Academy of Management

AMD Publishing and Paper Development Workshop, Zurich, Switzerland
2025-09-29 00:00 (America/New_York)
Submit Extended Abstracts and Register

Abstract submission deadline for submitting authors: 11:59 p.m. U.S. ET on 7 August 2025

Registration deadline for open participants: Participants who do not wish to submit abstracts but would still like to attend should register using the above link by 11:59 p.m. U.S. ET on 1 September 2025

In-person workshop hosted by ETH Zurich

Workshop Leaders

C. Chet Miller & Prithviraj Chattopadhayay, AMD Coeditors

Other Associate Editors, Editorial Review Board members, and Authors from the journal

About the Workshop

This workshop is geared toward all scholars (PhD students, junior and senior scholars) who are interested in publishing in AMD. In this workshop, we will work with potential authors to determine whether AMD provides the best fit for their ideas, and then help them develop well-crafted ideas potentially suitable for submission to the journal.

Agenda

9:00-9:30Registration/coffee and networking9:30-9:45Introduction to the workshop9:45-10:45Plenary—Publishing in AMD10:45-11:15Coffee break11:15-12:30Breakout groups to discuss papers I12:30-13:45Lunch13:45-15:00Breakout groups to discuss papers II15:00-15:30Coffee break15:30-16:30Plenary—Publishing in AOM journals, wrap-up and closing16:30-17:30City tour (optional)

The plenary sessions will be geared toward providing general information about publishing in AMD, such as what makes a successful paper, the main reasons that papers are rejected, and strategies for addressing the core challenges that editors and reviewers see in rejected papers.

Each breakout group will be facilitated by individuals who have editorial and/or publishing experience with the journal. Each participant will be given 2 minutes in which to present a brief overview of their idea, and why they believe the paper fits the AMD mission (AMD Mission Statement). The facilitator will then lead a discussion on the fit of that idea for the journal, and how it can be developed further to enhance the potential for success. The process of giving and receiving feedback by everyone in a breakout group also will help participants get a better understanding of how to craft ideas into manuscripts for AMD. The template reviewers are encouraged to use for AMD submissions may be found here: AMD Reviewer Template.

Workshop Instructions

Each person whose work is accepted for a breakout session should prepare to share a 1-page document that describes the research question, methods for empirical exploration, and expected/actual findings.. Each person also should prepare a 2-minute presentation for the breakout session. In each session, 4 to 5 participants will be paired with one of the Editors, an Associate Editor or an Editorial Review Board member from the journal. These groups will then discuss the participants’ ideas and provide each participant with insights about how to clarify ideas and move them forward.

Submission and Registration Information

Abstract submission deadline for submitting authors: All participants seeking feedback in the breakout sessions must submit extended abstracts for review by 11:59 p.m. U.S. Eastern Time on 7 August 2025. These extended abstracts should be no longer than four double-spaced pages and convey the essence of the research questions, the pertinent research that is missing from existing literature, proposed/actual empirical methods, and expected/actual empirical findings.

The extended abstracts should be submitted using this link.

Acceptance decisions and breakout assignments will be sent by 14 August 2025, along with hotel, transportation, and city information.

Registration deadline for open participants: Participants who do not wish to submit abstracts but would still like to attend should register using the above link by 11:59 p.m. U.S. Eastern Time on 1 September 2025.

AMD Special Research Forum - Organizational Insights in Health Care
2025-10-01 00:00 - 2025-10-31 00:00 (America/New_York)
Initial Submission Window: 1 October 2025- 31 October 2025

Guest Editors

Marlys Christianson, University of Toronto

Brian Hilligoss, University of Arizona

Christopher Myers, Johns Hopkins University (AMD Associate Editor)

Kathleen Sutcliffe, Johns Hopkins University

Timothy Vogus, Vanderbilt University

Overview

Recent 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.

Nowhere 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.

Health 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).

Organizational Science and Health Care

Given 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.

For 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).

The 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).

This 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).

Goals of the Special Issue

Given 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.

We 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)

We 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).

We 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).

Sample Topics

The 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.

Evolving Intersections of Health Care and Work

Introduction of AI in health and health care

Use of new technologies (e.g., robotics, additive manufacturing) in health care

Disruptive events and health crises (e.g., COVID-19)

The individual, organizational, and sectoral/institutional consequences of operating in a politically charged and polarized domain

The competing ethics of health care and care delivery (e.g., professional, organizational, and personal ethics)

Structural Shifts in Health Care

New ownership and governance structures (e.g., private equity investments)

Funding, payment, and regulatory shifts affecting health care

Provision of health services (e.g., caregiving, mental health care) in non-health organizations and work settings

Personalized medicine

Complex system dynamics and achieving safe, reliable care

Trends in Health Care Delivery

Emergence of new professions (or proto-professions like community health workers), evolution of professional roles, and changing scope-of-practice

New work arrangements (e.g., remote work, “travel” nursing)

New modalities of care delivery (e.g., virtual health care and telemedicine)

Work implications of home health care and long-term care providers

Workforce composition and demographics, workload, and burnout

Globalization of the health care workforce

Learning and decision-making in the face of limited evidence (e.g., COVID-19 treatment)

About AMD

AMD 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.

Submission Guidelines

Standard 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.

References

Ben-Menahem, S. M. 2024. Engaging practitioners in empirical exploration. Academy of Management Discoveries, 10(2): 155-162.

D’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.

DiBenigno, J. 2022. How idealized professional identities can persist through client interactions. Administrative Science Quarterly, 67(3): 865-912.

DiBenigno, J., & D’Aunno, T. 2024. A necessary prescription: How studies of healthcare can advance theory and practice. Administrative Science Quarterly. Research Curation.

Djukic, 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.

Everson, 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.

Hilligoss, 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.

Hughes, 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.

Johns, G. 2001. In praise of context. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 22(1): 31-42.

Kohn, 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.

LeBaron, 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.

Lee, J. M., & Kapoor, R. 2017. Complementarities and coordination: Implications for governance mode and performance of multiproduct firms. Organization Science, 28(5): 931–946.

Luciano, 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.

Mayo, A. T. 2022. Syncing up: A process model of emergent interdependence in dynamic teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 67(3): 821-864.

Mayo, A. T., Myers, C. G., & Sutcliffe, K. M. 2021. Organizational science and health care. Academy of Management Annals, 15(2): 537-576.

Miller, C. C. 2024. Pirates, adventurers, and free spirits: The people of Academy of Management Discoveries. Academy of Management Discoveries, 10(1): 1-6.

Myers, C. G., Polsky, D., & Desai, S. 2022. The growing role of chief medical officers in major corporations. JAMA Health Forum, 3(7): e222194.

Perry, 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.

Pratt, 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.

Ramanujam, R., & Rousseau, D. M. 2006. The challenges are organizational not just clinical. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 27(7): 811–827.

Reddy, 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.

Reiss-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.

Rockmann, K. 2023. Embracing an exploratory mindset: How amd is changing the script of good science. Academy of Management Discoveries, 9(4): 419-423.

Rousseau, D. M., & Fried, Y. 2001. Location, location, location: Contextualizing organizational research. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 22(1): 1-13.

Sheridan, 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.

Trybou, 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.

Valentine, M. A., & Edmondson, A. C. 2015. Team scaffolds: How mesolevel structures enable role-based coordination in temporary groups. Organization Science, 26(2): 405-422.

Westphal, 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.

Appendix

Reproduced from: Mayo, A. T., Myers, C. G., & Sutcliffe, K. M. 2021. Organizational science and health care. Academy of Management Annals, 15(2): 537-576.

AMP Call for Special Issue Papers: Making it Better by Working Together
2025-10-01 00:00 - 2025-10-31 00:00 (America/New_York)
Submit via the AMP Manuscript Central site

See the related Paper Development Workshop details for this Special Issue.

Guest Editors:

Sophie Bacq, IMD, Switzerland

Janet Bercovitz, University of Colorado, USA

Frank de Bakker, IESEG School of Management, France

Aline Gatignon, University of Pennsylvania, USA

Irene Henriques, York University, Canada

AMP Associate Editor:

Sandro Cabral, Insper, Brazil

Background

The 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

Despite 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.

Scope and Open-Ended Research Questions

We 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.

Please note that AMP’s mission and format differ from many other leading academic journals. AMP papers are managerially driven, not theory driven. Successful submissions clearly define the managerial issue from the outset and make a compelling case for its importance. They do not simply tack managerial implications 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.

For 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:

Bridging 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?

Accounting 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?

Integrating 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?

Geographic 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?

Institutional 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?

Micro-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?

Impact 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?

The 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?

In 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.

Deadline, Submission, and Review Process

The submission deadline is 31 October 2025. Papers must be submitted on the AMP website at https://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/amp.

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

We 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.

Endnotes

1 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).

2 M. Mazzucato The Entrepreneurial State: Debunking Public vs Private Sector Myths (New York: Anthem Press Mazzucato, 2013).

3 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.

4 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.

AMPlitude Workshops: Session 2
2025-10-17 09:00 - 10:00 (Europe/London)
Click for Zoom

Academy of Management Perspectives (AMP) publishes studies that matter to managers. Might your study be suitable for publication in AMP? Join an upcoming workshop to get on the same AMPlitude!

During these quarterly online workshops, participants pitch their paper ideas to AMP editors. Participants are given up to five minutes to explain their ideas, using a template. AMP editors then provide individualized feedback.

Registration is required. Please compete and submit the template at the time of registration.

Please note:• Registration does not guarantee acceptance to the workshop• Workshop participation does not guarantee acceptance of the associated full-text manuscript to AMP and does not provide special preference in the review process.

Pre-Workshop Activities

Please read these From the Editors essays prior to submitting your extended abstract.• (Re)building a Bridge between Scholars and Practitioners: Get AMPed!• Management Practice and Policy: A Guide to Writing for AMP• Mattering Matters: Explaining what Fits at Academy of Management Perspectives

AMJ and CARMA Research Methods Virtual Development Workshop
2025-10-24 10:00 - 14:00 (America/New_York)
Led By

Quinetta Roberson quinetta@broad.msu.edu Paul Bliese paul.bliese@moore.sc.edu

Purpose and Agenda

The first goal of the workshop is to provide insights on the types of research methods manuscripts AMJ is looking for. The second goal is to develop ideas and working manuscripts that advance research methods with the aim of later submission for review at AMJ.

Submission Requirements

Extended abstract with details on example data used to illustrate the method.

Workshop Structure

This workshop will include a plenary and pre-assigned breakout sessions.

AMLE Paper Development Workshop, Vilnius, Lithuania
2025-10-29 10:00 - 16:00 (Europe/Vilnius)
Register and Submit Here

Led By

Olga Ryazanova, Associate Editor AMLE, Maynooth University

Christine Moser: Associate Editor AMLE, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam

Local Organizer

Vita Akstinaite, Vice-President for Research & Faculty, ISM University

About AMLE

Academy of Management Learning & Education (AMLE) is rated as 4* in the UK CABS list and A* in the Australian Business Deans’ Council list of journals. AMLE publishes theory-driven studies on management learning, management education, or the business of business schools. For empirical papers, this means that where the research sample is composed of learners, they are higher education students in business school(s) or school(s) of management, or they are managers learning in executive contexts. Where the sample is composed of faculty, then they are situated within a business school(s) or school(s) of management.

Registration

There is no registration fee, but participants are responsible for arranging their own travel and accommodation. Registration, submission of short paper, and commitment to attend are required for all participants wishing to attend both parts of the PDW. The places in Part 2 are limited and are allocated to the first 15 submissions which meet the requirements below.

Submission deadline: 12 September 2025

Catering

Refreshments and lunch will be provided. ISM University of Management and Economics generously sponsored catering and lunch for a limited number of participants.

Workshop Structure

This workshop has two main parts.

Part 1 comprises a general introduction to AMLE. The main focus is on writing manuscripts that advance our theoretical understanding of MLE phenomena for the research article and essay sections of the journal. This first part of the workshop is open to all interested participants.

Part 2 is focused on supporting and advising researchers, with current work-in-progress, on how to develop and refine their papers with submission to AMLE in mind. Those wishing to participate in Part 2 should note the requirements listed above.

Approximate schedule for the day:

10:00-11:00 – Presentation of the journal and Q&A

11:00-11:45 – Theoretical contribution in the AMLE

11:45-12:00 – Coffee break

12:00-13:30 – Roundtable discussion of submitted papers

13:30-14:30 – Lunch

14:30-16:00 – Continuation of roundtable discussion and Q&A

Submission

Clearly mark the subject line as: PDW Submission at ISM University. Your submission must have a cover page that includes: the author name(s) and affiliation(s); three to four keywords; and an email address for the lead author. An abstract of up to 200 words should be provided on the first page of the paper. Please note that by registering you:

Agree to your paper being discussed in a small group with other participants, as arranged by the workshop facilitators, and be willing and able to provide a short (5-minute maximum) overview of your paper to others in the discussion group.

Commit to attending the whole workshop if your submission is accepted.

You can still attend and participate if you do not have work to discuss in Part 2. As with paper submissions, please let us know by 12 September 2025 if you wish to register without submitting work for Part 2.

References

Caza, 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: 523-528.

Hibbert, P., Caza, A., Coraiola, D.M., Gerhardt, M., Greenberg, D., Laasch, O., Lindebaum, D., Rigg, C., Ryazanova, O., & Wright, A.L., 2023. Why be an editor? Academy of Management Learning & Education, 22: 569-573.

Lindebaum, D., 2024. Management learning and education as “big picture” social science. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 23: 1-7.

Rockmann, K., Bunderson, J.S., Leana, C.R., Hibbert, P., Tihanyi, L., Phan, P.H., & Thatcher, S.M., 2021. Publishing in the Academy of Management journals. Academy of Management Perspectives, 35: 165-174.

Vince, R., & Hibbert, P., 2018. From the AMLE editorial team: Disciplined provocation: Writing essays for AMLE. Academy of Management, Learning and Education, 17: 397-400.

Ask An AMR Associate Editor: Ethical Considerations Unique to Publishing Theory Papers
2025-10-30 21:00 - 22:00 (America/New_York)
Join the session

Presenters: Melissa Cardon and Chak Fu Lam

Maintaining high ethical standards is an important part of our journal and our profession. Melissa Cardon and Chak Fu Lam will talk about their FTE on ethics related to writing theory papers, offer suggestions, and answer questions.

Just click the “Join the Session” to join; registration is not required.

AMD Special Research Spotlight: Neurodiversity in Management and Organizations
2025-11-01 00:00 - 2025-11-30 23:59 (America/New_York)
Submission Deadline: 30 November 2025

Submission window for Special Research Spotlight: 1–30 November 2025

Guest Editors

Dusya Vera, Ivey Business School (AMD Associate Editor)

Hala Annabi, University of Washington

Robert D. Austin, Ivey Business School

Timothy J. Vogus, Vanderbilt University

Overview

The 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).

The 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.

The 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).

[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.”

Neurodiversity Frontiers in Management and Organizations

Neurodistinct 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.

The 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).

The 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.

Balancing 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.

For 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.

Goals of the AMD Spotlight

The 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.

We 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).

Sample Topics

We 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.

Some suggested areas that authors might address include the following:

Workplace 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?

The career journeys and trajectories of neurodistinct employees. How do neurodistinct employees (successfully) navigate careers?

Related 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?

How do organizations founded or led by neurodistinct individuals differ?

What 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?

What 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?

How can human resource practices (workplace design, performance appraisal, interviewing, onboarding/socialization, compensation) effectively cultivate and support workplace neurodiversity? Which practices are especially critical?

How are character, competence, and commitment developed and assessed in neurodistinct employees?

How does organizational culture shape the levels of neurodiversity in organizations and the experiences of neurodistinct employees?

What 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?

What 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?

What 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?

What 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?

How do organizations engage in mass customization in terms of support for the range of neurodiversity in their organizations?

What 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?

About AMD

AMD 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.

Submission Guidelines

When 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.

Spotlights 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.

Standard 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.

References

Ameri, 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.

Annabi, 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.

Annabi, 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.

Austin, R. D., Barnett, N., Cameron, C. R., Shukla, H., Sonne, T., Velasco, (forthcoming), J. How Neuro-Inclusion Builds Organizational Capabilities, MIT Sloan Management Review.

Austin, R. D., & Busquets, J. (2008). Managing differences. Innovations, 3(1), 28-35.

Austin, R. D. & Pisano, G. P. (2017). Neurodiversity as a Competitive Advantage, Harvard Business Review, May-June.

Barkley, 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.

Ben-Menahem, S. M. (2024). Engaging Practitioners in Empirical Exploration. Academy of Management Discoveries, 10(2), 155-162.

Botha, 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.

Boucher, J. (2009). The Autistic Spectrum. Characteristics, Causes, and Practical Issues. Los Angeles: Sage Publications.

Bos, 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.

Bruyere, S. & Barrington, L. (2012). Employment and work. Los Angeles, CA: Sage Reference.

Colella, 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.

Crocker, A. F., & Smith, S. N. (2019). Person-first language: Are we practicing what we preach? Journal of Multidisciplinary Healthcare, 125-129.

Davis, N. A. (2005). Invisible disability. Ethics, 116(1), 153-213.

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

Doyle, N., & McDowall, A. (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.

Drader‐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.

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

Fisher, 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.

Global report on health equity for persons with disabilities. (2022). Geneva: World Health Organization.

Goldin, C., & Rouse, C. (2000). Orchestrating impartiality: The impact of “blind” auditions on female musicians. American Economic Review, 90(4), 715-741.

Hedley, 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.

Isaac, C., Lee, B., & Carnes, M. (2009). Interventions that affect gender bias in hiring: A systematic review. Academic Medicine, 84(10), 1440-1446.

Jaarsma, 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.

Jeppesen, L. B., & Lakhani, K. R. (2010). Marginality and problem-solving effectiveness in broadcast search. Organization Science, 21(5), 1016-1033.

Johns, G. (2006). The essential impact of context on organizational behavior. Academy of Management Review, 31(2), 386-408.

Johnson, 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.

Kapp, S. K., Gillespie-Lynch, K., Sherman, L. E., & Hutman, T. (2013). Deficit, difference, or both? Autism and neurodiversity. Developmental Psychology, 49(1), 59.

Karpur, 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.

Keating 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.

Khan, 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.

Kidwell, 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.

Krzeminska, 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.

LeFevre-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.

Martin, 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.

Miller, C. C. (2024). Pirates, adventurers, and free spirits: The people of Academy of Management Discoveries. Academy of Management Discoveries, 10(1), 1-6.

Nelson, R. H. (2021). A critique of the neurodiversity view. Journal of Applied Philosophy, 38(2), 335-347.

Oliver, M. (1990). The Politics of Disablement. Basingstoke: Macmillan.

Pisano, G. P. & Austin, R. D. (2016a). SAP SE: Autism at Work. Harvard Business School Case Study 9-616-042, January 19.

Pisano, G. P., & Austin, R. D. (2016b). Hewlett Packard Enterprise: The Dandelion Program. Harvard Business School Case Study 9-617-016, September 8.

Roberson, 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.

Rockmann, K. (2023). Embracing an exploratory mindset: How AMD is changing the script of good science. Academy of Management Discoveries, 9(4), 419-423.

Rousseau, D. M., & Fried, Y. (2001). Location, location, location: Contextualizing organizational research. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 1-13.

Roux, 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.

Saleh, 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.

Sedgewick, 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.

Singer, 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.

Skilton, P. F., & Dooley, K. J. (2010). The effects of repeat collaboration on creative abrasion. Academy of Management Review, 35(1), 118-134.

Taylor, 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.

Treweek, 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.

Management Learning and Education as Drivers of Fundamental Alternative Forms of Organizing
2025-11-01 00:00 - 2025-12-15 00:00 (America/New_York)
Guest Editors

Simon Pek, University of Victoria (Canada)

Frédéric Dufays, HEC Liège-ULiège & KU Leuven (Belgium)

Martyna Śliwa, University of Durham (United Kingdom)

Ajnesh Prasad, Tecnológico de Monterrey (Mexico)

Amon Barros, FGV EAASP (Brazil)

AMLE Editors

Laura Colombo, University of Exeter (United Kingdom)

Katrin Muehlfeld, Trier University (Germany)

Call for Papers

In 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).

To 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).

When 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).

In 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).

Fundamental 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.

To 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.

With 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).

Illustrative Themes and Research Questions

Fundamental Alternative Organizations and the Business of Business Schools

How 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?

How 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.)

How does integrating fundamental alternatives into MLE affect business schools’ relationships with stakeholders such as corporate philanthropic partners?

How 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?

How, and to what effects, could dominant publishers like Harvard Business Publishing better incorporate fundamental alternatives into their products? (Bridgman et al., 2016)

Fundamental Alternative Organizations and Management Learning

What 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?

What potential unintended consequences like the amplification of formal, social, and psychological disempowerment (Diefenbach, 2020) might arise from teaching about fundamental alternatives?

How 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)

How can teaching fundamental alternatives inspire student entrepreneurs to develop new business models and practices (Pepin, Tremblay, Audebrand, & Chassé, 2024)?

How 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)

Do 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

Fundamental Alternative Organizations and Management Education

Fundamental 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.

Re-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?

What 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)

What is the role of broader social discourses like student consumerism (Naidoo et al., 2011) and managerialism (Clegg, 2014) in undermining fundamental alternatives in MLE?

Why 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?

While 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.

How 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?

How should educational efforts focused on fundamental alternatives be integrated and sequenced with those on traditional business topics (Pache & Chowdhury, 2012)?

How 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?

What 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?

How can educational repositories like the Curriculum Library for Employee Ownership become legitimated as important empirical resources in delivering management education?

Workshop Structure

We 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.

Submission Types

We 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.

Inquiries

Those 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.

Please note that consultation with the guest editors is neither a prerequisite nor an expectation for submission to the special issue.

Special Issue Timeline and Process

Submissions will be accepted via AMLE’s Manuscript Central portal between November 1, 2025 and December 15, 2025.

Prior 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.

Following 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.

References

Audebrand, 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.

Barin 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.

Battilana, J., & Lee, M. 2014. Advancing research on hybrid organizing – Insights from the study of social enterprises. Academy of Management Annals, 8(1): 397–441.

Benkler, Y., & Nissenbaum, H. 2006. Commons-based peer production and virtue. Journal of Political Philosophy, 14(4): 394–419.

Bhatt, 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.

Billsberry, 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.

Blasi, 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.

Bridgman, 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.

Cavotta, V., & Mena, S. 2023. Prosocial organizing and the distance between core and community work. Organization Studies, 44(4): 637–657.

Chen, 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.

Clegg, S. R. 2014. Managerialism: Born in the USA. Academy of Management Review, 39(4): 566–576.

Colombo, L. A. 2023. Civilize the business school: For a civic management education. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 22(1): 132–149.

Colombo, 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.

Diefenbach, T. 2020. The democratic organisation: Democracy and the future of work. Routledge.

Esper, 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.

Fairchild, E., & Crage, S. 2014. Beyond the debates: Measuring and specifying student consumerism. Sociological Spectrum, 34(5): 403–420.

Ferreras, I. 2017. Firms as political entities: Saving democracy through economic bicameralism. Cambridge University Press.

Figueiró, 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.

Fotaki, M., & Prasad, A. 2015. Questioning neoliberal capitalism and economic inequality in business schools. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 14(4): 556–575.

Fournier, V. 2006. Breaking from the weight of the eternal present: Teaching organizational difference. Management Learning, 37(3): 295–311.

Frye, H. 2022. Commons, Communes, and Freedom. Politics, Philosophy & Economics, 21(2): 228–244.

International Co-operative Alliance. n.d. Cooperative identity, values & principles. https://www.ica.coop/en/cooperatives/cooperative-identity, February 4, 2021.

Kalmi, P. 2007. The disappearance of cooperatives from economics textbooks. Cambridge Journal of Economics, 31(4): 625–647.

Kociatkiewicz, J., Kostera, M., & Parker, M. 2021. The possibility of disalienated work: Being at home in alternative organizations. Human Relations, 74(7): 933–957.

Kumar, 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.

Lindebaum, D. 2024. Management Learning and Education as “big picture” social science. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 23(1): 1–7.

Locke, R. R., & Spender, J.-C. 2011. Confronting managerialism: How the business elite and their schools threw our lives out of balance. Bloomsbury Publishing.

Luyckx, 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.

Mailhot, C., & Lachapelle, M. D. 2024. Teaching management in the context of Grand Challenges: A pragmatist approach. Management Learning, 55(2): 167–191.

Mair, J., & Rathert, N. 2021. Alternative organizing with social purpose: Revisiting institutional analysis of market-based activity. Socio-Economic Review, 19(2): 817–836.

Manley, S. W., Julian. 2021. Co-operative education: From Mondragón and Bilbao to Preston. The Preston Model and Community Wealth Building. Routledge.

Mazutis, D. 2024. Making a difference: Taking community stakeholders seriously. Academy of Management Learning & Education, amle.2022.0342.

McLaren, 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.

Meek, 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.

Michael, C. 2017. The Employee Ownership Trust, an ESOP Alternative. Probate and Property, 31(1): 42–47.

Naidoo, 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.

Pache, 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.

Parker, M. 2018. Shut Down the Business School. London: Pluto Press. https://ideas.repec.org//b/ucp/bkecon/9780745399171.html.

Parker, M. 2021. The critical business school and the university: A case study of resistance and co-optation. Critical Sociology, 47(7–8): 1111–1124.

Parker, S., Racz, M. M., & Palmer, P. W. 2018. Decentering the learner through alternative organizations. Academy of Management Proceedings, 2018(1): 16086.

Pek, 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.

Pek, 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.

Pepin, 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.

Prasad, A., & Śliwa, M. 2024. Critiquing the backlash against wokeness: In defense of DEI scholarship and practice. Academy of Management Perspectives, 38(2): 245-259.

Rankin, 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.

Reedy, P., & Learmonth, M. 2009. Other possibilities? The contribution to management education of alternative organizations. Management Learning, 40(3): 241–258.

Romero, E. J. 2008. AACSB accreditation: Addressing faculty concerns. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 7(2): 245–255.

Savic, 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.

Schiller-Merkens, S. 2024. Prefiguring an alternative economy: Understanding prefigurative organizing and its struggles. Organization, 31(3): 458–476.

Schugurensky, 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.

Solbreux, 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.

Spicer, 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.

Tracey, 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.

Tubb, 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.

Wanderley, 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.

Wright, 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.

Zamagni, S., & Zamagni, V. 2010. Cooperative enterprise: Facing the challenge of globalization. Edward Elgar Publishing.

Zulfiqar, 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.

AMLE Call for Special Issue Papers: Management Learning and Education as Drivers of Fundamental Alternative Forms of Organizing
2025-11-01 00:00 - 2026-01-04 00:00 (America/New_York)
Guest Editors

Simon Pek, University of Victoria (Canada)

Frédéric Dufays, HEC Liège-ULiège & KU Leuven (Belgium)

Martyna Śliwa, University of Durham (United Kingdom)

Ajnesh Prasad, Tecnológico de Monterrey (Mexico)

Amon Barros, FGV EAESP (Brazil)

AMLE Editors

Laura Colombo, University of Exeter (United Kingdom)

Katrin Muehlfeld, Trier University (Germany)

Call for Papers

In 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).

To 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).

When 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).

In 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).

Fundamental 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.

To 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.

With 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).

Illustrative Themes and Research Questions

Fundamental Alternative Organizations and the Business of Business Schools

How 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?

How 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.)

How does integrating fundamental alternatives into MLE affect business schools’ relationships with stakeholders such as corporate philanthropic partners?

How 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?

How, and to what effects, could dominant publishers like Harvard Business Publishing better incorporate fundamental alternatives into their products? (Bridgman et al., 2016)

Fundamental Alternative Organizations and Management Learning

What 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?

What potential unintended consequences like the amplification of formal, social, and psychological disempowerment (Diefenbach, 2020) might arise from teaching about fundamental alternatives?

How 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)

How can teaching fundamental alternatives inspire student entrepreneurs to develop new business models and practices (Pepin, Tremblay, Audebrand, & Chassé, 2024)?

How 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)

Do 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

Fundamental Alternative Organizations and Management Education

Fundamental 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.

Re-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?

What 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)

What is the role of broader social discourses like student consumerism (Naidoo et al., 2011) and managerialism (Clegg, 2014) in undermining fundamental alternatives in MLE?

Why 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?

While 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.

How 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?

How should educational efforts focused on fundamental alternatives be integrated and sequenced with those on traditional business topics (Pache & Chowdhury, 2012)?

How 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?

What 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?

How can educational repositories like the Curriculum Library for Employee Ownership become legitimated as important empirical resources in delivering management education?

Submission Types

We 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.

Inquiries

Those 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.

Please note that consultation with the guest editors is neither a prerequisite nor an expectation for submission to the special issue.

Special Issue Timeline and Process

Submissions will be accepted via AMLE’s Manuscript Central portal between November 1, 2025 and December 15, 2025.

Prior 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.

Following 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.

References

Audebrand, 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.

Barin 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.

Battilana, J., & Lee, M. 2014. Advancing research on hybrid organizing – Insights from the study of social enterprises. Academy of Management Annals, 8(1): 397–441.

Benkler, Y., & Nissenbaum, H. 2006. Commons-based peer production and virtue. Journal of Political Philosophy, 14(4): 394–419.

Bhatt, 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.

Billsberry, 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.

Blasi, 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.

Bridgman, 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.

Cavotta, V., & Mena, S. 2023. Prosocial organizing and the distance between core and community work. Organization Studies, 44(4): 637–657.

Chen, 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.

Clegg, S. R. 2014. Managerialism: Born in the USA. Academy of Management Review, 39(4): 566–576.

Colombo, L. A. 2023. Civilize the business school: For a civic management education. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 22(1): 132–149.

Colombo, 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.

Diefenbach, T. 2020. The democratic organisation: Democracy and the future of work. Routledge.

Esper, 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.

Fairchild, E., & Crage, S. 2014. Beyond the debates: Measuring and specifying student consumerism. Sociological Spectrum, 34(5): 403–420.

Ferreras, I. 2017. Firms as political entities: Saving democracy through economic bicameralism. Cambridge University Press.

Figueiró, 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.

Fotaki, M., & Prasad, A. 2015. Questioning neoliberal capitalism and economic inequality in business schools. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 14(4): 556–575.

Fournier, V. 2006. Breaking from the weight of the eternal present: Teaching organizational difference. Management Learning, 37(3): 295–311.

Frye, H. 2022. Commons, Communes, and Freedom. Politics, Philosophy & Economics, 21(2): 228–244.

International Co-operative Alliance. n.d. Cooperative identity, values & principles. https://www.ica.coop/en/cooperatives/cooperative-identity, February 4, 2021.

Kalmi, P. 2007. The disappearance of cooperatives from economics textbooks. Cambridge Journal of Economics, 31(4): 625–647.

Kociatkiewicz, J., Kostera, M., & Parker, M. 2021. The possibility of disalienated work: Being at home in alternative organizations. Human Relations, 74(7): 933–957.

Kumar, 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.

Lindebaum, D. 2024. Management Learning and Education as “big picture” social science. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 23(1): 1–7.

Locke, R. R., & Spender, J.-C. 2011. Confronting managerialism: How the business elite and their schools threw our lives out of balance. Bloomsbury Publishing.

Luyckx, 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.

Mailhot, C., & Lachapelle, M. D. 2024. Teaching management in the context of Grand Challenges: A pragmatist approach. Management Learning, 55(2): 167–191.

Mair, J., & Rathert, N. 2021. Alternative organizing with social purpose: Revisiting institutional analysis of market-based activity. Socio-Economic Review, 19(2): 817–836.

Manley, S. W., Julian. 2021. Co-operative education: From Mondragón and Bilbao to Preston. The Preston Model and Community Wealth Building. Routledge.

Mazutis, D. 2024. Making a difference: Taking community stakeholders seriously. Academy of Management Learning & Education, amle.2022.0342.

McLaren, 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.

Meek, 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.

Michael, C. 2017. The Employee Ownership Trust, an ESOP Alternative. Probate and Property, 31(1): 42–47.

Naidoo, 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.

Pache, 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.

Parker, M. 2018. Shut Down the Business School. London: Pluto Press. https://ideas.repec.org//b/ucp/bkecon/9780745399171.html.

Parker, M. 2021. The critical business school and the university: A case study of resistance and co-optation. Critical Sociology, 47(7–8): 1111–1124.

Parker, S., Racz, M. M., & Palmer, P. W. 2018. Decentering the learner through alternative organizations. Academy of Management Proceedings, 2018(1): 16086.

Pek, 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.

Pek, 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.

Pepin, 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.

Prasad, A., & Śliwa, M. 2024. Critiquing the backlash against wokeness: In defense of DEI scholarship and practice. Academy of Management Perspectives, 38(2): 245-259.

Rankin, 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.

Reedy, P., & Learmonth, M. 2009. Other possibilities? The contribution to management education of alternative organizations. Management Learning, 40(3): 241–258.

Romero, E. J. 2008. AACSB accreditation: Addressing faculty concerns. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 7(2): 245–255.

Savic, 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.

Schiller-Merkens, S. 2024. Prefiguring an alternative economy: Understanding prefigurative organizing and its struggles. Organization, 31(3): 458–476.

Schugurensky, 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.

Solbreux, 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.

Spicer, 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.

Tracey, 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.

Tubb, 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.

Wanderley, 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.

Wright, 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.

Zamagni, S., & Zamagni, V. 2010. Cooperative enterprise: Facing the challenge of globalization. Edward Elgar Publishing.

Zulfiqar, 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.

AMLE Paper Development Workshop, Wellington, New Zealand
2025-11-06 09:00 - 16:30 (Pacific/Fiji)
Register and Submit Here

Led By

Todd Bridgman: Associate Editor AMLE, Victoria University of Wellington

Bill Harley: Associate Editor AMLE, University of Melbourne

Stuart Middleton: Associate Editor AMLE, University of Queensland

Local Organizer

Todd Bridgman

About AMLE

Academy of Management Learning & Education (AMLE) is rated A* in the Australian Business Deans’ Council list of journals and 4* in the UK CABS list. The journal’s main emphasis is on theoretical debates about management learning and education in all types of settings—schools and universities as well as businesses and public and nonprofit organizations. Additionally, AMLE publishes work that addresses critical theoretical debates about “the business of business schools,” including the careers of management educators.

Workshop Overview

This workshop has two main parts. Refreshments and lunch will be provided.

Part 1 (preparation required): comprises a general introduction to AMLE, touching on its overlaps with other key journals in the field. The session is also focused on supporting and advising researchers, with current work-in-progress, how to develop and refine their papers with submission to AMLE in mind. Those wishing to participate in Part 1 should note the requirements listed below.

Part 2 (no preparation required): The main focus is on writing manuscripts that advance our theoretical understanding about AMLE phenomena for the research article and essay sections of the journal. The second part of the workshop is open to all interested participants.

Part 1 Workshop Schedule (preparation required)

9:00-9:30 Arrival and refreshments9:30-10:30 AMLE overview, and Q&A10:30-10:45 Refreshments10:45-12:30 Small group discussion of submissions, with individual advice from the facilitators12:30-13:30 Lunch

Part 2 Workshop Schedule (no preparation required)

13:30-14:30 Writing Essays for AMLE (Bill)14:30-15:30 Making a Theoretical Contribution (Todd and Stuart)15:30-15:45 Refreshments15:45-16:30 follow-on meetings with any workshop participants who have remained and would like further advice on their work.

Part 1 Requirements

Participants in part one must:

Have either an extended abstract (5 pages) or a full paper that you would like to develop through constructive critique and that fits with AMLE’s focus and content areas. Previous “From the Editors” articles can serve as guideposts to clarify AMLE’s focus and content areas (Coraiola & Caza, 2025; Foster, 2018; Hibbert et al., 2021; Lindebaum, 2023; Hibbert, in Rockmann et al., 2021).

Submit the submission in Word or PDF format, no later than 30 September 2025. Your submission must have a cover page that includes: author name(s) and affiliation(s); three-four keywords; and an email address for the lead author. An abstract of up to 200 words should be provided on the first page of the paper. If you are sending an extended abstract, include a very brief plan for developing the full paper at the end of your text.

Agree to your paper being discussed in a small group with other participants, as arranged by the workshop facilitators, and be willing and able to provide a short (5-minute maximum) overview of your paper to others in the discussion group.

Commit to attending the whole workshop if your submission is accepted.

Please note that if we receive more submissions than we can accommodate, there will be selection of papers on the basis of their fit with AMLE and their stage of development.

You can still attend and participate in Part 2 if you do not have work to discuss in Part 1. Note, however, that preference will be given to authors that submit papers for Part 1. Email Todd Bridgman by 30 September 2025, if you wish to register without submitting work for Part 1.

Registration

There is no registration fee, but participants are responsible for arranging their own travel and accommodation. Registration, submission of an extended abstract, and commitment to attend is required for all participants wishing to attend Part 1 and Part 2 of the PDW. Those who wish to attend Part 2 but not submit work for Part 1 are required to indicate their interest in attending.

Ask An AMR Associate Editor: Writing with Clarity, Coherence, and Conciseness
2025-11-11 21:00 - 22:00 (America/New_York)
Join the Session

Presenter: Kris Byron

Learn more about clear, coherent and concise writing techniques. In this session, Kris Byron, editor of AMR, will offer tips and answer questions about how to improve your academic writing skills.

Just click the “Join the Session” to join; registration is not required.

Call for Nominations for Editor: AMD
2025-11-15 00:00 (America/New_York)
Nominate here

Nominations are sought for the position of Editor for Academy of Management Discoveries.

The 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.

The 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.

In general, qualifications for an AOM Editor includes:

Significant scholarly contributions in management, including publications associated with the mission of the journal.

Extensive experience and an excellent reputation as a reviewer.

Experience 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.

Demonstrated commitment to diversity as reflected in the statement of values below.

Ability to work constructively with authors, reviewers, and the Academy’s Board of Governors.

Demonstrated administrative skills, capacity to handle a demanding workload and meet deadlines.

Ability to work with the Managing Editor virtually. The Managing Editor is an employee of the Academy’s headquarters office.

Familiarity with, and ability to use, a web-based submission and review system.

Rank of tenured Full Professor or equivalent.

A doctoral degree in a management-related discipline.

Member of the Academy of Management.

In 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.

Nomination process and procedures

Nominees may only apply to one of the journals listed above. Nominees who apply to more than one journal will be disqualified.

Nominations 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.

All 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.

Nominees 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.

The selection process will move through three stages:

Stage 1: The CPC will review the initial nominations and request additional materials from the nominees that best fit the criteria above.

Stage 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.

Applicants will be asked to provide references to support their editorial background and skills.

Applicants may be asked to meet (virtually) with the CPC.

Stage 3: The CPC will forward a recommendation to the full Board of Governors who will finalize the recommendation.

Nominations, including self-nominations, for AMD will be considered through 15 November 2025. Please contact Susan Zaid with any questions.

Call for Nominations for Editor: Proceedings
2025-11-15 00:00 (America/New_York)
Submit your Nominations Here

Nominations 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.

The 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.

The 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.

Recommended qualifications include the following:

Scholarly contributions in management.

Demonstrated 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.

Member of the Academy of Management.

Familiarity with, and ability to use, a web-based submission and review system.

Experience and interest in electronic publications.

The 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.

Nominations, including self-nominations, will be accepted until 6 October 2025.

Submissions should include:

The nominee’s name, full address, telephone number, and email address

A letter describing the nominee’s qualifications and experience relevant to the selection criteria.

Applicants are asked to submit their CV and a letter of qualifications and experience.

Nominate here. Please contact szaid@aom.org with any questions.

AMD "Open Mic" Virtual Paper Development Workshop
2025-11-17 16:00 - 17:30 (America/New_York)
Academy of Management Discoveries “Open Mic” Virtual Paper Development Workshop

Join this virtual session to share exploratory empirical research related to AMD’s Research Spotlight: From Circularity to Regeneration in Management and Organizations.

Workshop Leaders

Guest coeditors of the Special Research Spotlight: From Circularity to Regeneration in Management and Organizations

Oana Branzei, Western University

Nancy Bocken, Maastricht University

Stefano Pascucci, University of Exeter

Susan Cohen, Deputy Editor, Academy of Management Discoveries

Purpose

We invite scholars of all ages and stages who are interested in publishing empirical exploration in AMD’s Research Spotlight on Circularity to Regeneration to share their work—even if it is not quite ready for prime time! The “Open Mic” format enables you to share the heart of your research project without needing to have all the nuts and bolts worked out and to engage an interested audience and the guest editors. This dynamic, interactive format can quickly surface golden nuggets in your research and assess alignment with AMD’s mission to disseminate empirical discoveries that seed fruitful theorizing. AMD’s Research Spotlights are multiyear commitments to publish compelling empirical discoveries related to an important phenomenon for which existing theory falls short. Even if your research is not quite ready for a March submission deadline, please join us to help supercharge this Spotlight and become part of this community!

Whether you join us as a presenter or audience, registrants are encouraged to read the Research Spotlight call thoroughly and to review select AMD FTEs before attending. We will not spend time reviewing this content during Open Mic.

Agenda

Open Mic will run from 4:00–5:30 PM US Eastern Time on 17 November 2025. An event link will be provided to registrants prior to that date. In 4-5 minutes, presenters will describe the phenomena or puzzle of interest, articulate their compelling research question, explain why it matters and why empirical exploration is warranted, and briefly describe the empirical approach. Don’t be afraid to personalize your research! Engage the audience with a succinct but intriguing description of your study context or data about the phenomenon. The Guest Editors will then engage the audience in a “react and ask” session, for 7 minutes.

Workshop Instructions

If you are interested in having your paper included the workshop, you should prepare a 2–3-page (double-spaced) abstract of your conceptual/theoretical idea that you can share with the facilitators. We also encourage you to prepare a 2-minute presentation of your idea to share at the breakout session that concisely provides the necessary information. We will match 4-5 participants with an Associate Editor or an Editorial Review Board member from the journal. These groups will then discuss the participants’ ideas and provide each participant with insight about how to clarify the paper idea or move the idea forward. The number of participants with accepted abstracts will be limited to 30. Other participants may wish to join the talks or sit in on paper discussions.

Registration Information

Be sure to check the appropriate participation box on the registration form if you plan to share your research.

AMLE Virtual Paper Development Workshop on Special Section: Learning to Hope In and Through Management Learning & Education
2025-12-01 00:00 (America/New_York)
Virtual Paper Development Workshop on AMLE Special Section: Learning to Hope In and Through Management Learning & Education

Led By

Dirk Lindebaum, Editor AMLE

AMLE Associate Editors: Katrin Muelfeld, Laura Colombo, Stuart Middleton, Todd Bridgman, Diego M. Coraiola

About the Workshop

This virtual Paper Development Workshop (PDW) is for interested authors to receive feedback on their ideas on the call for papers to the AMLE Special Section: Learning to Hope In and Through Management Learning & Education. 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.

Workshop Requirements

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.

Workshop Structure

This workshop will consists of small groups and random assignments.

CAP: Bibliometrics and Systematic Reviews for Crafting Theory and Review Papers: How Can We Do It Without Access to Major Databases?
2025-12-05 00:00 - 2025-12-07 00:00 UTC
Course Overview

This workshop provides students and early-career academics (professional development) with knowledge, practical skills, and experience to understand the scientific and systematic methods to perform literature reviews using Bibliometric and Systematic Review methods. Furthermore, how the proposed methods could be used to craft and publish theory papers. The primary learning outcome of the course is to prepare for one of the stages of the PhD research project that will be published.

As a result of successful learning, students are to present the first draft of their 1) research aim/purpose, 2) research keywords 3) research design, and on choosing appropriate review methods or synthesis to explore the literature in a specific discipline or topic.

You can also find more information about AOM-CAP here.

AMP Idea Development Workshop, Tallinn, Estonia
2025-12-08 00:00 - 2025-12-09 00:00 (Europe/Moscow)
The Estonian Doctoral School is pleased to host a two-day Idea Development Workshop (IDW) for doctoral students, early-career researchers, and supervisors interested in publishing in Academy of Management Perspectives (AMP). The workshop is designed to help participants generate and refine strong research ideas that can form the basis of high-quality manuscripts suitable for submission to AMP.

Led By

Bonnie Hayden Cheng and Stacey Fitzsimmons, AMP Associate Editors

Purpose

This workshop provides insight into the publishing process at AMP, guidance from journal editors, and personalized feedback on participants’ research ideas. By combining editorial perspectives with hands-on development sessions, the IDW supports early-stage scholars in transforming promising ideas into publishable contributions.

Agenda Overview

Day 1 – December 8, 2025

The first day focuses on understanding what makes a successful AMP submission. Editors will discuss the journal’s expectations, common reasons for rejection, and practical strategies for strengthening manuscripts. The day includes presentations, Q&A sessions, and a detailed overview of how to structure a paper for AMP. Networking opportunities and a group dinner (optional) are also planned.

Day 2 – December 9, 2025

The second day features in-depth roundtable discussions. Participants will present a 200–250-word abstract of their paper idea and receive tailored feedback from an assigned AMP associate editor. Breakout sessions will run throughout the day, with participation limited to ensure high-quality individual guidance.

AMLE Paper Development Workshop, Doha, Qatar
2025-12-08 09:00 - 16:00 (Europe/Paris)
In-person Paper Development Workshop hosted by HEC Paris

Editorial Organization

Diego M. Coraiola

Simy Joy

Local Organizer

Pablo Martin de Hollan

About AMLE

Academy of Management Learning & Education (AMLE) is part of the portfolio of journals published by the Academy of Management along with AMJ, AMP, AMP, Annals, and AMD. AMLE is rated as 4* in the UK AJG list and A* in the Australian Business Deans’ Council list of journals.

AMLE publishes theory-driven studies on management learning, management education, or the business of business schools. For empirical papers, this means that where the research sample is composed of learners, they are higher education students in business school(s) or school(s) of management, or they are managers learning in executive contexts. Where the sample is composed of faculty, then they are situated within a business school(s) or school(s) of management.

Registration

There is no registration fee, but participants are responsible for arranging their own travel and accommodation. Registration, submission of a short paper, and commitment to attend are required for all participants wishing to attend both parts of the PDW. The places in Part 2 are limited and are allocated to the first 15 submissions that meet the requirements below.

You can still attend and participate if you do not have work to discuss in Part 2. Please let us know by 15 November 2025 if you wish to register without submitting work for Part 2.

Catering

Refreshments and lunch will be provided. HEC Paris, Doha generously sponsored catering and lunch for a limited number of participants.

Requirements

Short papers (approximately 3,000 words) that fit the aim and scope of AMLE. Prior editorials can serve as guideposts to clarify AMLE’s focus and content areas (Caza et al., 2024; Coraiola & Caza, 2025; Hibbert, in Rockmann et al., 2021; Hibbert et al., 2023; Lindebaum, 2024; Vince and Hibbert, 2018).

Workshop Structure

This workshop has two main parts:

Part 1 comprises a general introduction to AMLE. The main focus is on writing manuscripts that advance our theoretical understanding of MLE phenomena for the research article and essay sections of the journal. This first part of the workshop is open to all interested participants, including those who do not submit a short paper.

Part 2 is focused on supporting and advising researchers on how to develop and refine their papers with submission to AMLE in mind. Those wishing to participate in Part 2 should note the requirements.

Approximate schedule for the day:

09:00–09:30 – Welcome reception

09:30–10:30 – Introduction to AMLE and Q&A

10:30–10:45 – Refreshments

10:45–11:45 – Developing a theoretical contribution for AMLE

11:45–12:00 – Coffee break

12:00–13:30 – Roundtable discussion of submitted papers

13:30–14:30 – Lunch

14:30–16:00 – Continuation of roundtable discussion and Q&A

Submission

Your submission must include: (1) a cover page with the author(s) name(s) and affiliation(s), three to four keywords, and an email address for the lead author; and (2) your short paper (~3,000 words). Please note that by submitting your paper, you

Agree to your paper being discussed in a small group with other participants, as arranged by the workshop facilitators, and be willing and able to provide a short (5-minute maximum) overview of your paper to others in the discussion group.

Commit to attending the whole workshop if your submission is accepted.

References

Caza, 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.

Coraiola, D. M. & Caza, A. 2025. Publishing Impactful Literature Reviews in AMLE. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 24(1): 9–17.

Hibbert P, Caza A, Coraiola DM, et al. 2023. Why Be an Editor? Academy of Management Learning & Education. DOI: 10.5465/amle.2023.0435.

Lindebaum D. 2024. Management Learning and Education as “Big Picture” Social Science. Academy of Management Learning & Education 23(1): 1–7.

Rockmann K., Bunderson J.S., Leana C.R., et al. 2021. Publishing in the Academy of Management Journals. Academy of Management Learning & Education 20(2): 117–126.

Vince, R., and Hibbert, P. 2018. From the AMLE Editorial Team: Disciplined Provocation: Writing Essays for AMLE. Academy of Management Learning & Education 17(4): 397–400.

AMD Publishing and Paper Development Workshop, Calcutta, India
2025-12-08 09:00 - 19:00 (Asia/Kolkata)
In-person workshop hosted by Indian Institute of Management, Calcutta

Workshop Leaders

C. Chet Miller & Prithviraj Chattopadhyay, Coeditors-in-Chief,Academy of Management Discoveries (AMD)

Other Associate Editors, Editorial Review Board members, and Authors from the journal will be in attendance

Purpose

This workshop is geared toward all scholars (PhD students, junior and senior scholars) who are interested in publishing in AMD. In this workshop, we will work with potential authors to determine whether AMD provides the best fit for their ideas, and then help them develop well-crafted ideas potentially suitable for submission to the journal.

Agenda

9:00-9:30Registration/coffee and networking9:30-9:45Introduction to the workshop9:45-10:45Publishing in AMD talk and Q&A10:45-11:15Coffee break11:15-12:30Breakout groups to discuss papers I12:30-13:45Lunch13:45-15:00Breakout groups to discuss papers II15:00-15:30Coffee break15:30-16:30Wrap-up and closing16:30-17:30Happy Hour/Networking

The talks will be geared toward providing general information about publishing in AMD, such as what makes a successful paper, the main reasons that papers are rejected, and strategies for addressing the core challenges that editors and reviewers see in rejected papers. Each breakout group will be facilitated by individuals who have editorial and/or publishing experience with the journal. Each participant will be given 2 minutes in which they present a brief overview of their idea, and why they believe the paper fits the AMD mission (AMD Mission Statement). The facilitator will then lead a discussion on the fit of that idea for the target journal, and how it can be developed further to enhance the potential for success. The process of giving and receiving feedback to and from others in their breakout groups will also help participants get a better understanding of crafting ideas into manuscripts for AMD. The template reviewers are encouraged to use for AMD submissions may be found here: AMD reviewer template.

Workshop Instructions

If you are interested in having your paper included the workshop, you should prepare a 2–3-page (double-spaced) abstract of your conceptual/theoretical idea that you can share with the facilitators. We also encourage you to prepare a 2-minute presentation of your idea to share at the breakout session that concisely provides the necessary information. We will match 4-5 participants with an Associate Editor or an Editorial Review Board member from the journal. These groups will then discuss the participants’ ideas and provide each participant with insight about how to clarify the paper idea or move the idea forward. The number of participants with accepted abstracts will be limited to 30. Other participants may wish to join the talks or sit in on paper discussions.

Registration Information

Abstract submission deadline for submitting authors and non-submitting attendees: All participants seeking feedback in the breakout sessions must submit extended abstracts for review by 11:59 p.m. US Eastern Time on 3 November 2025. We will communicate workshop assignments with submitting participants by 10 November 2025.

Hotel, transportation, and city information will be provided to registrants and accepted authors closer to the event.

Andes Connect Workshop, Santiago, Chile
2025-12-15 00:00 - 2025-12-16 00:00 (America/Santiago)
The Andes Connect Workshop is an academic initiative organized by the Academy of Management (AOM), as part of its Community Accelerator Program (CAP). This event is designed for young researchers, doctoral students, and early-career academics in the areas of organization and strategy in Chile and Argentina.

The event will feature keynote speakers, research presentations, and interactive workshops designed to foster collaboration and knowledge exchange among researchers in the field of management.

Download program

Joint AMR and Annals Idea Development Workshop, Malibu, CA, USA
2025-12-16 08:00 - 18:00 (America/Los_Angeles)
Register for the Workshop

Where and When:

Tuesday, December 16, 2025, 8:00 am–6:00 pm PST

Pepperdine University, 24255 Pacific Coast Hwy Malibu, California, USA 90263

Purpose and Agenda

This idea development workshop (IDW) is aimed at those who are interested in publishing in the Academy of Management Annals – the preeminent journal publishing reviews that integrate and redirect fields of study – and the Academy of Management Review – the highest-ranked journal publishing conceptual and theoretical manuscripts. The workshop is open to anyone but is primarily geared toward early career researchers (e.g., assistant professors and postdoctoral fellows) and doctoral students. It is designed to help participants develop great ideas that are the foundation for well-crafted manuscripts suitable for submission to Academy of Management Annals (Annals) or Academy of Management Review (AMR).

The workshop has two parts. Participants can apply to participate in the first part (morning session) only or to participate in the first and second parts (morning and afternoon sessions).

In the first part, we will provide information about publishing in Annals and AMR. The Annals and AMR teams will discuss what makes a successful paper, why papers are rejected, and how to address the core challenges often seen in rejected papers at these respective journals.

In the second part, we offer roundtable discussions of participants’ ideas for papers to be submitted to either Annals or AMR (i.e., you choose which journal you aim to submit your idea to). We will match participants with a facilitator such as an Associate Editor or Editorial Board member from the corresponding journal, who will discuss and provide feedback on your idea. Participation in this part of the workshop is limited.

Registration Information

Application is required for all participants and the deadline to apply is October 10, 2025. To also participate in the roundtable discussions of ideas in the afternoon, please submit a 350-word abstract of your paper idea.

IDW Timeline

Proposal Submission Deadline: October 10, 2025

Registration for the Morning Plenary Session Deadline: October 30, 2025

Acceptance to IDW Decision: October 31, 2025

Registration and Payment Required: November 14, 2025*

Attending morning session only: US$10.00

Attending morning and afternoon sessions: US$25.00 (lunch included)

*IDW nonrefundable registration fee for accepted workshop participants.

Please note:

Submitting a proposal does not guarantee acceptance to the workshop.

An accepted proposal does not guarantee acceptance of the associated full-text manuscript to either Annals or AMR and does not provide special preference in the review process.

The registration fee is nonrefundable. Paid registrations may be transferred to another member of the accepted author’s team.

Pre-workshop Activities for those Submitting to the Afternoon Session with AMR

Please read these From the Editors’ essays prior to submitting your abstract.

Cornelissen, J. (2017). From the Editors: Developing propositions, a process model or a typology? Addressing the challenges of writing theory without a boilerplate. Academy of Management Review, 42(1), 1-9. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2016.0196

Campbell, J.T. & Aguilera, R.V. 2022. From the Editors: Why I rejected your paper: Common pitfalls in writing theory papers and how to avoid them. Academy of Management Review, 47(4). https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2022.0331

Thatcher, S.M.B. & Fisher, G. 2022. From the Editor: The nuts and bolts of writing a theory paper: A practical guide to getting started. Academy of Management Review, 47(1): 1-8. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2021.0483

Pre-workshop Activities for those Submitting to the Afternoon Session with Annals

Please read these essays prior to submitting your abstract.

Cronin, M. A., & George, E. (2023). The why and how of the integrative review. Organizational research methods, 26(1), 168-192. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428120935507

George, E., & Cronin, M. A. (2024). Writing for the Reader. Academy of Management Annals, 18(1), 1-2. https://doi.org/10.5465/annals.2023.0289

Cronin, M. A., Galvin, B. M., George, E., Gruber, M., Lindebaum, D., Markman, G. D., … & Wood, G. T. (2025). From a portfolio of journals to a system of knowledge production. Academy of Management Annals, 19(1), 1-8. https://doi.org/10.5465/annals.2024.0337

AMR Special Topic Forum: Marginalized Workers and Marginalized Populations in Organizations
2026-01-01 00:00 - 2026-01-31 00:00 (America/New_York)
Submit via the AMR Manuscript Central Site

Submission Deadline: 31 January 2026

Guest Editors

John Amis, Prithviraj Chattopadhyay, Aparna Joshi, Jamie Ladge, Kristie Rogers, Madeline Toubiana, Paul Tracey, and Alexis N. Smith

Special Topic Forum Overview

In 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.

This 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.

Call for Contributions

We encourage submissions that address the complex and evolving dynamics surrounding marginalized workers and populations in organizations. Topics may include but are not limited to:

Re-evaluating Theoretical Assumptions about Behavior in Organizations

How do historical assumptions underlying core theories in our field impact our understanding of marginalized workers today?

In 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?

Movements, Social Activism, and Institutional Change

How do social movements and grassroots activism influence organizational change, especially in promoting the diversity, equity, and inclusion of marginalized workers?

What roles do marginalized workers play in social activism within organizations, and how do these movements drive institutional change?

How can management theories better incorporate the influence of social activism and the agency of marginalized populations in effecting systemic change?

Social Evaluation: Stigma, Legitimacy, and Reputation

How do processes of stigma, legitimacy, and reputation management play out for marginalized workers and groups within organizations?

What strategies do workers and organizations use to navigate and resist stigma associated with various forms of marginalization, and how do these impact career trajectories?

How can theories on legitimacy and reputation be expanded to capture the experiences and unique challenges faced by stigmatized or nontraditional workers?

Economic Diversity and the Dynamics of Marginalized Communities

How do social class backgrounds influence workers’ experiences and their ability to navigate organizational environments?

What unique challenges and opportunities arise for social class transitioners or those from lower socioeconomic backgrounds entering higher-status professions?

How does economic diversity shape interactions, career progression, and identity within organizational settings, particularly for workers in emerging economies?

How do dynamics of organization-community relations shift in the context of marginalization?

Intersectional Identities and Undertheorized Dimensions of Workplace Inequality

How 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?

How can intersectionality theorizing help us better understand the complexities of marginalized workers’ experiences and contribute to more inclusive organizational practices?

Nontraditional Work Settings and Emerging Workforce Models

How do theories on professionalism and workplace dynamics apply (or fail to apply) in gig work, remote work, and other nontraditional employment arrangements?

What are the implications for marginalized populations who may disproportionately occupy these roles, and how might management research better capture their unique experiences?

How and when do marginalized individuals create new organizations or organizational forms that might better enable inclusive experiences and spaces?

Leadership and Marginalized Populations

How do traditional leadership theories and styles accommodate (or fail to accommodate) the needs and perspectives of marginalized workers and populations?

What new leadership frameworks or practices emerge from marginalized groups, and how can these reshape existing paradigms in management research?

How do marginalized workers navigate leadership roles, and what barriers and enablers influence their success in these positions?

Emotion, Hate, and Shame in Marginalization

What 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?

What 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?

Embodiment and Marginalization

How is the body itself implicated in processes of marginalization, and in what ways may these dynamics reinforce social hierarchies within organizational settings?

How 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?

Timeline and Submission

The 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.

For questions about submissions, contact AMR’s Managing Editor. For questions about the content of this STF, contact Kristie Rogers or Paul Tracey.

AMP Call for Special Issue Papers: Managing for Our “New Normal”: How to Foresee, Prepare for, and Repair after Extreme Events
2026-01-01 00:00 - 2026-01-31 00:00 (America/New_York)
Guest Editors:

Witold (Vit) Henisz, University of Pennsylvania

Alan Meyer, University of Oregon

Dean Shepherd, University of Notre Dame

Christopher Wright, University of Sydney

Zhaohui Wu, Oregon State University

AMP Associate Editor:

Oana Branzei, Western University, Canada

Background

Once 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.

Extreme 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

This 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

Please note that AMP’s mission and format differ from many other leading academic journals. AMP papers are managerially driven, not theory driven. Successful submissions clearly define the managerial issue from the outset and make a compelling case for its importance. They do not simply tack managerial implications 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.

Scope and Open-Ended Research Questions

For 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.

Facing 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?

Bracing 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?

Sustaining 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?

Evolving 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?

Climate-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?

Organizing 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?

Bearing 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?

Organizing 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?

We 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.

Deadline, Submission, and Review Process

The 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.

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

We 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.

Endnotes

1 Phillip H. Phan, “Redeeming Management Scholarship in a Time of Crisis,” Academy of Management Perspectives, 36, no. 2 (2022), 711-12.

2 Claus Rerup and Mark Zbaracki, “The Politics of Learning from Rare Events,” Organization Science, 32 no. 6 (2021), 1391–414.

3 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.

4 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.

5 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.

6 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.

7 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

AMD Virtual Paper Development Workshop: From Circularity to Regeneration in Management and Organizations
2026-01-14 09:00 - 12:00 (America/New_York)
Workshop Leaders

Guest coeditors of the Special Research Spotlight: From Circularity to Regeneration in Management and Organizations

Oana Branzei, Western University

Nancy Bocken, Maastricht University

Stefano Pascucci, University of Exeter

Susan Cohen, Deputy Editor, Academy of Management Discoveries

Purpose

The Guest Editors of the AMD Research Spotlight From Circularity to Regeneration in Management and Organizations will work with submitting authors of accepted abstracts to further develop their papers. Our goals are to help authors focus and enrich their empirical exploration and pre-theoretical insights so that they align well with AMD’s mission and the Spotlight’s substantive focus. Participantsare encouraged to read the Research Spotlight description thoroughly and to review select AMD FTEs before attending.

Agenda

9:00-9:15Introductions9:15-10:30First Set of Papers10:30-10:45Break10:45-12:00Second Set of Papers

Each breakout group will be facilitated by a Guest Editor, each of whom has familiarity with AMD’s requirements for publishing and expertise in the substantive focus of this Spotlight. Each participant will be given 5 minutes in which they present a brief overview of their idea, and why they believe the paper fits the AMD mission. The facilitator will then lead a 10-minute discussion on the fit of that idea for AMD, and how it can be developed further to enhance the potential for success. The process of giving and receiving feedback to and from others in their breakout groups will also help participants get a better understanding of crafting ideas into manuscripts for AMD. The template reviewers are encouraged to use for AMD submissions may be found here: AMD reviewer template.

Workshop Instructions

If you are interested in having your paper included in the workshop, you should prepare an extended abstract of 1,000 to 2,000 words to explain your research question and how it connects to the central themes of this Spotlight; why it is important (potential theoretical and practical implications); why empirical exploration is justified (e.g., a brief summary of the undertheorized, neglected, and potentially important facets of the phenomenon or puzzle you study); how empirical exploration will provide the necessary insight to address your research question; and an overview of your study context and research methods. Upload your Abstract via the registration link above. There will be an initial screening to make sure abstracts align with AMD and this Research Spotlight. Registrants will be notified by 20 December 2025 whether their abstract was selected, and an event link will be provided at that time. Accepted authors should prepare a 4–5-minute presentation of their paper to share at the workshop that concisely provides the necessary information. Presentation and discussion sessions will be organized according to complementary themes. Discussion will be facilitated to generate insight on how to clarify the paper’s central discovery, execution of the empirical exploration, plausible explanations for observed patterns, and compelling implications.

Who Should Register?

Authors who intend to submit a paper to the AMD Circularity to Regeneration Research Spotlight by the 16 March 2026 deadline. Scholars seeking to attend this paper development workshop must indicate their intentions by 9 December 2025 by registering here and uploading an extended abstract (no more than 2,000 words) describing their research.

If you are interested in submitting research related to the topics this Spotlight encompasses but will not be ready to submit by 16 March 2026, please wait to join a subsequent workshop. AMD article submissions on organizational and management topics central to circular and regenerative economy will be considered at any time following the inaugural Spotlight issue, and accepted articles will be tagged as part this research stream at AMD. Don’t hesitate to reach out to the Guest Editors with any questions at any time!

AOM 2026 Call for Reviewers
2026-01-22 00:00 - 2026-02-12 00:00 (America/New_York)
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.

The 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.

Please visit the Reviewing page for additional information.

Sign up to Review

AMD Special Research Spotlight: From Circularity to Regeneration in Management and Organizations
2026-02-01 00:00 - 2026-03-16 23:59 (America/New_York)
Submission Deadline: 16 March 2026

Submission window for Special Research Spotlight: 1 February – 16 March 2026

Guest Editors

Oana Branzei, Western University

Susan K. Cohen, University of Pittsburgh, AMD Deputy Editor

Nancy Bocken, Maastricht University

Stefano Pascucci, University of Exeter

Overview

Today’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).

Since 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).

In 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).

The 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.

Nonetheless, 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).

Partly 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).

The 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).

Despite 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.

Circular Economy Frontiers in Management and Organizations

As 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).

Muñoz 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).

We 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.

1. Sufficiency

The 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.”

Empirical 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).

2. Biomimicry

Whereas 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).

While 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.

3. Rhythmicity

Both 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.

Gualandris 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).

Despite 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.

Goals of the AMD Spotlight

AMD 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).

Sample Topics

The 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.

Levels. 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?

Ecosystems. 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?

Rights 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?

Knowers 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?

Attention 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?

Agency. 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?

Technology. 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?

Change. 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?

Ethics. 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?

Nature. 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?

Climate. 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?

Future. 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?

If 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.

About AMD

AMD 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.

Submission Guidelines

Standard 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.

References

Albareda, 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

Alexander, A., Pascucci, S., & Charnley, F. (2023). Handbook of the circular economy: Transitions and transformation. Walter de Gruyter GmbH & Co KG.

Alexander, S. (2012). The sufficiency economy. http://simplicityinstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/TheSufficiencyEconomy3.pdf (accessed February 1, 2025).

Bansal, P., Reinecke, J., Suddaby, R., & Langley, A. (2022). Temporal work: The strategic organization of time. Strategic Organization, 20(1), 6-19.

Barros, 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.

Ben-Menahem, S. M. (2024). Engaging practitioners in empirical exploration. Academy of Management Discoveries, 10(2), 155-162.

Benyus, J. M. (1997). Biomimicry: Innovation inspired by nature. New York: Morrow.

Bocken, 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.

Bocken, N.M.P., & Short, S.W. (2016). Towards a sufficiency-driven business model: Experiences and opportunities. Environmental Innovation and Social Transitions, 18, 41–61.

Corvellec, H., Stowell, A.F., & Johansson, N. (2022). Critiques of the circular economy. Journal of Industrial Ecology, 26, 421–432.

Das, A. & Bocken, N. (2024). Regenerative business strategies: A database and typology to inspire business experimentation towards sustainability. Sustainable Production and Consumption, 49, 529-544.

Dzhengiz, 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

Fisch, M. (2017). The nature of biomimicry: Toward a novel technological culture. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 42(5), 795-821.

Fischer, J., Farny, S., Abson, D.J. et al. (2024). Mainstreaming regenerative dynamics for sustainability. Nature Sustainability, 7, 964–972.

González-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.

Gualandris, 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.

Hahn T., & Tampe M. (2021). Strategies for regenerative business. Strategic Organization, 19(3), 456–477.

Heikkurinen, 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

Hossain, M., Park, S., Suchek, N., & Pansera, M. (2021). Circular economy: A review of review articles. Business, Strategy and the Environment, 33(7), 6125-7688.

Kirchherr, J., Reike, D., & Hekkert (2017). Conceptualizing the circular economy: An analysis of 114 definitions. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 127, 221-232.

Kirchherr, 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

Klofsten, 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.

Konietzko, J., Das, A., & Bocken, N. (2023). Towards regenerative business models: A necessary shift? Sustainable Production and Consumption, 38, 372-388.

Kopnina, H., & Poldner, K. (2021). Circular economy: Challenges and opportunities for ethical and sustainable business. Routledge.

Lacy, P., Long, J., & Spindler, W. (2020). The circular economy handbook: Realizing the circular advantage. Palgrave MacMillan.

Lehtimäki, H., Aarikka-Stenroos, L., Jokinen, A., & Jokinen, P. (2023). The Routledge handbook of catalysts for a sustainable circular economy. Taylor & Francis.

Lobbedez, E., Pascucci, S., & Panico, T. Theorizing waste as a technique of power in capitalistic stakeholder relations. Journal of Management Studies. Forthcoming

Muñoz, P., & Branzei, O. (2021). Regenerative organizations: Introduction to the Special Issue. Organization & Environment, 34(4), 507-516.

Muñoz, 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.

Patala, S., Albareda, L., & Halme, M. (2022). Polycentric governance of privately owned resources in circular economy systems. Journal of Management Studies, 59(6), 1359-1656.

Raman, R., Sreenivasan, A., Suresh, M., & Nedungadi, P. (2024). Mapping biomimicry research to sustainable development goals. Nature: Scientific Reports, 14 (article no. 18613)

Rovanto, 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

Sommer, 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.

Van 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.

Vlasov, 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.

Williams, 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

[1] https://esgri.com/circular_economy/

[2] https://www.mckinsey.com/featured-insights/mckinsey-explainers/what-is-circularity

[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.

[4] https://initiatives.weforum.org/the-circular-transformation-of-industries/home

[5] https://www.ellenmacarthurfoundation.org/topics/circular-economy-introduction/overview

[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.

[7] https://www.ellenmacarthurfoundation.org/regenerate-nature

[8] https://www.weforum.org/stories/2024/01/business-resilience-regeneration/

[9] https://www.weforum.org/stories/2024/01/business-resilience-regeneration/

[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/

CAP: TAOM and CARMA Early-Career Winter Workshop
2026-02-11 00:00 - 2026-02-13 00:00 (Europe/Istanbul)
Emerging Research Opportunities and Advances in AI-Driven Research Methods

The Early-Career Winter Workshop is a collaborative initiative organized through the Academy of Management’s (AOM) Community Accelerator Program (CAP), in partnership with the Consortium for the Advancement of Research Methods and Analysis (CARMA) and the Turkish Academy of Management (TAOM). Hosted by Başkent University in Ankara, this three-day event is designed to support early-career scholars who seek to strengthen their methodological capabilities, advance their research trajectories, and engage with emerging developments in AI-driven research methods.

The workshop brings together distinguished scholars and experienced methodologists from CARMA and AOM communities to provide hands-on training, conceptual guidance, and mentoring. Through a combination of keynote talks, interactive workshops, paper-development sessions, and mentoring circles, participants will explore how artificial intelligence is transforming management research—from theory building and literature exploration to data analysis, modeling, and research transparency.

This program reflects AOM’s commitment to fostering global scholarly communities, expanding access to high-quality methodological training, and empowering early-career researchers. CARMA’s long-standing expertise in research methods education, combined with TAOM’s rapidly growing academic network, creates a unique platform to promote collaboration, skill development, and research excellence across regions.

By the end of the workshop, participants will have refined their research ideas, strengthened their methodological toolkits, and built meaningful connections with peers and mentors—laying the foundation for impactful, innovative scholarship in the age of AI.

Learn more about AOM-CAP here.

CAP and Strategic Management Division (STR): STR Europe and the Near East February Edition Virtual Event
2026-02-18 18:00 - 20:00 (Europe/Belgrade)
Organizer

Veljko Jeremić, University of Belgrade – Faculty of Organizational Sciences

Description

Dear colleagues,

We welcome you to join us for the February edition of STR Europe and the Near East online event, co-sponsored by the Academy of Management Strategy Division and supported by the Academy of Management Community Accelerator Program.

The event’s goal is to promote and advance research across a variety of STR-related topics, especially among early-career scholars.

We hope you join us for an engaging conversation. Please feel free to distribute the call to your PhD students and colleagues.

Kind regards, Veljko Jeremić, University of Belgrade – Faculty of Organizational Sciences

Event Details

📅 Wednesday, February 18 ⏰ 18:00–19:45 (Belgrade, CET) 📍 Online via Zoom 👉 Register here: https://us06web.zoom.us/webinar/register/WN_O-2jYLOzS62OIy5YcCd83g

This event is limited to 300 participants. Session will feature presentations from a range of distinguished speakers, followed by a Q&A.

Speakers

Ryan Raimi, UTD – Naveen Jindal School of Management Presenting the paper “Judgmental Bot: Conversational Agents in Online Mental Health Screening”

Tim Meyer, University of St. Gallen Presenting the paper “The Impact of Generative AI on Innovation: Evidence from Software Products”

Danilo Messinese, IE Business School Presenting the paper “Theorizing with Causal Machines: From Explaining Anomalies to Hypothesis Generation”

Todd Zenger, University of Utah – David Eccles School of Business (Strategy Science EIC)

You can find more information about AOM-CAP here.
