[1] We use the word “neuorodistinct” to describe people\, rather than more common alternatives\, such as “neurodivergent” or “neuroatypical\,” because distinctness implies difference without reference to a supposedly preferred status of “normal” or “typical.” \n\n\n\nNeurodiversity Frontiers in Management and Organizations\n\n\n\nNeurodistinct people face unique barriers to obtaining and sustaining employment\, in part because neurodivergence is invisible\, leading to misunderstandings and skepticism in a society that primarily recognizes visible markers of disability (Davis\, 2005). In addition\, neurodivergence is linked to fundamental differences in cognitive and sensory processing\, as well as in social interaction. These differences may be present in ways that are especially challenging in an employment context where there are strong norms regarding social interaction and communication styles (both verbal and nonverbal)\, as well as general behaviors. Interviewers\, workplace peers\, or managers have characterized the interaction styles of neurodistinct (e.g.\, autistic) employees as “overly blunt\,” lacking empathy and expected emotional expression\, and even “weird” (Treweek et al.\, 2019; Martin et al.\, 2023)\, without acknowledging or even recognizing that this reflects neurotypical expectations and bias. This bias suggests the need for novel approaches that more fundamentally engage with and reflect rethinking of neurotypical norms. Like people identified with other marginalized groups\, neurodistinct people can become stigmatized (Bos et al.\, 2013). These realities necessitate exploratory empirical work to more precisely identify the range and form of the biases and their consequences for individuals and organizations. In addition\, there is a need to explore interventions that can surmount these biases across a range of domains\, including but not limited to hiring and selection\, onboarding and socialization\, ongoing inclusion\, performance management\, and work design (see also Annabi & Locke\, 2019). It also would be useful to see which\, if any\, existing approaches to debiasing organizational processes help to make organizations more neuro-inclusive (e.g.\, Goldin & Rouse\, 2000). We elaborate on three themes we see as especially promising for exploring the macro\, meso\, and micro processes related to neurodiversity in the workplace. \n\n\n\n\nThe social context of neurodiversity. Neurodiversity in the workplace exists within the broader context of policy\, practice\, and research regarding disability and work. This coexistence is not without tension\, as the neurodiversity movement is grounded in the idea that neurodivergence is a natural and valuable form of difference that should not be automatically considered a deficit. As such\, the neurodiversity movement primarily focuses on the social conditions that are disabling. In contrast\, other approaches to neurodiversity and disability take a more medical\, individual intervention\, accommodative\, and even curative approach. Exploration is needed to see how these different currents in neurodiversity and disability advocacy shape policy\, organizational programs and policies\, and individual experiences at work. It is also worth exploring how different employee identities (e.g.\, solely neurodistinct\, neurodistinct and disabled)\, as well as other intersectional identities (e.g.\, neurodistinct and gender\, racial\, cultural\, and sexual orientation) affect employee expectations and experiences (e.g.\, attitudes\, turnover). The connection to the neurodiversity movement and community and its effects on employee experience are other topics worthy of further empirical investigation (e.g.\, Botha et al.\, 2022).\n\n\n\nThe challenges of the “business case” for neurodiversity. Recent discussions of neurodiversity have emphasized the benefits for organizations in terms of firm competitiveness and innovation (Austin & Pisano\, 2017). Most major companies with established neurodiversity hiring initiatives (e.g.\, EY) insist that business justifications are at the heart of their efforts (Austin et al.\, forthcoming). However\, to date\, these claims rely on anecdotes of reputation advantages (Pisano & Austin\, 2016a)\, employee engagement and commitment (Pisano & Austin\, 2016b)\, and making the analogical connections between specific traits broadly associated with neurodistinct people (e.g.\, pattern recognition\, attention to detail\, ability to make novel connections) and innovation (Jeppeson & Lakhani\, 2010). However\, we need exploratory research to assess the existence of benefits (i.e.\, the “business case”) across multiple indicators of benefit (both organizational and employee related) and the conditions under which they are more likely to emerge. There is also a tension between the “business case” and social case for neuro-inclusive organizations. How organizations navigate these tensions and the strategies and practices they use for balancing them merit qualitative and quantitative investigation. How logics are articulated to best foster increasing neurodiversity and neuro-inclusion\, as well as which logics best enhance employee and organizational outcomes\, are also important topics for exploration and theory development.\n\n\n\nBalancing standardization and customization approaches to neurodiversity. Another unique feature of neurodiversity is its heterogeneity across neurodistinct conditions (e.g.\, autism\, ADHD\, dyslexia)\, as well as varied expressions within each condition (e.g.\, among individuals on the autism spectrum). Stated differently\, autism advocates\, for example\, are inclined to argue that “if you’ve met one person with autism\, you’ve met ONE person with autism.” The point they are making is that autism is a broad umbrella\, and that the spectrum of manifestations under it exhibits tremendous heterogeneity. This is further exacerbated when intersecting with other historically marginalized and excluded identities (e.g.\, race\, gender\, socioeconomic status\, age). This creates a substantial challenge for organizations in developing scalable approaches to neuro-inclusion while ensuring individual employees get what they need to thrive. We need research focused on discoveries related to how organizations\, their leaders\, and employees engage with these tensions—i.e.\, the practices and processes they use\, how they operate\, and the extent to which they yield organizational\, team\, and individual effectiveness.  \n\n\n\n\nFor all the above reasons\, and more\, we believe neurodiversity in management and organizations is deserving of empirical exploration on its own terms. It is clearly a nascent field that can benefit from a discovery-based approach that examines the rich yet underexplored phenomena detailed above and elaborated below. This is the reason for this AMD Spotlight. \n\n\n\nGoals of the AMD Spotlight\n\n\n\nThe goals of this Spotlight are to publish novel empirical explorations that move this nascent field toward more developed theorizing. These empirical explorations might be specifically focused on neurodiversity or might leverage the distinct character of neurodiversity to explore more general diversity or other organizational issues. We aspire to attract work that takes seriously both the charge to develop a richly contextualized understanding of a key empirical discovery and develop its implications for a more generalized understanding of work\, strategy\, organizations\, management\, and institutions. \n\n\n\nWe see these as complementary goals—recognizing that generalizability is enhanced\, rather than harmed\, by careful attention to contextualizing research (Johns\, 2006; Rousseau & Fried\, 2001) —and the goals seem particularly well-suited to the nature of AMD as an outlet for “articles motivated by research questions that address compelling and underexplored phenomena … that present clear and compelling discoveries: empirical findings that challenge existing assumptions while opening new theoretical paths or that otherwise promote future\, ‘down-the-road\,’ theorizing” (AMD website). We also encourage submissions that involve and engage practitioners in the development and presentation of discoveries (for more\, see the recent AMD “From the Editors” essay on practitioner involvement in empirical research; Ben-Menahem\, 2024). \n\n\n\nSample Topics\n\n\n\nWe provide below a non-exhaustive list of topic areas that might be appropriate for this Spotlight on neurodiversity. It is not our intention in creating this list\, however\, to constrain the ways in which authors might explore this nascent area of management and organizational research. As Doyle and McDowall (2021) have noted in their recent review of the literature\, management research on neurodiversity remains largely “empty.” We welcome submissions from a broad range of conceptual traditions\, methods\, and domains. Moreover\, most of the topics below are subject to empirical exploration across different stakeholders\, such as neurodistinct employees\, neurodistinct leaders\, neurotypical leaders leading a neurodiverse workforce\, pertinent organizations\, and actors in the policy (e.g.\, legal\, governmental) or societal context of organizations. Questions about the suitability of a particular topic should be directed to a member of the Guest Editor team. \n\n\n\nSome suggested areas that authors might address include the following: \n\n\n\n\nWorkplace relationships between neurodistinct and neurotypical people. What characterizes these relationships (e.g.\, content\, strength)? What are the conditions under which they emerge (e.g.\, workplace practices)? How do increasing levels of neurodiversity in organizations affect workplace relationships and relational norms?\n\n\n\nThe career journeys and trajectories of neurodistinct employees. How do neurodistinct employees (successfully) navigate careers?\n\n\n\nRelated to the prior question\, what are the attributes\, backgrounds\, characteristics and leaderships approaches/styles of neurodistinct leaders (i.e.\, how do they lead)? Under what conditions do neurodistinct leaders emerge (e.g.\, in new sectors or specific industrial sectors) and which organizational practices foster neurodistinct leadership?\n\n\n\nHow do organizations founded or led by neurodistinct individuals differ?\n\n\n\nWhat role does technology (including AI) play in effectively cultivating and supporting a neurodiverse workforce? What are the attributes of effective technology tools? Under what conditions are they effective?\n\n\n\nWhat role do third parties (e.g.\, job coaches\, employment support organizations\, governmental support programs like vocational rehabilitation) play in increasing workplace neurodiversity and neuroinclusion? How do they do so effectively?\n\n\n\nHow can human resource practices (workplace design\, performance appraisal\, interviewing\, onboarding/socialization\, compensation) effectively cultivate and support workplace neurodiversity? Which practices are especially critical?\n\n\n\nHow are character\, competence\, and commitment developed and assessed in neurodistinct employees?\n\n\n\nHow does organizational culture shape the levels of neurodiversity in organizations and the experiences of neurodistinct employees?\n\n\n\nWhat organizational factors (e.g.\, executive support\, industry context\, employee culture) are most critical to foster neuroinclusion? Which of these are most critical to scaling neurodiversity initiatives?\n\n\n\nWhat is the relationship between neurodiversity and creativity in teams? Innovation in and by organizations? What processes (e.g.\, conflict\, communication) foster creativity and innovation in neurodistinct teams?\n\n\n\nWhat role does mental health play in neurodiversity and employment? What role should employers play in providing mental health support and how do they do so effectively? How do macro factors (governmental policy\, social movements\, supportive educational and non-profit sector) affect the extent and effectiveness (scope and sustainability) of work outcomes for neurodistinct people?   \n\n\n\nWhat evidence is there for the “business case” for neurodiversity? Under what conditions are the business benefits most likely to occur? What is uniquely challenging in making the business case for neurodiversity? \n\n\n\nHow do organizations engage in mass customization in terms of support for the range of neurodiversity in their organizations?\n\n\n\nWhat differentiates leaders who are effective at leading neurodiverse teams? What are the range of methods (e.g.\, training and coaching) used for building the capacity of managers to lead neurodiverse teams? How effective are these methods and under what circumstances?\n\n\n\n\nAbout AMD\n\n\n\nAMD is a premier journal for the empirical exploration of data describing or investigating compelling phenomena. AMD is not a journal for deductive theorizing or hypothesis testing. Authors are encouraged to present findings without the need to “reverse engineer” any theoretical framework or hypotheses. AMD publishes discoveries resulting from both quantitative and qualitative data sources. AMD articles are phenomenon-forward rather than theory-forward. This means that AMD papers look quite different in comparison to articles sent to other empirical journals. The goal at the front end of an AMD paper should primarily be to demonstrate the novelty/interestingness of the phenomenon and why current theory fails to explain it. The discussion section of an AMD paper is where a plausible theoretical explanation—the theoretical contribution—is provided. The goal for every AMD paper is for discoveries derived from empirical exploration to open new lines of research inquiry. For further information about the goals of AMD\, we encourage potential submitters to review recent “From-the-Editors” essays (Miller\, 2024; Rockmann\, 2023) and to visit the AMD website. \n\n\n\nSubmission Guidelines\n\n\n\nWhen submitting your manuscript\, for “Manuscript Type\,” please select Special Research Spotlight: Neurodiversity in Management and Organizations. (Please note: this Manuscript Type will not be available to authors until November 2025.) Manuscripts should be formatted according to the AOM Style Guide. \n\n\n\nSpotlights are a new publishing venue at AMD: mini research forums that feature studies of complex and poorly understood phenomena (e.g.\, new science\, technology\, human resource strategies) with potentially path-breaking implications for management and organizations. Each issue features a Guidepost essay by a prominent scholar or team of scholars along with one to three select articles that highlight empirical discoveries with the potential to shape the evolution of theory on the focal phenomenon and related managerial and organizational challenges. Spotlights work on an accelerated review cycle\, with a submission deadline 7-9 months after the Call for Papers\, and target publication dates 12-15 months following the Call. Spotlights continue to grow\, as related content is tagged in subsequent issues\, creating ongoing\, distributed conversations. \n\n\n\nStandard guidelines apply to papers submitted for this Spotlight. Manuscripts may be submitted as regular papers or as Discoveries-through-Prose. Discoveries-through-Prose are crafted in more creative and engaging ways than traditional papers. When composing such manuscripts\, we encourage authors to relax their use of traditional headings and traditional “academic writing” in order to create a compelling narrative from start to finish. More information about Discoveries-through-Prose can be found on the AMD website. \n\n\n\nReferences\n\n\n\n\nAmeri\, M.\, Schur\, L.\, Adya\, M.\, Bentley\, F. S.\, McKay\, P.\, & Kruse\, D. (2018). The Disability Employment Puzzle: A Field Experiment on Employer Hiring Behavior. ILR Review\, 71(2)\, 329–364.\n\n\n\nAnnabi\, H.\, & Locke\, J. (2019). A theoretical framework for investigating the context for creating employment success in information technology for individuals with autism. Journal of Management & Organization\, 25(4)\, 499–515. \n\n\n\nAnnabi\, H.\, Crooks\, E. W.\, Barnett\, N.\, Guadagno\, J.\, Mahoney\, J. R.\, Michelle\, J.\, Velasco\, J. (2021). Neurodiversity @ Work Playbook: Finding talent and creating meaningful employment opportunities for people with autism. 2nd edition\, Seattle: ACCESS-IT.\n\n\n\nAustin\, R. D.\, Barnett\, N.\, Cameron\, C. R.\, Shukla\, H.\, Sonne\, T.\, Velasco\, (forthcoming)\, J. How Neuro-Inclusion Builds Organizational Capabilities\, MIT Sloan Management Review.\n\n\n\nAustin\, R. D.\, & Busquets\, J. (2008). Managing differences. Innovations\, 3(1)\, 28-35.\n\n\n\nAustin\, R. D. & Pisano\, G. P. (2017). Neurodiversity as a Competitive Advantage\, Harvard Business Review\, May-June.\n\n\n\nBarkley\, R. A. (2010). Deficient emotional self-regulation: A core component of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder. Journal of ADHD and Related Disorders\, 1(1)\, 5-37.\n\n\n\nBen-Menahem\, S. M. (2024). Engaging Practitioners in Empirical Exploration. Academy of Management Discoveries\, 10(2)\, 155-162.\n\n\n\nBotha\, M.\, Dibb\, B.\, & Frost\, D. M. (2022). ‘It’s being a part of a grand tradition\, a grand counter-culture which involves communities’: A qualitative investigation of autistic community connectedness. Autism\, 26(8)\, 2151-2164.\n\n\n\nBoucher\, J. (2009). The Autistic Spectrum. Characteristics\, Causes\, and Practical Issues. Los Angeles: Sage Publications.\n\n\n\nBos\, A. E.\, Pryor\, J. B.\, Reeder\, G. D.\, & Stutterheim\, S. E. (2013). Stigma: Advances in theory and research. Basic and applied social psychology\, 35(1)\, 1-9.\n\n\n\nBruyere\, S. & Barrington\, L. (2012). Employment and work. Los Angeles\, CA: Sage Reference.\n\n\n\nColella\, A.\, & Bruyère\, S.  (2011). Disability and employment: New directions for industrial/organizational psychology. In American Psychological Association Handbook on Industrial Organizational Psychology\, Vol. 1. (pp. 473-503).  Washington\, D.C.: American Psychological Association.\n\n\n\nCrocker\, A. F.\, & Smith\, S. N. (2019). Person-first language: Are we practicing what we preach? Journal of Multidisciplinary Healthcare\, 125-129.\n\n\n\nDavis\, N. A. (2005). Invisible disability. Ethics\, 116(1)\, 153-213.\n\n\n\nDoyle\, N. (2020). Neurodiversity at work: a biopsychosocial model and the impact on working adults. British Medical Bulletin\, 135(1)\, 108-125.\n\n\n\nDoyle\, N.\, & McDowall\, A. (2021). Diamond in the rough? An “empty review” of research into “neurodiversity” and a road map for developing the inclusion agenda. Equality\, Diversity and Inclusion: An International Journal\, 41(3)\, 352-382.\n\n\n\nDrader‐Mazza\, N.\, Lopez‐Kidwell\, V.\, Kanwal\, F.\, Reger\, R. K.\, & Vogus\, T. J. (2024). The Double Empathy Problem and Person‐Environment Fit: Mutual Understanding and Bidirectional Adjustment in Autistic Talent Acquisition. Human Resource Management.\n\n\n\nEzerins\, 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.\n\n\n\nFisher\, P.\, & Goodley\, D. (2007). The linear medical model of disability: Mothers of disabled children critically rethink experiences of professional care. Social Science & Medicine\, 64(5)\, 1169-1181.\n\n\n\nGlobal report on health equity for persons with disabilities. (2022). Geneva: World Health Organization.\n\n\n\nGoldin\, C.\, & Rouse\, C. (2000). Orchestrating impartiality: The impact of “blind” auditions on female musicians. American Economic Review\, 90(4)\, 715-741.\n\n\n\nHedley\, D.\, Uljarević\, M.\, & Hedley\, D. F. E. (2017). Employment and living with Autism: Personal\, social and economic impact. In S. Halder & L. C. Assaf (Eds.)\, Inclusion\, Disability and Culture: An Ethnographic Perspective Traversing Abilities and Challenges. New York: Springer.\n\n\n\nIsaac\, C.\, Lee\, B.\, & Carnes\, M. (2009). Interventions that affect gender bias in hiring: A systematic review. Academic Medicine\, 84(10)\, 1440-1446.\n\n\n\nJaarsma\, P.\, & Welin\, S. (2012). Autism as a natural human variation: Reflections on the claims of the neurodiversity movement. Health Care Analysis\, 20(1)\, 20-30.\n\n\n\nJeppesen\, L. B.\, & Lakhani\, K. R. (2010). Marginality and problem-solving effectiveness in broadcast search. Organization Science\, 21(5)\, 1016-1033.\n\n\n\nJohns\, G. (2006). The essential impact of context on organizational behavior. Academy of Management Review\, 31(2)\, 386-408.\n\n\n\nJohnson\, T. D.\, & Joshi\, A. (2016). Dark clouds or silver linings? A stigma threat perspective on the implications of an autism diagnosis for workplace well-being. Journal of Applied Psychology\, 101(3)\, 430-449.\n\n\n\nKapp\, S. K.\, Gillespie-Lynch\, K.\, Sherman\, L. E.\, & Hutman\, T. (2013). Deficit\, difference\, or both? Autism and neurodiversity. Developmental Psychology\, 49(1)\, 59.\n\n\n\nKarpur\, A.\, VanLooy\, S.\, & Bruyère\, S. (2014).  Employer practices for employment of people with disabilities: A literature scoping review. Journal of Rehabilitation Research\, Policy and Education\, 28(4)\, 225-241. \n\n\n\nKeating CT\, Hickman L\, Leung J\, Monk R\, Montgomery A\, Heath H\, Sowden S. (2023). Autism-related language preferences of English-speaking individuals across the globe: A mixed methods investigation. Autism Res\, 16(2):406-428.\n\n\n\nKhan\, M. H.\, Grabarski\, M. K.\, Ali\, M.\, & Buckmaster\, S. (2023). Insights into creating and managing an inclusive neurodiverse workplace for positive outcomes: A multistaged theoretical framework. Group & Organization Management\, 48(5)\, 1339-1386.\n\n\n\nKidwell\, K. E.\, Clancy\, R. L.\, & Fisher\, G. G. (2023). The devil you know versus the devil you don’t: Disclosure versus masking in the workplace. Industrial and Organizational Psychology\, 16(1)\, 55-60.\n\n\n\nKrzeminska\, A.; Austin\, R. D.; Bruyère\, S. & Hedley\, D. (2019). The advantages and challenges of neurodiversity employment in organizations. Journal of Management and Organization\, July 25(4): 453 – 463.\n\n\n\nLeFevre-Levy\, R.\, Melson-Silimon\, A.\, 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)\, 1-19.\n\n\n\nMartin\, V.\, Flanagan\, T. D.\, Vogus\, T. J.\, & Chênevert\, D. (2023). Sustainable employment depends on quality relationships between supervisors and their employees on the autism spectrum. Disability and Rehabilitation\, 45(11)\, 1784-1795.\n\n\n\nMiller\, C. C. (2024). Pirates\, adventurers\, and free spirits: The people of Academy of Management Discoveries. Academy of Management Discoveries\, 10(1)\, 1-6.\n\n\n\nNelson\, R. H. (2021). A critique of the neurodiversity view. Journal of Applied Philosophy\, 38(2)\, 335-347.\n\n\n\nOliver\, M. (1990). The Politics of Disablement. Basingstoke: Macmillan.\n\n\n\nPisano\, G. P. & Austin\, R. D. (2016a). SAP SE: Autism at Work. Harvard Business School Case Study 9-616-042\, January 19.\n\n\n\nPisano\, G. P.\, & Austin\, R. D. (2016b). Hewlett Packard Enterprise: The Dandelion Program. Harvard Business School Case Study 9-617-016\, September 8.\n\n\n\nRoberson\, Q. M. (2019). Diversity in the workplace: A review\, synthesis\, and future research agenda. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior\, 6(1)\, 69-88.\n\n\n\nRockmann\, K. (2023). Embracing an exploratory mindset: How AMD is changing the script of good science. Academy of Management Discoveries\, 9(4)\, 419-423.\n\n\n\nRousseau\, D. M.\, & Fried\, Y. (2001). Location\, location\, location: Contextualizing organizational research. Journal of Organizational Behavior\, 1-13.\n\n\n\nRoux\, A. M.\, Shattuck\, P. T.\, Rast\, J. E.\, Rava\, J. A.\, & Anderson\, K. A. (2013). Characteristics of autism spectrum disorder and the transition to adulthood. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders\, 45(3)\, 1654-1662.\n\n\n\nSaleh\, M. & Bruyere\, S. (2018). Leveraging employer practices in global regulatory frameworks to improve employment outcomes for people with disabilities\, Social Inclusion\, 6(1)\, 18-28.\n\n\n\nSedgewick\, F.\, Leppanen\, J.\, & Tchanturia\, K. (2021). Autism and mental health: A review of mental health needs and the role of the autism social and communication framework. Autism\, 25(3)\, 719-729.\n\n\n\nSinger\, J. (1997). Why can’t you be normal for once in your life? From a “problem with no name ” to the emergence of a new category of difference. In M. Corker & S. French (Eds.)\, Disability Discourse (pp. 59-67). Buckingham: Open University Press.\n\n\n\nSkilton\, P. F.\, & Dooley\, K. J. (2010). The effects of repeat collaboration on creative abrasion. Academy of Management Review\, 35(1)\, 118-134.\n\n\n\nTaylor\, J. L.\, & Seltzer\, M. M. (2011). Employment and post-secondary educational activities for young adults with autism spectrum disorders during the transition to adulthood. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders\, 41(5)\, 566–574.\n\n\n\nTreweek\, C.\, Wood\, C.\, Martin\, J. and Freeth\, M.\, 2019. Autistic people’s perspectives on stereotypes: An interpretative phenomenological analysis. Autism\, 23(3)\, pp.759-769.
URL:https://www.aom.org/calendar/amd-special-research-spotlight-neurodiversity-in-management-and-organizations/
CATEGORIES:Call for Submissions,Discoveries,Event Calendar,Journals
ATTACH;FMTTYPE=image/png:https://www.aom.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/amd_cfs.png
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=America/New_York:20251101T000000
DTEND;TZID=America/New_York:20251215T000000
DTSTAMP:20260416T005136
CREATED:20260225T035320Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20260225T035320Z
UID:10000010-1761955200-1765756800@www.aom.org
SUMMARY:Management Learning and Education as Drivers of Fundamental Alternative Forms of Organizing
DESCRIPTION:Guest Editors\n\n\n\n\nSimon Pek\, University of Victoria (Canada)\n\n\n\nFrédéric Dufays\, HEC Liège-ULiège & KU Leuven (Belgium)\n\n\n\nMartyna Śliwa\, University of Durham (United Kingdom)\n\n\n\nAjnesh Prasad\, Tecnológico de Monterrey (Mexico)\n\n\n\nAmon Barros\, FGV EAASP (Brazil)\n\n\n\n\nAMLE Editors\n\n\n\n\nLaura Colombo\, University of Exeter (United Kingdom)\n\n\n\nKatrin Muehlfeld\, Trier University (Germany)\n\n\n\n\nCall for Papers\n\n\n\nIn promoting managerialism and shareholder value maximization\, business schools have long been implicated in perpetuating what has come to be popularized as grand challenges in the literature. These include\, among other phenomena\, climate change\, biodiversity loss\, economic and gender inequality (e.g.\, Kumar et al.\, 2024; Locke & Spender\, 2011; Parker\, 2018). AMLE\, in particular\, has been at the vanguard of identifying and interrogating the nexus between business schools\, management education\, and management learning\, on the one hand\, and the perpetuation of grand challenges\, on the other hand. For example\, in describing the economic arrangements that structure society\, Fotaki and Prasad (2015: 558) observed almost a decade ago: “[M]any blind spots and unanswered questions about the complicity of business schools in propagating inequalities under neoliberal regimes still exist.” More recently\, turning to the matter of climate change\, Colombo and colleagues (2024) lamented in an editorial about the historical role of management learning and education (MLE) in contributing to the deteriorating state of the world’s natural environment. This led them to ask: “How can our discipline help envision and shape a thriving future\, in a way that contributes knowledge\, skills\, and wisdom toward tackling the contemporary ecological and climate crises?” (207). Observations such as these are being raised with greater frequency and urgency by MLE scholars seeking to tackle pernicious societal grand challenges (Figueiró\, Neutzling\, & Lessa\, 2022; Mailhot & Lachapelle\, 2024).  \n\n\n\nTo tackle grand challenges\, attention has been given to alternative organizations and the positive societal impact they generate (e.g.\, Cavotta & Mena\, 2023)\, as well as to their prefigurative function of and for an alternative future—a future that is better aligned with social and environmental considerations (Bhatt\, Qureshi\, Shukla\, & Hota\, 2024; Schiller-Merkens\, 2024). Researchers commonly use the term alternative organizations to describe those that meaningfully depart from some of the defining characteristics of traditional corporations. Such alternative forms include\, among others\, cooperatives\, stakeholder firms\, social enterprises\, and employee-owned firms (e.g.\, Chen & Chen\, 2021; Kociatkiewicz\, Kostera\, & Parker\, 2021; Luyckx\, Schneider\, & Kourula\, 2022; Mair & Rathert\, 2021; Pek\, 2023).  \n\n\n\nWhen alternative forms of organizing have been studied in the discipline of management\, they have been largely reduced to incremental alternatives\, pointing to “anything different to the traditional for-profit model” (Barin Cruz\, Aquino Alves\, & Delbridge\, 2017: 324). Social enterprises are perhaps the quintessential incremental alternative. They have received a tremendous amount of scholarly attention to date in both management (Battilana & Lee\, 2014) and MLE research (Pache & Chowdhury\, 2012; Tracey & Phillips\, 2007).  \n\n\n\nIn this special issue\, we are specifically interested in fundamental (Barin Cruz et al.\, 2017) alternative forms of organizing\, which “challenge some of the classic principles of the capitalist system” (Barin Cruz et al.\, 2017: 323). Specifically\, we consider fundamental alternative organizations as embracing joint or collective ownership instead of private ownership (Chen & Chen\, 2021; Luyckx et al.\, 2022). This includes a broad diversity of organizations\, including cooperatives (Zamagni & Zamagni\, 2010)\, communes (Frye\, 2022)\, broad-based employee ownership in the form of employee ownership trusts (Michael\, 2017) and employee stock ownership plans (Blasi\, Scharf\, & Kruse\, 2023)\, Indigenous economic development corporations (Savic & Hoicka\, 2023)\, bicameral firms (Ferreras\, 2017)\, commons-based peer production (Benkler & Nissenbaum\, 2006)\, and community self-organizations\, such as collective Black enterprises in the Colombian Pacific (Tubb\, 2018). These organizations often\, but not always\, complement this distinctive approach to ownership with more democratic governance and management (Chen & Chen\, 2021; Pek\, 2021).  \n\n\n\nFundamental alternatives have received only marginal attention from MLE scholars (though there are some exceptions\, e.g.\, Audebrand\, Camus\, & Michaud\, 2017) and they continue to remain largely absent from mainstream management textbooks (Rankin & Piwko\, 2022). This curious lack of MLE engagement with fundamental alternative forms of organizing means that students graduating from business schools hoping to tackle grand challenges are not equipped with the tools and concepts necessary to be able to do so. For MLE scholarship to achieve its ostensible aim of producing socially conscientious leaders for a sustainable future\, business school curricula must be broadened so as to include these fundamental alternative organizations.  \n\n\n\nTo be sure\, this is no small feat. Those who have tried to incorporate such organizations into their curricula have identified a range of challenges. For example\, Audebrand and colleagues (2017) observed resistance from students (e.g.\, limited interest) as well as instructors (e.g.\, limited resources). Fournier (2006: 297) found that\, while students actively engaged with concepts pertaining to alternative organizing\, “they all demonstrated a lack of faith in their very possibility.” Yet\, there is some evidence of how MLE can subvert even the most culturally embedded of social systems. Zulfiqar and Prasad (2021)\, for example\, have illuminated how engaged pedagogy intended to raise consciousness on social inequalities among privileged business school students can unsettle and transcend taken-for-granted assumptions about the world.  \n\n\n\nWith an eye on tackling societal grand challenges\, MLE scholarship can and should play a major role in distilling the challenges to teaching and learning pertaining to fundamental alternative organizing and identifying solutions that can overcome them. These span the three domains of MLE research – i.e.\, the business of business schools\, management learning\, and management education (Lindebaum\, 2024) – and their intersectional phenomena\, including business schools’ and universities’ governance arrangements (Billsberry\, Ambrosini\, & Thomas\, 2023; Wright\, Greenwood\, & Boden\, 2011)\, inter-departmental relationships (Parker\, 2021)\, student consumerism (Naidoo\, Shankar\, & Veer\, 2011)\, and pedagogical interventions (Parker\, Racz\, & Palmer\, 2018; Reedy & Learmonth\, 2009). This special issue aims to generate new theory about fundamental alternative organizations and MLE and\, in so doing\, respond to calls for more critical thinking about the objectives of management education\, greater collaboration with other scholarly disciplines\, and a broadening of our pedagogical approaches (Colombo et al.\, 2024).  \n\n\n\nIllustrative Themes and Research Questions\n\n\n\nFundamental Alternative Organizations and the Business of Business Schools \n\n\n\n\nHow can challenges to incorporating fundamental alternatives be overcome by instructors\, business school leaders\, and accreditation agencies? For example\, would different approaches to business school governance—perhaps those modeled on fundamental alternatives themselves like Mondragon University (Wright et al.\, 2011)—be helpful in this regard?\n\n\n\nHow can fundamental alternatives be woven into professional and executive education programs targeted at professionals in both traditional businesses and fundamental alternatives? What are the opportunities to rethink existing business models in this regard\, such as developing targeted programs to support Cooperative Principle #5 on Education\, Training\, and Information from the statement of cooperative identity? (International Co-operative Alliance\, n.d.)\n\n\n\nHow does integrating fundamental alternatives into MLE affect business schools’ relationships with stakeholders such as corporate philanthropic partners?\n\n\n\nHow do fundamental alternatives configure in MLE in unique and contrasting ways across cultures? For instance\, do the form and/or effects of fundamental alternatives materialize differently in Global South versus Global North business school contexts?\n\n\n\nHow\, and to what effects\, could dominant publishers like Harvard Business Publishing better incorporate fundamental alternatives into their products? (Bridgman et al.\, 2016)\n\n\n\n\nFundamental Alternative Organizations and Management Learning \n\n\n\n\nWhat new skills and competencies can students acquire through different pedagogical strategies focused on fundamental alternatives? For example\, do these pedagogical strategies contribute to the development of civic capacities? (Colombo\, 2023) Paradoxically\, what skills and competencies might students inadvertently not acquire when moving MLE beyond its dominant focus on traditional business models to also include fundamental alternatives?\n\n\n\nWhat potential unintended consequences like the amplification of formal\, social\, and psychological disempowerment (Diefenbach\, 2020) might arise from teaching about fundamental alternatives?\n\n\n\nHow are instructors personally and professionally transformed through engaging with fundamental alternatives in their pedagogy? Do they\, for instance\, become more engaged in the governance of their business schools? Do they become more involved in activities that support the creation of fundamental alternatives? (Esper\, Cabantous\, Barin-Cruz\, & Gond\, 2017)\n\n\n\nHow can teaching fundamental alternatives inspire student entrepreneurs to develop new business models and practices (Pepin\, Tremblay\, Audebrand\, & Chassé\, 2024)?\n\n\n\nHow can teaching fundamental alternatives help students prefigure their paths toward a new economy (Schiller-Merkens\, 2024)? To what extent does it impact their identity (formation) as students\, as citizens\, and/or as entrepreneurs? (Solbreux\, Hermans\, Pondeville\, & Dufays\, 2024)\n\n\n\nDo the internal dynamics of fundamental alternatives offer new perspectives on diversity\, equity\, and inclusion (DEI) and\, if so\, how might they intervene in polemical debates over “woke” DEI policies taking place among business school academics? (Prasad & Śliwa\, 2024\n\n\n\n\nFundamental Alternative Organizations and Management Education \n\n\n\nFundamental alternative organizations have been largely ignored in contemporary MLE scholarship as evidenced in their omission in economics and management texts (e.g.\, Kalmi\, 2007; Rankin & Piwko\, 2022; Schugurensky & McCollum\, 2010). Instead\, the traditional investor-owned\, capitalist enterprise maintains a hegemonic presence in MLE despite growing concerns for more sustainability in business school education (Figueiró et al.\, 2022; Mailhot & Lachapelle\, 2024). MLE researchers can help unpack the factors that may have contributed to this state of affairs. \n\n\n\n\nRe-tracing the history of business schools (McLaren et al.\, 2021; Spicer\, Jaser\, & Wiertz\, 2021; Wanderley\, Alcadipani\, & Barros\, 2021)\, what key events may have contributed to the current marginal place of fundamental alternatives?\n\n\n\nWhat is the role of isomorphic pressures generated by key actors like accreditation bodies in silencing or making fundamental alternatives visible in management education? (Romero\, 2008)\n\n\n\nWhat is the role of broader social discourses like student consumerism (Naidoo et al.\, 2011) and managerialism (Clegg\, 2014) in undermining fundamental alternatives in MLE?\n\n\n\nWhy has MLE scholarship readily embraced incremental alternatives like social enterprises\, while not affording similar legitimacy to fundamental alternatives like worker cooperatives and broad-based employee ownership?\n\n\n\n\nWhile some authors have incorporated fundamental alternatives into their teaching (Audebrand et al.\, 2017; Fournier\, 2006)\, there is much to learn about how fundamental alternatives could be integrated into different pedagogies. Additionally\, we need a deeper understanding of the challenges instructors might face and how those challenges could be overcome. MLE scholarship has much to contribute to both of these closely related topics. \n\n\n\n\nHow can existing MLE pedagogies like experiential learning and service learning be translated to teach fundamental alternative organizations effectively? For example\, should students’ and instructors’ interactions with organizations in service learning projects (Mazutis\, 2024) differ in the case of fundamental alternatives versus incremental alternatives or traditional businesses?\n\n\n\nHow should educational efforts focused on fundamental alternatives be integrated and sequenced with those on traditional business topics (Pache & Chowdhury\, 2012)?\n\n\n\nHow can educational practices currently used to teach fundamental alternative organizations in other disciplines (e.g.\, Manley\, 2021; Meek & Woodworth\, 1990) be leveraged and translated into business schools?\n\n\n\nWhat challenges might instructors and students face when engaging with fundamental alternatives in different contexts (Audebrand et al.\, 2017; Fournier\, 2006)? For example\, how might student consumerism\, which varies across countries (Fairchild & Crage\, 2014)\, affect instructors’ implementation of pedagogical strategies targeted towards fundamental alternatives?\n\n\n\nHow can educational repositories like the Curriculum Library for Employee Ownership become legitimated as important empirical resources in delivering management education?\n\n\n\n\nWorkshop Structure\n\n\n\nWe welcome Research and Review\, Essay\, and Book and Resource Review submissions for this special issue. The agnostic ethos of AMLE in terms of underlying paradigms\, theories\, and methods is reiterated (for as long as a submission falls within the remit of AMLE). All of the journal’s standard formatting and peer review guidelines will apply. \n\n\n\nSubmission Types\n\n\n\nWe welcome Research and Review\, Essay\, and Book and Resource Review submissions for this special issue. The agnostic ethos of AMLE in terms of underlying paradigms\, theories\, and methods is reiterated (for as long as a submission falls within the remit of AMLE). All of the journal’s standard formatting and peer review guidelines will apply. \n\n\n\nInquiries\n\n\n\nThose interested in contributing to this special issue are welcome to contact Simon Pek (spek@uvic.ca) and Ajnesh Prasad (prasad@tec.mx) with their questions. We encourage authors interested in submitting a book or resource review to contact us prior to preparing a manuscript. Authors interested in submitting a book or resource review should identify the work to be reviewed and a brief explanation of how it fits the remit of the special issue. \n\n\n\nPlease note that consultation with the guest editors is neither a prerequisite nor an expectation for submission to the special issue. \n\n\n\nSpecial Issue Timeline and Process\n\n\n\nSubmissions will be accepted via AMLE’s Manuscript Central portal between November 1\, 2025 and December 15\, 2025. \n\n\n\nPrior to submission\, we will hold an optional virtual professional development workshop on June 25\, 2025\, 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 Simon Pek (spek@uvic.ca) and Ajnesh Prasad (prasad@tec.mx) by May 15\, 2025. We also plan to offer workshops to discuss this special issue at the 85th Academy of Management Conference in Copenhagen and the 41st EGOS Colloquium in Athens. 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. \n\n\n\nFollowing our first-round decisions\, we will hold a second optional professional development workshop for authors who receive a revise and resubmit decision following the first round of peer review. It is tentatively scheduled for Spring 2025\, and full details will be shared when available. \n\n\n\nReferences\n\n\n\nAudebrand\, L. K.\, Camus\, A.\, & Michaud\, V. 2017. A mosquito in the classroom: Using the cooperative business model to foster paradoxical thinking in management education. Journal of Management Education\, 41(2): 216–248. \n\n\n\nBarin Cruz\, L.\, Aquino Alves\, M.\, & Delbridge\, R. 2017. Next steps in organizing alternatives to capitalism: toward a relational research agenda. Introduction to the Special Issue. M@n@gement\, 20(4): 322–335. \n\n\n\nBattilana\, J.\, & Lee\, M. 2014. Advancing research on hybrid organizing – Insights from the study of social enterprises. Academy of Management Annals\, 8(1): 397–441. \n\n\n\nBenkler\, Y.\, & Nissenbaum\, H. 2006. Commons-based peer production and virtue. Journal of Political Philosophy\, 14(4): 394–419. \n\n\n\nBhatt\, B.\, Qureshi\, I.\, Shukla\, D. M.\, & Hota\, P. K. 2024. Prefiguring alternative organizing: Confronting marginalization through projective cultural adjustment and tempered autonomy. Organization Studies\, 45(1): 59–84. \n\n\n\nBillsberry\, J.\, Ambrosini\, V.\, & Thomas\, L. 2023. Managerialist control in post-pandemic business schools: The tragedy of the new normal and a new hope. Academy of Management Learning & Education\, 22(3)\, 439-458. \n\n\n\nBlasi\, J.\, Scharf\, A.\, & Kruse\, D. 2023. Employee ownership in the US: Some issues on ESOPs – overcoming the barriers to further development. Journal of Participation and Employee Ownership\, ahead-of-print(ahead-of-print). https://doi.org/10.1108/JPEO-11-2022-0028. \n\n\n\nBridgman\, T.\, Cummings\, S.\, & McLaughlin\, C. 2016. Restating the case: How revisiting the development of the case method can help us think differently about the future of the business school. Academy of Management Learning & Education\, 15(4)\, 724-741. \n\n\n\nCavotta\, V.\, & Mena\, S. 2023. Prosocial organizing and the distance between core and community work. Organization Studies\, 44(4): 637–657. \n\n\n\nChen\, K. K.\, & Chen\, V. T. 2021. “What if” and “if only” futures beyond conventional capitalism and bureaucracy: Imagining collectivist and democratic possibilities for organizing. In K. K. Chen & V. T. Chen (Eds.)\, Research in the sociology of organizations: 1–28. Emerald Publishing Limited. \n\n\n\nClegg\, S. R. 2014. Managerialism: Born in the USA. Academy of Management Review\, 39(4): 566–576. \n\n\n\nColombo\, L. A. 2023. Civilize the business school: For a civic management education. Academy of Management Learning & Education\, 22(1): 132–149. \n\n\n\nColombo\, L. A.\, Moser\, C.\, Muehlfeld\, K.\, & Joy\, S. 2024. Sowing the seeds of change: Calling for a social–ecological approach to management learning and education. Academy of Management Learning & Education\, 23(2): 207–213. \n\n\n\nDiefenbach\, T. 2020. The democratic organisation: Democracy and the future of work. Routledge. \n\n\n\nEsper\, S. C.\, Cabantous\, L.\, Barin-Cruz\, L.\, & Gond\, J.-P. 2017. Supporting alternative organizations? Exploring scholars’ involvement in the performativity of worker-recuperated enterprises. Organization\, 24(5): 671–699. \n\n\n\nFairchild\, E.\, & Crage\, S. 2014. Beyond the debates: Measuring and specifying student consumerism. Sociological Spectrum\, 34(5): 403–420. \n\n\n\nFerreras\, I. 2017. Firms as political entities: Saving democracy through economic bicameralism. Cambridge University Press. \n\n\n\nFigueiró\, P. S.\, Neutzling\, D. M.\, & Lessa\, B. 2022. Education for sustainability in higher education institutions: A multi-perspective proposal with a focus on management education. Journal of Cleaner Production\, 339: 130539. \n\n\n\nFotaki\, M.\, & Prasad\, A. 2015. Questioning neoliberal capitalism and economic inequality in business schools. Academy of Management Learning & Education\, 14(4): 556–575. \n\n\n\nFournier\, V. 2006. Breaking from the weight of the eternal present: Teaching organizational difference. Management Learning\, 37(3): 295–311. \n\n\n\nFrye\, H. 2022. Commons\, Communes\, and Freedom. Politics\, Philosophy & Economics\, 21(2): 228–244. \n\n\n\nInternational Co-operative Alliance. n.d. Cooperative identity\, values & principles. https://www.ica.coop/en/cooperatives/cooperative-identity\, February 4\, 2021. \n\n\n\nKalmi\, P. 2007. The disappearance of cooperatives from economics textbooks. Cambridge Journal of Economics\, 31(4): 625–647. \n\n\n\nKociatkiewicz\, J.\, Kostera\, M.\, & Parker\, M. 2021. The possibility of disalienated work: Being at home in alternative organizations. Human Relations\, 74(7): 933–957. \n\n\n\nKumar\, A.\, Soundararajan\, V.\, Bapuji\, H.\, Köhler\, T.\, Alcadipani\, R.\, Morsing\, M.\, & Coraiola\, D. M. 2024. Unequal Worlds: Management Education and Inequalities. Academy of Management Learning & Education\, 23(3)\, 379-386. \n\n\n\nLindebaum\, D. 2024. Management Learning and Education as “big picture” social science. Academy of Management Learning & Education\, 23(1): 1–7. \n\n\n\nLocke\, R. R.\, & Spender\, J.-C. 2011. Confronting managerialism: How the business elite and their schools threw our lives out of balance. Bloomsbury Publishing. \n\n\n\nLuyckx\, J.\, Schneider\, A.\, & Kourula\, A. 2022. Learning from alternatives: Analyzing alternative ways of organizing as starting points for improving the corporation. In R. E. Meyer\, S. Leixnering\, & J. Veldman (Eds.)\, Research in the Sociology of Organizations: 209–231. Emerald Publishing Limited. \n\n\n\nMailhot\, C.\, & Lachapelle\, M. D. 2024. Teaching management in the context of Grand Challenges: A pragmatist approach. Management Learning\, 55(2): 167–191. \n\n\n\nMair\, J.\, & Rathert\, N. 2021. Alternative organizing with social purpose: Revisiting institutional analysis of market-based activity. Socio-Economic Review\, 19(2): 817–836. \n\n\n\nManley\, S. W.\, Julian. 2021. Co-operative education: From Mondragón and Bilbao to Preston. The Preston Model and Community Wealth Building. Routledge. \n\n\n\nMazutis\, D. 2024. Making a difference: Taking community stakeholders seriously. Academy of Management Learning & Education\, amle.2022.0342. \n\n\n\nMcLaren\, P. G.\, Bridgman\, T.\, Cummings\, S.\, Lubinski\, C.\, O’Connor\, E.\, et al. 2021. From the editors—new times\, new histories of the business school. Academy of Management Learning & Education\, 20(3): 293–299. \n\n\n\nMeek\, C. B.\, & Woodworth\, W. P. 1990. Technical training and enterprise: Mondragon’s Educational system and its implications for other cooperatives. Economic and Industrial Democracy\, 11(4): 505–528. \n\n\n\nMichael\, C. 2017. The Employee Ownership Trust\, an ESOP Alternative. Probate and Property\, 31(1): 42–47. \n\n\n\nNaidoo\, R.\, Shankar\, A.\, & Veer\, E. 2011. The consumerist turn in higher education: Policy aspirations and outcomes. Journal of Marketing Management\, 27(11–12): 1142–1162. \n\n\n\nPache\, A.-C.\, & Chowdhury\, I. 2012. Social entrepreneurs as institutionally embedded entrepreneurs: Toward a new model of social entrepreneurship education. Academy of Management Learning & Education\, 11(3): 494–510. \n\n\n\nParker\, M. 2018. Shut Down the Business School. London: Pluto Press. https://ideas.repec.org//b/ucp/bkecon/9780745399171.html. \n\n\n\nParker\, M. 2021. The critical business school and the university: A case study of resistance and co-optation. Critical Sociology\, 47(7–8): 1111–1124. \n\n\n\nParker\, S.\, Racz\, M. M.\, & Palmer\, P. W. 2018. Decentering the learner through alternative organizations. Academy of Management Proceedings\, 2018(1): 16086. \n\n\n\nPek\, S. 2021. Drawing out democracy: The role of sortition in preventing and overcoming organizational degeneration in worker-owned firms. Journal of Management Inquiry\, 30(2): 193–206. \n\n\n\nPek\, S. 2023. Reconceptualizing and improving member participation in large cooperatives: Insights from deliberative democracy and deliberative mini-publics. M@n@gement\, 26(4)\, 68-82. \n\n\n\nPepin\, M.\, Tremblay\, M.\, Audebrand\, L. K.\, & Chassé\, S. 2024. The responsible business model canvas: Designing and assessing a sustainable business modeling tool for students and start-up entrepreneurs. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education\, 25(3): 514–538. \n\n\n\nPrasad\, A.\, & Śliwa\, M. 2024. Critiquing the backlash against wokeness: In defense of DEI scholarship and practice. Academy of Management Perspectives\, 38(2): 245-259. \n\n\n\nRankin\, R.\, & Piwko\, P. M. 2022. An analysis of the coverage of cooperatives in U.S. introductory business textbooks. Journal of Accounting and Finance\, 22(3). https://articlearchives.co/index.php/JAF/article/view/5228. \n\n\n\nReedy\, P.\, & Learmonth\, M. 2009. Other possibilities? The contribution to management education of alternative organizations. Management Learning\, 40(3): 241–258. \n\n\n\nRomero\, E. J. 2008. AACSB accreditation: Addressing faculty concerns. Academy of Management Learning & Education\, 7(2): 245–255. \n\n\n\nSavic\, K.\, & Hoicka\, C. E. 2023. Indigenous legal forms and governance structures in renewable energy: Assessing the role and perspectives of First Nations economic development corporations. Energy Research & Social Science\, 101\, 103121. \n\n\n\nSchiller-Merkens\, S. 2024. Prefiguring an alternative economy: Understanding prefigurative organizing and its struggles. Organization\, 31(3): 458–476. \n\n\n\nSchugurensky\, D.\, & McCollum\, E. 2010. Notes in the margins: The social economy in economics and business textbooks. Researching the Social Economy: 154–175. University of Toronto Press. \n\n\n\nSolbreux\, J.\, Hermans\, J.\, Pondeville\, S.\, & Dufays\, F. 2024. It all starts with a story: Questioning dominant entrepreneurial identities through collective narrative practices. International Small Business Journal\, 42(1): 90–123. \n\n\n\nSpicer\, A.\, Jaser\, Z.\, & Wiertz\, C. 2021. The future of the business school: Finding hope in alternative pasts. Academy of Management Learning & Education\, 20(3): 459–466. \n\n\n\nTracey\, P.\, & Phillips\, N. 2007. The distinctive challenge of educating social entrepreneurs: A postscript and rejoinder to the special issue on entrepreneurship education. Academy of Management Learning & Education\, 6(2): 264–271. \n\n\n\nTubb\, D. G. L. 2018. The everyday social economy of Afro-descendants in the Chocó\, Colombia. In C. S. Hossein (Ed.)\, The Black social economy in the Americas: Exploring diverse community-based markets: 97–117. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. \n\n\n\nWanderley\, S.\, Alcadipani\, R.\, & Barros\, A. 2021. Recentering the Global South in the making of business school histories: Dependency ambiguity in action. Academy of Management Learning & Education\, 20(3): 361–381. \n\n\n\nWright\, S.\, Greenwood\, D.\, & Boden\, R. 2011. Report on a field visit to Mondragón University: A cooperative experience/experiment. Learning and Teaching\, 4(3): 38–56. \n\n\n\nZamagni\, S.\, & Zamagni\, V. 2010. Cooperative enterprise: Facing the challenge of globalization. Edward Elgar Publishing. \n\n\n\nZulfiqar\, G.\, & Prasad\, A. 2021. Challenging social inequality in the Global South: Class\, privilege\, and consciousness-raising through critical management education. Academy of Management Learning & Education\, 20(2): 156-181.
URL:https://www.aom.org/calendar/management-learning-and-education-as-drivers-of-fundamental-alternative-forms-of-organizing/
CATEGORIES:Call for Special Issue Papers,Learning & Education
ATTACH;FMTTYPE=image/png:https://www.aom.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/amle_cfs.png
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=America/New_York:20251101T000000
DTEND;TZID=America/New_York:20251215T000000
DTSTAMP:20260416T005136
CREATED:20260226T040809Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20260226T040809Z
UID:10000014-1761955200-1765756800@www.aom.org
SUMMARY:Management Learning and Education as Drivers of Fundamental Alternative Forms of Organizing
DESCRIPTION:Guest Editors\n\n\n\n\nSimon Pek\, University of Victoria (Canada)\n\n\n\nFrédéric Dufays\, HEC Liège-ULiège & KU Leuven (Belgium)\n\n\n\nMartyna Śliwa\, University of Durham (United Kingdom)\n\n\n\nAjnesh Prasad\, Tecnológico de Monterrey (Mexico)\n\n\n\nAmon Barros\, FGV EAASP (Brazil)\n\n\n\n\nAMLE Editors\n\n\n\n\nLaura Colombo\, University of Exeter (United Kingdom)\n\n\n\nKatrin Muehlfeld\, Trier University (Germany)\n\n\n\n\nCall for Papers\n\n\n\nIn promoting managerialism and shareholder value maximization\, business schools have long been implicated in perpetuating what has come to be popularized as grand challenges in the literature. These include\, among other phenomena\, climate change\, biodiversity loss\, economic and gender inequality (e.g.\, Kumar et al.\, 2024; Locke & Spender\, 2011; Parker\, 2018). AMLE\, in particular\, has been at the vanguard of identifying and interrogating the nexus between business schools\, management education\, and management learning\, on the one hand\, and the perpetuation of grand challenges\, on the other hand. For example\, in describing the economic arrangements that structure society\, Fotaki and Prasad (2015: 558) observed almost a decade ago: “[M]any blind spots and unanswered questions about the complicity of business schools in propagating inequalities under neoliberal regimes still exist.” More recently\, turning to the matter of climate change\, Colombo and colleagues (2024) lamented in an editorial about the historical role of management learning and education (MLE) in contributing to the deteriorating state of the world’s natural environment. This led them to ask: “How can our discipline help envision and shape a thriving future\, in a way that contributes knowledge\, skills\, and wisdom toward tackling the contemporary ecological and climate crises?” (207). Observations such as these are being raised with greater frequency and urgency by MLE scholars seeking to tackle pernicious societal grand challenges (Figueiró\, Neutzling\, & Lessa\, 2022; Mailhot & Lachapelle\, 2024).  \n\n\n\nTo tackle grand challenges\, attention has been given to alternative organizations and the positive societal impact they generate (e.g.\, Cavotta & Mena\, 2023)\, as well as to their prefigurative function of and for an alternative future—a future that is better aligned with social and environmental considerations (Bhatt\, Qureshi\, Shukla\, & Hota\, 2024; Schiller-Merkens\, 2024). Researchers commonly use the term alternative organizations to describe those that meaningfully depart from some of the defining characteristics of traditional corporations. Such alternative forms include\, among others\, cooperatives\, stakeholder firms\, social enterprises\, and employee-owned firms (e.g.\, Chen & Chen\, 2021; Kociatkiewicz\, Kostera\, & Parker\, 2021; Luyckx\, Schneider\, & Kourula\, 2022; Mair & Rathert\, 2021; Pek\, 2023).  \n\n\n\nWhen alternative forms of organizing have been studied in the discipline of management\, they have been largely reduced to incremental alternatives\, pointing to “anything different to the traditional for-profit model” (Barin Cruz\, Aquino Alves\, & Delbridge\, 2017: 324). Social enterprises are perhaps the quintessential incremental alternative. They have received a tremendous amount of scholarly attention to date in both management (Battilana & Lee\, 2014) and MLE research (Pache & Chowdhury\, 2012; Tracey & Phillips\, 2007).  \n\n\n\nIn this special issue\, we are specifically interested in fundamental (Barin Cruz et al.\, 2017) alternative forms of organizing\, which “challenge some of the classic principles of the capitalist system” (Barin Cruz et al.\, 2017: 323). Specifically\, we consider fundamental alternative organizations as embracing joint or collective ownership instead of private ownership (Chen & Chen\, 2021; Luyckx et al.\, 2022). This includes a broad diversity of organizations\, including cooperatives (Zamagni & Zamagni\, 2010)\, communes (Frye\, 2022)\, broad-based employee ownership in the form of employee ownership trusts (Michael\, 2017) and employee stock ownership plans (Blasi\, Scharf\, & Kruse\, 2023)\, Indigenous economic development corporations (Savic & Hoicka\, 2023)\, bicameral firms (Ferreras\, 2017)\, commons-based peer production (Benkler & Nissenbaum\, 2006)\, and community self-organizations\, such as collective Black enterprises in the Colombian Pacific (Tubb\, 2018). These organizations often\, but not always\, complement this distinctive approach to ownership with more democratic governance and management (Chen & Chen\, 2021; Pek\, 2021).  \n\n\n\nFundamental alternatives have received only marginal attention from MLE scholars (though there are some exceptions\, e.g.\, Audebrand\, Camus\, & Michaud\, 2017) and they continue to remain largely absent from mainstream management textbooks (Rankin & Piwko\, 2022). This curious lack of MLE engagement with fundamental alternative forms of organizing means that students graduating from business schools hoping to tackle grand challenges are not equipped with the tools and concepts necessary to be able to do so. For MLE scholarship to achieve its ostensible aim of producing socially conscientious leaders for a sustainable future\, business school curricula must be broadened so as to include these fundamental alternative organizations.  \n\n\n\nTo be sure\, this is no small feat. Those who have tried to incorporate such organizations into their curricula have identified a range of challenges. For example\, Audebrand and colleagues (2017) observed resistance from students (e.g.\, limited interest) as well as instructors (e.g.\, limited resources). Fournier (2006: 297) found that\, while students actively engaged with concepts pertaining to alternative organizing\, “they all demonstrated a lack of faith in their very possibility.” Yet\, there is some evidence of how MLE can subvert even the most culturally embedded of social systems. Zulfiqar and Prasad (2021)\, for example\, have illuminated how engaged pedagogy intended to raise consciousness on social inequalities among privileged business school students can unsettle and transcend taken-for-granted assumptions about the world.  \n\n\n\nWith an eye on tackling societal grand challenges\, MLE scholarship can and should play a major role in distilling the challenges to teaching and learning pertaining to fundamental alternative organizing and identifying solutions that can overcome them. These span the three domains of MLE research – i.e.\, the business of business schools\, management learning\, and management education (Lindebaum\, 2024) – and their intersectional phenomena\, including business schools’ and universities’ governance arrangements (Billsberry\, Ambrosini\, & Thomas\, 2023; Wright\, Greenwood\, & Boden\, 2011)\, inter-departmental relationships (Parker\, 2021)\, student consumerism (Naidoo\, Shankar\, & Veer\, 2011)\, and pedagogical interventions (Parker\, Racz\, & Palmer\, 2018; Reedy & Learmonth\, 2009). This special issue aims to generate new theory about fundamental alternative organizations and MLE and\, in so doing\, respond to calls for more critical thinking about the objectives of management education\, greater collaboration with other scholarly disciplines\, and a broadening of our pedagogical approaches (Colombo et al.\, 2024).  \n\n\n\nIllustrative Themes and Research Questions\n\n\n\nFundamental Alternative Organizations and the Business of Business Schools \n\n\n\n\nHow can challenges to incorporating fundamental alternatives be overcome by instructors\, business school leaders\, and accreditation agencies? For example\, would different approaches to business school governance—perhaps those modeled on fundamental alternatives themselves like Mondragon University (Wright et al.\, 2011)—be helpful in this regard?\n\n\n\nHow can fundamental alternatives be woven into professional and executive education programs targeted at professionals in both traditional businesses and fundamental alternatives? What are the opportunities to rethink existing business models in this regard\, such as developing targeted programs to support Cooperative Principle #5 on Education\, Training\, and Information from the statement of cooperative identity? (International Co-operative Alliance\, n.d.)\n\n\n\nHow does integrating fundamental alternatives into MLE affect business schools’ relationships with stakeholders such as corporate philanthropic partners?\n\n\n\nHow do fundamental alternatives configure in MLE in unique and contrasting ways across cultures? For instance\, do the form and/or effects of fundamental alternatives materialize differently in Global South versus Global North business school contexts?\n\n\n\nHow\, and to what effects\, could dominant publishers like Harvard Business Publishing better incorporate fundamental alternatives into their products? (Bridgman et al.\, 2016)\n\n\n\n\nFundamental Alternative Organizations and Management Learning \n\n\n\n\nWhat new skills and competencies can students acquire through different pedagogical strategies focused on fundamental alternatives? For example\, do these pedagogical strategies contribute to the development of civic capacities? (Colombo\, 2023) Paradoxically\, what skills and competencies might students inadvertently not acquire when moving MLE beyond its dominant focus on traditional business models to also include fundamental alternatives?\n\n\n\nWhat potential unintended consequences like the amplification of formal\, social\, and psychological disempowerment (Diefenbach\, 2020) might arise from teaching about fundamental alternatives?\n\n\n\nHow are instructors personally and professionally transformed through engaging with fundamental alternatives in their pedagogy? Do they\, for instance\, become more engaged in the governance of their business schools? Do they become more involved in activities that support the creation of fundamental alternatives? (Esper\, Cabantous\, Barin-Cruz\, & Gond\, 2017)\n\n\n\nHow can teaching fundamental alternatives inspire student entrepreneurs to develop new business models and practices (Pepin\, Tremblay\, Audebrand\, & Chassé\, 2024)?\n\n\n\nHow can teaching fundamental alternatives help students prefigure their paths toward a new economy (Schiller-Merkens\, 2024)? To what extent does it impact their identity (formation) as students\, as citizens\, and/or as entrepreneurs? (Solbreux\, Hermans\, Pondeville\, & Dufays\, 2024)\n\n\n\nDo the internal dynamics of fundamental alternatives offer new perspectives on diversity\, equity\, and inclusion (DEI) and\, if so\, how might they intervene in polemical debates over “woke” DEI policies taking place among business school academics? (Prasad & Śliwa\, 2024\n\n\n\n\nFundamental Alternative Organizations and Management Education \n\n\n\nFundamental alternative organizations have been largely ignored in contemporary MLE scholarship as evidenced in their omission in economics and management texts (e.g.\, Kalmi\, 2007; Rankin & Piwko\, 2022; Schugurensky & McCollum\, 2010). Instead\, the traditional investor-owned\, capitalist enterprise maintains a hegemonic presence in MLE despite growing concerns for more sustainability in business school education (Figueiró et al.\, 2022; Mailhot & Lachapelle\, 2024). MLE researchers can help unpack the factors that may have contributed to this state of affairs. \n\n\n\n\nRe-tracing the history of business schools (McLaren et al.\, 2021; Spicer\, Jaser\, & Wiertz\, 2021; Wanderley\, Alcadipani\, & Barros\, 2021)\, what key events may have contributed to the current marginal place of fundamental alternatives?\n\n\n\nWhat is the role of isomorphic pressures generated by key actors like accreditation bodies in silencing or making fundamental alternatives visible in management education? (Romero\, 2008)\n\n\n\nWhat is the role of broader social discourses like student consumerism (Naidoo et al.\, 2011) and managerialism (Clegg\, 2014) in undermining fundamental alternatives in MLE?\n\n\n\nWhy has MLE scholarship readily embraced incremental alternatives like social enterprises\, while not affording similar legitimacy to fundamental alternatives like worker cooperatives and broad-based employee ownership?\n\n\n\n\nWhile some authors have incorporated fundamental alternatives into their teaching (Audebrand et al.\, 2017; Fournier\, 2006)\, there is much to learn about how fundamental alternatives could be integrated into different pedagogies. Additionally\, we need a deeper understanding of the challenges instructors might face and how those challenges could be overcome. MLE scholarship has much to contribute to both of these closely related topics. \n\n\n\n\nHow can existing MLE pedagogies like experiential learning and service learning be translated to teach fundamental alternative organizations effectively? For example\, should students’ and instructors’ interactions with organizations in service learning projects (Mazutis\, 2024) differ in the case of fundamental alternatives versus incremental alternatives or traditional businesses?\n\n\n\nHow should educational efforts focused on fundamental alternatives be integrated and sequenced with those on traditional business topics (Pache & Chowdhury\, 2012)?\n\n\n\nHow can educational practices currently used to teach fundamental alternative organizations in other disciplines (e.g.\, Manley\, 2021; Meek & Woodworth\, 1990) be leveraged and translated into business schools?\n\n\n\nWhat challenges might instructors and students face when engaging with fundamental alternatives in different contexts (Audebrand et al.\, 2017; Fournier\, 2006)? For example\, how might student consumerism\, which varies across countries (Fairchild & Crage\, 2014)\, affect instructors’ implementation of pedagogical strategies targeted towards fundamental alternatives?\n\n\n\nHow can educational repositories like the Curriculum Library for Employee Ownership become legitimated as important empirical resources in delivering management education?\n\n\n\n\nWorkshop Structure\n\n\n\nWe welcome Research and Review\, Essay\, and Book and Resource Review submissions for this special issue. The agnostic ethos of AMLE in terms of underlying paradigms\, theories\, and methods is reiterated (for as long as a submission falls within the remit of AMLE). All of the journal’s standard formatting and peer review guidelines will apply. \n\n\n\nSubmission Types\n\n\n\nWe welcome Research and Review\, Essay\, and Book and Resource Review submissions for this special issue. The agnostic ethos of AMLE in terms of underlying paradigms\, theories\, and methods is reiterated (for as long as a submission falls within the remit of AMLE). All of the journal’s standard formatting and peer review guidelines will apply. \n\n\n\nInquiries\n\n\n\nThose interested in contributing to this special issue are welcome to contact Simon Pek (spek@uvic.ca) and Ajnesh Prasad (prasad@tec.mx) with their questions. We encourage authors interested in submitting a book or resource review to contact us prior to preparing a manuscript. Authors interested in submitting a book or resource review should identify the work to be reviewed and a brief explanation of how it fits the remit of the special issue. \n\n\n\nPlease note that consultation with the guest editors is neither a prerequisite nor an expectation for submission to the special issue. \n\n\n\nSpecial Issue Timeline and Process\n\n\n\nSubmissions will be accepted via AMLE’s Manuscript Central portal between November 1\, 2025 and December 15\, 2025. \n\n\n\nPrior to submission\, we will hold an optional virtual professional development workshop on June 25\, 2025\, 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 Simon Pek (spek@uvic.ca) and Ajnesh Prasad (prasad@tec.mx) by May 15\, 2025. We also plan to offer workshops to discuss this special issue at the 85th Academy of Management Conference in Copenhagen and the 41st EGOS Colloquium in Athens. 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. \n\n\n\nFollowing our first-round decisions\, we will hold a second optional professional development workshop for authors who receive a revise and resubmit decision following the first round of peer review. It is tentatively scheduled for Spring 2025\, and full details will be shared when available. \n\n\n\nReferences\n\n\n\nAudebrand\, L. K.\, Camus\, A.\, & Michaud\, V. 2017. A mosquito in the classroom: Using the cooperative business model to foster paradoxical thinking in management education. Journal of Management Education\, 41(2): 216–248. \n\n\n\nBarin Cruz\, L.\, Aquino Alves\, M.\, & Delbridge\, R. 2017. Next steps in organizing alternatives to capitalism: toward a relational research agenda. Introduction to the Special Issue. M@n@gement\, 20(4): 322–335. \n\n\n\nBattilana\, J.\, & Lee\, M. 2014. Advancing research on hybrid organizing – Insights from the study of social enterprises. Academy of Management Annals\, 8(1): 397–441. \n\n\n\nBenkler\, Y.\, & Nissenbaum\, H. 2006. Commons-based peer production and virtue. Journal of Political Philosophy\, 14(4): 394–419. \n\n\n\nBhatt\, B.\, Qureshi\, I.\, Shukla\, D. M.\, & Hota\, P. K. 2024. Prefiguring alternative organizing: Confronting marginalization through projective cultural adjustment and tempered autonomy. Organization Studies\, 45(1): 59–84. \n\n\n\nBillsberry\, J.\, Ambrosini\, V.\, & Thomas\, L. 2023. Managerialist control in post-pandemic business schools: The tragedy of the new normal and a new hope. Academy of Management Learning & Education\, 22(3)\, 439-458. \n\n\n\nBlasi\, J.\, Scharf\, A.\, & Kruse\, D. 2023. Employee ownership in the US: Some issues on ESOPs – overcoming the barriers to further development. Journal of Participation and Employee Ownership\, ahead-of-print(ahead-of-print). https://doi.org/10.1108/JPEO-11-2022-0028. \n\n\n\nBridgman\, T.\, Cummings\, S.\, & McLaughlin\, C. 2016. Restating the case: How revisiting the development of the case method can help us think differently about the future of the business school. Academy of Management Learning & Education\, 15(4)\, 724-741. \n\n\n\nCavotta\, V.\, & Mena\, S. 2023. Prosocial organizing and the distance between core and community work. Organization Studies\, 44(4): 637–657. \n\n\n\nChen\, K. K.\, & Chen\, V. T. 2021. “What if” and “if only” futures beyond conventional capitalism and bureaucracy: Imagining collectivist and democratic possibilities for organizing. In K. K. Chen & V. T. Chen (Eds.)\, Research in the sociology of organizations: 1–28. Emerald Publishing Limited. \n\n\n\nClegg\, S. R. 2014. Managerialism: Born in the USA. Academy of Management Review\, 39(4): 566–576. \n\n\n\nColombo\, L. A. 2023. Civilize the business school: For a civic management education. Academy of Management Learning & Education\, 22(1): 132–149. \n\n\n\nColombo\, L. A.\, Moser\, C.\, Muehlfeld\, K.\, & Joy\, S. 2024. Sowing the seeds of change: Calling for a social–ecological approach to management learning and education. Academy of Management Learning & Education\, 23(2): 207–213. \n\n\n\nDiefenbach\, T. 2020. The democratic organisation: Democracy and the future of work. Routledge. \n\n\n\nEsper\, S. C.\, Cabantous\, L.\, Barin-Cruz\, L.\, & Gond\, J.-P. 2017. Supporting alternative organizations? Exploring scholars’ involvement in the performativity of worker-recuperated enterprises. Organization\, 24(5): 671–699. \n\n\n\nFairchild\, E.\, & Crage\, S. 2014. Beyond the debates: Measuring and specifying student consumerism. Sociological Spectrum\, 34(5): 403–420. \n\n\n\nFerreras\, I. 2017. Firms as political entities: Saving democracy through economic bicameralism. Cambridge University Press. \n\n\n\nFigueiró\, P. S.\, Neutzling\, D. M.\, & Lessa\, B. 2022. Education for sustainability in higher education institutions: A multi-perspective proposal with a focus on management education. Journal of Cleaner Production\, 339: 130539. \n\n\n\nFotaki\, M.\, & Prasad\, A. 2015. Questioning neoliberal capitalism and economic inequality in business schools. Academy of Management Learning & Education\, 14(4): 556–575. \n\n\n\nFournier\, V. 2006. Breaking from the weight of the eternal present: Teaching organizational difference. Management Learning\, 37(3): 295–311. \n\n\n\nFrye\, H. 2022. Commons\, Communes\, and Freedom. Politics\, Philosophy & Economics\, 21(2): 228–244. \n\n\n\nInternational Co-operative Alliance. n.d. Cooperative identity\, values & principles. https://www.ica.coop/en/cooperatives/cooperative-identity\, February 4\, 2021. \n\n\n\nKalmi\, P. 2007. The disappearance of cooperatives from economics textbooks. Cambridge Journal of Economics\, 31(4): 625–647. \n\n\n\nKociatkiewicz\, J.\, Kostera\, M.\, & Parker\, M. 2021. The possibility of disalienated work: Being at home in alternative organizations. Human Relations\, 74(7): 933–957. \n\n\n\nKumar\, A.\, Soundararajan\, V.\, Bapuji\, H.\, Köhler\, T.\, Alcadipani\, R.\, Morsing\, M.\, & Coraiola\, D. M. 2024. Unequal Worlds: Management Education and Inequalities. Academy of Management Learning & Education\, 23(3)\, 379-386. \n\n\n\nLindebaum\, D. 2024. Management Learning and Education as “big picture” social science. Academy of Management Learning & Education\, 23(1): 1–7. \n\n\n\nLocke\, R. R.\, & Spender\, J.-C. 2011. Confronting managerialism: How the business elite and their schools threw our lives out of balance. Bloomsbury Publishing. \n\n\n\nLuyckx\, J.\, Schneider\, A.\, & Kourula\, A. 2022. Learning from alternatives: Analyzing alternative ways of organizing as starting points for improving the corporation. In R. E. Meyer\, S. Leixnering\, & J. Veldman (Eds.)\, Research in the Sociology of Organizations: 209–231. Emerald Publishing Limited. \n\n\n\nMailhot\, C.\, & Lachapelle\, M. D. 2024. Teaching management in the context of Grand Challenges: A pragmatist approach. Management Learning\, 55(2): 167–191. \n\n\n\nMair\, J.\, & Rathert\, N. 2021. Alternative organizing with social purpose: Revisiting institutional analysis of market-based activity. Socio-Economic Review\, 19(2): 817–836. \n\n\n\nManley\, S. W.\, Julian. 2021. Co-operative education: From Mondragón and Bilbao to Preston. The Preston Model and Community Wealth Building. Routledge. \n\n\n\nMazutis\, D. 2024. Making a difference: Taking community stakeholders seriously. Academy of Management Learning & Education\, amle.2022.0342. \n\n\n\nMcLaren\, P. G.\, Bridgman\, T.\, Cummings\, S.\, Lubinski\, C.\, O’Connor\, E.\, et al. 2021. From the editors—new times\, new histories of the business school. Academy of Management Learning & Education\, 20(3): 293–299. \n\n\n\nMeek\, C. B.\, & Woodworth\, W. P. 1990. Technical training and enterprise: Mondragon’s Educational system and its implications for other cooperatives. Economic and Industrial Democracy\, 11(4): 505–528. \n\n\n\nMichael\, C. 2017. The Employee Ownership Trust\, an ESOP Alternative. Probate and Property\, 31(1): 42–47. \n\n\n\nNaidoo\, R.\, Shankar\, A.\, & Veer\, E. 2011. The consumerist turn in higher education: Policy aspirations and outcomes. Journal of Marketing Management\, 27(11–12): 1142–1162. \n\n\n\nPache\, A.-C.\, & Chowdhury\, I. 2012. Social entrepreneurs as institutionally embedded entrepreneurs: Toward a new model of social entrepreneurship education. Academy of Management Learning & Education\, 11(3): 494–510. \n\n\n\nParker\, M. 2018. Shut Down the Business School. London: Pluto Press. https://ideas.repec.org//b/ucp/bkecon/9780745399171.html. \n\n\n\nParker\, M. 2021. The critical business school and the university: A case study of resistance and co-optation. Critical Sociology\, 47(7–8): 1111–1124. \n\n\n\nParker\, S.\, Racz\, M. M.\, & Palmer\, P. W. 2018. Decentering the learner through alternative organizations. Academy of Management Proceedings\, 2018(1): 16086. \n\n\n\nPek\, S. 2021. Drawing out democracy: The role of sortition in preventing and overcoming organizational degeneration in worker-owned firms. Journal of Management Inquiry\, 30(2): 193–206. \n\n\n\nPek\, S. 2023. Reconceptualizing and improving member participation in large cooperatives: Insights from deliberative democracy and deliberative mini-publics. M@n@gement\, 26(4)\, 68-82. \n\n\n\nPepin\, M.\, Tremblay\, M.\, Audebrand\, L. K.\, & Chassé\, S. 2024. The responsible business model canvas: Designing and assessing a sustainable business modeling tool for students and start-up entrepreneurs. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education\, 25(3): 514–538. \n\n\n\nPrasad\, A.\, & Śliwa\, M. 2024. Critiquing the backlash against wokeness: In defense of DEI scholarship and practice. Academy of Management Perspectives\, 38(2): 245-259. \n\n\n\nRankin\, R.\, & Piwko\, P. M. 2022. An analysis of the coverage of cooperatives in U.S. introductory business textbooks. Journal of Accounting and Finance\, 22(3). https://articlearchives.co/index.php/JAF/article/view/5228. \n\n\n\nReedy\, P.\, & Learmonth\, M. 2009. Other possibilities? The contribution to management education of alternative organizations. Management Learning\, 40(3): 241–258. \n\n\n\nRomero\, E. J. 2008. AACSB accreditation: Addressing faculty concerns. Academy of Management Learning & Education\, 7(2): 245–255. \n\n\n\nSavic\, K.\, & Hoicka\, C. E. 2023. Indigenous legal forms and governance structures in renewable energy: Assessing the role and perspectives of First Nations economic development corporations. Energy Research & Social Science\, 101\, 103121. \n\n\n\nSchiller-Merkens\, S. 2024. Prefiguring an alternative economy: Understanding prefigurative organizing and its struggles. Organization\, 31(3): 458–476. \n\n\n\nSchugurensky\, D.\, & McCollum\, E. 2010. Notes in the margins: The social economy in economics and business textbooks. Researching the Social Economy: 154–175. University of Toronto Press. \n\n\n\nSolbreux\, J.\, Hermans\, J.\, Pondeville\, S.\, & Dufays\, F. 2024. It all starts with a story: Questioning dominant entrepreneurial identities through collective narrative practices. International Small Business Journal\, 42(1): 90–123. \n\n\n\nSpicer\, A.\, Jaser\, Z.\, & Wiertz\, C. 2021. The future of the business school: Finding hope in alternative pasts. Academy of Management Learning & Education\, 20(3): 459–466. \n\n\n\nTracey\, P.\, & Phillips\, N. 2007. The distinctive challenge of educating social entrepreneurs: A postscript and rejoinder to the special issue on entrepreneurship education. Academy of Management Learning & Education\, 6(2): 264–271. \n\n\n\nTubb\, D. G. L. 2018. The everyday social economy of Afro-descendants in the Chocó\, Colombia. In C. S. Hossein (Ed.)\, The Black social economy in the Americas: Exploring diverse community-based markets: 97–117. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. \n\n\n\nWanderley\, S.\, Alcadipani\, R.\, & Barros\, A. 2021. Recentering the Global South in the making of business school histories: Dependency ambiguity in action. Academy of Management Learning & Education\, 20(3): 361–381. \n\n\n\nWright\, S.\, Greenwood\, D.\, & Boden\, R. 2011. Report on a field visit to Mondragón University: A cooperative experience/experiment. Learning and Teaching\, 4(3): 38–56. \n\n\n\nZamagni\, S.\, & Zamagni\, V. 2010. Cooperative enterprise: Facing the challenge of globalization. Edward Elgar Publishing. \n\n\n\nZulfiqar\, G.\, & Prasad\, A. 2021. Challenging social inequality in the Global South: Class\, privilege\, and consciousness-raising through critical management education. Academy of Management Learning & Education\, 20(2): 156-181.
URL:https://www.aom.org/calendar/management-learning-and-education-as-drivers-of-fundamental-alternative-forms-of-organizing-2/
CATEGORIES:Call for Special Issue Papers,Learning & Education
ATTACH;FMTTYPE=image/png:https://www.aom.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/amle_cfs.png
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=America/New_York:20251101T000000
DTEND;TZID=America/New_York:20260104T000000
DTSTAMP:20260416T005136
CREATED:20260226T041307Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20260226T041307Z
UID:10000026-1761955200-1767484800@www.aom.org
SUMMARY:AMLE Call for Special Issue Papers: Management Learning and Education as Drivers of Fundamental Alternative Forms of Organizing
DESCRIPTION:Guest Editors\n\n\n\n\nSimon Pek\, University of Victoria (Canada)\n\n\n\nFrédéric Dufays\, HEC Liège-ULiège & KU Leuven (Belgium)\n\n\n\nMartyna Śliwa\, University of Durham (United Kingdom)\n\n\n\nAjnesh Prasad\, Tecnológico de Monterrey (Mexico)\n\n\n\nAmon Barros\, FGV EAESP (Brazil)\n\n\n\n\nAMLE Editors\n\n\n\n\nLaura Colombo\, University of Exeter (United Kingdom)\n\n\n\nKatrin Muehlfeld\, Trier University (Germany)\n\n\n\n\nCall for Papers\n\n\n\nIn promoting managerialism and shareholder value maximization\, business schools have long been implicated in perpetuating what has come to be popularized as grand challenges in the literature. These include\, among other phenomena\, climate change\, biodiversity loss\, economic and gender inequality (e.g.\, Kumar et al.\, 2024; Locke & Spender\, 2011; Parker\, 2018). AMLE\, in particular\, has been at the vanguard of identifying and interrogating the nexus between business schools\, management education\, and management learning\, on the one hand\, and the perpetuation of grand challenges\, on the other hand. For example\, in describing the economic arrangements that structure society\, Fotaki and Prasad (2015: 558) observed almost a decade ago: “[M]any blind spots and unanswered questions about the complicity of business schools in propagating inequalities under neoliberal regimes still exist.” More recently\, turning to the matter of climate change\, Colombo and colleagues (2024) lamented in an editorial about the historical role of management learning and education (MLE) in contributing to the deteriorating state of the world’s natural environment. This led them to ask: “How can our discipline help envision and shape a thriving future\, in a way that contributes knowledge\, skills\, and wisdom toward tackling the contemporary ecological and climate crises?” (207). Observations such as these are being raised with greater frequency and urgency by MLE scholars seeking to tackle pernicious societal grand challenges (Figueiró\, Neutzling\, & Lessa\, 2022; Mailhot & Lachapelle\, 2024).  \n\n\n\nTo tackle grand challenges\, attention has been given to alternative organizations and the positive societal impact they generate (e.g.\, Cavotta & Mena\, 2023)\, as well as to their prefigurative function of and for an alternative future—a future that is better aligned with social and environmental considerations (Bhatt\, Qureshi\, Shukla\, & Hota\, 2024; Schiller-Merkens\, 2024). Researchers commonly use the term alternative organizations to describe those that meaningfully depart from some of the defining characteristics of traditional corporations. Such alternative forms include\, among others\, cooperatives\, stakeholder firms\, social enterprises\, and employee-owned firms (e.g.\, Chen & Chen\, 2021; Kociatkiewicz\, Kostera\, & Parker\, 2021; Luyckx\, Schneider\, & Kourula\, 2022; Mair & Rathert\, 2021; Pek\, 2023).  \n\n\n\nWhen alternative forms of organizing have been studied in the discipline of management\, they have been largely reduced to incremental alternatives\, pointing to “anything different to the traditional for-profit model” (Barin Cruz\, Aquino Alves\, & Delbridge\, 2017: 324). Social enterprises are perhaps the quintessential incremental alternative. They have received a tremendous amount of scholarly attention to date in both management (Battilana & Lee\, 2014) and MLE research (Pache & Chowdhury\, 2012; Tracey & Phillips\, 2007).  \n\n\n\nIn this special issue\, we are specifically interested in fundamental (Barin Cruz et al.\, 2017) alternative forms of organizing\, which “challenge some of the classic principles of the capitalist system” (Barin Cruz et al.\, 2017: 323). Specifically\, we consider fundamental alternative organizations as embracing joint or collective ownership instead of private ownership (Chen & Chen\, 2021; Luyckx et al.\, 2022). This includes a broad diversity of organizations\, including cooperatives (Zamagni & Zamagni\, 2010)\, communes (Frye\, 2022)\, broad-based employee ownership in the form of employee ownership trusts (Michael\, 2017) and employee stock ownership plans (Blasi\, Scharf\, & Kruse\, 2023)\, Indigenous economic development corporations (Savic & Hoicka\, 2023)\, bicameral firms (Ferreras\, 2017)\, commons-based peer production (Benkler & Nissenbaum\, 2006)\, and community self-organizations\, such as collective Black enterprises in the Colombian Pacific (Tubb\, 2018). These organizations often\, but not always\, complement this distinctive approach to ownership with more democratic governance and management (Chen & Chen\, 2021; Pek\, 2021).  \n\n\n\nFundamental alternatives have received only marginal attention from MLE scholars (though there are some exceptions\, e.g.\, Audebrand\, Camus\, & Michaud\, 2017) and they continue to remain largely absent from mainstream management textbooks (Rankin & Piwko\, 2022). This curious lack of MLE engagement with fundamental alternative forms of organizing means that students graduating from business schools hoping to tackle grand challenges are not equipped with the tools and concepts necessary to be able to do so. For MLE scholarship to achieve its ostensible aim of producing socially conscientious leaders for a sustainable future\, business school curricula must be broadened so as to include these fundamental alternative organizations.  \n\n\n\nTo be sure\, this is no small feat. Those who have tried to incorporate such organizations into their curricula have identified a range of challenges. For example\, Audebrand and colleagues (2017) observed resistance from students (e.g.\, limited interest) as well as instructors (e.g.\, limited resources). Fournier (2006: 297) found that\, while students actively engaged with concepts pertaining to alternative organizing\, “they all demonstrated a lack of faith in their very possibility.” Yet\, there is some evidence of how MLE can subvert even the most culturally embedded of social systems. Zulfiqar and Prasad (2021)\, for example\, have illuminated how engaged pedagogy intended to raise consciousness on social inequalities among privileged business school students can unsettle and transcend taken-for-granted assumptions about the world.  \n\n\n\nWith an eye on tackling societal grand challenges\, MLE scholarship can and should play a major role in distilling the challenges to teaching and learning pertaining to fundamental alternative organizing and identifying solutions that can overcome them. These span the three domains of MLE research – i.e.\, the business of business schools\, management learning\, and management education (Lindebaum\, 2024) – and their intersectional phenomena\, including business schools’ and universities’ governance arrangements (Billsberry\, Ambrosini\, & Thomas\, 2023; Wright\, Greenwood\, & Boden\, 2011)\, inter-departmental relationships (Parker\, 2021)\, student consumerism (Naidoo\, Shankar\, & Veer\, 2011)\, and pedagogical interventions (Parker\, Racz\, & Palmer\, 2018; Reedy & Learmonth\, 2009). This special issue aims to generate new theory about fundamental alternative organizations and MLE and\, in so doing\, respond to calls for more critical thinking about the objectives of management education\, greater collaboration with other scholarly disciplines\, and a broadening of our pedagogical approaches (Colombo et al.\, 2024).  \n\n\n\nIllustrative Themes and Research Questions\n\n\n\nFundamental Alternative Organizations and the Business of Business Schools \n\n\n\n\nHow can challenges to incorporating fundamental alternatives be overcome by instructors\, business school leaders\, and accreditation agencies? For example\, would different approaches to business school governance—perhaps those modeled on fundamental alternatives themselves like Mondragon University (Wright et al.\, 2011)—be helpful in this regard?\n\n\n\nHow can fundamental alternatives be woven into professional and executive education programs targeted at professionals in both traditional businesses and fundamental alternatives? What are the opportunities to rethink existing business models in this regard\, such as developing targeted programs to support Cooperative Principle #5 on Education\, Training\, and Information from the statement of cooperative identity? (International Co-operative Alliance\, n.d.)\n\n\n\nHow does integrating fundamental alternatives into MLE affect business schools’ relationships with stakeholders such as corporate philanthropic partners?\n\n\n\nHow do fundamental alternatives configure in MLE in unique and contrasting ways across cultures? For instance\, do the form and/or effects of fundamental alternatives materialize differently in Global South versus Global North business school contexts?\n\n\n\nHow\, and to what effects\, could dominant publishers like Harvard Business Publishing better incorporate fundamental alternatives into their products? (Bridgman et al.\, 2016)\n\n\n\n\nFundamental Alternative Organizations and Management Learning \n\n\n\n\nWhat new skills and competencies can students acquire through different pedagogical strategies focused on fundamental alternatives? For example\, do these pedagogical strategies contribute to the development of civic capacities? (Colombo\, 2023) Paradoxically\, what skills and competencies might students inadvertently not acquire when moving MLE beyond its dominant focus on traditional business models to also include fundamental alternatives?\n\n\n\nWhat potential unintended consequences like the amplification of formal\, social\, and psychological disempowerment (Diefenbach\, 2020) might arise from teaching about fundamental alternatives?\n\n\n\nHow are instructors personally and professionally transformed through engaging with fundamental alternatives in their pedagogy? Do they\, for instance\, become more engaged in the governance of their business schools? Do they become more involved in activities that support the creation of fundamental alternatives? (Esper\, Cabantous\, Barin-Cruz\, & Gond\, 2017)\n\n\n\nHow can teaching fundamental alternatives inspire student entrepreneurs to develop new business models and practices (Pepin\, Tremblay\, Audebrand\, & Chassé\, 2024)?\n\n\n\nHow can teaching fundamental alternatives help students prefigure their paths toward a new economy (Schiller-Merkens\, 2024)? To what extent does it impact their identity (formation) as students\, as citizens\, and/or as entrepreneurs? (Solbreux\, Hermans\, Pondeville\, & Dufays\, 2024)\n\n\n\nDo the internal dynamics of fundamental alternatives offer new perspectives on diversity\, equity\, and inclusion (DEI) and\, if so\, how might they intervene in polemical debates over “woke” DEI policies taking place among business school academics? (Prasad & Śliwa\, 2024\n\n\n\n\nFundamental Alternative Organizations and Management Education \n\n\n\nFundamental alternative organizations have been largely ignored in contemporary MLE scholarship as evidenced in their omission in economics and management texts (e.g.\, Kalmi\, 2007; Rankin & Piwko\, 2022; Schugurensky & McCollum\, 2010). Instead\, the traditional investor-owned\, capitalist enterprise maintains a hegemonic presence in MLE despite growing concerns for more sustainability in business school education (Figueiró et al.\, 2022; Mailhot & Lachapelle\, 2024). MLE researchers can help unpack the factors that may have contributed to this state of affairs. \n\n\n\n\nRe-tracing the history of business schools (McLaren et al.\, 2021; Spicer\, Jaser\, & Wiertz\, 2021; Wanderley\, Alcadipani\, & Barros\, 2021)\, what key events may have contributed to the current marginal place of fundamental alternatives?\n\n\n\nWhat is the role of isomorphic pressures generated by key actors like accreditation bodies in silencing or making fundamental alternatives visible in management education? (Romero\, 2008)\n\n\n\nWhat is the role of broader social discourses like student consumerism (Naidoo et al.\, 2011) and managerialism (Clegg\, 2014) in undermining fundamental alternatives in MLE?\n\n\n\nWhy has MLE scholarship readily embraced incremental alternatives like social enterprises\, while not affording similar legitimacy to fundamental alternatives like worker cooperatives and broad-based employee ownership?\n\n\n\n\nWhile some authors have incorporated fundamental alternatives into their teaching (Audebrand et al.\, 2017; Fournier\, 2006)\, there is much to learn about how fundamental alternatives could be integrated into different pedagogies. Additionally\, we need a deeper understanding of the challenges instructors might face and how those challenges could be overcome. MLE scholarship has much to contribute to both of these closely related topics. \n\n\n\n\nHow can existing MLE pedagogies like experiential learning and service learning be translated to teach fundamental alternative organizations effectively? For example\, should students’ and instructors’ interactions with organizations in service learning projects (Mazutis\, 2024) differ in the case of fundamental alternatives versus incremental alternatives or traditional businesses?\n\n\n\nHow should educational efforts focused on fundamental alternatives be integrated and sequenced with those on traditional business topics (Pache & Chowdhury\, 2012)?\n\n\n\nHow can educational practices currently used to teach fundamental alternative organizations in other disciplines (e.g.\, Manley\, 2021; Meek & Woodworth\, 1990) be leveraged and translated into business schools?\n\n\n\nWhat challenges might instructors and students face when engaging with fundamental alternatives in different contexts (Audebrand et al.\, 2017; Fournier\, 2006)? For example\, how might student consumerism\, which varies across countries (Fairchild & Crage\, 2014)\, affect instructors’ implementation of pedagogical strategies targeted towards fundamental alternatives?\n\n\n\nHow can educational repositories like the Curriculum Library for Employee Ownership become legitimated as important empirical resources in delivering management education?\n\n\n\n\nSubmission Types\n\n\n\nWe welcome Research and Review\, Essay\, and Book and Resource Review submissions for this special issue. The agnostic ethos of AMLE in terms of underlying paradigms\, theories\, and methods is reiterated (for as long as a submission falls within the remit of AMLE). All of the journal’s standard formatting and peer review guidelines will apply. \n\n\n\nInquiries\n\n\n\nThose interested in contributing to this special issue are welcome to contact Simon Pek (spek@uvic.ca) and Ajnesh Prasad (prasad@tec.mx) with their questions. We encourage authors interested in submitting a book or resource review to contact us prior to preparing a manuscript. Authors interested in submitting a book or resource review should identify the work to be reviewed and a brief explanation of how it fits the remit of the special issue. \n\n\n\nPlease note that consultation with the guest editors is neither a prerequisite nor an expectation for submission to the special issue. \n\n\n\nSpecial Issue Timeline and Process\n\n\n\nSubmissions will be accepted via AMLE’s Manuscript Central portal between November 1\, 2025 and December 15\, 2025. \n\n\n\nPrior to submission\, we will hold an optional virtual professional development workshop on June 25\, 2025\, 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 Simon Pek (spek@uvic.ca) and Ajnesh Prasad (prasad@tec.mx) by May 15\, 2025. We also plan to offer workshops to discuss this special issue at the 85th Academy of Management Conference in Copenhagen and the 41st EGOS Colloquium in Athens. 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. \n\n\n\nFollowing our first-round decisions\, we will hold a second optional professional development workshop for authors who receive a revise and resubmit decision following the first round of peer review. It is tentatively scheduled for Spring 2025\, and full details will be shared when available. \n\n\n\nReferences\n\n\n\nAudebrand\, L. K.\, Camus\, A.\, & Michaud\, V. 2017. A mosquito in the classroom: Using the cooperative business model to foster paradoxical thinking in management education. Journal of Management Education\, 41(2): 216–248. \n\n\n\nBarin Cruz\, L.\, Aquino Alves\, M.\, & Delbridge\, R. 2017. Next steps in organizing alternatives to capitalism: toward a relational research agenda. Introduction to the Special Issue. M@n@gement\, 20(4): 322–335. \n\n\n\nBattilana\, J.\, & Lee\, M. 2014. Advancing research on hybrid organizing – Insights from the study of social enterprises. Academy of Management Annals\, 8(1): 397–441. \n\n\n\nBenkler\, Y.\, & Nissenbaum\, H. 2006. Commons-based peer production and virtue. Journal of Political Philosophy\, 14(4): 394–419. \n\n\n\nBhatt\, B.\, Qureshi\, I.\, Shukla\, D. M.\, & Hota\, P. K. 2024. Prefiguring alternative organizing: Confronting marginalization through projective cultural adjustment and tempered autonomy. Organization Studies\, 45(1): 59–84. \n\n\n\nBillsberry\, J.\, Ambrosini\, V.\, & Thomas\, L. 2023. Managerialist control in post-pandemic business schools: The tragedy of the new normal and a new hope. Academy of Management Learning & Education\, 22(3)\, 439-458. \n\n\n\nBlasi\, J.\, Scharf\, A.\, & Kruse\, D. 2023. Employee ownership in the US: Some issues on ESOPs – overcoming the barriers to further development. Journal of Participation and Employee Ownership\, ahead-of-print(ahead-of-print). https://doi.org/10.1108/JPEO-11-2022-0028. \n\n\n\nBridgman\, T.\, Cummings\, S.\, & McLaughlin\, C. 2016. Restating the case: How revisiting the development of the case method can help us think differently about the future of the business school. Academy of Management Learning & Education\, 15(4)\, 724-741. \n\n\n\nCavotta\, V.\, & Mena\, S. 2023. Prosocial organizing and the distance between core and community work. Organization Studies\, 44(4): 637–657. \n\n\n\nChen\, K. K.\, & Chen\, V. T. 2021. “What if” and “if only” futures beyond conventional capitalism and bureaucracy: Imagining collectivist and democratic possibilities for organizing. In K. K. Chen & V. T. Chen (Eds.)\, Research in the sociology of organizations: 1–28. Emerald Publishing Limited. \n\n\n\nClegg\, S. R. 2014. Managerialism: Born in the USA. Academy of Management Review\, 39(4): 566–576. \n\n\n\nColombo\, L. A. 2023. Civilize the business school: For a civic management education. Academy of Management Learning & Education\, 22(1): 132–149. \n\n\n\nColombo\, L. A.\, Moser\, C.\, Muehlfeld\, K.\, & Joy\, S. 2024. Sowing the seeds of change: Calling for a social–ecological approach to management learning and education. Academy of Management Learning & Education\, 23(2): 207–213. \n\n\n\nDiefenbach\, T. 2020. The democratic organisation: Democracy and the future of work. Routledge. \n\n\n\nEsper\, S. C.\, Cabantous\, L.\, Barin-Cruz\, L.\, & Gond\, J.-P. 2017. Supporting alternative organizations? Exploring scholars’ involvement in the performativity of worker-recuperated enterprises. Organization\, 24(5): 671–699. \n\n\n\nFairchild\, E.\, & Crage\, S. 2014. Beyond the debates: Measuring and specifying student consumerism. Sociological Spectrum\, 34(5): 403–420. \n\n\n\nFerreras\, I. 2017. Firms as political entities: Saving democracy through economic bicameralism. Cambridge University Press. \n\n\n\nFigueiró\, P. S.\, Neutzling\, D. M.\, & Lessa\, B. 2022. Education for sustainability in higher education institutions: A multi-perspective proposal with a focus on management education. Journal of Cleaner Production\, 339: 130539. \n\n\n\nFotaki\, M.\, & Prasad\, A. 2015. Questioning neoliberal capitalism and economic inequality in business schools. Academy of Management Learning & Education\, 14(4): 556–575. \n\n\n\nFournier\, V. 2006. Breaking from the weight of the eternal present: Teaching organizational difference. Management Learning\, 37(3): 295–311. \n\n\n\nFrye\, H. 2022. Commons\, Communes\, and Freedom. Politics\, Philosophy & Economics\, 21(2): 228–244. \n\n\n\nInternational Co-operative Alliance. n.d. Cooperative identity\, values & principles. https://www.ica.coop/en/cooperatives/cooperative-identity\, February 4\, 2021. \n\n\n\nKalmi\, P. 2007. The disappearance of cooperatives from economics textbooks. Cambridge Journal of Economics\, 31(4): 625–647. \n\n\n\nKociatkiewicz\, J.\, Kostera\, M.\, & Parker\, M. 2021. The possibility of disalienated work: Being at home in alternative organizations. Human Relations\, 74(7): 933–957. \n\n\n\nKumar\, A.\, Soundararajan\, V.\, Bapuji\, H.\, Köhler\, T.\, Alcadipani\, R.\, Morsing\, M.\, & Coraiola\, D. M. 2024. Unequal Worlds: Management Education and Inequalities. Academy of Management Learning & Education\, 23(3)\, 379-386. \n\n\n\nLindebaum\, D. 2024. Management Learning and Education as “big picture” social science. Academy of Management Learning & Education\, 23(1): 1–7. \n\n\n\nLocke\, R. R.\, & Spender\, J.-C. 2011. Confronting managerialism: How the business elite and their schools threw our lives out of balance. Bloomsbury Publishing. \n\n\n\nLuyckx\, J.\, Schneider\, A.\, & Kourula\, A. 2022. Learning from alternatives: Analyzing alternative ways of organizing as starting points for improving the corporation. In R. E. Meyer\, S. Leixnering\, & J. Veldman (Eds.)\, Research in the Sociology of Organizations: 209–231. Emerald Publishing Limited. \n\n\n\nMailhot\, C.\, & Lachapelle\, M. D. 2024. Teaching management in the context of Grand Challenges: A pragmatist approach. Management Learning\, 55(2): 167–191. \n\n\n\nMair\, J.\, & Rathert\, N. 2021. Alternative organizing with social purpose: Revisiting institutional analysis of market-based activity. Socio-Economic Review\, 19(2): 817–836. \n\n\n\nManley\, S. W.\, Julian. 2021. Co-operative education: From Mondragón and Bilbao to Preston. The Preston Model and Community Wealth Building. Routledge. \n\n\n\nMazutis\, D. 2024. Making a difference: Taking community stakeholders seriously. Academy of Management Learning & Education\, amle.2022.0342. \n\n\n\nMcLaren\, P. G.\, Bridgman\, T.\, Cummings\, S.\, Lubinski\, C.\, O’Connor\, E.\, et al. 2021. From the editors—new times\, new histories of the business school. Academy of Management Learning & Education\, 20(3): 293–299. \n\n\n\nMeek\, C. B.\, & Woodworth\, W. P. 1990. Technical training and enterprise: Mondragon’s Educational system and its implications for other cooperatives. Economic and Industrial Democracy\, 11(4): 505–528. \n\n\n\nMichael\, C. 2017. The Employee Ownership Trust\, an ESOP Alternative. Probate and Property\, 31(1): 42–47. \n\n\n\nNaidoo\, R.\, Shankar\, A.\, & Veer\, E. 2011. The consumerist turn in higher education: Policy aspirations and outcomes. Journal of Marketing Management\, 27(11–12): 1142–1162. \n\n\n\nPache\, A.-C.\, & Chowdhury\, I. 2012. Social entrepreneurs as institutionally embedded entrepreneurs: Toward a new model of social entrepreneurship education. Academy of Management Learning & Education\, 11(3): 494–510. \n\n\n\nParker\, M. 2018. Shut Down the Business School. London: Pluto Press. https://ideas.repec.org//b/ucp/bkecon/9780745399171.html. \n\n\n\nParker\, M. 2021. The critical business school and the university: A case study of resistance and co-optation. Critical Sociology\, 47(7–8): 1111–1124. \n\n\n\nParker\, S.\, Racz\, M. M.\, & Palmer\, P. W. 2018. Decentering the learner through alternative organizations. Academy of Management Proceedings\, 2018(1): 16086. \n\n\n\nPek\, S. 2021. Drawing out democracy: The role of sortition in preventing and overcoming organizational degeneration in worker-owned firms. Journal of Management Inquiry\, 30(2): 193–206. \n\n\n\nPek\, S. 2023. Reconceptualizing and improving member participation in large cooperatives: Insights from deliberative democracy and deliberative mini-publics. M@n@gement\, 26(4)\, 68-82. \n\n\n\nPepin\, M.\, Tremblay\, M.\, Audebrand\, L. K.\, & Chassé\, S. 2024. The responsible business model canvas: Designing and assessing a sustainable business modeling tool for students and start-up entrepreneurs. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education\, 25(3): 514–538. \n\n\n\nPrasad\, A.\, & Śliwa\, M. 2024. Critiquing the backlash against wokeness: In defense of DEI scholarship and practice. Academy of Management Perspectives\, 38(2): 245-259. \n\n\n\nRankin\, R.\, & Piwko\, P. M. 2022. An analysis of the coverage of cooperatives in U.S. introductory business textbooks. Journal of Accounting and Finance\, 22(3). https://articlearchives.co/index.php/JAF/article/view/5228. \n\n\n\nReedy\, P.\, & Learmonth\, M. 2009. Other possibilities? The contribution to management education of alternative organizations. Management Learning\, 40(3): 241–258. \n\n\n\nRomero\, E. J. 2008. AACSB accreditation: Addressing faculty concerns. Academy of Management Learning & Education\, 7(2): 245–255. \n\n\n\nSavic\, K.\, & Hoicka\, C. E. 2023. Indigenous legal forms and governance structures in renewable energy: Assessing the role and perspectives of First Nations economic development corporations. Energy Research & Social Science\, 101\, 103121. \n\n\n\nSchiller-Merkens\, S. 2024. Prefiguring an alternative economy: Understanding prefigurative organizing and its struggles. Organization\, 31(3): 458–476. \n\n\n\nSchugurensky\, D.\, & McCollum\, E. 2010. Notes in the margins: The social economy in economics and business textbooks. Researching the Social Economy: 154–175. University of Toronto Press. \n\n\n\nSolbreux\, J.\, Hermans\, J.\, Pondeville\, S.\, & Dufays\, F. 2024. It all starts with a story: Questioning dominant entrepreneurial identities through collective narrative practices. International Small Business Journal\, 42(1): 90–123. \n\n\n\nSpicer\, A.\, Jaser\, Z.\, & Wiertz\, C. 2021. The future of the business school: Finding hope in alternative pasts. Academy of Management Learning & Education\, 20(3): 459–466. \n\n\n\nTracey\, P.\, & Phillips\, N. 2007. The distinctive challenge of educating social entrepreneurs: A postscript and rejoinder to the special issue on entrepreneurship education. Academy of Management Learning & Education\, 6(2): 264–271. \n\n\n\nTubb\, D. G. L. 2018. The everyday social economy of Afro-descendants in the Chocó\, Colombia. In C. S. Hossein (Ed.)\, The Black social economy in the Americas: Exploring diverse community-based markets: 97–117. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. \n\n\n\nWanderley\, S.\, Alcadipani\, R.\, & Barros\, A. 2021. Recentering the Global South in the making of business school histories: Dependency ambiguity in action. Academy of Management Learning & Education\, 20(3): 361–381. \n\n\n\nWright\, S.\, Greenwood\, D.\, & Boden\, R. 2011. Report on a field visit to Mondragón University: A cooperative experience/experiment. Learning and Teaching\, 4(3): 38–56. \n\n\n\nZamagni\, S.\, & Zamagni\, V. 2010. Cooperative enterprise: Facing the challenge of globalization. Edward Elgar Publishing. \n\n\n\nZulfiqar\, G.\, & Prasad\, A. 2021. Challenging social inequality in the Global South: Class\, privilege\, and consciousness-raising through critical management education. Academy of Management Learning & Education\, 20(2): 156-181.
URL:https://www.aom.org/calendar/amle-call-for-special-issue-papers-management-learning-and-education-as-drivers-of-fundamental-alternative-forms-of-organizing/
CATEGORIES:Call for Special Issue Papers,Call for Submissions,Event Calendar,Journals,Learning & Education
ATTACH;FMTTYPE=image/png:https://www.aom.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/amle_cfs.png
END:VEVENT
END:VCALENDAR