BEGIN:VCALENDAR
VERSION:2.0
PRODID:-//Academy of Management  - ECPv6.15.17.1//NONSGML v1.0//EN
CALSCALE:GREGORIAN
METHOD:PUBLISH
X-WR-CALNAME:Academy of Management 
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:19690427T070000
END:DAYLIGHT
BEGIN:STANDARD
TZOFFSETFROM:-0400
TZOFFSETTO:-0500
TZNAME:EST
DTSTART:19691026T060000
END:STANDARD
BEGIN:DAYLIGHT
TZOFFSETFROM:-0500
TZOFFSETTO:-0400
TZNAME:EDT
DTSTART:19700426T070000
END:DAYLIGHT
BEGIN:STANDARD
TZOFFSETFROM:-0400
TZOFFSETTO:-0500
TZNAME:EST
DTSTART:19701025T060000
END:STANDARD
BEGIN:DAYLIGHT
TZOFFSETFROM:-0500
TZOFFSETTO:-0400
TZNAME:EDT
DTSTART:19710425T070000
END:DAYLIGHT
BEGIN:STANDARD
TZOFFSETFROM:-0400
TZOFFSETTO:-0500
TZNAME:EST
DTSTART:19711031T060000
END:STANDARD
BEGIN:DAYLIGHT
TZOFFSETFROM:-0500
TZOFFSETTO:-0400
TZNAME:EDT
DTSTART:19720430T070000
END:DAYLIGHT
BEGIN:STANDARD
TZOFFSETFROM:-0400
TZOFFSETTO:-0500
TZNAME:EST
DTSTART:19721029T060000
END:STANDARD
BEGIN:DAYLIGHT
TZOFFSETFROM:-0500
TZOFFSETTO:-0400
TZNAME:EDT
DTSTART:19730429T070000
END:DAYLIGHT
BEGIN:STANDARD
TZOFFSETFROM:-0400
TZOFFSETTO:-0500
TZNAME:EST
DTSTART:19731028T060000
END:STANDARD
BEGIN:DAYLIGHT
TZOFFSETFROM:-0500
TZOFFSETTO:-0400
TZNAME:EDT
DTSTART:19740106T070000
END:DAYLIGHT
BEGIN:STANDARD
TZOFFSETFROM:-0400
TZOFFSETTO:-0500
TZNAME:EST
DTSTART:19741027T060000
END:STANDARD
BEGIN:DAYLIGHT
TZOFFSETFROM:-0500
TZOFFSETTO:-0400
TZNAME:EDT
DTSTART:19750223T070000
END:DAYLIGHT
BEGIN:STANDARD
TZOFFSETFROM:-0400
TZOFFSETTO:-0500
TZNAME:EST
DTSTART:19751026T060000
END:STANDARD
BEGIN:DAYLIGHT
TZOFFSETFROM:-0500
TZOFFSETTO:-0400
TZNAME:EDT
DTSTART:19760425T070000
END:DAYLIGHT
BEGIN:STANDARD
TZOFFSETFROM:-0400
TZOFFSETTO:-0500
TZNAME:EST
DTSTART:19761031T060000
END:STANDARD
BEGIN:DAYLIGHT
TZOFFSETFROM:-0500
TZOFFSETTO:-0400
TZNAME:EDT
DTSTART:19770424T070000
END:DAYLIGHT
BEGIN:STANDARD
TZOFFSETFROM:-0400
TZOFFSETTO:-0500
TZNAME:EST
DTSTART:19771030T060000
END:STANDARD
BEGIN:DAYLIGHT
TZOFFSETFROM:-0500
TZOFFSETTO:-0400
TZNAME:EDT
DTSTART:19780430T070000
END:DAYLIGHT
BEGIN:STANDARD
TZOFFSETFROM:-0400
TZOFFSETTO:-0500
TZNAME:EST
DTSTART:19781029T060000
END:STANDARD
BEGIN:DAYLIGHT
TZOFFSETFROM:-0500
TZOFFSETTO:-0400
TZNAME:EDT
DTSTART:19790429T070000
END:DAYLIGHT
BEGIN:STANDARD
TZOFFSETFROM:-0400
TZOFFSETTO:-0500
TZNAME:EST
DTSTART:19791028T060000
END:STANDARD
BEGIN:DAYLIGHT
TZOFFSETFROM:-0500
TZOFFSETTO:-0400
TZNAME:EDT
DTSTART:19800427T070000
END:DAYLIGHT
BEGIN:STANDARD
TZOFFSETFROM:-0400
TZOFFSETTO:-0500
TZNAME:EST
DTSTART:19801026T060000
END:STANDARD
BEGIN:DAYLIGHT
TZOFFSETFROM:-0500
TZOFFSETTO:-0400
TZNAME:EDT
DTSTART:19810426T070000
END:DAYLIGHT
BEGIN:STANDARD
TZOFFSETFROM:-0400
TZOFFSETTO:-0500
TZNAME:EST
DTSTART:19811025T060000
END:STANDARD
BEGIN:DAYLIGHT
TZOFFSETFROM:-0500
TZOFFSETTO:-0400
TZNAME:EDT
DTSTART:19820425T070000
END:DAYLIGHT
BEGIN:STANDARD
TZOFFSETFROM:-0400
TZOFFSETTO:-0500
TZNAME:EST
DTSTART:19821031T060000
END:STANDARD
BEGIN:DAYLIGHT
TZOFFSETFROM:-0500
TZOFFSETTO:-0400
TZNAME:EDT
DTSTART:19830424T070000
END:DAYLIGHT
BEGIN:STANDARD
TZOFFSETFROM:-0400
TZOFFSETTO:-0500
TZNAME:EST
DTSTART:19831030T060000
END:STANDARD
BEGIN:DAYLIGHT
TZOFFSETFROM:-0500
TZOFFSETTO:-0400
TZNAME:EDT
DTSTART:19840429T070000
END:DAYLIGHT
BEGIN:STANDARD
TZOFFSETFROM:-0400
TZOFFSETTO:-0500
TZNAME:EST
DTSTART:19841028T060000
END:STANDARD
BEGIN:DAYLIGHT
TZOFFSETFROM:-0500
TZOFFSETTO:-0400
TZNAME:EDT
DTSTART:19850428T070000
END:DAYLIGHT
BEGIN:STANDARD
TZOFFSETFROM:-0400
TZOFFSETTO:-0500
TZNAME:EST
DTSTART:19851027T060000
END:STANDARD
BEGIN:DAYLIGHT
TZOFFSETFROM:-0500
TZOFFSETTO:-0400
TZNAME:EDT
DTSTART:19860427T070000
END:DAYLIGHT
BEGIN:STANDARD
TZOFFSETFROM:-0400
TZOFFSETTO:-0500
TZNAME:EST
DTSTART:19861026T060000
END:STANDARD
BEGIN:DAYLIGHT
TZOFFSETFROM:-0500
TZOFFSETTO:-0400
TZNAME:EDT
DTSTART:19870405T070000
END:DAYLIGHT
BEGIN:STANDARD
TZOFFSETFROM:-0400
TZOFFSETTO:-0500
TZNAME:EST
DTSTART:19871025T060000
END:STANDARD
BEGIN:DAYLIGHT
TZOFFSETFROM:-0500
TZOFFSETTO:-0400
TZNAME:EDT
DTSTART:19880403T070000
END:DAYLIGHT
BEGIN:STANDARD
TZOFFSETFROM:-0400
TZOFFSETTO:-0500
TZNAME:EST
DTSTART:19881030T060000
END:STANDARD
BEGIN:DAYLIGHT
TZOFFSETFROM:-0500
TZOFFSETTO:-0400
TZNAME:EDT
DTSTART:19890402T070000
END:DAYLIGHT
BEGIN:STANDARD
TZOFFSETFROM:-0400
TZOFFSETTO:-0500
TZNAME:EST
DTSTART:19891029T060000
END:STANDARD
BEGIN:DAYLIGHT
TZOFFSETFROM:-0500
TZOFFSETTO:-0400
TZNAME:EDT
DTSTART:19900401T070000
END:DAYLIGHT
BEGIN:STANDARD
TZOFFSETFROM:-0400
TZOFFSETTO:-0500
TZNAME:EST
DTSTART:19901028T060000
END:STANDARD
BEGIN:DAYLIGHT
TZOFFSETFROM:-0500
TZOFFSETTO:-0400
TZNAME:EDT
DTSTART:19910407T070000
END:DAYLIGHT
BEGIN:STANDARD
TZOFFSETFROM:-0400
TZOFFSETTO:-0500
TZNAME:EST
DTSTART:19911027T060000
END:STANDARD
BEGIN:DAYLIGHT
TZOFFSETFROM:-0500
TZOFFSETTO:-0400
TZNAME:EDT
DTSTART:19920405T070000
END:DAYLIGHT
BEGIN:STANDARD
TZOFFSETFROM:-0400
TZOFFSETTO:-0500
TZNAME:EST
DTSTART:19921025T060000
END:STANDARD
BEGIN:DAYLIGHT
TZOFFSETFROM:-0500
TZOFFSETTO:-0400
TZNAME:EDT
DTSTART:19930404T070000
END:DAYLIGHT
BEGIN:STANDARD
TZOFFSETFROM:-0400
TZOFFSETTO:-0500
TZNAME:EST
DTSTART:19931031T060000
END:STANDARD
BEGIN:DAYLIGHT
TZOFFSETFROM:-0500
TZOFFSETTO:-0400
TZNAME:EDT
DTSTART:19940403T070000
END:DAYLIGHT
BEGIN:STANDARD
TZOFFSETFROM:-0400
TZOFFSETTO:-0500
TZNAME:EST
DTSTART:19941030T060000
END:STANDARD
BEGIN:DAYLIGHT
TZOFFSETFROM:-0500
TZOFFSETTO:-0400
TZNAME:EDT
DTSTART:19950402T070000
END:DAYLIGHT
BEGIN:STANDARD
TZOFFSETFROM:-0400
TZOFFSETTO:-0500
TZNAME:EST
DTSTART:19951029T060000
END:STANDARD
BEGIN:DAYLIGHT
TZOFFSETFROM:-0500
TZOFFSETTO:-0400
TZNAME:EDT
DTSTART:19960407T070000
END:DAYLIGHT
BEGIN:STANDARD
TZOFFSETFROM:-0400
TZOFFSETTO:-0500
TZNAME:EST
DTSTART:19961027T060000
END:STANDARD
BEGIN:DAYLIGHT
TZOFFSETFROM:-0500
TZOFFSETTO:-0400
TZNAME:EDT
DTSTART:19970406T070000
END:DAYLIGHT
BEGIN:STANDARD
TZOFFSETFROM:-0400
TZOFFSETTO:-0500
TZNAME:EST
DTSTART:19971026T060000
END:STANDARD
BEGIN:DAYLIGHT
TZOFFSETFROM:-0500
TZOFFSETTO:-0400
TZNAME:EDT
DTSTART:19980405T070000
END:DAYLIGHT
BEGIN:STANDARD
TZOFFSETFROM:-0400
TZOFFSETTO:-0500
TZNAME:EST
DTSTART:19981025T060000
END:STANDARD
BEGIN:DAYLIGHT
TZOFFSETFROM:-0500
TZOFFSETTO:-0400
TZNAME:EDT
DTSTART:19990404T070000
END:DAYLIGHT
BEGIN:STANDARD
TZOFFSETFROM:-0400
TZOFFSETTO:-0500
TZNAME:EST
DTSTART:19991031T060000
END:STANDARD
BEGIN:DAYLIGHT
TZOFFSETFROM:-0500
TZOFFSETTO:-0400
TZNAME:EDT
DTSTART:20000402T070000
END:DAYLIGHT
BEGIN:STANDARD
TZOFFSETFROM:-0400
TZOFFSETTO:-0500
TZNAME:EST
DTSTART:20001029T060000
END:STANDARD
BEGIN:DAYLIGHT
TZOFFSETFROM:-0500
TZOFFSETTO:-0400
TZNAME:EDT
DTSTART:20010401T070000
END:DAYLIGHT
BEGIN:STANDARD
TZOFFSETFROM:-0400
TZOFFSETTO:-0500
TZNAME:EST
DTSTART:20011028T060000
END:STANDARD
BEGIN:DAYLIGHT
TZOFFSETFROM:-0500
TZOFFSETTO:-0400
TZNAME:EDT
DTSTART:20020407T070000
END:DAYLIGHT
BEGIN:STANDARD
TZOFFSETFROM:-0400
TZOFFSETTO:-0500
TZNAME:EST
DTSTART:20021027T060000
END:STANDARD
BEGIN:DAYLIGHT
TZOFFSETFROM:-0500
TZOFFSETTO:-0400
TZNAME:EDT
DTSTART:20030406T070000
END:DAYLIGHT
BEGIN:STANDARD
TZOFFSETFROM:-0400
TZOFFSETTO:-0500
TZNAME:EST
DTSTART:20031026T060000
END:STANDARD
BEGIN:DAYLIGHT
TZOFFSETFROM:-0500
TZOFFSETTO:-0400
TZNAME:EDT
DTSTART:20040404T070000
END:DAYLIGHT
BEGIN:STANDARD
TZOFFSETFROM:-0400
TZOFFSETTO:-0500
TZNAME:EST
DTSTART:20041031T060000
END:STANDARD
BEGIN:DAYLIGHT
TZOFFSETFROM:-0500
TZOFFSETTO:-0400
TZNAME:EDT
DTSTART:20050403T070000
END:DAYLIGHT
BEGIN:STANDARD
TZOFFSETFROM:-0400
TZOFFSETTO:-0500
TZNAME:EST
DTSTART:20051030T060000
END:STANDARD
BEGIN:DAYLIGHT
TZOFFSETFROM:-0500
TZOFFSETTO:-0400
TZNAME:EDT
DTSTART:20060402T070000
END:DAYLIGHT
BEGIN:STANDARD
TZOFFSETFROM:-0400
TZOFFSETTO:-0500
TZNAME:EST
DTSTART:20061029T060000
END:STANDARD
BEGIN:DAYLIGHT
TZOFFSETFROM:-0500
TZOFFSETTO:-0400
TZNAME:EDT
DTSTART:20070311T070000
END:DAYLIGHT
BEGIN:STANDARD
TZOFFSETFROM:-0400
TZOFFSETTO:-0500
TZNAME:EST
DTSTART:20071104T060000
END:STANDARD
BEGIN:DAYLIGHT
TZOFFSETFROM:-0500
TZOFFSETTO:-0400
TZNAME:EDT
DTSTART:20080309T070000
END:DAYLIGHT
BEGIN:STANDARD
TZOFFSETFROM:-0400
TZOFFSETTO:-0500
TZNAME:EST
DTSTART:20081102T060000
END:STANDARD
BEGIN:DAYLIGHT
TZOFFSETFROM:-0500
TZOFFSETTO:-0400
TZNAME:EDT
DTSTART:20090308T070000
END:DAYLIGHT
BEGIN:STANDARD
TZOFFSETFROM:-0400
TZOFFSETTO:-0500
TZNAME:EST
DTSTART:20091101T060000
END:STANDARD
BEGIN:DAYLIGHT
TZOFFSETFROM:-0500
TZOFFSETTO:-0400
TZNAME:EDT
DTSTART:20100314T070000
END:DAYLIGHT
BEGIN:STANDARD
TZOFFSETFROM:-0400
TZOFFSETTO:-0500
TZNAME:EST
DTSTART:20101107T060000
END:STANDARD
BEGIN:DAYLIGHT
TZOFFSETFROM:-0500
TZOFFSETTO:-0400
TZNAME:EDT
DTSTART:20110313T070000
END:DAYLIGHT
BEGIN:STANDARD
TZOFFSETFROM:-0400
TZOFFSETTO:-0500
TZNAME:EST
DTSTART:20111106T060000
END:STANDARD
BEGIN:DAYLIGHT
TZOFFSETFROM:-0500
TZOFFSETTO:-0400
TZNAME:EDT
DTSTART:20120311T070000
END:DAYLIGHT
BEGIN:STANDARD
TZOFFSETFROM:-0400
TZOFFSETTO:-0500
TZNAME:EST
DTSTART:20121104T060000
END:STANDARD
BEGIN:DAYLIGHT
TZOFFSETFROM:-0500
TZOFFSETTO:-0400
TZNAME:EDT
DTSTART:20130310T070000
END:DAYLIGHT
BEGIN:STANDARD
TZOFFSETFROM:-0400
TZOFFSETTO:-0500
TZNAME:EST
DTSTART:20131103T060000
END:STANDARD
BEGIN:DAYLIGHT
TZOFFSETFROM:-0500
TZOFFSETTO:-0400
TZNAME:EDT
DTSTART:20140309T070000
END:DAYLIGHT
BEGIN:STANDARD
TZOFFSETFROM:-0400
TZOFFSETTO:-0500
TZNAME:EST
DTSTART:20141102T060000
END:STANDARD
BEGIN:DAYLIGHT
TZOFFSETFROM:-0500
TZOFFSETTO:-0400
TZNAME:EDT
DTSTART:20150308T070000
END:DAYLIGHT
BEGIN:STANDARD
TZOFFSETFROM:-0400
TZOFFSETTO:-0500
TZNAME:EST
DTSTART:20151101T060000
END:STANDARD
BEGIN:DAYLIGHT
TZOFFSETFROM:-0500
TZOFFSETTO:-0400
TZNAME:EDT
DTSTART:20160313T070000
END:DAYLIGHT
BEGIN:STANDARD
TZOFFSETFROM:-0400
TZOFFSETTO:-0500
TZNAME:EST
DTSTART:20161106T060000
END:STANDARD
BEGIN:DAYLIGHT
TZOFFSETFROM:-0500
TZOFFSETTO:-0400
TZNAME:EDT
DTSTART:20170312T070000
END:DAYLIGHT
BEGIN:STANDARD
TZOFFSETFROM:-0400
TZOFFSETTO:-0500
TZNAME:EST
DTSTART:20171105T060000
END:STANDARD
BEGIN:DAYLIGHT
TZOFFSETFROM:-0500
TZOFFSETTO:-0400
TZNAME:EDT
DTSTART:20180311T070000
END:DAYLIGHT
BEGIN:STANDARD
TZOFFSETFROM:-0400
TZOFFSETTO:-0500
TZNAME:EST
DTSTART:20181104T060000
END:STANDARD
BEGIN:DAYLIGHT
TZOFFSETFROM:-0500
TZOFFSETTO:-0400
TZNAME:EDT
DTSTART:20190310T070000
END:DAYLIGHT
BEGIN:STANDARD
TZOFFSETFROM:-0400
TZOFFSETTO:-0500
TZNAME:EST
DTSTART:20191103T060000
END:STANDARD
BEGIN:DAYLIGHT
TZOFFSETFROM:-0500
TZOFFSETTO:-0400
TZNAME:EDT
DTSTART:20200308T070000
END:DAYLIGHT
BEGIN:STANDARD
TZOFFSETFROM:-0400
TZOFFSETTO:-0500
TZNAME:EST
DTSTART:20201101T060000
END:STANDARD
BEGIN:DAYLIGHT
TZOFFSETFROM:-0500
TZOFFSETTO:-0400
TZNAME:EDT
DTSTART:20210314T070000
END:DAYLIGHT
BEGIN:STANDARD
TZOFFSETFROM:-0400
TZOFFSETTO:-0500
TZNAME:EST
DTSTART:20211107T060000
END:STANDARD
BEGIN:DAYLIGHT
TZOFFSETFROM:-0500
TZOFFSETTO:-0400
TZNAME:EDT
DTSTART:20220313T070000
END:DAYLIGHT
BEGIN:STANDARD
TZOFFSETFROM:-0400
TZOFFSETTO:-0500
TZNAME:EST
DTSTART:20221106T060000
END:STANDARD
BEGIN:DAYLIGHT
TZOFFSETFROM:-0500
TZOFFSETTO:-0400
TZNAME:EDT
DTSTART:20230312T070000
END:DAYLIGHT
BEGIN:STANDARD
TZOFFSETFROM:-0400
TZOFFSETTO:-0500
TZNAME:EST
DTSTART:20231105T060000
END:STANDARD
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:20260201T000000
DTEND;TZID=America/New_York:20260316T235900
DTSTAMP:20260415T185858
CREATED:20260226T045349Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20260226T045350Z
UID:10000041-1769904000-1773705540@www.aom.org
SUMMARY:AMD Special Research Spotlight: From Circularity to Regeneration in Management and Organizations
DESCRIPTION:Submission Deadline: 16 March 2026 \n\n\n\nSubmission window for Special Research Spotlight: 1 February – 16 March 2026 \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nGuest Editors\n\n\n\n\nOana Branzei\, Western University\n\n\n\nSusan K. Cohen\, University of Pittsburgh\, AMD Deputy Editor\n\n\n\nNancy Bocken\, Maastricht University\n\n\n\nStefano Pascucci\, University of Exeter\n\n\n\n\nOverview\n\n\n\nToday’s pressing need for organizations to operate within planetary boundaries (Williams et al.\, 2024) dates to the 1960s\, when Kenneth Boulding and Herman Daly[1] famously employed the analogy of “Spaceship Earth” to problematize the standing premise of endless growth. Building on this analogy\, the concept of a circular economy promises to “decouple economic growth from resource depletion” (Kitchherr et al.\, 2023: 6). Concretely\, a circular economy (CE) refers to an economic system based on business models that emphasize reducing\, reusing\, recycling and recovering materials in both production and consumption processes\, with the aim of advancing environmental quality\, economic prosperity and social equity\, in current and future generations. The underlying assumption of a circular economy is that “materials never become waste and nature is regenerated” because closed-loop cycles optimize resource utilization\, maintain financial\, natural\, and social capital\, and minimize waste and pollution[2]. A CE thus requires evolving away from linear production systems at the micro level (products\, companies\, consumers)\, meso level (industry value chains\, industrial districts\, regional clusters or ecosystems) and macro level (city\, region\, nation\, or pan-national systems). \n\n\n\nSince the 2010s\, the Ellen MacArthur Foundation has advocated closed-loop economic systems to reduce waste\, conserve resources and promote economic resilience. Definitions of CE have proliferated\, reflecting a growing range of applications across industries and contexts. By 2017\, Kirchherr\, Reike and Hekkert counted 144 different definitions of circular economy. By 2023\, Kirchherr and colleagues referenced 221 (see also Lacy et al.\, 2020; Lehtimäki et al.\, 2022). The European Parliament succinctly describes the circular economy as “less raw materials\, less waste\, fewer emissions”[3]. The World Economic Forum advocates for the circular transformation by “adopting circularity at scale.”[4] Common to these definitions is faith in free-market capitalism (neoliberal ideology) and the belief that addressing environmental challenges it poses can further fuel economic growth through ecological modernization (Dzhengiz et al.\, 2023: 270). \n\n\n\nIn the past two decades\, circular practices like maintenance\, reuse\, refurbishment\, remanufacture\, recycling\, and composting have been widely adopted: organizations such as Adidas\, H&M\, IKEA\, Patagonia\, Unilever and Walmart now champion the transition from linear to circular economies as one way to mitigate problems created by over-production and over-consumption (see also Kopnina & Poldner\, 2021). Many studies have documented why and how organizations embrace circularity (Bocken et al.\, 2023; Geissdoerfer et al.\, 2017; González-Sánchez et al.\, 2023; Kopnina & Poldner\, 2021). Recent reviews (Dzhengiz et al.\, 2023; Hossain et al.\, 2021) confirm that circular systems can help firms produce less waste and convert more of the waste they do produce into something of value\, a practice referred to as waste valorization (Bojovic et al.\, 2025). In the context of a circular economy\, valorizing waste refers to the process of reusing\, recycling\, or converting outputs into new products or forms of energy\, such as biofertilizers\, bioplastics\, or biofuels\, instead of discarding them (Patala et al.\, 2022). \n\n\n\nThe conceptual landscape of circularity continues to broaden (Alexander\, Pascucci\, & Charnley\, 2023)\, driven largely by practical agendas (Frishammar & Parida\, 2019; Hopkinson et al.\, 2018; Huikkola\, Kohtamäki & Rabetino\, 2025; Patala\, Albareda & Halme\, 2022). There is evidence that micro-shifts in consumer preferences can motivate\, and macro-shifts in global policies can incentivize\, the transition from linear to circular economies\, in sectors such as food\, fashion\, construction and transportation. \n\n\n\nNonetheless\, the original premise that the circular economy can eventually replace the linear take-make-waste model as it “tackles climate change and other global challenges\, like biodiversity loss\, waste\, and pollution\,”[5] remains largely unexplored[6]. Notably\, important concerns remain regarding the efficacy of CE’s unifying principles\, such as efficiency (Parte & Alberca\, 2024) and valorization (Bojovic et al.\, 2025). CE research has also recently been criticized for its assumptions of continued economic growth (Corvellec et al.\, 2022) and tendency to reinforce power asymmetries by marginalizing certain stakeholders\, making them more vulnerable to exploitation\, or rendering them invisible to decision-making processes (Lobbedez\, Pascucci\, & Panico\, 2025). \n\n\n\nPartly in response to these debates\, some scholarly research has begun reorienting towards more radical socio-ecological principles that could reconcile the ecology with the economy of circularity (Colluci & Vecchi\, 2024). By focusing on Ellen MacArthur’s third principle\, “to support natural processes and leave more room for nature to thrive by moving from a take-make-waste linear economy to a circular economy”[7]\, regeneration foregrounds the mutuality within and among living systems. It underscores that “one form of life is inseparably connected to the healthy development of all others […] so human and nonhuman living beings coevolve in a way that nurtures diversity\, creativity\, complexity\, and life” (Muñoz & Branzei\, 2021: 510). \n\n\n\nThe World Economic Forum broadly describes regeneration as “a way to create a positive impact on the planet and society”[8] (Das & Bocken\, 2024). Natural scientists view regeneration as a set of dynamic processes of renewal or re-creation of desired outcomes such as respecting planetary boundaries and protecting biodiversity. Social scientists showcase regeneration practices that actively restore\, renew\, or revitalize natural systems (Albareda & Branzei\, 2024). A focus on regeneration reorients managers\, organizations\, and supply chains to protecting and restoring rather than simply limiting further harm to socio-ecological systems (Gualandris et al.\, 2024). \n\n\n\nDespite growing attention to ecological regeneration[9]\, how it manifests as a formative and constitutive principle in business and economic systems is poorly understood and warrants empirical exploration. We particularly call for discovery-oriented research to examine the foundational premise that business and economic systems designed to be circular “can regenerate nature”. Studies that empirically explore how regenerative principles affect the design of organizational and economic systems could characterize dynamics and illuminate mechanisms that distinguish socio-ecological from socioeconomic systems\, for example. We need meticulous qualitative and quantitative exploration within and across distinctive institutional\, industrial\, and organizational contexts to identify important antecedents and theorize mechanisms underlying the assimilation of regenerative principles and their observed consequences. To advance understanding of whether\, when\, and how circularity can drive regeneration\, we require new insight into micro\, meso\, and macro level phenomena constitutive of regenerative processes. This AMD Spotlight provides a premier outlet for such research. With this initial call\, and a commitment to highlight and connect research on regeneration going forward\, this AMD Spotlight aims to catalyze and accumulate richly descriptive empirical accounts of and plausible theoretical explanations for regenerative processes that distinguish effective circular economic and socio-ecological systems. This knowledge is prerequisite to deductive research on circular economy and thus central to advancing robust and resilient regenerative business practices. \n\n\n\nCircular Economy Frontiers in Management and Organizations \n\n\n\nAs the global economy continues to expand and industrialize\, there is emerging consensus that closing the loop via circularity can begin to address some problems created by over-production and over-consumption (González-Sánchez et al.\, 2023; Webster & Pascucci\, 2024). Substantial research in industrial ecology and engineering provides insight into the implementation of closed loop production systems and the validation of life cycle metrics. But the body of work on circularity has paid limited attention to managerial and organizational dilemmas regarding how to reduce\, let alone reverse\, ecological impacts of the linear economy (Hahn & Tampe\, 2021). Research has not deeply examined or systematically mapped the diverse agencies\, designs\, temporalities\, or interfaces between organizations and socio-ecological systems that may underpin their regenerative capacity and affect transition towards more climate just and biodiversity positive futures (Dzhengiz et al.\, 2023: 283). \n\n\n\nMuñoz and Branzei (2021: 510) introduce the notion of regenerative organizing as “the process of sensing and embracing surrounding living ecosystems\, aligning organizational knowledge\, decision-making\, and actions to these systems’ structures and dynamics and acting in conjunction\, in a way that allows for ecosystems to regenerate\, build resilience and sustain life. Regenerative organizations are ecologically embedded by design and designed to go beyond minimizing harm to purposefully reverse the degradation of living ecosystems. Regenerative business models (Konietzko\, Das & Bocken\, 2023) are premised on recognizing and respecting the paces and patterns of living interactions. Regenerative strategies help actors “enhance\, and thrive through\, the health of social-ecological systems in a co-evolutionary process” (Hahn & Tampe\, 2021: 456). \n\n\n\nWe invite exploratory empirical research that enriches or challenges extant conceptualizations of the circular economy by advancing our understanding of how the concept of regeneration is shaping business practice and thinking. Three lenses: sufficiency\, biomimicry\, and rhythmicity\, inform how regeneration is accomplished and foreground specific principles and dilemmas related to how regeneration might advance economic and societal well-being. Empirical exploration of how each lens transforms the design and management of businesses and economic systems\, and with what impacts\, are of particular interest. \n\n\n\n1. Sufficiency \n\n\n\nThe principle of sufficiency goes beyond recycling and reuse to emphasize the need to consume less. Socio-ecological systems designed for sufficiency must be economically and ecologically regenerative. This implies designing within sufficiency constraints\, like reducing demand for end products and their constitutive materials\, and might include requirements for positive ecological impacts\, such as promoting biodiversity or nature-positive emotions like awe or biophilia. Sufficiency thus takes issue with neoliberal ideology and ecological modernization theory underpinning much extant circularity thinking and practice. Building on Alexander’s (2012: 2) notion of the sufficiency economy\, which “can be understood in direct contrast to the dominant macro-economic paradigm based on limitless growth\,” Bocken and Short (2016: 41) define a sufficiency-driven business model as one that seeks “to moderate overall resource consumption by curbing demand through education and consumer engagement\, making products that last longer and avoiding built-in obsolescence\, focusing on satisfying ‘needs’ rather than promoting ‘wants’.” Heikkurinen and colleagues (2024) define a sufficiency ethos as “one in which limits\, boundaries\, optimums\, enoughness\, and ‘not toomuchness’ take center stage.”  \n\n\n\nEmpirical exploration of sufficiency as practiced in specific contexts could help us better understand variation in how it manifests in business models and economic systems\, mechanisms through which it advances regeneration\, as well as the impacts of regenerative circularity when it replaces traditional linear approaches (Jungell-Michelsson & Heikkurinen\, 2022; Heikkurinen et al.\, 2024). Discovering new contexts or modalities for organizing and measuring the efficacy of sufficiency-based business models and business ecosystems could advance the circularity frontier by illuminating how managers and other economic and political actors come to understand and define sufficiency and how this shapes their efforts to innovate and collaborate (Dzhengiz et al.\, 2023; Colluci & Vecchi\, 2024). Exploratory research could usefully reveal how the practice of sufficiency affects power (im)balances and social equity\, such as by altering opportunities to participate in the economy\, particularly for actors who are closely embedded within or dependent on nature (Van Hille et al.\, 2021; Vlasov\, 2021). \n\n\n\n2. Biomimicry \n\n\n\nWhereas sufficiency challenges us to rethink end goals for productive systems\, biomimicry advocates learning from and replicating designs found in nature. Natural ecosystems encompass innumerable designs – in their constitutive biomaterials (e.g.\, proteins like collagen or materials like chitin)\, in the tissues and organs that biomaterials interface with\, and in interdependencies among organisms comprising an ecosystem (Benyus\, 1997).  As solutions to challenges posed by specific environments\, designs in nature offer models for creating manmade materials and technological and business systems with regenerative properties (Fisch\, 2017). For instance\, the unique structures and compositions of natural biomaterials have served as models for manmade materials with self-healing and self-repair properties (Raman et al.\, 2024). Natural ecosystems thrive on closed-loop cycles\, in which waste generated by one organism becomes a valuable resource for another. In addition to being generative for manmade designs\, biomimicry can sensitize human actors to vital but often invisible roles of nonhuman actors in socio-ecological systems\, enroll different forms of agency\, and cultivate more symbiotic relationships between human and non-human actors (Sommer et al.\, 2025). \n\n\n\nWhile promising examples exist\, there is much we do not understand about how complex ecological designs can be translated into scalable solutions for regenerative socio-ecological systems. Research has emphasized technical aspects of biomimicry\, and we lack empirical evidence and deep theorization of biomimicry’s social and economic implications and potentiality. Systematic empirical work to determine when and how highly localized regenerative solutions can scale to regional or supra-regional solutions is scarce. Consensus regarding how to define\, measure\, and benchmark regeneration in socio-ecological systems does not exist (Barros et al.\, 2024). Biomimicry challenges ingrained engineering and economic mindsets rooted in extractive practices and linear models\, but it is unclear where and how economic and political actors are successfully reconceptualizing fundamental concepts such as value creation and reimagining the boundaries of business and economic systems to encompass the ecologies they depend on. Given the lack of theory on these issues\, empirical exploration into relationships between biomimicry and regenerative business and socio-ecological systems is needed. \n\n\n\n3. Rhythmicity \n\n\n\nBoth natural and manmade systems embody distinctive rhythmicity: the temporal pacing of recurring cycles that are fundamental to their organization and operate at multiple time scales. In ecological systems\, an example of daily rhythmicity is the circadian rhythm to which cellular activity is attuned\, whereas ecosystems respond to seasonal shifts that occur with predictable regularity. Economic systems likewise exhibit rhythmicity shaped by daily patterns of consumption and production as well as macro-economic patterns that recur over longer time periods. Observed rhythmicity reflects myriad unobserved interconnections and interdependencies that orchestrate system function. Rhythmicity in nature is central to regenerative processes including resource cycling\, renewal and repair. It operates at every level\, from cellular to organism to ecosystem\, and underlies the resilience of each. Understanding rhythmicity is crucial for designing regenerative socio-ecological systems that can self-organize and self-repair amidst recurrent ecological degradation and unpredictable disturbances. \n\n\n\nGualandris et al. (2024: 60) underscore the need to recognize and reconcile the multiple rhythms inherent to socio-ecological systems that can either augment or counteract one another: “the polyrhythmicity principle requires supply chain members to consider the simultaneous rhythms characterizing social–ecological systems and to make strategic\, tactical\, and operational decisions that align with such rhythmic patterns”. This is not so different from how entrepreneurs synchronize their ventures to multiple ecosystems (techno-economic\, socio-cultural as well as ecological) except that human actors might miss the rhythmicity governing the natural systems they engage with (Muñoz and Cohen\, 2017). Muñoz and Branzei (2021) suggest that organizing with and for nature can sensitize managers and organizations to a broader range of temporalities than those managers and organizations typically attend to (Bansal et al.\, 2022).  \n\n\n\nDespite a large body of work on temporality and temporal work within traditional organizational settings (Bansal et al.\, 2022)\, the literature on circularity has yet to fully account for temporal complexity and cyclicality involved in regenerating nature (Vlasov\, 2021; Albareda & Branzei\, 2024). There is little theory and limited empirical evidence to explain when and how managers can orchestrate regenerative rhythmicity in socio-ecological systems (Gualandris et al.\, 2024). We encourage empirical exploration of rhythmicity applied to specific roles in socio-ecological systems such as actors who intermediate between ecological and economic processes. Discovery-oriented research could reveal how polyrhythmicity is orchestrated or designed into regenerative business models\, start-ups or ecosystems (Klofsten et al.\, 2024; Konietzko et al.\, 2023; Lacy\, Long & Spindler\, 2020; Lehtimäki et al.\, 2023). Further empirical exploration is needed to drive theorizing on how digital technologies\, algorithms\, and architectures can alleviate tensions among social and ecological rhythms; how understudied actors and intermediaries take on roles of custodians of natural\, cultural\, and historical heritage[10]; and to identify novel modes of organizing across distinctive ecological and socioeconomic temporalities.  \n\n\n\nGoals of the AMD Spotlight \n\n\n\nAMD publishes research that presents “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). The goals of this Spotlight are well-aligned with this mission and successful submissions will go beyond documenting circularity principles to explore dilemmas associated with organizing for sufficiency\, biomimicry and rhythmicity. We encourage work that moves us beyond observing\, cataloguing\, and comparing actual\, concrete practices and toward novel and rigorously established empirical patterns and plausible theoretical explanations of the underlying mechanisms; the latter should be informed by deep contextual understanding as well as relevant literature. Authors may wish to engage practitioners to surface generative lenses for their research (Ben-Menahem\, 2024).  \n\n\n\nSample Topics \n\n\n\nThe following is a non-exhaustive list of topics that fall within the scope of this Spotlight. We welcome diverse disciplinary lenses and methodological approaches\, provided the research is relevant to management and organizational scholars and their stakeholders.  \n\n\n\n\nLevels. Are circularity principles best conceptualized and theorized at the level of business models and ecosystems\, regional or national economies\, local or global communities? What are the implications of designing for regeneration across different levels of organizing?\n\n\n\nEcosystems. What ecosystem actors and dynamics (e.g.\, intermediary organizations\, inside or outside activism\, incubation or acceleration) affect the diffusion and scalability of regenerative business models\, and how? When\, why and how do ecosystems embrace sufficiency as a goal\, or turn away from overconsumption and toward enoughness?\n\n\n\nRights and responsibilities. How are rights to use natural resources conferred through legal\, normative\, or ‘in practice’ institutions? What triggers change in established norms (e.g.\, rooted in colonialism or neoliberalism) regarding resource utilization\, in specific communities or in novel types of CEs\, i.e. (bio)circular\, de- or post-growth? How is the responsibility to undo ecological damage distributed among rights holders? How do new norms emerge to offer guideposts for organizing with nature?\n\n\n\nKnowers and ways of knowing. How do particular experts and ways of knowing shape transition towards (bio)circularity and regeneration? How do logics governing socioeconomic systems evolve from efficiency and profitability (or\, neoliberalism and ecological modernization) to logics that support circularity and regeneration? How do the knowers address socioeconomic and socio-ecological tensions and paradoxes central to shifting from linear to circular modes of organizing?\n\n\n\nAttention and ways of attending: How do actors come to notice and connect with non-human actors as partners in socio-ecological systems? What roles do attention-based processes play in the transition to (bio)circularity and regeneration? What aspects of executives’ background (upbringing\, training) affect their attention to downsides of traditional economies (waste\, pollution\, injustice)? How do new patterns of attention emerge and when and how do they encompass new kinds of connections to\, or relationships with\, nature?  What attentional patterns and scaffolds enable the recognition of biophysical anomalies and opportunities?\n\n\n\nAgency. What assumptions implicit in human agency\, when relaxed\, enable human actors to more fully connect and cooperate with non-humans in socio-ecological systems? How do nature-informed processes such as photosynthesis and chemosynthesis\, metabolisms\, symbiosis\, or synchronicity inspire different forms and paths of agency? What paradoxes of non-human agencies (e.g.\, tools like AI can be used to fight climate change also exacerbate it; mycelium can replace plastic as biodegradable packaging but requires industrial processes to scale) persist when economies operate within versus beyond planetary boundaries?\n\n\n\nTechnology. What role do technologies play in accelerating the transition towards (bio)circularity and regeneration? What affordances give voice\, visibility\, or power to more-than-human actors? When and how does technology intermediation (including AI) enable human actors to appreciate non-human actors in new ways\, to radically rethink their qualities and importance\, and to reorganize interspecies relationships? How can digitization and AI inform\, coordinate\, and amplify the positive effects of biomaterial workers and work?\n\n\n\nChange. How do modes of organizing change when economic actors embrace principles of sufficiency\, biomimicry\, and/or rhythmicity? How do theories of self and/or system change intersect when actors commit to enacting these principles? How can we track and analyze the ways organizations start to dramatically change direction\, maybe even doing the opposite of what they used to do\, once they realize the environment can’t support endless growth?\n\n\n\nEthics. What ethical guides do managers rely on when organizations transition towards regeneration? How do existing ethics evolve\, or new ethics emerge\, and how do they portray our responsibilities and relationships with ecologies and non-human actors?\n\n\n\nNature. How does the adoption of sufficiency\, biomimicry\, and/or rhythmicity principles affect organizational commitment to closed-loop solutions? When does reorganizing around these principles alter the balance of resource exploitation and regeneration or engagement with vulnerable human and non-human actors? When and how do sufficient\, biomaterial\, and/or rhythmic processes drive regenerative cycles? How do organizations effectively assess their intended and unintended impacts in socio-ecological systems?\n\n\n\nClimate. When and how do climate disruptions affect the practice of sufficiency\, biomimicry\, and rhythmicity? When and why might these different perspectives accelerate or decelerate climate adaptation?\n\n\n\nFuture. What is the role of sufficiency\, biomimicry\, and/or rhythmicity in seeing and making alternative futures? How do actors come to understand which aspects of the future are (un)desirable? How are futures imagined and implemented\, especially in settings defined by power asymmetries and colonial legacies and in a more-than-human world? \n\n\n\n\nIf you have a specific question about research you would like to contribute to this Spotlight\, please reach out directly to one of the Guest Editors by email.  \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 the phenomenon. It is in the discussion section of an AMD paper 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\nStandard AMD paper guidelines apply to papers submitted for this Spotlight. Manuscripts may be submitted as traditional 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” 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\nAlbareda\, L.\, & Branzei\, O. (2024). Biocentric work in the Anthropocene: How actors regenerate degenerated natural commons. Journal of Management Studies. https://doi.org/10.1111/joms.13080 \n\n\n\nAlexander\, A.\, Pascucci\, S.\, & Charnley\, F. (2023). Handbook of the circular economy: Transitions and transformation. Walter de Gruyter GmbH & Co KG. \n\n\n\nAlexander\, S. (2012). The sufficiency economy. http://simplicityinstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/TheSufficiencyEconomy3.pdf (accessed February 1\, 2025). \n\n\n\nBansal\, P.\, Reinecke\, J.\, Suddaby\, R.\, & Langley\, A. (2022). Temporal work: The strategic organization of time. Strategic Organization\, 20(1)\, 6-19. \n\n\n\nBarros\, M. V.\, Salvador\, R.\, Pieroni\, M.\, & Piekarski\, C. M. (2024). How to measure circularity? State-of-the-art and insights on positive impacts on businesses. Environmental Development\, 50\, 100989. \n\n\n\nBen-Menahem\, S. M. (2024). Engaging practitioners in empirical exploration. Academy of Management Discoveries\, 10(2)\, 155-162. \n\n\n\nBenyus\, J. M. (1997). Biomimicry: Innovation inspired by nature. New York: Morrow. \n\n\n\nBocken\, N.\, Pinkse\, J.\, Darnall\, N.\, & Ritala\, P. (2023). Between circular paralysis and utopia: organizational transformations towards the circular economy. Organization & Environment\, 36(2)\, 378-382. \n\n\n\nBocken\, N.M.P.\, & Short\, S.W. (2016). Towards a sufficiency-driven business model: Experiences and opportunities. Environmental Innovation and Social Transitions\, 18\, 41–61. \n\n\n\nCorvellec\, H.\, Stowell\, A.F.\, & Johansson\, N. (2022). Critiques of the circular economy. Journal of Industrial Ecology\, 26\, 421–432. \n\n\n\nDas\, A. & Bocken\, N. (2024). Regenerative business strategies: A database and typology to inspire business experimentation towards sustainability. Sustainable Production and Consumption\, 49\, 529-544. \n\n\n\nDzhengiz\, T.\, Miller\, E. M.\, Ovaska\, J.-P.\, & Patala\, S. (2023). Unpacking the circular economy: A problematizing review. International Journal of Management Reviews. doi/pdf/10.1111/ijmr.12329 \n\n\n\nFisch\, M. (2017). The nature of biomimicry: Toward a novel technological culture. Science\, Technology\, & Human Values\, 42(5)\, 795-821. \n\n\n\nFischer\, J.\, Farny\, S.\, Abson\, D.J. et al. (2024). Mainstreaming regenerative dynamics for sustainability. Nature Sustainability\, 7\, 964–972. \n\n\n\nGonzález-Sánchez\, R.\, Alonso-Muñoz\, S.\, & Medina-Salgado\, M. S. (2023). Circularity in waste management: A research proposal to achieve the 2030 Agenda. Operations Management Research\, 16(3)\, 1520-1540. \n\n\n\nGualandris\, J.\, Branzei\, O.\, Wilhelm\, M.\, Lazzarini\, S.\, Linnenluecke\, M.\, Hamann R.\, Dooley\, K. J.\, Michael L. Barnett\, M. L.\, & Chien-Ming Chen\, C.-M. (2025). Unchaining supply chains: Transformative leaps toward regenerating social–ecological systems. Journal of Supply Chain Management\, 60(1)\, 53-67. \n\n\n\nHahn T.\, & Tampe M. (2021). Strategies for regenerative business. Strategic Organization\, 19(3)\, 456–477. \n\n\n\nHeikkurinen\, P.\, Bocken\, N.\, Gossen\, M.\, & Princen\, T. (2024). Call for Papers-Sufficiency: An ethic for ecologically constrained organizations. Journal of Business Ethics. https://link.springer.com/collections/hicgjgfhjd?trk=public_post_comment-text \n\n\n\nHossain\, M.\, Park\, S.\, Suchek\, N.\, & Pansera\, M. (2021). Circular economy: A review of review articles. Business\, Strategy and the Environment\, 33(7)\, 6125-7688. \n\n\n\nKirchherr\, J.\, Reike\, D.\, & Hekkert (2017). Conceptualizing the circular economy: An analysis of 114 definitions. Resources\, Conservation and Recycling\, 127\, 221-232. \n\n\n\nKirchherr\, J.\, Nan-Hua Nadja Yang\, N-H. N\, Schulze-Spüntrup\, F.\, Heerink\, M. J.\, & Hartley\, K. (2023). Conceptualizing the circular economy (revisited): An analysis of 221 definitions. Resources\, Conservation and Recycling\, 194\, 107001\, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2023.107001 \n\n\n\nKlofsten\, M.\, Kanda\, W.\, Bienkowska\, D.\, Bocken\, N.\, Mian\, S.\, & Lamine\, W. (2024). Start-ups within entrepreneurial ecosystems: Transition towards a circular economy. International Small Business Journal\, 42(4)\, 383-395.  \n\n\n\nKonietzko\, J.\, Das\, A.\, & Bocken\, N. (2023). Towards regenerative business models: A necessary shift? Sustainable Production and Consumption\, 38\, 372-388. \n\n\n\nKopnina\, H.\, & Poldner\, K. (2021). Circular economy: Challenges and opportunities for ethical and sustainable business. Routledge. \n\n\n\nLacy\, P.\, Long\, J.\, & Spindler\, W. (2020). The circular economy handbook: Realizing the circular advantage. Palgrave MacMillan. \n\n\n\nLehtimäki\, H.\, Aarikka-Stenroos\, L.\, Jokinen\, A.\, & Jokinen\, P. (2023). The Routledge handbook of catalysts for a sustainable circular economy. Taylor & Francis. \n\n\n\nLobbedez\, E.\, Pascucci\, S.\, & Panico\, T. Theorizing waste as a technique of power in capitalistic stakeholder relations. Journal of Management Studies. Forthcoming \n\n\n\nMuñoz\, P.\, & Branzei\, O. (2021). Regenerative organizations: Introduction to the Special Issue. Organization & Environment\, 34(4)\, 507-516.  \n\n\n\nMuñoz\, P.\, & Cohen\, B. (2017). Towards a social-ecological understanding of sustainable venturing. Journal of Business Venturing Insights\, 7\, 1-8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbvi.2016.12.001. \n\n\n\nPatala\, S.\, Albareda\, L.\, & Halme\, M. (2022). Polycentric governance of privately owned resources in circular economy systems. Journal of Management Studies\, 59(6)\, 1359-1656. \n\n\n\nRaman\, R.\, Sreenivasan\, A.\, Suresh\, M.\, & Nedungadi\, P. (2024). Mapping biomimicry research to sustainable development goals. Nature: Scientific Reports\, 14 (article no. 18613)  \n\n\n\nRovanto\, S.\, & Virtanen\, Y. (2024). Circular economy capabilities for slowing resource loops at small businesses in China\, Finland and Japan–An institutional logics perspective. British Journal of Management. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8551.12892 \n\n\n\nSommer\, S. G.\,  Christensen\, M. L.\, Norddahl\, B.\, Ambye-Jensen\, M.\, & Roda-Serrat\, M. C. (2025). Bioprocesses: A comprehensive guide to sustainable resources in the non-fossil era. Cambridge University Press. \n\n\n\nVan Hille I.\, De Bakker F. G. A.\, Groenewgen P.\, Ferguson J. E. (2021). Strategizing nature in cross-sector partnerships: Can plantation revitalization enable living wages? Organization & Environment\, 34(2)\, 175–197. \n\n\n\nVlasov\, M. (2019). In transition toward the ecocentric entrepreneurship nexus: How nature helps entrepreneurs make ventures more regenerative over time. Organization & Environment\, 34(4)\, 559-580. \n\n\n\nWilliams\, A.\, Perego\, P.\, Whiteman\, G. (2024). Boundary conditions for organizations in the Anthropocene: A review of the planetary boundaries framework 10 years on. Journal of Management Studies. https://doi.org/10.1111/joms.13150 \n\n\n\n[1] https://esgri.com/circular_economy/ \n\n\n\n[2] https://www.mckinsey.com/featured-insights/mckinsey-explainers/what-is-circularity \n\n\n\n[3] https://www.europarl.europa.eu/topics/en/article/20151201STO05603/circular-economy-definition-importance-and-benefits#:~:text=What%20is%20the%20circular%20economy\,cycle%20of%20products%20is%20extended. \n\n\n\n[4] https://initiatives.weforum.org/the-circular-transformation-of-industries/home \n\n\n\n[5] https://www.ellenmacarthurfoundation.org/topics/circular-economy-introduction/overview \n\n\n\n[6] https://circulareconomy.europa.eu/platform/sites/default/files/emf_completing_the_picture.pdf; https://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/capturing-the-climate-change-mitigation#:~:text=Circular%20economy’s%20potential%20key%20role\,50%25%20of%20global%20GHG%20emissions. \n\n\n\n[7] https://www.ellenmacarthurfoundation.org/regenerate-nature \n\n\n\n[8] https://www.weforum.org/stories/2024/01/business-resilience-regeneration/ \n\n\n\n[9] https://www.weforum.org/stories/2024/01/business-resilience-regeneration/ \n\n\n\n[10] https://www.undp.org/blog/truly-circular-economy-we-need-listen-indigenous-voices; https://regenexpo.com.au/session/indigenous-knowledge-the-basis-of-circularity/
URL:https://www.aom.org/calendar/amd-special-research-spotlight-from-circularity-to-regeneration-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:20260122T000000
DTEND;TZID=America/New_York:20260212T000000
DTSTAMP:20260415T185859
CREATED:20260226T045736Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20260226T045736Z
UID:10000056-1769040000-1770854400@www.aom.org
SUMMARY:AOM 2026 Call for Reviewers
DESCRIPTION:The Academy of Management and its Divisions and Interest Groups (DIGs)\, Affiliates\, and Caucus Committee seek reviewers to evaluate conference submissions for the 86th Annual Meeting of the Academy of Management to be held in Philadelphia\, Pennsylvania\, from 31 July to 4 August 2026. \n\n\n\nThe DIG Program Chairs and PDW Chairs are enthusiastically anticipating the development of an intellectually vibrant program for 2026. The “Call for Submissions” is available online and the Submission Center opens in early December 2025. \n\n\n\nPlease visit the Reviewing page for additional information. \n\n\n\n\nSign up to Review
URL:https://www.aom.org/calendar/aom-2026-call-for-reviewers/
CATEGORIES:Call for Volunteers
ATTACH;FMTTYPE=image/png:https://www.aom.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/08/AOM-2026-Full_1000x750px-1.png
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=America/New_York:20260101T000000
DTEND;TZID=America/New_York:20260131T000000
DTSTAMP:20260415T185859
CREATED:20260226T045345Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20260226T045345Z
UID:10000031-1767225600-1769817600@www.aom.org
SUMMARY:AMP Call for Special Issue Papers: Managing for Our “New Normal”: How to Foresee\, Prepare for\, and Repair after Extreme Events
DESCRIPTION:Guest Editors:\n\n\n\n\nWitold (Vit) Henisz\, University of Pennsylvania\n\n\n\nAlan Meyer\, University of Oregon\n\n\n\nDean Shepherd\, University of Notre Dame\n\n\n\nChristopher Wright\, University of Sydney\n\n\n\nZhaohui Wu\, Oregon State University\n\n\n\n\nAMP Associate Editor:\n\n\n\n\nOana Branzei\, Western University\, Canada\n\n\n\n\nBackground\n\n\n\nOnce unprecedented\, extreme events ranging from climate-related natural disasters and displacements to school shootings\, devastating wars\, enduring conflicts\, and refugee crises have becoming increasingly common.1 Their recurrence compels us to find better ways to organize\, not only in their aftermath\, but also in anticipation. \n\n\n\nExtreme events shape many aspects of our economies\, ecosystems\, and communities\, and though commonly deemed “unthinkable tragedies\,” they tend to follow recurring patterns. Some communities are more vulnerable to floods and wildfires and earthquakes than others. Pandemics recur also. So do riots. And wars. And displacement. Treating such extreme events as outliers demotivates initiatives and innovations that could ready existing systems to repeated occurrences of similar events in the future. Yet learning from\, and especially across\, extreme events pose significant challenges.2 Some organizations prove essential\,3 while many remain ill-prepared\, even for disasters they should have seen coming.4 \n\n\n\nThis Academy of Management Perspectives (AMP) Special Issue aims to provide actionable\, evidence-based insights that clearly and credibly guides managers and their organizations through the extreme events that have become part of our new normal. We seek to shift attention from retrospective reflections5 and actions6 toward prospective ways to ready organizations and occupations for the worst to come. We are especially interested in disruptions that could be better described as becoming common\, at least in some new types of organizations.7 \n\n\n\nPlease note that AMP’s mission and format differ from many other leading academic journals. AMP papers are managerially driven\, not theory driven. Successful submissions clearly define the managerial issue from the outset and make a compelling case for its importance. They do not simply tack managerial implications on to a standard academic study. Rather\, AMP papers provide actionable insights that guide managerial behavior and influence policy decisions. We strongly encourage potential authors to review AMP’s guidelines before submission. Note that we also welcome Practitioner Perspectives essays and Constructive Confrontations papers for this special issue. Guidance for both formats is also on our website. \n\n\n\nScope and Open-Ended Research Questions\n\n\n\nFor this special issue\, we welcome submissions of relevant\, rigorous\, and readable papers that address a broad range of enduring and/or recurring extreme events\, including but not limited to: wars and armed conflicts; refugee movements and forced displacement; natural disasters and climate events; public health crises and pandemics; terrorism and political violence; economic disruptions and financial crises; technological and cybersecurity crises; social unrest and protests; industrial and environmental accidents; complex crises (polycrisis). Our aim is to develop actionable\, evidence-based insights into how to better organize for the new normal of extreme events\, we focus on eight major themes and suggest several areas of inquiry for each. The open-ended questions suggested for each theme offer tentative starting points and are neither comprehensive nor exclusive of alternative perspectives or phenomena. \n\n\n\nFacing Undesirable Futures: How can organizations or occupations come to see and make futures when they expect extreme events to recur with greater intensity and frequency? How should actors reconsider their values and positions when futures become riskier and/or more uncertain? Which collaborative processes best allow for course corrections? \n\n\n\nBracing for Impact: How can practitioners brace for the psychological injury that may accompany exposure to different types of crises? How should protagonists overcome fear to act courageously? How can decision-makers sustain hope and stave off despair when extreme events keep unfolding? What are the best ways for decision-makers to reflect\, collect\, and communicate key lessons to their stakeholders? \n\n\n\nSustaining Sense and Meaning: How should protagonists engage the moral tensions that often accompany recurrent extreme events? How can dynamics of sense breaking and sense making\, sense contracting and sense expanding\, or sense asking and sense giving influence learning before\, during\, and after extreme events? How do vulnerable parties hold on to meaning when catastrophes loom inevitable? \n\n\n\nEvolving Supply Chains: How can the thresholds of supply chain vulnerability for different types of extreme events be determined? How can buffers be designed to anticipate critical disruptions? How should vulnerability and resilience be reconceptualized? \n\n\n\nClimate-Proofing Systems. How can actors ready their operations\, organizations and occupations for climate change? How should preparations vary with different types of events?  How can policy makers trigger or renew commitment to regeneration? How can the type of actor (e.g.\, celebrities\, more-than-human actors) influence responses to climate-related extreme events? \n\n\n\nOrganizing in War and Peace: In wartime vs. peacetime\, how can altruistic decisions be promoted over self-interest? How should stakeholder interactions change when peace turns to war? How can the interests of stakeholders be protected when wartime extreme events jeopardize entire categories\, markets\, or economies? \n\n\n\nBearing the Losses. How should rights and responsibilities change after losses have been incurred? How should rights and responsibilities be fulfilled when extreme events are considered natural disasters versus when they are understood as so-called normal accidents\, preventable through high reliability organizing? Through what mechanisms should losses be deemed inevitable and acceptable\, perhaps even insurable? \n\n\n\nOrganizing Far from Equilibrium: How should organizations and occupations anticipate or adapt outside the limits of current knowledge and outside their domains of expertise? How can novel\, counterintuitive or alternative forms of anticipation and action become routinized? \n\n\n\nWe welcome both conceptual and empirical papers that are grounded in rigorous analysis and directly support specific and significant managerial and policy actions. We welcome accounts of embodied\, lived experiences of extreme events and use of reflexive methodologies. Quantitative analyses of large databases\, qualitative comparative analyses\, and extensive data analysis using linguistic programs and algorithms are also needed. In short\, we want papers that show what can or does work\, in ways that managers and policymakers can use. \n\n\n\nDeadline\, Submission\, and Review Process\n\n\n\nThe deadline for submission is 31 January 2026 at 23:59 ET (DST+1\,UTC-4). All submissions must be uploaded to the AMP Manuscript Central website between 1 January and 31 January 2026.  \n\n\n\nAll papers will be reviewed according to the current policies of Academy of Management Perspectives. AMP papers should be grounded in evidence or robust conceptual frameworks\, address relevant real-world managerial and policy issues\, offer actionable insights\, avoid theory fetish\, and be written in a style accessible to non-specialists and practitioners. \n\n\n\nWe intend to host a Paper Development Workshop at the 2025 AOM Conference in Copenhagen for selected authors to further develop their manuscripts. Participation in this workshop is neither a guarantee nor a prerequisite for publication. \n\n\n\nEndnotes\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n1 Phillip H. Phan\, “Redeeming Management Scholarship in a Time of Crisis\,” Academy of Management Perspectives\, 36\, no. 2 (2022)\, 711-12. \n\n\n\n2 Claus Rerup and Mark Zbaracki\, “The Politics of Learning from Rare Events\,” Organization Science\, 32 no. 6 (2021)\, 1391–414. \n\n\n\n3 Russell E.\, Browder\, Stella Seyb\, Angela Forgues\, and Howard E. Aldrich\, “Pandemic Makers: How Citizen Groups Mobilized Resources to Meet Local Needs in a Global Health Crisis\,” Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice\, 47 no. 3 (2023)\, 964-97. \n\n\n\n4 Emily Lalonde\, Brent McKnight\, and François-Nicolas Robinne\, “Does Wildfire Exposure Influence Corporate Disaster Preparedness? A Study of Natural Resource Extraction Firms in Canada\,” Organization & Environment\, 36 no. 4 (2023)\, 590-620. \n\n\n\n5 Graham Dwyer\, Cynthia Hardy\, and Steve Maguire\, “Post-inquiry Sensemaking: The Case of the ‘Black Saturday’ Bushfires\,” Organization Studies\, 42 no. 4 (2021)\, 637-61. \n\n\n\n6 Trenton A. Williams\, and Dean A. Shepherd\, D. A.\, “Bounding and Binding: Trajectories of Community-organization Emergence Following a Major Disruption\,” Organization Science\, 32 no. 3 (2022)\, 824-55. \n\n\n\n7 Róisín Jordan and Duncan Shaw\, “The Role of Essential Businesses in Whole-of-society Resilience to Disruption\,” Academy of Management Perspectives. https://doi.org/10.5465/amp.2023.0079
URL:https://www.aom.org/calendar/amp-call-for-special-issue-papers-managing-for-our-new-normal/
CATEGORIES:Call for Special Issue Papers,Event Calendar,Journals,Perspectives
ATTACH;FMTTYPE=image/png:https://www.aom.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/08/amp_cfs.png
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=America/New_York:20260101T000000
DTEND;TZID=America/New_York:20260131T000000
DTSTAMP:20260415T185859
CREATED:20260226T045345Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20260226T045346Z
UID:10000032-1767225600-1769817600@www.aom.org
SUMMARY:AMR Special Topic Forum: Marginalized Workers and Marginalized Populations in Organizations
DESCRIPTION:Submit via the AMR Manuscript Central Site\n\n\n\n\nSubmission Deadline: 31 January 2026 \n\n\n\nGuest Editors\n\n\n\nJohn Amis\, Prithviraj Chattopadhyay\, Aparna Joshi\, Jamie Ladge\, Kristie Rogers\, Madeline Toubiana\, Paul Tracey\, and Alexis N. Smith \n\n\n\nSpecial Topic Forum Overview\n\n\n\nIn recent decades\, the nature of work and the composition of the workforce have changed dramatically. As many workplaces have become more diverse\, inclusive\, and global\, and as work itself takes on new forms (e.g.\, gig work\, remote work\, nontraditional hours)\, the Academy of Management Review has led STFs (e.g.\, diversity; changing nature of work relationships\, the “new normal”) and From the Editor articles (e.g.\, inequality) to advance theory accordingly. Yet\, much of management theory still reflects assumptions and constructs developed within a specific socio-cultural and economic context—often implicitly centered around a predominantly white\, male\, white-collar\, 9-to-5 workforce in Western contexts. It is imperative to examine how theories that arose within particular contexts may overlook or marginalize other experiences. For example\, constructs that assume access to resources\, job security\, or linear career trajectories may not capture the lived realities of those in precarious\, part-time\, or informal work settings. Likewise\, theories predicated on homogeneity within worker identity groups may miss key insights from those who navigate multiple\, intersecting identities. \n\n\n\nThis forum will consider theoretical contributions that challenge or extend existing management theorizing and constructs to better represent a diverse range of workers\, including those who work outside traditional paradigms and may experience marginalization within their work contexts. \n\n\n\nCall for Contributions\n\n\n\nWe encourage submissions that address the complex and evolving dynamics surrounding marginalized workers and populations in organizations. Topics may include but are not limited to: \n\n\n\n\nRe-evaluating Theoretical Assumptions about Behavior in Organizations\n\nHow do historical assumptions underlying core theories in our field impact our understanding of marginalized workers today?\n\n\n\nIn what ways do traditional or existing theoretical domains that inform workers’ experiences (e.g.\, employee attitudes\, decision making\, work-life interface\, team dynamics\, power and organizational politics\, career advancement\, motivation\, conflict) need to evolve to reflect the experiences of diverse workers\, including those who may not conform to professions or office-based work schedules?\n\n\n\n\n\nMovements\, Social Activism\, and Institutional Change\n\nHow do social movements and grassroots activism influence organizational change\, especially in promoting the diversity\, equity\, and inclusion of marginalized workers?\n\n\n\nWhat roles do marginalized workers play in social activism within organizations\, and how do these movements drive institutional change?\n\n\n\nHow can management theories better incorporate the influence of social activism and the agency of marginalized populations in effecting systemic change?\n\n\n\n\n\nSocial Evaluation: Stigma\, Legitimacy\, and Reputation\n\nHow do processes of stigma\, legitimacy\, and reputation management play out for marginalized workers and groups within organizations?\n\n\n\nWhat strategies do workers and organizations use to navigate and resist stigma associated with various forms of marginalization\, and how do these impact career trajectories?\n\n\n\nHow can theories on legitimacy and reputation be expanded to capture the experiences and unique challenges faced by stigmatized or nontraditional workers?\n\n\n\n\n\nEconomic Diversity and the Dynamics of Marginalized Communities\n\nHow do social class backgrounds influence workers’ experiences and their ability to navigate organizational environments?\n\n\n\nWhat unique challenges and opportunities arise for social class transitioners or those from lower socioeconomic backgrounds entering higher-status professions?\n\n\n\nHow does economic diversity shape interactions\, career progression\, and identity within organizational settings\, particularly for workers in emerging economies?\n\n\n\nHow do dynamics of organization-community relations shift in the context of marginalization?\n\n\n\n\n\nIntersectional Identities and Undertheorized Dimensions of Workplace Inequality\n\nHow do marginalized identities (e.g.\, race\, gender\, socioeconomic background\, neurodiversity\, country of origin) impact experiences of inclusion\, advancement\, and discrimination in organizations in ways that existing theories cannot explain?\n\n\n\nHow can intersectionality theorizing help us better understand the complexities of marginalized workers’ experiences and contribute to more inclusive organizational practices?\n\n\n\n\n\nNontraditional Work Settings and Emerging Workforce Models\n\nHow do theories on professionalism and workplace dynamics apply (or fail to apply) in gig work\, remote work\, and other nontraditional employment arrangements?\n\n\n\nWhat are the implications for marginalized populations who may disproportionately occupy these roles\, and how might management research better capture their unique experiences?\n\n\n\nHow and when do marginalized individuals create new organizations or organizational forms that might better enable inclusive experiences and spaces?\n\n\n\n\n\nLeadership and Marginalized Populations\n\nHow do traditional leadership theories and styles accommodate (or fail to accommodate) the needs and perspectives of marginalized workers and populations?\n\n\n\nWhat new leadership frameworks or practices emerge from marginalized groups\, and how can these reshape existing paradigms in management research?\n\n\n\nHow do marginalized workers navigate leadership roles\, and what barriers and enablers influence their success in these positions?\n\n\n\n\n\nEmotion\, Hate\, and Shame in Marginalization\n\nWhat role do emotions like hate and shame play in shaping marginalized workers’ experiences within organizations\, and how do such emotions impact identity\, motivation\, and sense of belonging?\n\n\n\nWhat strategies do individuals and groups use to navigate or mitigate emotional experiences (e.g.\, shame\, resentment) that arise through stigmatization? How might they impact and inform theorizing on emotions in organizations or other change processes?\n\n\n\n\n\nEmbodiment and Marginalization\n\nHow is the body itself implicated in processes of marginalization\, and in what ways may these dynamics reinforce social hierarchies within organizational settings?\n\n\n\nHow might we more fully account for embodied experiences of marginalization\, considering how physical and visible aspects of identity influence perceptions\, inclusion\, and exclusion in organizational spaces?\n\n\n\n\n\n\nTimeline and Submission\n\n\n\nThe deadline for submissions is 31 January\, 2026 at 23:59 ET (DST+1\,UTC-4). All submissions must be uploaded to the Manuscript Central website between 1 January\, 2026 and 31 January 2026. Guidelines for contributors and the AOM Style Guide for Authors must be followed. To answer questions from authors who are planning to submit to the STF\, a team of guest editors will host two online Q&A sessions in March and September 2025. Participation in the Q&A session is not a prerequisite for submitting your paper to AMR and does not does affect the manuscript review process and outcome. \n\n\n\nFor questions about submissions\, contact AMR’s Managing Editor. For questions about the content of this STF\, contact Kristie Rogers or Paul Tracey.
URL:https://www.aom.org/calendar/amr-call-for-special-topic-forum-marginalized-workers-and-marginalized-populations-in-organizations/
CATEGORIES:Call for Submissions,Event Calendar,Journals,Review
ATTACH;FMTTYPE=image/png:https://www.aom.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/08/amr_cfs.png
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=America/New_York:20251115T000000
DTEND;TZID=America/New_York:20251115T000000
DTSTAMP:20260415T185859
CREATED:20260226T045353Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20260226T045354Z
UID:10000049-1763164800-1763164800@www.aom.org
SUMMARY:Call for Nominations for Editor: AMD
DESCRIPTION:Nominate here\n\n\n\n\nNominations are sought for the position of Editor for Academy of Management Discoveries.\n\n\n\nThe person(s) selected for AMD Editor position will become Editor-elect (or Co-editor elect) on 1 July 2026 and Editor on 1 January 2027. The term of office as Editor is three years plus a 6-month transition period as Editor-elect.  \n\n\n\nThe Academy’s mission is to ensure an inclusive selection process and generate a viable list of qualified potential editors from a comprehensive collection of nominations. As a member of the Academy\, you can recommend one or more individuals who you deem capable and inclined to accept this position of responsibility. We will contact these individuals and encourage them to consider accepting the nomination to be considered for this editorship. \n\n\n\nIn general\, qualifications for an AOM Editor includes: \n\n\n\n\nSignificant scholarly contributions in management\, including publications associated with the mission of the journal.\n\n\n\nExtensive experience and an excellent reputation as a reviewer.\n\n\n\nExperience as an editorial board member or an editor of a management-related journal. Nominees do not need to be current members of editorial teams of Academy of Management publications to be nominated.\n\n\n\nDemonstrated commitment to diversity as reflected in the statement of values below.\n\n\n\nAbility to work constructively with authors\, reviewers\, and the Academy’s Board of Governors.\n\n\n\nDemonstrated administrative skills\, capacity to handle a demanding workload and meet deadlines.\n\n\n\nAbility to work with the Managing Editor virtually. The Managing Editor is an employee of the Academy’s headquarters office.\n\n\n\nFamiliarity with\, and ability to use\, a web-based submission and review system. \n\n\n\nRank of tenured Full Professor or equivalent.\n\n\n\nA doctoral degree in a management-related discipline. \n\n\n\nMember of the Academy of Management.\n\n\n\n\nIn support of the Academy’s values\, AOM is open and keen to attract global talent for editorial positions because we value diversity\, inclusion\, and equity in our international community. The CPC (Content Portfolio Committee)\, a committee of the Academy of Management Board of Governors\, seeks nominees who appreciate diversity in theoretical orientations and empirical contexts\, including those that are under-represented\, outside the mainstream\, and populations of concern that are marginalized or hidden. We seek nominees that adhere to the belief that the full range of social experience must be represented in our scholarship and often these contributions are made by authors and reviewers from diverse backgrounds and locations. \n\n\n\nNomination process and procedures \n\n\n\nNominees may only apply to one of the journals listed above. Nominees who apply to more than one journal will be disqualified. \n\n\n\nNominations must include nominee name(s)\, full address\, telephone number\, email address\, and current CV. Editor job description and nomination search procedures will be furnished on request.  \n\n\n\n\nAll nominees will be asked to confirm their interest in pursuing the editorship and will be asked to provide a personal statement (500 words or less) that outlines why the nominee is interested in this position.\n\n\n\nNominees may apply individually or as co-editors. Those applying as co-editors must identify both individuals in the team within the application and should submit a joint personal statement as indicated above.\n\n\n\n\nThe selection process will move through three stages:\n\n\n\n\nStage 1: The CPC will review the initial nominations and request additional materials from the nominees that best fit the criteria above. \n\n\n\nStage 2: Applicants that move to the second stage will be asked to submit a detailed proposal of how they would address challenges raised in the most recent internal review of the journal\, and more generally\, further the goals of the journal as described in the editorial mission and values statements.\n\nApplicants will be asked to provide references to support their editorial background and skills. \n\n\n\nApplicants may be asked to meet (virtually) with the CPC.\n\n\n\n\n\nStage 3: The CPC will forward a recommendation to the full Board of Governors who will finalize the recommendation. \n\n\n\n\nNominations\, including self-nominations\, for AMD will be considered through 15 November 2025. Please contact Susan Zaid with any questions.
URL:https://www.aom.org/calendar/call-for-nominations-for-editor-amd/
CATEGORIES:Call for Nominations,Calls,Discoveries,Event Calendar,Journals
ATTACH;FMTTYPE=image/png:https://www.aom.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/10/AMD-in-silver-frame_cropped.png
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=America/New_York:20251115T000000
DTEND;TZID=America/New_York:20251115T000000
DTSTAMP:20260415T185859
CREATED:20260226T041304Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20260226T041305Z
UID:10000022-1763164800-1763164800@www.aom.org
SUMMARY:Call for Nominations for Editor: Proceedings
DESCRIPTION:Submit your Nominations Here\n\n\n\n\nNominations are being sought for the position of Editor of the Academy of Management Proceedings (Annual Meeting Proceedings). The next Editor will work closely with the current editor of the Annual Meeting Proceedings during the first half of 2026 and may assist in the production of the content for that year. The incoming editor will assume full responsibility for the preparation of the 2027 Annual Meeting Proceedings. \n\n\n\nThe Academy of Management Proceedings features 250-word abstracts of all papers and symposia presented at the Academy’s Annual Meeting and shortened versions of the “Best Articles” that have been accepted for inclusion in the program (approximately 10% of all accepted submissions). Papers selected for the Annual Meeting Proceedings are shortened to a 6-page format because publication of papers at their full length may preclude subsequent journal publication. \n\n\n\nThe editorial term starts in January 2026. The current Editor will facilitate the Proceedings for AOM’s 2026 Annual Meeting. The Proceedings Editor-elect shadows the current editor during the first year and takes over the process for the 2027 Annual Meeting Proceedings and is responsible for the 2027\, 2028 and 2029 AOM Annual Meeting Proceedings. \n\n\n\nRecommended qualifications include the following: \n\n\n\n\nScholarly contributions in management.\n\n\n\nDemonstrated administrative skills\, capacity to handle a demanding workload and meet deadlines\, and ability to work constructively with authors\, reviewers\, and the Academy’s Division and Interest Group representatives.\n\n\n\nMember of the Academy of Management.\n\n\n\nFamiliarity with\, and ability to use\, a web-based submission and review system.\n\n\n\nExperience and interest in electronic publications.\n\n\n\n\nThe Content Portfolio Committee (a committee of the Academy of Management Board of Governors) will review the nominations and will request complete applications from those that best fit the criteria above.  Applicants that move to the second stage will be asked to submit a letter describing the nominee’s qualifications and experience relevant to the selection criteria. The Committee will forward a recommendation to the full Board of Governors who will finalize the recommendation.  \n\n\n\nNominations\, including self-nominations\, will be accepted until 6 October 2025. \n\n\n\nSubmissions should include: \n\n\n\n\nThe nominee’s name\, full address\, telephone number\, and email address\n\n\n\nA letter describing the nominee’s qualifications and experience relevant to the selection criteria.\n\n\n\nApplicants are asked to submit their CV and a letter of qualifications and experience.\n\n\n\n\nNominate here. Please contact szaid@aom.org with any questions.
URL:https://www.aom.org/calendar/call-for-nominations-for-editor-proceedings/
CATEGORIES:Call for Nominations,Calls,Proceedings
ATTACH;FMTTYPE=image/png:https://www.aom.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/08/proceedings-logo-image.png
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=America/New_York:20251101T000000
DTEND;TZID=America/New_York:20260104T000000
DTSTAMP:20260415T185859
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
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=America/New_York:20251101T000000
DTEND;TZID=America/New_York:20251215T000000
DTSTAMP:20260415T185859
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:20251215T000000
DTSTAMP:20260415T185859
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:20251130T235900
DTSTAMP:20260415T185859
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:20251001T000000
DTEND;TZID=America/New_York:20251031T000000
DTSTAMP:20260415T185859
CREATED:20260226T041304Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20260226T041304Z
UID:10000021-1759276800-1761868800@www.aom.org
SUMMARY:AMD Special Research Forum - Organizational Insights in Health Care
DESCRIPTION:Initial Submission Window: 1 October 2025- 31 October 2025 \n\n\n\nGuest Editors\n\n\n\n\nMarlys Christianson\, University of Toronto\n\n\n\nBrian Hilligoss\, University of Arizona\n\n\n\nChristopher Myers\, Johns Hopkins University (AMD Associate Editor)\n\n\n\nKathleen Sutcliffe\, Johns Hopkins University\n\n\n\nTimothy Vogus\, Vanderbilt University\n\n\n\n\nOverview\n\n\n\nRecent years have seen a cascade of changes to work organizations\, impacting every facet of organizational life\, from the nature of employee collaboration to the fundamental structure and boundaries of what it means to be an “organization.” These changes are of interest to management and organizational scholars\, inviting empirical research that can help illuminate new or under-explored organizational phenomena in ways that update\, refine\, and advance the field’s understanding of the modern world of work.  \n\n\n\nNowhere are these evolving\, complex\, and dynamic features of work organizations more apparent than in the domain of health care\, as seen in the increased attention to human and organizational determinants of health care since the turn of the century (e.g.\, To Err is Human\, 2000)\, more recent evolutions in health care structure and financing (e.g.\, through the 2010 Affordable Care Act in the United States)\, and the turbulence of the global COVID-19 pandemic (and its associated disruptions to the world of work). Clearly\, health care has seen an incredible array of challenges and advancements in the recent past\, and the future promises more of the same.  \n\n\n\nHealth care is an inherently broad domain\, encompassing not only organizations that directly provide health care to patients\, but also an array of related industries\, regulators\, funders\, and professions that together create a maze of organizational and interpersonal interdependencies. As Ramanujam and Rousseau (2006) note\, the health care setting is characterized by multiple (and at times conflicting) missions\, a multi-professional workforce\, complex external environments (with a wide range of stakeholders)\, and the provision of inherently complex\, dynamic work tasks. Moreover\, by most metrics (GDP\, employment\, spending\, utilization\, etc.)\, health care is a dominant sector of the global economy\, and is a domain where failures of organization and management have dire consequences (Mayo\, Myers\, Sutcliffe\, 2021; Ramanujam & Rousseau\, 2006). \n\n\n\nOrganizational Science and Health Care\n\n\n\nGiven these features\, health care contexts represent an incredibly valuable research domain for management scholars interested in a wide range of topics and levels of analysis. As DiBenigno and D’Aunno (2024) recently commented\, health care “has it all\,” with prior work exploring this context from macro-\, meso-\, and micro-level perspectives to generate valuable insights. Given the inherently interdisciplinary nature of studying organizational phenomena in the health care setting\, past work has spanned a range of disciplines\, often bridging domains of organizational scholarship\, industrial relations\, and health care scholarship (e.g.\, health policy\, health services research\, medicine\, medical sociology\, and nursing)\, yielding key insights for theory and practice. \n\n\n\nFor example\, integrating across these disciplines\, we know that organizational strategic choices have important implications for both adherence to evidence-based practices and financial outcomes (e.g.\, Everson\, Lee\, & Adler-Milstein\, 2016; Lee & Kapoor\, 2017) and that institutional and network factors influence the adoption of new health innovations and technologies across the industry (e.g.\, D’Aunno\, Succi\, & Alexander\, 2000; Westphal\, Gulati\, & Shortell\, 1997). We also know that team-based care can be important for enhancing the provision of care (e.g.\, Reddy et al.\, 2018; Reiss-Brennan et al.\, 2016)\, and that factors such as experience working together\, team scaffolds\, boundary management\, and training can enhance health care team effectiveness (e.g.\, Hughes et al.\, 2016; Luciano et al.\, 2018; Mayo\, 2022; Valentine & Edmondson\, 2015). At the individual level\, we have some understanding of the impact of health care workers’ strong professional identities (e.g.\, DiBenigno\, 2022; Pratt\, Rockmann\, & Kauffman\, 2006) and how health care workers’ job satisfaction is enhanced by perceptions about leadership\, teamwork\, and justice (e.g.\, Perry et al.\, 2018; Djukic et al.\, 2017; Sheridan et al.\, 2018; Trybou et al.\, 2016). \n\n\n\nThe examples above provide just a sampling of the ways in which organizational phenomena can be studied and understood in health care settings in ways that shed light on the experience of work in modern organizations. Indeed\, in their recent review of the field\, Mayo and colleagues (2021) take stock of the body of scholarship in both management- and health-focused journals that address organizational phenomena\, detailing some of the more well-studied topics across the field (specifically organizational change\, learning\, coordination/collaboration\, teaming\, and performance). \n\n\n\nThis recent review\, however\, also highlights the much longer list of organizational topics that have received comparatively less attention in past research on health care (see Mayo et al.\, 2021; Table 2 – provided as an appendix to this Call for Papers). In addition\, Mayo and colleagues (2021) highlight the fragmentation and dispersion of existing research in the field across different outlets (i.e.\, management vs. health care journals) and different research orientations. Specifically\, they highlight a tendency\, often observed in research published in management journals\, for researchers to treat health care as merely an incidental context from which they seek to glean universally generalizable theory about organizing processes (which they term “organizational science in health care”). This contrasts with a tendency\, observed more frequently in health care journals\, to deploy organizational concepts to solve specific problems and generate insights unique to a particular health care domain or organization (in pursuit of what the authors term an “organizational science of health care”; Mayo et al.\, 2021). Each of these approaches has advantages and drawbacks\, leading the authors to conclude their review with a call for more work that stands in between these extant approaches – adopting an “organizational science and health care” orientation that balances generalizability and contextualization and offers insights for both organizing and organizations in health care and beyond (Mayo et al.\, 2021). \n\n\n\nGoals of the Special Issue\n\n\n\nGiven the list of organizational phenomena unexplored in health care settings\, as well as the disparate approaches taken in prior work\, the goals of this special issue are to publish novel empirical explorations while taking seriously the invitation to balance organizational science and health care – in other words\, 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 ones that are 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) \n\n\n\nWe invite papers that study any organizational phenomena relevant to the experience and functioning of health care (broadly defined) for this special issue. This could include “classic” topics central to organizational scholarship that are particularly visible or impactful\, but still poorly understood\, in health care (i.e.\, many of the topics listed in Table 2 of Mayo et al.\, 2021; see Appendix). It also includes phenomena that are particular to health care settings\, but might carry important implications for all organizational environments (e.g.\, the study of handoffs and transitions\, which are central to health care delivery settings\, but are increasingly occurring in many organizations that switch to project-based work coordinated across disparate teams or units; Hilligoss & Vogus\, 2015; LeBaron et al.\, 2016). \n\n\n\nWe intentionally take a “big tent” view of health care\, recognizing that care is increasingly delivered outside of clinical settings and organizations (including at home or in the workplace); that this care relies on inputs from a broad range of industries\, professions\, and individuals; and that the health of the workforce is increasingly considered a core responsibility of any organization’s leadership (e.g.\, via a corporate Chief Medical Officer; Myers\, Polsky\, & Desai\, 2022). We thus welcome submissions that consider a variety of dimensions of health and health care (including mental health) at any level of analysis. 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\nThe topics listed below present a non-exhaustive list of empirical phenomena in health care that might be appropriate for this special issue. We\, however\, stress again that the scope for this special issue is intentionally quite broad and we welcome submissions from a broad range of conceptual traditions\, methods\, and domains. Moreover\, most of the topics below are subject to empirical exploration at different levels of analysis or across multiple levels of analysis (as is true of many aspects of health care). In each domain\, research might fruitfully explore the implications for workers and the workforce\, the consequences for organizations or patients (e.g.\, their experience of care and quality of care)\, or the impact of relevant policy\, industry\, and organizational conditions. Questions about the suitability of a particular topic should be directed to a member of the editorial team. \n\n\n\n\nEvolving Intersections of Health Care and Work\n\nIntroduction of AI in health and health care\n\n\n\nUse of new technologies (e.g.\, robotics\, additive manufacturing) in health care\n\n\n\nDisruptive events and health crises (e.g.\, COVID-19)\n\n\n\nThe individual\, organizational\, and sectoral/institutional consequences of operating in a politically charged and polarized domain\n\n\n\nThe competing ethics of health care and care delivery (e.g.\, professional\, organizational\, and personal ethics)\n\n\n\n\n\nStructural Shifts in Health Care\n\nNew ownership and governance structures (e.g.\, private equity investments)\n\n\n\nFunding\, payment\, and regulatory shifts affecting health care\n\n\n\nProvision of health services (e.g.\, caregiving\, mental health care) in non-health organizations and work settings\n\n\n\nPersonalized medicine\n\n\n\nComplex system dynamics and achieving safe\, reliable care\n\n\n\n\n\nTrends in Health Care Delivery\n\nEmergence of new professions (or proto-professions like community health workers)\, evolution of professional roles\, and changing scope-of-practice\n\n\n\nNew work arrangements (e.g.\, remote work\, “travel” nursing)\n\n\n\nNew modalities of care delivery (e.g.\, virtual health care and telemedicine)\n\n\n\nWork implications of home health care and long-term care providers\n\n\n\nWorkforce composition and demographics\, workload\, and burnout\n\n\n\nGlobalization of the health care workforce\n\n\n\nLearning and decision-making in the face of limited evidence (e.g.\, COVID-19 treatment)\n\n\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 the phenomenon. It is in the discussion of an AMD paper where a plausible theoretical explanation—the theoretical contribution—is provided. The goal for every AMD paper is that the discoveries derived from empirical exploration open new lines of research inquiry. For further information about the goals of AMD\, we encourage potential submitters to review recent “From-the-Editors” articles from AMD’s current and previous Editors (Miller\, 2024; Rockmann\, 2023) or visit the AMD website. \n\n\n\nSubmission Guidelines\n\n\n\nStandard guidelines apply to papers sent in for this Special Issue. Manuscripts may be submitted as traditional 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\nBen-Menahem\, S. M. 2024. Engaging practitioners in empirical exploration. Academy of Management Discoveries\, 10(2): 155-162. \n\n\n\nD’Aunno\, T.\, Succi\, M.\, & Alexander\, J. A. 2000. The role of institutional and market forces in divergent organizational change. Administrative Science Quarterly\, 45(4): 679-703. \n\n\n\nDiBenigno\, J. 2022. How idealized professional identities can persist through client interactions. Administrative Science Quarterly\, 67(3): 865-912. \n\n\n\nDiBenigno\, J.\, & D’Aunno\, T. 2024. A necessary prescription: How studies of healthcare can advance theory and practice. Administrative Science Quarterly. Research Curation. \n\n\n\nDjukic\, M.\, Jun\, J.\, Kovner\, C.\, Brewer\, C.\, & Fletcher\, J. 2017. Determinants of job satisfaction for novice nurse managers employed in hospitals. Health Care Management Review\, 42(2): 172-183. \n\n\n\nEverson\, J.\, Lee\, S. Y. D.\, & Adler-Milstein\, J. 2016. Achieving adherence to evidence-based practices: Are health IT and hospital-physician integration complementary or substitutive strategies? Medical Care Research and Review\, 73(6): 724–751. \n\n\n\nHilligoss\, B.\, & Vogus\, T. J. 2015. Navigating care transitions: A process model of how doctors overcome organizational barriers and create awareness. Medical Care Research and Review\, 72(1): 25-48. \n\n\n\nHughes\, A. M.\, Gregory\, M. E.\, Joseph\, D. L.\, Sonesh\, S. C.\, Marlow\, S. L.\, Lacerenza\, C. N.\, Benishek\, L. E.\, King\, H. B.\, & Salas\, E. 2016. Saving lives: A meta-analysis of team training in healthcare. Journal of Applied Psychology\, 101(9): 1266-1304. \n\n\n\nJohns\, G. 2001. In praise of context. Journal of Organizational Behavior\, 22(1): 31-42. \n\n\n\nKohn\, L. T.\, Corrigan\, J. M.\, & Donaldson\, M. S. 2000. To Err Is Human: Building a Safer Health System. Institute of Medicine. Washington\, DC: National Academies Press. \n\n\n\nLeBaron\, C.\, Christianson\, M. K.\, Garrett\, L.\, & Ilan\, R. 2016. Coordinating flexible performance during everyday work: An ethnomethodological study of handoff routines. Organization Science\, 27(3): 514-534. \n\n\n\nLee\, J. M.\, & Kapoor\, R. 2017. Complementarities and coordination: Implications for governance mode and performance of multiproduct firms. Organization Science\, 28(5): 931–946. \n\n\n\nLuciano\, M. M.\, Bartels\, A. L.\, D’Innocenzo\, L.\, Maynard\, M. T.\, & Mathieu\, J. E. 2018. Shared team experiences and team effectiveness: Unpacking the contingent effects of entrained rhythms and task characteristics. Academy of Management Journal\, 61(4): 1403-1430. \n\n\n\nMayo\, A. T. 2022. Syncing up: A process model of emergent interdependence in dynamic teams. Administrative Science Quarterly\, 67(3): 821-864. \n\n\n\nMayo\, A. T.\, Myers\, C. G.\, & Sutcliffe\, K. M. 2021. Organizational science and health care. Academy of Management Annals\, 15(2): 537-576. \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\nMyers\, C. G.\, Polsky\, D.\, & Desai\, S. 2022. The growing role of chief medical officers in major corporations. JAMA Health Forum\, 3(7): e222194. \n\n\n\nPerry\, S. J.\, Richter\, J. P.\, & Beauvais\, B. 2018. The effects of nursing satisfaction and turnover cognitions on patient attitudes and outcomes: A three‐level multisource study. Health Services Research\, 53(6): 4943-4969. \n\n\n\nPratt\, M. G.\, Rockmann\, K. W.\, & Kaufmann\, J. B. 2006. Constructing professional identity: The role of work and identity learning cycles in the customization of identity among medical residents. Academy of Management Journal\, 49(2): 235-262. \n\n\n\nRamanujam\, R.\, & Rousseau\, D. M. 2006. The challenges are organizational not just clinical. Journal of Organizational Behavior\, 27(7): 811–827. \n\n\n\nReddy\, A.\, Wong\, E.\, Canamucio\, A.\, Nelson\, K.\, Fihn\, S. D.\, Yoon\, J.\, & Werner\, R. M. 2018. Association between continuity and team-based care and health care utilization: An observational study of medicare-eligible veterans in VA patient aligned care team. Health Services Research\, 53(2): 5201-5218. \n\n\n\nReiss-Brennan\, B.\, Brunisholz\, K. D.\, Dredge\, C.\, Briot\, P.\, Grazier\, K.\, Wilcox\, A.\, Savitz\, L.\, & James\, B. 2016. Association of integrated team-based care with health care quality\, utilization\, and cost. JAMA\, 316(8): 826-829. \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\, 22(1): 1-13. \n\n\n\nSheridan\, B.\, Chien\, A. T.\, Peters\, A. S.\, Rosenthal\, M. B.\, Brooks\, J. V.\, & Singer\, S. J. 2018. Team-based primary care. Health Care Management Review\, 43(2): 115-125. \n\n\n\nTrybou\, J.\, Gemmel\, P.\, & Annemans\, L. 2016. The impact of economic and noneconomic exchange on physicians’ organizational attitudes. Health Care Management Review\, 41(1): 75-85. \n\n\n\nValentine\, M. A.\, & Edmondson\, A. C. 2015. Team scaffolds: How mesolevel structures enable role-based coordination in temporary groups. Organization Science\, 26(2): 405-422. \n\n\n\nWestphal\, J. D.\, Gulati\, R.\, & Shortell\, S. M. 1997. Customization or conformity? An institutional and network perspective on the content and consequences of TQM adoption. Administrative Science Quarterly\, 42(2): 366-394.  \n\n\n\nAppendix\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nReproduced from: Mayo\, A. T.\, Myers\, C. G.\, & Sutcliffe\, K. M. 2021. Organizational science and health care. Academy of Management Annals\, 15(2): 537-576.
URL:https://www.aom.org/calendar/amd-special-research-forum-organizational-insights-in-health-care/
CATEGORIES:Call for Special Issue Papers,Discoveries,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:20251001T000000
DTEND;TZID=America/New_York:20251031T000000
DTSTAMP:20260415T185859
CREATED:20260226T041303Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20260226T041304Z
UID:10000020-1759276800-1761868800@www.aom.org
SUMMARY:AMP Call for Special Issue Papers: Making it Better by Working Together
DESCRIPTION:Submit via the AMP Manuscript Central site\n\n\n\n\nSee the related Paper Development Workshop details for this Special Issue. \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nGuest Editors:\n\n\n\n\nSophie Bacq\, IMD\, Switzerland\n\n\n\nJanet Bercovitz\, University of Colorado\, USA\n\n\n\nFrank de Bakker\, IESEG School of Management\, France\n\n\n\nAline Gatignon\, University of Pennsylvania\, USA\n\n\n\nIrene Henriques\, York University\, Canada\n\n\n\n\nAMP Associate Editor:\n\n\n\n\nSandro Cabral\, Insper\, Brazil\n\n\n\n\nBackground\n\n\n\nThe COVID-19 pandemic underscored that complex problems cannot be effectively tackled by organizations acting in isolation. Collaboration between businesses\, governments\, and civil society organizations proved necessary. The coordinated response from pharmaceutical companies\, public authorities\, nonprofit organizations\, and social enterprises leveraging their financial resources\, expertise\, and local knowledge to develop and distribute reliable and effective vaccines\, was vital in saving lives worldwide. 1 This cooperation not only addressed immediate public health needs but also established a precedent for future collaborative responses to global challenges. Similarly\, major technological innovations such as smartphones owe their existence to substantial public investments in basic research\, the entrepreneurial spirit of private innovators\, and the significant contributions of nonprofit institutions like Stanford University.2 In the same vein\, coordinated actions between firms and civil society groups have proven essential in reducing deforestation and increasing community well-being while ensuring economic benefits for businesses and numerous stakeholders in underserved communities.3 \n\n\n\nDespite these success stories\, management scholarship has been slow to embrace the full complexity of cross-sectoral collaborations. It frequently emphasizes free-market solutions and the business case for collaboration—such as how firms can leverage relationships with public and civil society organizations—while tending to overlook broader societal challenges. 4 In this special issue\, we aim to highlight practical ways that these relationships can be reshaped to better address the evolving social\, environmental\, and economic challenges of our time. \n\n\n\nScope and Open-Ended Research Questions\n\n\n\nWe invite scholarly studies that explain how the major challenges of our time can be or have been better addressed through specific reconfigurations of the relationships between firms\, governments\, and civil society organizations\, which include nonprofits cooperatives\, associations\, and social movements. We encourage both conceptual and empirical papers that are grounded in rigorous analysis and support specific and significant managerial and policy actions. In short\, we want papers that show what can or does work\, in ways that managers and policymakers can use. \n\n\n\nPlease note that AMP’s mission and format differ from many other leading academic journals. AMP papers are managerially driven\, not theory driven. Successful submissions clearly define the managerial issue from the outset and make a compelling case for its importance. They do not simply tack managerial implications on to a standard academic study. Rather\, AMP papers provide actionable insights that guide managerial behavior and influence policy decisions. We strongly encourage potential authors to review AMP’s guidelines at aom.org/amp before submission. Note that we also welcome Practitioner Perspectives essays and Constructive Confrontations papers for this special issue. Guidance for both formats is also on our website. \n\n\n\nFor this special issue\, we welcome submissions of relevant\, rigorous\, and readable papers that address a broad range of topics\, including but not limited to the following: \n\n\n\n\nBridging Different Perspectives and Interests: Which frameworks and processes can bring together diverse stakeholders with differing objectives to foster alignment and cooperation? How can collaborations be structured to benefit all parties involved? How do firms\, either in isolation or in collaboration with other cross-sector partners\, reconcile financial performance and societal goals?\n\n\n\nAccounting for Power Imbalances: How can the power disparities between larger entities\, such as governments\, multilateral organizations\, multinational corporations\, and smaller actors\, such as nonprofits\, local communities\, and disenfranchised groups\, be addressed to foster more equitable and effective partnerships? What innovative approaches can mitigate these imbalances and ensure that all actors are meaningfully included in decision-making? How can we foster collaborative governance arrangements and effectively engage firms\, nonprofits\, and civil society organizations when governments take a leading role in these efforts\, particularly in addressing grand challenges?\n\n\n\nIntegrating Understudied or Underserved Communities: How can we center the voices of understudied or underserved communities in cross-sector collaborations? How can we avoid “helicoptering” solutions into and out of these communities? What roles can these communities play as central actors in addressing societal challenges?\n\n\n\nGeographic Levels of Collaboration: How do solutions to societal problems vary across different geographic levels\, from local to global? How can polycentric governance models—where decision-making occurs across multiple\, interconnected scales—be employed to address global challenges while considering local needs? What level of analysis should managers adopt as they consider these challenges?\n\n\n\nInstitutional Context and Country Settings: How can institutional frameworks and country-specific factors be accounted for and managed in cross-sector collaborations? How can different governance structures\, legal frameworks\, and cultural contexts be addressed to improve the success of these partnerships? How does corporate political activity by one or more parties alter cross-sector partnership dynamics?\n\n\n\nMicro-Processes of Collaboration: What are the specific\, day-to-day processes through which individuals from different sectors—public\, private\, and civil society organizations—build trust\, share knowledge\, and foster collaborative solutions? How can managers encourage individuals to spend time in other sectors and how can this time be structured to break down barriers to collaboration? How can these individual interactions be scaled up to influence larger organizational and societal outcomes and\, eventually\, social and environmental impacts?\n\n\n\nImpact Measurement in Cross-Sector Collaborations: How can we measure the long-term societal impact of partnerships between businesses\, governments\, nonprofits\, and civil society organizations? What frameworks are most useful in assessing both financial and non-financial performance\, including social and environmental benefits?\n\n\n\nThe Role of Communication and Social Media: How can communication practices\, information technologies\, and social media platforms be leveraged to enhance transparency\, accountability\, and collaboration between businesses\, governments\, and civil society organizations?\n\n\n\n\nIn an era where the intersection of business\, government\, and civil society has never been more critical\, we encourage submissions that offer fresh perspectives and innovative solutions that managers and policymakers can implement to reshape these relationships for a more equitable and sustainable future. \n\n\n\nDeadline\, Submission\, and Review Process\n\n\n\nThe submission deadline is 31 October 2025. Papers must be submitted on the AMP website at https://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/amp. \n\n\n\nAll papers will be reviewed according to the current policies of Academy of Management Perspectives. AMP papers should be grounded in evidence or robust conceptual frameworks\, address relevant real-world managerial and policy issues\, offer actionable insights\, avoid theory fetish\, and be written in a style accessible to non-specialists and practitioners. \n\n\n\nWe intend to host a Paper Development Workshop at the 2025 AOM Conference in Copenhagen for selected authors to further develop their manuscripts. Participation in this workshop is neither a guarantee nor a prerequisite for publication. This special issue is expected to be published in 2027.  \n\n\n\nEndnotes\n\n\n\n1 S. Bacq and G. Lumpkin\, G. “Social Entrepreneurship and COVID‐19\,” Journal of Management Studies 58\, no. 1 (2021): 285; S. Cabral\, Strategy for Public and Nonprofit Organizations: An Applied Perspective (London: Palgrave Macmillan\, 2024). \n\n\n\n2 M. Mazzucato The Entrepreneurial State: Debunking Public vs Private Sector Myths (New York: Anthem Press Mazzucato\, 2013). \n\n\n\n3 S. Bacq\, C. Hertel\, and G. Lumpkin\, (2022). “Communities at the Nexus of Entrepreneurship and Societal Impact: A Cross-Disciplinary Literature Review\,” Journal of Business Venturing 37\, no. 5 (2022): 106231; M. L. Barnett\, I. Henriques\, and B. W. Husted\, “Beyond Good Intentions: Designing CSR Initiatives for Greater Social Impact\,” Journal of Management 46\, no. 6 (2020): 937–64; A. Gatignon and L. Capron\, “The Firm as an Architect of polycentric Governance: Building Open Institutional Infrastructure in Emerging Markets\,” Strategic Management Journal 44\, no. 1 (2023): 48–85; G. Lumpkin and S. Bacq\, “Civic Wealth Creation: A New View of Stakeholder Engagement and Societal Impact\,” Academy of Management Perspectives 33\, no. 4 (2019): 383–404; A. M. McGahan and L. S. Pongeluppe\, “There Is no Planet B: Aligning Stakeholder Interests to Preserve the Amazon Rainforest\,” Management Science 69\, no. 12 (2023): 7860–81. \n\n\n\n4 S. Cabral\, J. T. Mahoney\, A. M. McGahan\, and M. Potoski\, “Value Creation and Value Appropriation in Public and Nonprofit Organizations\,” Strategic Management Journal 40\, no. 4 (2019): 465–75.
URL:https://www.aom.org/calendar/amp-call-for-special-issue-papers-making-it-better-by-working-together/
CATEGORIES:Call for Special Issue Papers,Journals,Perspectives
ATTACH;FMTTYPE=image/png:https://www.aom.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/08/amp_cfs.png
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=America/New_York:20260415T185859
DTEND;TZID=America/New_York:20260415T185859
DTSTAMP:20260415T185859
CREATED:20260226T045736Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20260226T045736Z
UID:10000057-0-0@www.aom.org
SUMMARY:AOM 2026 Call for Submissions
DESCRIPTION:The Academy of Management and its Divisions and Interest Groups (DIGs)\, Affiliates\, and Caucus Committee are excited to invite submissions and seek reviewers to evaluate conference submissions for the 86th Annual Meeting of the Academy of Management to be held in Philadelphia\, Pennsylvania\, from 31 July to 4 August 2026. \n\n\n\nThe DIG Program Chairs and PDW Chairs are enthusiastically anticipating the development of an intellectually vibrant program for 2026. The “Call for Submissions” is available online and the Submission Center opens in early December 2025. \n\n\n\nPlease visit the Call for Submissions page for the individual calls and for additional information. \n\n\n\n\nSubmit your proposal
URL:https://www.aom.org/calendar/aom-2026-call-for-submissions/
CATEGORIES:Call for Submissions,Event Calendar
ATTACH;FMTTYPE=image/png:https://www.aom.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/08/AOM-2026-Full_1000x750px-1.png
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=America/New_York:20260415T185859
DTEND;TZID=America/New_York:20260415T185859
DTSTAMP:20260415T185859
CREATED:20260226T045348Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20260226T045348Z
UID:10000038-0-0@www.aom.org
SUMMARY:Call for Submissions: Academy of Management Collections
DESCRIPTION:Learn More About Submitting to Academy of Management Collections\n\n\n\n\nThe mission of Academy of Management Collections is to publish carefully organized collections of articles from the AOM’s archive of previously published journal articles\, tied together by an original essay. AOM journals include Academy of Management Journal\, Academy of Management Review\, Academy of Management Perspectives\, Academy of Management Learning and Education\, Academy of Management Discoveries\, and Academy of Management Annals.
URL:https://www.aom.org/calendar/call-for-submissions-academy-of-management-collections/
CATEGORIES:AOM Collections,Call for Submissions,Event Calendar,Journals
ATTACH;FMTTYPE=image/png:https://www.aom.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/08/cropped-covers_stroke_600x500.png
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=America/New_York:20260415T185859
DTEND;TZID=America/New_York:20260415T185859
DTSTAMP:20260415T185859
CREATED:20260226T045346Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20260226T045346Z
UID:10000033-0-0@www.aom.org
SUMMARY:AMLE Special Section Call for Papers: Learning to Hope In and Through Management Learning & Education
DESCRIPTION:Submission Deadline: 27 February 2026 \n\n\n\nAnticipated Publication: December 2026 \n\n\n\n\n\nSubmission Guidelines\n\n\n\n\n\nRegister Here\n\n\n\n\n\nAMLE Editors\n\n\n\n\nKatrin Muehlfeld\, Trier University (Germany)\n\n\n\nLaura Colombo\, University of Exeter (United Kingdom)\n\n\n\nStuart Middleton\, University of Queensland (Australia)\n\n\n\nTodd Bridgman\, Victoria University of Wellington (New Zealand)\n\n\n\nDirk Lindebaum\, University of Bath (United Kingdom)\n\n\n\n\nCall for Papers\n\n\n\nHope is situated between what is and what might be. As such\, hope is typically experienced under conditions of uncertainty\, and there is no paucity of uncertainty in these times of geo-political upheaval and existential threats posed by climate change. Why and how should/can we hope in these troubling times? This is the guiding question for us in this special section. Hope is defined as “the perceived capability to derive pathways to desired goals\, and motivate oneself via agency thinking to use those pathways” (Snyder\, 2002\, p. 249). This definition is useful in four ways: it (i) identifies individual agency as the nucleus of hope; (ii) highlights the intimate connections between agency and pathway thinking (i.e.\, understanding causal relations to overcome obstacles); (iii) emphasizes the action-orientation that hope may imply; and (iv) it highlights the key role of an individual’s cognitive appraisal of the world—past\, present\, and future. As such\, hope has bearings on the pragmatic\, critical\, and spiritual pedagogical foundations of our field and the knowledge that has emerged from it (bell hooks\, 2003; Dewey\, 1922; Freire\, 1992; Harvey\, 1988). \n\n\n\nWhile hope’s crucial relevance to education has been recently highlighted by international research initiatives such as No Limits to Hope\, launched in 2025 by the Club of Rome\, the World Environmental Education Congress and the Fifth Element (WEEC\, 2025)\, hope remains considerably under-explored in (i) management learning\, (ii) management education\, and (iii) the business of business schools. It is only recently that scholars have begun to discuss hope’s potentially pivotal role for and within management (see Hudson\, Wright\, Toubiana\, Jarvis\, Granqvist\, 2025) and\, more specifically\, management learning and education (Lindebaum\, 2025; Skilling et al.\, 2023). This special section in AMLE seeks to harness this nascent momentum to explore why and how hope (as noun) and/or hoping (as verb) can enrich our substantive understanding for tackling grand challenges and bringing about holistic and desirable futures (Comi\, Mosca\, & Whyte\, 2025; Gümüsay & Reinecke\, 2024; Muzio & Wickert\, 2025; Lindebaum\, 2025; Wenzel\, Cabantous\, & Koch\, 2025; Wickert\, 2025; Wright\, 2025). All three thematic priorities in AMLE can and should have a role to play (Lindebaum\, 2025). As to management learning\, learning to hope is essential to who we are as human beings (as agency and pathway thinkers). Concerning management education\, we can leverage appropriate pedagogical approaches to make learning to hope possible. Finally\, institutional structures within business schools (and wider universities) may require careful examination and adjustment if our students are to hope for solutions to grand challenges and holistic and desirable futures. \n\n\n\nIn this special section\, we are specifically interested in exploring the ways in which we may hope in and through management learning and education. Underlining the theory-driven ethos of AMLE (Caza\, Harley\, Coraiola\, Lindebaum\, & Moser\, 2024)\, the special section seeks new theorizing about the role of hope for and within MLE across levels of analysis and in relation to desirable future end states. Building on this\, we are interested in practical insights that may inform management educators and decision-makers in business schools in their initiatives geared at supporting learning to hope in and through management learning and education\, with the ultimate aim of facilitating effective tackling of grand challenges and bringing about desirable futures (e.g.\, Starkey & Tempest\, 2025). Therefore\, submissions could\, for example\, address thematic questions around the following illustrative (but not exclusive) areas of concern: \n\n\n\n1. Hope as multifaceted\, multilevel phenomenon across time \n\n\n\nThe literature on hope features a variety of issues that touch upon the multifaceted nature of hope as a multilevel phenomenon\, ranging from the microlevel of the individual\, to the most aggregate macro-level of society as a whole\, with a whole range of intermediate levels including dyads\, teams\, groups\, and organizations. \n\n\n\nAt the individual level\, questions arise\, such as\, for example: \n\n\n\n\nWhat is the role of ‘talking about hope’ (Lindebaum\, Geddes\, & Jordan\, 2018) in shaping cognitive (re)appraisals around hope? Are there different types of hope that may give rise to different types of behavior—for example\, hope that implies relying on one’s own agency in contrast to hope that encourages waiting for some external force to bring about ‘a miracle’ (e.g.\, Bernardo\, 2010)? If so\, what does it take to transform ‘passive’ hope into hope that embraces one’s own agency?\n\n\n\nWhat is the role of (other) emotions (such as\, for example\, anger or fear) for stimulating of hindering hope?\n\n\n\nAre there any possible negative or dysfunctional consequences for individuals when they learn to hope? If so\, how can they be counteracted?\n\n\n\n\nAt the level of collectives (e.g.\, dyads\, teams\, groups\, organizations\, societies)\, issues that could be addressed include\, for example: \n\n\n\n\nHow can collective hope be conceptualized? By what mechanisms(s) does hope cross from the individual (i.e.\, micro) to the collective (i.e.\, macro) level?\n\n\n\nWhat is the role of emotions in fostering or hindering movement across levels (Ashkanasy\, 2003)\, potentially facilitating the emergence of ‘escalators of hoping’ (Lindebaum\, 2025)?\n\n\n\nHow is hope distinctly conceptualized across cultural contexts (e.g.\, Averill & Sundararajan\, 2005) and what are the consequences and the potential for cross-fertilization to the benefit of MLE? For example\, do Indigenous ways of being and acting offer distinct insights into how to learn to hope when faced with powerful exogenous influences?\n\n\n\n\nSuch macro-level perspectives further point to the need to look back in order to look forward and to explore the embeddedness of conceptualizations of hope within specific historical contexts. Thus\, in terms of a historical perspective\, \n\n\n\n\nHow can historical approaches inform our conceptualization of hope? What can we learn from the past\, as well as from histories of the past\, to provide insight on learning to hope?\n\n\n\nTo what extent and in what ways could reflections at the nexus between historical and cultural perspectives on hope deepen and broaden our understanding of learning to hope?\n\n\n\n\n2. Management Learning\, Education and the business of business schools \n\n\n\nConcerning Management Learning\, possible questions that emerge are: \n\n\n\n\nHow do extant learning theories conceive of learning to hope? Many seminal established theories such as experiential learning (e.g.\, Kolb & Kolb\, 2005) comprise a strong retrospective element. Could they be meaningfully extended to emphasize prospective elements of learning (Lindebaum\, 2024)? Could\, for example\, recent conceptualizations of learners’ transitions through liminal space\, triggered by encounters with threshold concepts (Irving\, Wright\, & Hibbert\, 2019) hold valuable insights for how to broaden the scope of existing learning theories with the aim of fostering understanding of antecedents and boundary conditions of learning to hope?\n\n\n\nHow do cognitive assessments and anticipated emotions interact in individuals’ evaluation of future possible outcomes (Baumeister\, Maranges\, & Sjåstad\, 2018; Baumeister\, Vohs\, Nathan DeWall\, & Zhang\, 2007)? To what extent and under what conditions do anticipated emotions have the potential to steer individuals towards striving for desirable futures? How can these interactions be harnessed in the management classroom to foster learning to hope in and through MLE?\n\n\n\nWhat motivates students to engage in training and education\, especially when ‘all hope seems lost’; that is\, when the state of the world around them makes their futures seem highly uncertain and their present riddled with eco-anxiety?\n\n\n\nWhat motivates students to invest (sometimes significant amounts of time and financial means) in their education when it seems highly uncertain whether they will be able to reap the benefits of this investment (whatever they consider these benefits to be)?\n\n\n\n\nFor management education\, prospective authors may wonder\, for example: \n\n\n\n\nWhy and how do we teach about hope in uncertain times? What can we learn from the past in terms of teaching during times of global upheaval (e.g.\, Lewis\, 2013)? Which pedagogical strategies and interventions may enable students to develop pathway and agency thinking towards holistic and desirable futures?\n\n\n\nDo initiatives to support learning to hope in and for MLE need to distinguish between programs aimed at freshman students\, who have not yet been socialized within a business (school) environment (e.g.\, Ong\, Cunningham\, & Parmar\, 2024) and programs aimed at professionals?\n\n\n\nAre there any potential unintended and adverse consequences that might arise from fostering learning to hope in and for MLE\, for example\, by unintentionally encouraging disengagement from the present\, through focusing on the future?\n\n\n\nIf hope is distinctly conceptualized across cultural contexts (e.g.\, Averill & Sundararajan\, 2005)\, how could this variety of conceptualizations be used to achieve cross-fertilization to the benefit of management education? For example\, how could insights from Indigenous ways of hoping be translated into pedagogies and business school contexts across the globe?\n\n\n\nHow can we buttress and protect the function of hope as management educators\, given that ‘function’ (Keltner & Haidt\, 1999) concerns the regular consequences of a phenomenon in a (socio-ecological) system (Colombo\, Moser\, Muehlfeld\, & Joy\, 2024)?\n\n\n\nHow might spiritual understandings of hope across different cultural and religious contexts\, with their relation to personal character (Comer & Schwarz\, 2020) and human connectedness through love (Berry\, 2010) help in our efforts to pedagogically engage with framing understandings of hope in our classrooms?\n\n\n\nWhat might philosophies of American pragmatism\, as found in Peirce (1878) and Dewey (1922)\, and with its underlying dynamics in nineteenth-century pioneering spirit have to offer for theories of hope in management education? What might the incremental nature of knowledge in this philosophy have to add to our understanding of processes by which hope may emerge and progress?\n\n\n\nWith the roots of critical theory in ancient Gnosticism (Carlin\, 2021)\, is it possible for critical pedagogy to be hopeful? How has hope been represented by leading critical scholars in the education field (e.g.\, Freire\, 1992; bell hooks\, 2003)\, and how might critical theory branch out to other philosophies for advancing a hopeful research agenda?\n\n\n\n\nIn the context of business of business schools\, the following questions could be entertained: \n\n\n\n\nHow do business schools develop institutional structures that hinder and/or facilitate teachers’ and students’ embracing of pathway and agency thinking towards holistic and desirable futures?\n\n\n\nFor scholars who have long critiqued the neoliberal business school\, how might changing macro trends presage elements of hope? Might emergent postliberal philosophies (e.g.\, Middleton\, 2024) affect an emphasis on learning to hope in and through management learning and education? For example\, if\, following the extant business of business schools literature\, American hegemony over higher education may constrain global efforts to tackle grand challenges\, then what does a postliberal shift towards “America First” mean for this hegemony? Might it mean the end of American domination of international business schools? If so\, what could perhaps replace it? \n\n\n\n\nSubmission Types\n\n\n\nWe welcome Research and Review\, Essay\, and Book and Resource Review submissions for this special section. 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 any of the editors involved in the special section with their questions: \n\n\n\n\nKatrin Muehlfeld\n\n\n\nLaura Colombo\n\n\n\nStuart Middleton\n\n\n\nTodd Bridgman\n\n\n\nDirk Lindebaum\n\n\n\n\nWe encourage authors interested in submitting a book or resource review to contact Laura Colombo 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 section. Please note that consultation with the editors is neither a prerequisite nor an expectation for submission to the special issue. \n\n\n\nSpecial Section Timeline and Process\n\n\n\nSubmissions will be accepted via AMLE’s Manuscript Central portal between the 1st of February\, 2026\, and the 27th of February\, 2026. Prior to submission\, we will hold a virtual paper development workshop (PDW)\, tentatively scheduled for the 1st of Dec 2025\, for interested authors to receive feedback on their ideas. Those interested in participating in the virtual workshop should submit either (a) a full draft paper or (b) a 4\,000–5\,000 word proposal (including an indication of the structure of the proposed paper\, its aims\, key arguments\, theoretical contribution to and practical implications for AMLE) by the 10th of November 2025. While we encourage interested contributors to participate in this PDW\, participation is not a prerequisite for\, or a guarantee of\, eventual acceptance for the special section. Please note that authors whose papers receive an invitation to revise their work for possible inclusion in the special section need to be able to be responsive to strict turnaround times for their revision given that the special section is scheduled for the last issue handled by the current editorial team at AMLE. \n\n\n\nReferences\n\n\n\nAshkanasy\, N. M. (2003). Emotions in organizations: A multi-level perspective. In Multi-level Issues in Organizational Behavior and Strategy (pp. 9–54). Emerald Group Publishing Limited. \n\n\n\nAverill\, J.R.\, & Sundararajan\, L. (2005). Hope as rhetoric: Cultural narratives of wishing and coping. In J.A. Eliott (Ed.)\, Interdisciplinary Perspectives on Hope (pp. 127–159). New York: Nova Science. \n\n\n\nBaumeister\, R. F.\, Maranges\, H. M.\, & Sjåstad\, H. (2018). Consciousness of the future as a matrix of maybe: Pragmatic prospection and the simulation of alternative possibilities. Psychology of Consciousness: Theory\, Research\, and Practice\, 5(3)\, 223–238. \n\n\n\nBaumeister\, R. F.\, Vohs\, K. D.\, Nathan DeWall\, C.\, & Zhang\, L. (2007). How emotion shapes behavior: Feedback\, anticipation\, and reflection\, rather than direct causation. Personality and Social Psychology Review\, 11(2)\, 167–203. \n\n\n\nbell hooks (2003). Teaching community. A pedagogy of hope. New York: Routledge. \n\n\n\nBernardo\, A. B. (2010). Extending hope theory: Internal and external locus of trait hope. Personality and Individual Differences\, 49(8)\, 944–949. \n\n\n\nBerry\, W. (2010). A poem of difficult hope. In W. Berry (Ed.)\, A Continuous Harmony. Counterpoint\, 83–61. \n\n\n\nCarlin\, M. (2021). Gnosticism\, progressivism and the (im)possibility of the ethical academy. Educational\, Philosophy and Theory\, 53(5)\, 436– 447. \n\n\n\nCaza\, A.\, Harley\, B.\, Coraiola\, D. M.\, Lindebaum\, D.\, & Moser\, C. (2024). What is a contribution and how can you make one at AMLE?. Academy of Management Learning & Education\, 23(4)\, 523-528. \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\nComer\, D. R.\, & Schwartz\, M. (2020). Adapting Mussar to develop management students’ character. Journal of Management Education\, 44(2)\, 196–246. \n\n\n\nComi\, A.\, Mosca\, L.\, & Whyte\, J. (2025). Future making as emancipatory inquiry: A value‐based exploration of desirable futures. Journal of Management Studies. \n\n\n\nDewey\, J. (1922). Human Nature and Conduct: An Introduction to Social Psychology. Henry Holt and Company. \n\n\n\nFreire\, P. (1992). Pedagogy of Hope: Reliving the Pedagogy of the Oppressed. New York: The Continuum Publishing Company. \n\n\n\nGümüsay\, A. A.\, & Reinecke\, J. (2024). Imagining desirable futures: A call for prospective theorizing with speculative rigour. Organization Theory\, 5(1)\, 26317877241235939. \n\n\n\nHarvey\, J. B. (1988). The Abilene Paradox and Other Meditations on Management. Lexington Books. \n\n\n\nHudson\, B. A.\, Wright\, A.\, Toubiana\, M.\, Jarvis\, L.\, & Granqvist\, N. (2025). The architecture of hope in distressing times and places: Construction\, action\, and possibilities. Organization Studies\, Special Issue Call for Papers\, available from https://journals.sagepub.com/page/oss/call-for-papers. \n\n\n\nIrving\, G.\, Wright\, A.\, & Hibbert\, P. (2019). Threshold concept learning: Emotions and liminal space transitions. Management Learning\, 50(3)\, 355–373. \n\n\n\nKeltner\, D.\, & Haidt\, J. (1999). Social functions of emotions at four levels of analysis. Cognition & Emotion\, 13(5)\, 505–521. \n\n\n\nKolb\, A. Y.\, & Kolb\, D. A. (2005). Learning styles and learning spaces: Enhancing experiential learning in higher education. Academy of Management Learning & Education\, 4(2)\, 193–212. \n\n\n\nLewis\, C. S. (2013). Learning in War Time. In C.S. Lewis (Ed.)\, The Weight of Glory\, William Collins\, 25–46. \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\nLindebaum\, D. (2025). Hope. Academy of Management Learning & Education. doi:10.5465/amle.2025.0145. \n\n\n\nLindebaum\, D.\, Geddes\, D.\, & Jordan\, P. J. (Eds.). (2018). Social Functions of Emotion and Talking about Emotion at Work. Edward Elgar Publishing. \n\n\n\nMiddleton\, S. (2024). Advancing the Future of Management Education Research. Edward Elgar Publishing. \n\n\n\nMuzio\, D.\, & Wickert\, C. (2025). Climate change and the politics of system‐level change: The challenges of moving beyond incremental transformation. Journal of Management Studies. doi:10.1111/joms.13234. \n\n\n\nOng\, M.\, Cunningham\, J. L.\, & Parmar\, B. L. (2024). Lay beliefs about homo economicus: How and why does economics education make us see honesty as effortful?. Academy of Management Learning & Education\, 23(1)\, 41–60. \n\n\n\nPeirce\, C. (1878). How to make our ideas clear. Popular Science Monthly\, 12 (January)\, 286–302. \n\n\n\nSkilling\, P.\, Hurd\, F.\, Lips-Wiersma\, M.\, & McGhee\, P. (2023). Navigating hope and despair in sustainability education: A reflexive roadmap for being with eco-anxiety in the classroom. Management Learning\, 54(5)\, 655–679. \n\n\n\nSnyder\, C. R. (2002). Hope theory: Rainbows in the mind. Psychological Inquiry\, 13\, 249–275. \n\n\n\nStarkey\, K.\, & Tempest\, S. (2025). The business school and the end of history: Reimagining management education. Academy of Management Learning & Education\, 24(1)\, 111–125. \n\n\n\nWEEC (2025). No Limits to Hope. Transforming learning for better futures. Retrieved from: https://res.cloudinary.com/dnive3aoc/images/v1742891560/NLTH_Call-and-Concept-Note-1/NLTH_Call-and-Concept-Note-1.pdf?_i=AA \n\n\n\nWenzel\, M.\, Cabantous\, L.\, & Koch\, J. (2025). Future making: Towards a practice perspective. Journal of Management Studies. doi:10.1111/joms.13222. \n\n\n\nWickert\, C. (2025). What is the future of future making in management research?. Journal of Management Studies. doi:10.1111/joms.13230. \n\n\n\nWright\, A. (2025). Back to the future? A caution. Journal of Management Studies. doi:10.1111/joms.13226.
URL:https://www.aom.org/calendar/amle-special-section-call-for-papers-learning-to-hope-in-and-through-management-learning-education/
CATEGORIES: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