BEGIN:VCALENDAR
VERSION:2.0
PRODID:-//Academy of Management - ECPv6.16.2//NONSGML v1.0//EN
CALSCALE:GREGORIAN
METHOD:PUBLISH
X-WR-CALNAME:Academy of Management
X-ORIGINAL-URL:https://www.aom.org
X-WR-CALDESC:Events for Academy of Management
REFRESH-INTERVAL;VALUE=DURATION:PT1H
X-Robots-Tag:noindex
X-PUBLISHED-TTL:PT1H
BEGIN:VTIMEZONE
TZID:America/New_York
BEGIN:DAYLIGHT
TZOFFSETFROM:-0500
TZOFFSETTO:-0400
TZNAME:EDT
DTSTART:20240310T070000
END:DAYLIGHT
BEGIN:STANDARD
TZOFFSETFROM:-0400
TZOFFSETTO:-0500
TZNAME:EST
DTSTART:20241103T060000
END:STANDARD
BEGIN:DAYLIGHT
TZOFFSETFROM:-0500
TZOFFSETTO:-0400
TZNAME:EDT
DTSTART:20250309T070000
END:DAYLIGHT
BEGIN:STANDARD
TZOFFSETFROM:-0400
TZOFFSETTO:-0500
TZNAME:EST
DTSTART:20251102T060000
END:STANDARD
BEGIN:DAYLIGHT
TZOFFSETFROM:-0500
TZOFFSETTO:-0400
TZNAME:EDT
DTSTART:20260308T070000
END:DAYLIGHT
BEGIN:STANDARD
TZOFFSETFROM:-0400
TZOFFSETTO:-0500
TZNAME:EST
DTSTART:20261101T060000
END:STANDARD
BEGIN:DAYLIGHT
TZOFFSETFROM:-0500
TZOFFSETTO:-0400
TZNAME:EDT
DTSTART:20270314T070000
END:DAYLIGHT
BEGIN:STANDARD
TZOFFSETFROM:-0400
TZOFFSETTO:-0500
TZNAME:EST
DTSTART:20271107T060000
END:STANDARD
END:VTIMEZONE
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=America/New_York:20260101T000000
DTEND;TZID=America/New_York:20260131T000000
DTSTAMP:20260526T074949
CREATED:20260226T045345Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20260429T181033Z
UID:10000031-1767225600-1769817600@www.aom.org
SUMMARY:AMP Call for Special Issue Papers: Managing for Our “New Normal”: How to Foresee\, Prepare for\, and Repair after Extreme Events
DESCRIPTION:Guest Editors:\n\n\n\n\nWitold (Vit) Henisz\, University of Pennsylvania\n\n\n\nAlan Meyer\, University of Oregon\n\n\n\nDean Shepherd\, University of Notre Dame\n\n\n\nChristopher Wright\, University of Sydney\n\n\n\nZhaohui Wu\, Oregon State University\n\n\n\n\nAMP Associate Editor:\n\n\n\n\nOana Branzei\, Western University\, Canada\n\n\n\n\nBackground\n\n\n\nOnce unprecedented\, extreme events ranging from climate-related natural disasters and displacements to school shootings\, devastating wars\, enduring conflicts\, and refugee crises have becoming increasingly common.1 Their recurrence compels us to find better ways to organize\, not only in their aftermath\, but also in anticipation. \n\n\n\nExtreme events shape many aspects of our economies\, ecosystems\, and communities\, and though commonly deemed “unthinkable tragedies\,” they tend to follow recurring patterns. Some communities are more vulnerable to floods and wildfires and earthquakes than others. Pandemics recur also. So do riots. And wars. And displacement. Treating such extreme events as outliers demotivates initiatives and innovations that could ready existing systems to repeated occurrences of similar events in the future. Yet learning from\, and especially across\, extreme events pose significant challenges.2 Some organizations prove essential\,3 while many remain ill-prepared\, even for disasters they should have seen coming.4 \n\n\n\nThis Academy of Management Perspectives (AMP) Special Issue aims to provide actionable\, evidence-based insights that clearly and credibly guides managers and their organizations through the extreme events that have become part of our new normal. We seek to shift attention from retrospective reflections5 and actions6 toward prospective ways to ready organizations and occupations for the worst to come. We are especially interested in disruptions that could be better described as becoming common\, at least in some new types of organizations.7 \n\n\n\nPlease note that AMP’s mission and format differ from many other leading academic journals. AMP papers are managerially driven\, not theory driven. Successful submissions clearly define the managerial issue from the outset and make a compelling case for its importance. They do not simply tack managerial implications on to a standard academic study. Rather\, AMP papers provide actionable insights that guide managerial behavior and influence policy decisions. We strongly encourage potential authors to review AMP’s guidelines before submission. Note that we also welcome Practitioner Perspectives essays and Constructive Confrontations papers for this special issue. Guidance for both formats is also on our website. \n\n\n\nScope and Open-Ended Research Questions\n\n\n\nFor this special issue\, we welcome submissions of relevant\, rigorous\, and readable papers that address a broad range of enduring and/or recurring extreme events\, including but not limited to: wars and armed conflicts; refugee movements and forced displacement; natural disasters and climate events; public health crises and pandemics; terrorism and political violence; economic disruptions and financial crises; technological and cybersecurity crises; social unrest and protests; industrial and environmental accidents; complex crises (polycrisis). Our aim is to develop actionable\, evidence-based insights into how to better organize for the new normal of extreme events\, we focus on eight major themes and suggest several areas of inquiry for each. The open-ended questions suggested for each theme offer tentative starting points and are neither comprehensive nor exclusive of alternative perspectives or phenomena. \n\n\n\nFacing Undesirable Futures: How can organizations or occupations come to see and make futures when they expect extreme events to recur with greater intensity and frequency? How should actors reconsider their values and positions when futures become riskier and/or more uncertain? Which collaborative processes best allow for course corrections? \n\n\n\nBracing for Impact: How can practitioners brace for the psychological injury that may accompany exposure to different types of crises? How should protagonists overcome fear to act courageously? How can decision-makers sustain hope and stave off despair when extreme events keep unfolding? What are the best ways for decision-makers to reflect\, collect\, and communicate key lessons to their stakeholders? \n\n\n\nSustaining Sense and Meaning: How should protagonists engage the moral tensions that often accompany recurrent extreme events? How can dynamics of sense breaking and sense making\, sense contracting and sense expanding\, or sense asking and sense giving influence learning before\, during\, and after extreme events? How do vulnerable parties hold on to meaning when catastrophes loom inevitable? \n\n\n\nEvolving Supply Chains: How can the thresholds of supply chain vulnerability for different types of extreme events be determined? How can buffers be designed to anticipate critical disruptions? How should vulnerability and resilience be reconceptualized? \n\n\n\nClimate-Proofing Systems. How can actors ready their operations\, organizations and occupations for climate change? How should preparations vary with different types of events?  How can policy makers trigger or renew commitment to regeneration? How can the type of actor (e.g.\, celebrities\, more-than-human actors) influence responses to climate-related extreme events? \n\n\n\nOrganizing in War and Peace: In wartime vs. peacetime\, how can altruistic decisions be promoted over self-interest? How should stakeholder interactions change when peace turns to war? How can the interests of stakeholders be protected when wartime extreme events jeopardize entire categories\, markets\, or economies? \n\n\n\nBearing the Losses. How should rights and responsibilities change after losses have been incurred? How should rights and responsibilities be fulfilled when extreme events are considered natural disasters versus when they are understood as so-called normal accidents\, preventable through high reliability organizing? Through what mechanisms should losses be deemed inevitable and acceptable\, perhaps even insurable? \n\n\n\nOrganizing Far from Equilibrium: How should organizations and occupations anticipate or adapt outside the limits of current knowledge and outside their domains of expertise? How can novel\, counterintuitive or alternative forms of anticipation and action become routinized? \n\n\n\nWe welcome both conceptual and empirical papers that are grounded in rigorous analysis and directly support specific and significant managerial and policy actions. We welcome accounts of embodied\, lived experiences of extreme events and use of reflexive methodologies. Quantitative analyses of large databases\, qualitative comparative analyses\, and extensive data analysis using linguistic programs and algorithms are also needed. In short\, we want papers that show what can or does work\, in ways that managers and policymakers can use. \n\n\n\nDeadline\, Submission\, and Review Process\n\n\n\nThe deadline for submission is 31 January 2026 at 23:59 ET (DST+1\,UTC-4). All submissions must be uploaded to the AMP Manuscript Central website between 1 January and 31 January 2026.  \n\n\n\nAll papers will be reviewed according to the current policies of Academy of Management Perspectives. AMP papers should be grounded in evidence or robust conceptual frameworks\, address relevant real-world managerial and policy issues\, offer actionable insights\, avoid theory fetish\, and be written in a style accessible to non-specialists and practitioners. \n\n\n\nWe intend to host a Paper Development Workshop at the 2025 AOM Conference in Copenhagen for selected authors to further develop their manuscripts. Participation in this workshop is neither a guarantee nor a prerequisite for publication. \n\n\n\nEndnotes\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n1 Phillip H. Phan\, “Redeeming Management Scholarship in a Time of Crisis\,” Academy of Management Perspectives\, 36\, no. 2 (2022)\, 711-12. \n\n\n\n2 Claus Rerup and Mark Zbaracki\, “The Politics of Learning from Rare Events\,” Organization Science\, 32 no. 6 (2021)\, 1391–414. \n\n\n\n3 Russell E.\, Browder\, Stella Seyb\, Angela Forgues\, and Howard E. Aldrich\, “Pandemic Makers: How Citizen Groups Mobilized Resources to Meet Local Needs in a Global Health Crisis\,” Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice\, 47 no. 3 (2023)\, 964-97. \n\n\n\n4 Emily Lalonde\, Brent McKnight\, and François-Nicolas Robinne\, “Does Wildfire Exposure Influence Corporate Disaster Preparedness? A Study of Natural Resource Extraction Firms in Canada\,” Organization & Environment\, 36 no. 4 (2023)\, 590-620. \n\n\n\n5 Graham Dwyer\, Cynthia Hardy\, and Steve Maguire\, “Post-inquiry Sensemaking: The Case of the ‘Black Saturday’ Bushfires\,” Organization Studies\, 42 no. 4 (2021)\, 637-61. \n\n\n\n6 Trenton A. Williams\, and Dean A. Shepherd\, D. A.\, “Bounding and Binding: Trajectories of Community-organization Emergence Following a Major Disruption\,” Organization Science\, 32 no. 3 (2022)\, 824-55. \n\n\n\n7 Róisín Jordan and Duncan Shaw\, “The Role of Essential Businesses in Whole-of-society Resilience to Disruption\,” Academy of Management Perspectives. https://doi.org/10.5465/amp.2023.0079
URL:https://www.aom.org/event/amp-call-for-special-issue-papers-managing-for-our-new-normal/
CATEGORIES:Call for Special Issue Papers,Journal Workshops & Publications Events
ATTACH;FMTTYPE=image/png:https://www.aom.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/08/amp_cfs.png
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=America/New_York:20251101T000000
DTEND;TZID=America/New_York:20260104T000000
DTSTAMP:20260526T074949
CREATED:20260226T041307Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20260429T180838Z
UID:10000026-1761955200-1767484800@www.aom.org
SUMMARY:AMLE Call for Special Issue Papers: Management Learning and Education as Drivers of Fundamental Alternative Forms of Organizing
DESCRIPTION:Guest Editors\n\n\n\n\nSimon Pek\, University of Victoria (Canada)\n\n\n\nFrédéric Dufays\, HEC Liège-ULiège & KU Leuven (Belgium)\n\n\n\nMartyna Śliwa\, University of Durham (United Kingdom)\n\n\n\nAjnesh Prasad\, Tecnológico de Monterrey (Mexico)\n\n\n\nAmon Barros\, FGV EAESP (Brazil)\n\n\n\n\nAMLE Editors\n\n\n\n\nLaura Colombo\, University of Exeter (United Kingdom)\n\n\n\nKatrin Muehlfeld\, Trier University (Germany)\n\n\n\n\nCall for Papers\n\n\n\nIn promoting managerialism and shareholder value maximization\, business schools have long been implicated in perpetuating what has come to be popularized as grand challenges in the literature. These include\, among other phenomena\, climate change\, biodiversity loss\, economic and gender inequality (e.g.\, Kumar et al.\, 2024; Locke & Spender\, 2011; Parker\, 2018). AMLE\, in particular\, has been at the vanguard of identifying and interrogating the nexus between business schools\, management education\, and management learning\, on the one hand\, and the perpetuation of grand challenges\, on the other hand. For example\, in describing the economic arrangements that structure society\, Fotaki and Prasad (2015: 558) observed almost a decade ago: “[M]any blind spots and unanswered questions about the complicity of business schools in propagating inequalities under neoliberal regimes still exist.” More recently\, turning to the matter of climate change\, Colombo and colleagues (2024) lamented in an editorial about the historical role of management learning and education (MLE) in contributing to the deteriorating state of the world’s natural environment. This led them to ask: “How can our discipline help envision and shape a thriving future\, in a way that contributes knowledge\, skills\, and wisdom toward tackling the contemporary ecological and climate crises?” (207). Observations such as these are being raised with greater frequency and urgency by MLE scholars seeking to tackle pernicious societal grand challenges (Figueiró\, Neutzling\, & Lessa\, 2022; Mailhot & Lachapelle\, 2024).  \n\n\n\nTo tackle grand challenges\, attention has been given to alternative organizations and the positive societal impact they generate (e.g.\, Cavotta & Mena\, 2023)\, as well as to their prefigurative function of and for an alternative future—a future that is better aligned with social and environmental considerations (Bhatt\, Qureshi\, Shukla\, & Hota\, 2024; Schiller-Merkens\, 2024). Researchers commonly use the term alternative organizations to describe those that meaningfully depart from some of the defining characteristics of traditional corporations. Such alternative forms include\, among others\, cooperatives\, stakeholder firms\, social enterprises\, and employee-owned firms (e.g.\, Chen & Chen\, 2021; Kociatkiewicz\, Kostera\, & Parker\, 2021; Luyckx\, Schneider\, & Kourula\, 2022; Mair & Rathert\, 2021; Pek\, 2023).  \n\n\n\nWhen alternative forms of organizing have been studied in the discipline of management\, they have been largely reduced to incremental alternatives\, pointing to “anything different to the traditional for-profit model” (Barin Cruz\, Aquino Alves\, & Delbridge\, 2017: 324). Social enterprises are perhaps the quintessential incremental alternative. They have received a tremendous amount of scholarly attention to date in both management (Battilana & Lee\, 2014) and MLE research (Pache & Chowdhury\, 2012; Tracey & Phillips\, 2007).  \n\n\n\nIn this special issue\, we are specifically interested in fundamental (Barin Cruz et al.\, 2017) alternative forms of organizing\, which “challenge some of the classic principles of the capitalist system” (Barin Cruz et al.\, 2017: 323). Specifically\, we consider fundamental alternative organizations as embracing joint or collective ownership instead of private ownership (Chen & Chen\, 2021; Luyckx et al.\, 2022). This includes a broad diversity of organizations\, including cooperatives (Zamagni & Zamagni\, 2010)\, communes (Frye\, 2022)\, broad-based employee ownership in the form of employee ownership trusts (Michael\, 2017) and employee stock ownership plans (Blasi\, Scharf\, & Kruse\, 2023)\, Indigenous economic development corporations (Savic & Hoicka\, 2023)\, bicameral firms (Ferreras\, 2017)\, commons-based peer production (Benkler & Nissenbaum\, 2006)\, and community self-organizations\, such as collective Black enterprises in the Colombian Pacific (Tubb\, 2018). These organizations often\, but not always\, complement this distinctive approach to ownership with more democratic governance and management (Chen & Chen\, 2021; Pek\, 2021).  \n\n\n\nFundamental alternatives have received only marginal attention from MLE scholars (though there are some exceptions\, e.g.\, Audebrand\, Camus\, & Michaud\, 2017) and they continue to remain largely absent from mainstream management textbooks (Rankin & Piwko\, 2022). This curious lack of MLE engagement with fundamental alternative forms of organizing means that students graduating from business schools hoping to tackle grand challenges are not equipped with the tools and concepts necessary to be able to do so. For MLE scholarship to achieve its ostensible aim of producing socially conscientious leaders for a sustainable future\, business school curricula must be broadened so as to include these fundamental alternative organizations.  \n\n\n\nTo be sure\, this is no small feat. Those who have tried to incorporate such organizations into their curricula have identified a range of challenges. For example\, Audebrand and colleagues (2017) observed resistance from students (e.g.\, limited interest) as well as instructors (e.g.\, limited resources). Fournier (2006: 297) found that\, while students actively engaged with concepts pertaining to alternative organizing\, “they all demonstrated a lack of faith in their very possibility.” Yet\, there is some evidence of how MLE can subvert even the most culturally embedded of social systems. Zulfiqar and Prasad (2021)\, for example\, have illuminated how engaged pedagogy intended to raise consciousness on social inequalities among privileged business school students can unsettle and transcend taken-for-granted assumptions about the world.  \n\n\n\nWith an eye on tackling societal grand challenges\, MLE scholarship can and should play a major role in distilling the challenges to teaching and learning pertaining to fundamental alternative organizing and identifying solutions that can overcome them. These span the three domains of MLE research – i.e.\, the business of business schools\, management learning\, and management education (Lindebaum\, 2024) – and their intersectional phenomena\, including business schools’ and universities’ governance arrangements (Billsberry\, Ambrosini\, & Thomas\, 2023; Wright\, Greenwood\, & Boden\, 2011)\, inter-departmental relationships (Parker\, 2021)\, student consumerism (Naidoo\, Shankar\, & Veer\, 2011)\, and pedagogical interventions (Parker\, Racz\, & Palmer\, 2018; Reedy & Learmonth\, 2009). This special issue aims to generate new theory about fundamental alternative organizations and MLE and\, in so doing\, respond to calls for more critical thinking about the objectives of management education\, greater collaboration with other scholarly disciplines\, and a broadening of our pedagogical approaches (Colombo et al.\, 2024).  \n\n\n\nIllustrative Themes and Research Questions\n\n\n\nFundamental Alternative Organizations and the Business of Business Schools \n\n\n\n\nHow can challenges to incorporating fundamental alternatives be overcome by instructors\, business school leaders\, and accreditation agencies? For example\, would different approaches to business school governance—perhaps those modeled on fundamental alternatives themselves like Mondragon University (Wright et al.\, 2011)—be helpful in this regard?\n\n\n\nHow can fundamental alternatives be woven into professional and executive education programs targeted at professionals in both traditional businesses and fundamental alternatives? What are the opportunities to rethink existing business models in this regard\, such as developing targeted programs to support Cooperative Principle #5 on Education\, Training\, and Information from the statement of cooperative identity? (International Co-operative Alliance\, n.d.)\n\n\n\nHow does integrating fundamental alternatives into MLE affect business schools’ relationships with stakeholders such as corporate philanthropic partners?\n\n\n\nHow do fundamental alternatives configure in MLE in unique and contrasting ways across cultures? For instance\, do the form and/or effects of fundamental alternatives materialize differently in Global South versus Global North business school contexts?\n\n\n\nHow\, and to what effects\, could dominant publishers like Harvard Business Publishing better incorporate fundamental alternatives into their products? (Bridgman et al.\, 2016)\n\n\n\n\nFundamental Alternative Organizations and Management Learning \n\n\n\n\nWhat new skills and competencies can students acquire through different pedagogical strategies focused on fundamental alternatives? For example\, do these pedagogical strategies contribute to the development of civic capacities? (Colombo\, 2023) Paradoxically\, what skills and competencies might students inadvertently not acquire when moving MLE beyond its dominant focus on traditional business models to also include fundamental alternatives?\n\n\n\nWhat potential unintended consequences like the amplification of formal\, social\, and psychological disempowerment (Diefenbach\, 2020) might arise from teaching about fundamental alternatives?\n\n\n\nHow are instructors personally and professionally transformed through engaging with fundamental alternatives in their pedagogy? Do they\, for instance\, become more engaged in the governance of their business schools? Do they become more involved in activities that support the creation of fundamental alternatives? (Esper\, Cabantous\, Barin-Cruz\, & Gond\, 2017)\n\n\n\nHow can teaching fundamental alternatives inspire student entrepreneurs to develop new business models and practices (Pepin\, Tremblay\, Audebrand\, & Chassé\, 2024)?\n\n\n\nHow can teaching fundamental alternatives help students prefigure their paths toward a new economy (Schiller-Merkens\, 2024)? To what extent does it impact their identity (formation) as students\, as citizens\, and/or as entrepreneurs? (Solbreux\, Hermans\, Pondeville\, & Dufays\, 2024)\n\n\n\nDo the internal dynamics of fundamental alternatives offer new perspectives on diversity\, equity\, and inclusion (DEI) and\, if so\, how might they intervene in polemical debates over “woke” DEI policies taking place among business school academics? (Prasad & Śliwa\, 2024\n\n\n\n\nFundamental Alternative Organizations and Management Education \n\n\n\nFundamental alternative organizations have been largely ignored in contemporary MLE scholarship as evidenced in their omission in economics and management texts (e.g.\, Kalmi\, 2007; Rankin & Piwko\, 2022; Schugurensky & McCollum\, 2010). Instead\, the traditional investor-owned\, capitalist enterprise maintains a hegemonic presence in MLE despite growing concerns for more sustainability in business school education (Figueiró et al.\, 2022; Mailhot & Lachapelle\, 2024). MLE researchers can help unpack the factors that may have contributed to this state of affairs. \n\n\n\n\nRe-tracing the history of business schools (McLaren et al.\, 2021; Spicer\, Jaser\, & Wiertz\, 2021; Wanderley\, Alcadipani\, & Barros\, 2021)\, what key events may have contributed to the current marginal place of fundamental alternatives?\n\n\n\nWhat is the role of isomorphic pressures generated by key actors like accreditation bodies in silencing or making fundamental alternatives visible in management education? (Romero\, 2008)\n\n\n\nWhat is the role of broader social discourses like student consumerism (Naidoo et al.\, 2011) and managerialism (Clegg\, 2014) in undermining fundamental alternatives in MLE?\n\n\n\nWhy has MLE scholarship readily embraced incremental alternatives like social enterprises\, while not affording similar legitimacy to fundamental alternatives like worker cooperatives and broad-based employee ownership?\n\n\n\n\nWhile some authors have incorporated fundamental alternatives into their teaching (Audebrand et al.\, 2017; Fournier\, 2006)\, there is much to learn about how fundamental alternatives could be integrated into different pedagogies. Additionally\, we need a deeper understanding of the challenges instructors might face and how those challenges could be overcome. MLE scholarship has much to contribute to both of these closely related topics. \n\n\n\n\nHow can existing MLE pedagogies like experiential learning and service learning be translated to teach fundamental alternative organizations effectively? For example\, should students’ and instructors’ interactions with organizations in service learning projects (Mazutis\, 2024) differ in the case of fundamental alternatives versus incremental alternatives or traditional businesses?\n\n\n\nHow should educational efforts focused on fundamental alternatives be integrated and sequenced with those on traditional business topics (Pache & Chowdhury\, 2012)?\n\n\n\nHow can educational practices currently used to teach fundamental alternative organizations in other disciplines (e.g.\, Manley\, 2021; Meek & Woodworth\, 1990) be leveraged and translated into business schools?\n\n\n\nWhat challenges might instructors and students face when engaging with fundamental alternatives in different contexts (Audebrand et al.\, 2017; Fournier\, 2006)? For example\, how might student consumerism\, which varies across countries (Fairchild & Crage\, 2014)\, affect instructors’ implementation of pedagogical strategies targeted towards fundamental alternatives?\n\n\n\nHow can educational repositories like the Curriculum Library for Employee Ownership become legitimated as important empirical resources in delivering management education?\n\n\n\n\nSubmission Types\n\n\n\nWe welcome Research and Review\, Essay\, and Book and Resource Review submissions for this special issue. The agnostic ethos of AMLE in terms of underlying paradigms\, theories\, and methods is reiterated (for as long as a submission falls within the remit of AMLE). All of the journal’s standard formatting and peer review guidelines will apply. \n\n\n\nInquiries\n\n\n\nThose interested in contributing to this special issue are welcome to contact Simon Pek (spek@uvic.ca) and Ajnesh Prasad (prasad@tec.mx) with their questions. We encourage authors interested in submitting a book or resource review to contact us prior to preparing a manuscript. Authors interested in submitting a book or resource review should identify the work to be reviewed and a brief explanation of how it fits the remit of the special issue. \n\n\n\nPlease note that consultation with the guest editors is neither a prerequisite nor an expectation for submission to the special issue. \n\n\n\nSpecial Issue Timeline and Process\n\n\n\nSubmissions will be accepted via AMLE’s Manuscript Central portal between November 1\, 2025 and December 15\, 2025. \n\n\n\nPrior to submission\, we will hold an optional virtual professional development workshop on June 25\, 2025\, for interested authors to receive feedback on their ideas. Those interested in participating in the workshop should e-mail a 3\,000-word proposal (including references) to Simon Pek (spek@uvic.ca) and Ajnesh Prasad (prasad@tec.mx) by May 15\, 2025. We also plan to offer workshops to discuss this special issue at the 85th Academy of Management Conference in Copenhagen and the 41st EGOS Colloquium in Athens. We will share more details about these and other opportunities when available via the AMLE website and various listservs. While we encourage interested contributors to participate in these opportunities\, they are not a prerequisite for\, or a guarantee of\, eventual acceptance in the special issue. \n\n\n\nFollowing our first-round decisions\, we will hold a second optional professional development workshop for authors who receive a revise and resubmit decision following the first round of peer review. It is tentatively scheduled for Spring 2025\, and full details will be shared when available. \n\n\n\nReferences\n\n\n\nAudebrand\, L. K.\, Camus\, A.\, & Michaud\, V. 2017. A mosquito in the classroom: Using the cooperative business model to foster paradoxical thinking in management education. Journal of Management Education\, 41(2): 216–248. \n\n\n\nBarin Cruz\, L.\, Aquino Alves\, M.\, & Delbridge\, R. 2017. Next steps in organizing alternatives to capitalism: toward a relational research agenda. Introduction to the Special Issue. M@n@gement\, 20(4): 322–335. \n\n\n\nBattilana\, J.\, & Lee\, M. 2014. Advancing research on hybrid organizing – Insights from the study of social enterprises. Academy of Management Annals\, 8(1): 397–441. \n\n\n\nBenkler\, Y.\, & Nissenbaum\, H. 2006. Commons-based peer production and virtue. Journal of Political Philosophy\, 14(4): 394–419. \n\n\n\nBhatt\, B.\, Qureshi\, I.\, Shukla\, D. M.\, & Hota\, P. K. 2024. Prefiguring alternative organizing: Confronting marginalization through projective cultural adjustment and tempered autonomy. Organization Studies\, 45(1): 59–84. \n\n\n\nBillsberry\, J.\, Ambrosini\, V.\, & Thomas\, L. 2023. Managerialist control in post-pandemic business schools: The tragedy of the new normal and a new hope. Academy of Management Learning & Education\, 22(3)\, 439-458. \n\n\n\nBlasi\, J.\, Scharf\, A.\, & Kruse\, D. 2023. Employee ownership in the US: Some issues on ESOPs – overcoming the barriers to further development. Journal of Participation and Employee Ownership\, ahead-of-print(ahead-of-print). https://doi.org/10.1108/JPEO-11-2022-0028. \n\n\n\nBridgman\, T.\, Cummings\, S.\, & McLaughlin\, C. 2016. Restating the case: How revisiting the development of the case method can help us think differently about the future of the business school. Academy of Management Learning & Education\, 15(4)\, 724-741. \n\n\n\nCavotta\, V.\, & Mena\, S. 2023. Prosocial organizing and the distance between core and community work. Organization Studies\, 44(4): 637–657. \n\n\n\nChen\, K. K.\, & Chen\, V. T. 2021. “What if” and “if only” futures beyond conventional capitalism and bureaucracy: Imagining collectivist and democratic possibilities for organizing. In K. K. Chen & V. T. Chen (Eds.)\, Research in the sociology of organizations: 1–28. Emerald Publishing Limited. \n\n\n\nClegg\, S. R. 2014. Managerialism: Born in the USA. Academy of Management Review\, 39(4): 566–576. \n\n\n\nColombo\, L. A. 2023. Civilize the business school: For a civic management education. Academy of Management Learning & Education\, 22(1): 132–149. \n\n\n\nColombo\, L. A.\, Moser\, C.\, Muehlfeld\, K.\, & Joy\, S. 2024. Sowing the seeds of change: Calling for a social–ecological approach to management learning and education. Academy of Management Learning & Education\, 23(2): 207–213. \n\n\n\nDiefenbach\, T. 2020. The democratic organisation: Democracy and the future of work. Routledge. \n\n\n\nEsper\, S. C.\, Cabantous\, L.\, Barin-Cruz\, L.\, & Gond\, J.-P. 2017. Supporting alternative organizations? Exploring scholars’ involvement in the performativity of worker-recuperated enterprises. Organization\, 24(5): 671–699. \n\n\n\nFairchild\, E.\, & Crage\, S. 2014. Beyond the debates: Measuring and specifying student consumerism. Sociological Spectrum\, 34(5): 403–420. \n\n\n\nFerreras\, I. 2017. Firms as political entities: Saving democracy through economic bicameralism. Cambridge University Press. \n\n\n\nFigueiró\, P. S.\, Neutzling\, D. M.\, & Lessa\, B. 2022. Education for sustainability in higher education institutions: A multi-perspective proposal with a focus on management education. Journal of Cleaner Production\, 339: 130539. \n\n\n\nFotaki\, M.\, & Prasad\, A. 2015. Questioning neoliberal capitalism and economic inequality in business schools. Academy of Management Learning & Education\, 14(4): 556–575. \n\n\n\nFournier\, V. 2006. Breaking from the weight of the eternal present: Teaching organizational difference. Management Learning\, 37(3): 295–311. \n\n\n\nFrye\, H. 2022. Commons\, Communes\, and Freedom. Politics\, Philosophy & Economics\, 21(2): 228–244. \n\n\n\nInternational Co-operative Alliance. n.d. Cooperative identity\, values & principles. https://www.ica.coop/en/cooperatives/cooperative-identity\, February 4\, 2021. \n\n\n\nKalmi\, P. 2007. The disappearance of cooperatives from economics textbooks. Cambridge Journal of Economics\, 31(4): 625–647. \n\n\n\nKociatkiewicz\, J.\, Kostera\, M.\, & Parker\, M. 2021. The possibility of disalienated work: Being at home in alternative organizations. Human Relations\, 74(7): 933–957. \n\n\n\nKumar\, A.\, Soundararajan\, V.\, Bapuji\, H.\, Köhler\, T.\, Alcadipani\, R.\, Morsing\, M.\, & Coraiola\, D. M. 2024. Unequal Worlds: Management Education and Inequalities. Academy of Management Learning & Education\, 23(3)\, 379-386. \n\n\n\nLindebaum\, D. 2024. Management Learning and Education as “big picture” social science. Academy of Management Learning & Education\, 23(1): 1–7. \n\n\n\nLocke\, R. R.\, & Spender\, J.-C. 2011. Confronting managerialism: How the business elite and their schools threw our lives out of balance. Bloomsbury Publishing. \n\n\n\nLuyckx\, J.\, Schneider\, A.\, & Kourula\, A. 2022. Learning from alternatives: Analyzing alternative ways of organizing as starting points for improving the corporation. In R. E. Meyer\, S. Leixnering\, & J. Veldman (Eds.)\, Research in the Sociology of Organizations: 209–231. Emerald Publishing Limited. \n\n\n\nMailhot\, C.\, & Lachapelle\, M. D. 2024. Teaching management in the context of Grand Challenges: A pragmatist approach. Management Learning\, 55(2): 167–191. \n\n\n\nMair\, J.\, & Rathert\, N. 2021. Alternative organizing with social purpose: Revisiting institutional analysis of market-based activity. Socio-Economic Review\, 19(2): 817–836. \n\n\n\nManley\, S. W.\, Julian. 2021. Co-operative education: From Mondragón and Bilbao to Preston. The Preston Model and Community Wealth Building. Routledge. \n\n\n\nMazutis\, D. 2024. Making a difference: Taking community stakeholders seriously. Academy of Management Learning & Education\, amle.2022.0342. \n\n\n\nMcLaren\, P. G.\, Bridgman\, T.\, Cummings\, S.\, Lubinski\, C.\, O’Connor\, E.\, et al. 2021. From the editors—new times\, new histories of the business school. Academy of Management Learning & Education\, 20(3): 293–299. \n\n\n\nMeek\, C. B.\, & Woodworth\, W. P. 1990. Technical training and enterprise: Mondragon’s Educational system and its implications for other cooperatives. Economic and Industrial Democracy\, 11(4): 505–528. \n\n\n\nMichael\, C. 2017. The Employee Ownership Trust\, an ESOP Alternative. Probate and Property\, 31(1): 42–47. \n\n\n\nNaidoo\, R.\, Shankar\, A.\, & Veer\, E. 2011. The consumerist turn in higher education: Policy aspirations and outcomes. Journal of Marketing Management\, 27(11–12): 1142–1162. \n\n\n\nPache\, A.-C.\, & Chowdhury\, I. 2012. Social entrepreneurs as institutionally embedded entrepreneurs: Toward a new model of social entrepreneurship education. Academy of Management Learning & Education\, 11(3): 494–510. \n\n\n\nParker\, M. 2018. Shut Down the Business School. London: Pluto Press. https://ideas.repec.org//b/ucp/bkecon/9780745399171.html. \n\n\n\nParker\, M. 2021. The critical business school and the university: A case study of resistance and co-optation. Critical Sociology\, 47(7–8): 1111–1124. \n\n\n\nParker\, S.\, Racz\, M. M.\, & Palmer\, P. W. 2018. Decentering the learner through alternative organizations. Academy of Management Proceedings\, 2018(1): 16086. \n\n\n\nPek\, S. 2021. Drawing out democracy: The role of sortition in preventing and overcoming organizational degeneration in worker-owned firms. Journal of Management Inquiry\, 30(2): 193–206. \n\n\n\nPek\, S. 2023. Reconceptualizing and improving member participation in large cooperatives: Insights from deliberative democracy and deliberative mini-publics. M@n@gement\, 26(4)\, 68-82. \n\n\n\nPepin\, M.\, Tremblay\, M.\, Audebrand\, L. K.\, & Chassé\, S. 2024. The responsible business model canvas: Designing and assessing a sustainable business modeling tool for students and start-up entrepreneurs. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education\, 25(3): 514–538. \n\n\n\nPrasad\, A.\, & Śliwa\, M. 2024. Critiquing the backlash against wokeness: In defense of DEI scholarship and practice. Academy of Management Perspectives\, 38(2): 245-259. \n\n\n\nRankin\, R.\, & Piwko\, P. M. 2022. An analysis of the coverage of cooperatives in U.S. introductory business textbooks. Journal of Accounting and Finance\, 22(3). https://articlearchives.co/index.php/JAF/article/view/5228. \n\n\n\nReedy\, P.\, & Learmonth\, M. 2009. Other possibilities? The contribution to management education of alternative organizations. Management Learning\, 40(3): 241–258. \n\n\n\nRomero\, E. J. 2008. AACSB accreditation: Addressing faculty concerns. Academy of Management Learning & Education\, 7(2): 245–255. \n\n\n\nSavic\, K.\, & Hoicka\, C. E. 2023. Indigenous legal forms and governance structures in renewable energy: Assessing the role and perspectives of First Nations economic development corporations. Energy Research & Social Science\, 101\, 103121. \n\n\n\nSchiller-Merkens\, S. 2024. Prefiguring an alternative economy: Understanding prefigurative organizing and its struggles. Organization\, 31(3): 458–476. \n\n\n\nSchugurensky\, D.\, & McCollum\, E. 2010. Notes in the margins: The social economy in economics and business textbooks. Researching the Social Economy: 154–175. University of Toronto Press. \n\n\n\nSolbreux\, J.\, Hermans\, J.\, Pondeville\, S.\, & Dufays\, F. 2024. It all starts with a story: Questioning dominant entrepreneurial identities through collective narrative practices. International Small Business Journal\, 42(1): 90–123. \n\n\n\nSpicer\, A.\, Jaser\, Z.\, & Wiertz\, C. 2021. The future of the business school: Finding hope in alternative pasts. Academy of Management Learning & Education\, 20(3): 459–466. \n\n\n\nTracey\, P.\, & Phillips\, N. 2007. The distinctive challenge of educating social entrepreneurs: A postscript and rejoinder to the special issue on entrepreneurship education. Academy of Management Learning & Education\, 6(2): 264–271. \n\n\n\nTubb\, D. G. L. 2018. The everyday social economy of Afro-descendants in the Chocó\, Colombia. In C. S. Hossein (Ed.)\, The Black social economy in the Americas: Exploring diverse community-based markets: 97–117. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. \n\n\n\nWanderley\, S.\, Alcadipani\, R.\, & Barros\, A. 2021. Recentering the Global South in the making of business school histories: Dependency ambiguity in action. Academy of Management Learning & Education\, 20(3): 361–381. \n\n\n\nWright\, S.\, Greenwood\, D.\, & Boden\, R. 2011. Report on a field visit to Mondragón University: A cooperative experience/experiment. Learning and Teaching\, 4(3): 38–56. \n\n\n\nZamagni\, S.\, & Zamagni\, V. 2010. Cooperative enterprise: Facing the challenge of globalization. Edward Elgar Publishing. \n\n\n\nZulfiqar\, G.\, & Prasad\, A. 2021. Challenging social inequality in the Global South: Class\, privilege\, and consciousness-raising through critical management education. Academy of Management Learning & Education\, 20(2): 156-181.
URL:https://www.aom.org/event/amle-call-for-special-issue-papers-management-learning-and-education-as-drivers-of-fundamental-alternative-forms-of-organizing/
CATEGORIES:Call for Special Issue Papers,Journal Workshops & Publications Events
ATTACH;FMTTYPE=image/png:https://www.aom.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/amle_cfs.png
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=America/New_York:20251101T000000
DTEND;TZID=America/New_York:20251215T000000
DTSTAMP:20260526T074949
CREATED:20260226T040809Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20260429T180846Z
UID:10000014-1761955200-1765756800@www.aom.org
SUMMARY:Management Learning and Education as Drivers of Fundamental Alternative Forms of Organizing
DESCRIPTION:Guest Editors\n\n\n\n\nSimon Pek\, University of Victoria (Canada)\n\n\n\nFrédéric Dufays\, HEC Liège-ULiège & KU Leuven (Belgium)\n\n\n\nMartyna Śliwa\, University of Durham (United Kingdom)\n\n\n\nAjnesh Prasad\, Tecnológico de Monterrey (Mexico)\n\n\n\nAmon Barros\, FGV EAASP (Brazil)\n\n\n\n\nAMLE Editors\n\n\n\n\nLaura Colombo\, University of Exeter (United Kingdom)\n\n\n\nKatrin Muehlfeld\, Trier University (Germany)\n\n\n\n\nCall for Papers\n\n\n\nIn promoting managerialism and shareholder value maximization\, business schools have long been implicated in perpetuating what has come to be popularized as grand challenges in the literature. These include\, among other phenomena\, climate change\, biodiversity loss\, economic and gender inequality (e.g.\, Kumar et al.\, 2024; Locke & Spender\, 2011; Parker\, 2018). AMLE\, in particular\, has been at the vanguard of identifying and interrogating the nexus between business schools\, management education\, and management learning\, on the one hand\, and the perpetuation of grand challenges\, on the other hand. For example\, in describing the economic arrangements that structure society\, Fotaki and Prasad (2015: 558) observed almost a decade ago: “[M]any blind spots and unanswered questions about the complicity of business schools in propagating inequalities under neoliberal regimes still exist.” More recently\, turning to the matter of climate change\, Colombo and colleagues (2024) lamented in an editorial about the historical role of management learning and education (MLE) in contributing to the deteriorating state of the world’s natural environment. This led them to ask: “How can our discipline help envision and shape a thriving future\, in a way that contributes knowledge\, skills\, and wisdom toward tackling the contemporary ecological and climate crises?” (207). Observations such as these are being raised with greater frequency and urgency by MLE scholars seeking to tackle pernicious societal grand challenges (Figueiró\, Neutzling\, & Lessa\, 2022; Mailhot & Lachapelle\, 2024).  \n\n\n\nTo tackle grand challenges\, attention has been given to alternative organizations and the positive societal impact they generate (e.g.\, Cavotta & Mena\, 2023)\, as well as to their prefigurative function of and for an alternative future—a future that is better aligned with social and environmental considerations (Bhatt\, Qureshi\, Shukla\, & Hota\, 2024; Schiller-Merkens\, 2024). Researchers commonly use the term alternative organizations to describe those that meaningfully depart from some of the defining characteristics of traditional corporations. Such alternative forms include\, among others\, cooperatives\, stakeholder firms\, social enterprises\, and employee-owned firms (e.g.\, Chen & Chen\, 2021; Kociatkiewicz\, Kostera\, & Parker\, 2021; Luyckx\, Schneider\, & Kourula\, 2022; Mair & Rathert\, 2021; Pek\, 2023).  \n\n\n\nWhen alternative forms of organizing have been studied in the discipline of management\, they have been largely reduced to incremental alternatives\, pointing to “anything different to the traditional for-profit model” (Barin Cruz\, Aquino Alves\, & Delbridge\, 2017: 324). Social enterprises are perhaps the quintessential incremental alternative. They have received a tremendous amount of scholarly attention to date in both management (Battilana & Lee\, 2014) and MLE research (Pache & Chowdhury\, 2012; Tracey & Phillips\, 2007).  \n\n\n\nIn this special issue\, we are specifically interested in fundamental (Barin Cruz et al.\, 2017) alternative forms of organizing\, which “challenge some of the classic principles of the capitalist system” (Barin Cruz et al.\, 2017: 323). Specifically\, we consider fundamental alternative organizations as embracing joint or collective ownership instead of private ownership (Chen & Chen\, 2021; Luyckx et al.\, 2022). This includes a broad diversity of organizations\, including cooperatives (Zamagni & Zamagni\, 2010)\, communes (Frye\, 2022)\, broad-based employee ownership in the form of employee ownership trusts (Michael\, 2017) and employee stock ownership plans (Blasi\, Scharf\, & Kruse\, 2023)\, Indigenous economic development corporations (Savic & Hoicka\, 2023)\, bicameral firms (Ferreras\, 2017)\, commons-based peer production (Benkler & Nissenbaum\, 2006)\, and community self-organizations\, such as collective Black enterprises in the Colombian Pacific (Tubb\, 2018). These organizations often\, but not always\, complement this distinctive approach to ownership with more democratic governance and management (Chen & Chen\, 2021; Pek\, 2021).  \n\n\n\nFundamental alternatives have received only marginal attention from MLE scholars (though there are some exceptions\, e.g.\, Audebrand\, Camus\, & Michaud\, 2017) and they continue to remain largely absent from mainstream management textbooks (Rankin & Piwko\, 2022). This curious lack of MLE engagement with fundamental alternative forms of organizing means that students graduating from business schools hoping to tackle grand challenges are not equipped with the tools and concepts necessary to be able to do so. For MLE scholarship to achieve its ostensible aim of producing socially conscientious leaders for a sustainable future\, business school curricula must be broadened so as to include these fundamental alternative organizations.  \n\n\n\nTo be sure\, this is no small feat. Those who have tried to incorporate such organizations into their curricula have identified a range of challenges. For example\, Audebrand and colleagues (2017) observed resistance from students (e.g.\, limited interest) as well as instructors (e.g.\, limited resources). Fournier (2006: 297) found that\, while students actively engaged with concepts pertaining to alternative organizing\, “they all demonstrated a lack of faith in their very possibility.” Yet\, there is some evidence of how MLE can subvert even the most culturally embedded of social systems. Zulfiqar and Prasad (2021)\, for example\, have illuminated how engaged pedagogy intended to raise consciousness on social inequalities among privileged business school students can unsettle and transcend taken-for-granted assumptions about the world.  \n\n\n\nWith an eye on tackling societal grand challenges\, MLE scholarship can and should play a major role in distilling the challenges to teaching and learning pertaining to fundamental alternative organizing and identifying solutions that can overcome them. These span the three domains of MLE research – i.e.\, the business of business schools\, management learning\, and management education (Lindebaum\, 2024) – and their intersectional phenomena\, including business schools’ and universities’ governance arrangements (Billsberry\, Ambrosini\, & Thomas\, 2023; Wright\, Greenwood\, & Boden\, 2011)\, inter-departmental relationships (Parker\, 2021)\, student consumerism (Naidoo\, Shankar\, & Veer\, 2011)\, and pedagogical interventions (Parker\, Racz\, & Palmer\, 2018; Reedy & Learmonth\, 2009). This special issue aims to generate new theory about fundamental alternative organizations and MLE and\, in so doing\, respond to calls for more critical thinking about the objectives of management education\, greater collaboration with other scholarly disciplines\, and a broadening of our pedagogical approaches (Colombo et al.\, 2024).  \n\n\n\nIllustrative Themes and Research Questions\n\n\n\nFundamental Alternative Organizations and the Business of Business Schools \n\n\n\n\nHow can challenges to incorporating fundamental alternatives be overcome by instructors\, business school leaders\, and accreditation agencies? For example\, would different approaches to business school governance—perhaps those modeled on fundamental alternatives themselves like Mondragon University (Wright et al.\, 2011)—be helpful in this regard?\n\n\n\nHow can fundamental alternatives be woven into professional and executive education programs targeted at professionals in both traditional businesses and fundamental alternatives? What are the opportunities to rethink existing business models in this regard\, such as developing targeted programs to support Cooperative Principle #5 on Education\, Training\, and Information from the statement of cooperative identity? (International Co-operative Alliance\, n.d.)\n\n\n\nHow does integrating fundamental alternatives into MLE affect business schools’ relationships with stakeholders such as corporate philanthropic partners?\n\n\n\nHow do fundamental alternatives configure in MLE in unique and contrasting ways across cultures? For instance\, do the form and/or effects of fundamental alternatives materialize differently in Global South versus Global North business school contexts?\n\n\n\nHow\, and to what effects\, could dominant publishers like Harvard Business Publishing better incorporate fundamental alternatives into their products? (Bridgman et al.\, 2016)\n\n\n\n\nFundamental Alternative Organizations and Management Learning \n\n\n\n\nWhat new skills and competencies can students acquire through different pedagogical strategies focused on fundamental alternatives? For example\, do these pedagogical strategies contribute to the development of civic capacities? (Colombo\, 2023) Paradoxically\, what skills and competencies might students inadvertently not acquire when moving MLE beyond its dominant focus on traditional business models to also include fundamental alternatives?\n\n\n\nWhat potential unintended consequences like the amplification of formal\, social\, and psychological disempowerment (Diefenbach\, 2020) might arise from teaching about fundamental alternatives?\n\n\n\nHow are instructors personally and professionally transformed through engaging with fundamental alternatives in their pedagogy? Do they\, for instance\, become more engaged in the governance of their business schools? Do they become more involved in activities that support the creation of fundamental alternatives? (Esper\, Cabantous\, Barin-Cruz\, & Gond\, 2017)\n\n\n\nHow can teaching fundamental alternatives inspire student entrepreneurs to develop new business models and practices (Pepin\, Tremblay\, Audebrand\, & Chassé\, 2024)?\n\n\n\nHow can teaching fundamental alternatives help students prefigure their paths toward a new economy (Schiller-Merkens\, 2024)? To what extent does it impact their identity (formation) as students\, as citizens\, and/or as entrepreneurs? (Solbreux\, Hermans\, Pondeville\, & Dufays\, 2024)\n\n\n\nDo the internal dynamics of fundamental alternatives offer new perspectives on diversity\, equity\, and inclusion (DEI) and\, if so\, how might they intervene in polemical debates over “woke” DEI policies taking place among business school academics? (Prasad & Śliwa\, 2024\n\n\n\n\nFundamental Alternative Organizations and Management Education \n\n\n\nFundamental alternative organizations have been largely ignored in contemporary MLE scholarship as evidenced in their omission in economics and management texts (e.g.\, Kalmi\, 2007; Rankin & Piwko\, 2022; Schugurensky & McCollum\, 2010). Instead\, the traditional investor-owned\, capitalist enterprise maintains a hegemonic presence in MLE despite growing concerns for more sustainability in business school education (Figueiró et al.\, 2022; Mailhot & Lachapelle\, 2024). MLE researchers can help unpack the factors that may have contributed to this state of affairs. \n\n\n\n\nRe-tracing the history of business schools (McLaren et al.\, 2021; Spicer\, Jaser\, & Wiertz\, 2021; Wanderley\, Alcadipani\, & Barros\, 2021)\, what key events may have contributed to the current marginal place of fundamental alternatives?\n\n\n\nWhat is the role of isomorphic pressures generated by key actors like accreditation bodies in silencing or making fundamental alternatives visible in management education? (Romero\, 2008)\n\n\n\nWhat is the role of broader social discourses like student consumerism (Naidoo et al.\, 2011) and managerialism (Clegg\, 2014) in undermining fundamental alternatives in MLE?\n\n\n\nWhy has MLE scholarship readily embraced incremental alternatives like social enterprises\, while not affording similar legitimacy to fundamental alternatives like worker cooperatives and broad-based employee ownership?\n\n\n\n\nWhile some authors have incorporated fundamental alternatives into their teaching (Audebrand et al.\, 2017; Fournier\, 2006)\, there is much to learn about how fundamental alternatives could be integrated into different pedagogies. Additionally\, we need a deeper understanding of the challenges instructors might face and how those challenges could be overcome. MLE scholarship has much to contribute to both of these closely related topics. \n\n\n\n\nHow can existing MLE pedagogies like experiential learning and service learning be translated to teach fundamental alternative organizations effectively? For example\, should students’ and instructors’ interactions with organizations in service learning projects (Mazutis\, 2024) differ in the case of fundamental alternatives versus incremental alternatives or traditional businesses?\n\n\n\nHow should educational efforts focused on fundamental alternatives be integrated and sequenced with those on traditional business topics (Pache & Chowdhury\, 2012)?\n\n\n\nHow can educational practices currently used to teach fundamental alternative organizations in other disciplines (e.g.\, Manley\, 2021; Meek & Woodworth\, 1990) be leveraged and translated into business schools?\n\n\n\nWhat challenges might instructors and students face when engaging with fundamental alternatives in different contexts (Audebrand et al.\, 2017; Fournier\, 2006)? For example\, how might student consumerism\, which varies across countries (Fairchild & Crage\, 2014)\, affect instructors’ implementation of pedagogical strategies targeted towards fundamental alternatives?\n\n\n\nHow can educational repositories like the Curriculum Library for Employee Ownership become legitimated as important empirical resources in delivering management education?\n\n\n\n\nWorkshop Structure\n\n\n\nWe welcome Research and Review\, Essay\, and Book and Resource Review submissions for this special issue. The agnostic ethos of AMLE in terms of underlying paradigms\, theories\, and methods is reiterated (for as long as a submission falls within the remit of AMLE). All of the journal’s standard formatting and peer review guidelines will apply. \n\n\n\nSubmission Types\n\n\n\nWe welcome Research and Review\, Essay\, and Book and Resource Review submissions for this special issue. The agnostic ethos of AMLE in terms of underlying paradigms\, theories\, and methods is reiterated (for as long as a submission falls within the remit of AMLE). All of the journal’s standard formatting and peer review guidelines will apply. \n\n\n\nInquiries\n\n\n\nThose interested in contributing to this special issue are welcome to contact Simon Pek (spek@uvic.ca) and Ajnesh Prasad (prasad@tec.mx) with their questions. We encourage authors interested in submitting a book or resource review to contact us prior to preparing a manuscript. Authors interested in submitting a book or resource review should identify the work to be reviewed and a brief explanation of how it fits the remit of the special issue. \n\n\n\nPlease note that consultation with the guest editors is neither a prerequisite nor an expectation for submission to the special issue. \n\n\n\nSpecial Issue Timeline and Process\n\n\n\nSubmissions will be accepted via AMLE’s Manuscript Central portal between November 1\, 2025 and December 15\, 2025. \n\n\n\nPrior to submission\, we will hold an optional virtual professional development workshop on June 25\, 2025\, for interested authors to receive feedback on their ideas. Those interested in participating in the workshop should e-mail a 3\,000-word proposal (including references) to Simon Pek (spek@uvic.ca) and Ajnesh Prasad (prasad@tec.mx) by May 15\, 2025. We also plan to offer workshops to discuss this special issue at the 85th Academy of Management Conference in Copenhagen and the 41st EGOS Colloquium in Athens. We will share more details about these and other opportunities when available via the AMLE website and various listservs. While we encourage interested contributors to participate in these opportunities\, they are not a prerequisite for\, or a guarantee of\, eventual acceptance in the special issue. \n\n\n\nFollowing our first-round decisions\, we will hold a second optional professional development workshop for authors who receive a revise and resubmit decision following the first round of peer review. It is tentatively scheduled for Spring 2025\, and full details will be shared when available. \n\n\n\nReferences\n\n\n\nAudebrand\, L. K.\, Camus\, A.\, & Michaud\, V. 2017. A mosquito in the classroom: Using the cooperative business model to foster paradoxical thinking in management education. Journal of Management Education\, 41(2): 216–248. \n\n\n\nBarin Cruz\, L.\, Aquino Alves\, M.\, & Delbridge\, R. 2017. Next steps in organizing alternatives to capitalism: toward a relational research agenda. Introduction to the Special Issue. M@n@gement\, 20(4): 322–335. \n\n\n\nBattilana\, J.\, & Lee\, M. 2014. Advancing research on hybrid organizing – Insights from the study of social enterprises. Academy of Management Annals\, 8(1): 397–441. \n\n\n\nBenkler\, Y.\, & Nissenbaum\, H. 2006. Commons-based peer production and virtue. Journal of Political Philosophy\, 14(4): 394–419. \n\n\n\nBhatt\, B.\, Qureshi\, I.\, Shukla\, D. M.\, & Hota\, P. K. 2024. Prefiguring alternative organizing: Confronting marginalization through projective cultural adjustment and tempered autonomy. Organization Studies\, 45(1): 59–84. \n\n\n\nBillsberry\, J.\, Ambrosini\, V.\, & Thomas\, L. 2023. Managerialist control in post-pandemic business schools: The tragedy of the new normal and a new hope. Academy of Management Learning & Education\, 22(3)\, 439-458. \n\n\n\nBlasi\, J.\, Scharf\, A.\, & Kruse\, D. 2023. Employee ownership in the US: Some issues on ESOPs – overcoming the barriers to further development. Journal of Participation and Employee Ownership\, ahead-of-print(ahead-of-print). https://doi.org/10.1108/JPEO-11-2022-0028. \n\n\n\nBridgman\, T.\, Cummings\, S.\, & McLaughlin\, C. 2016. Restating the case: How revisiting the development of the case method can help us think differently about the future of the business school. Academy of Management Learning & Education\, 15(4)\, 724-741. \n\n\n\nCavotta\, V.\, & Mena\, S. 2023. Prosocial organizing and the distance between core and community work. Organization Studies\, 44(4): 637–657. \n\n\n\nChen\, K. K.\, & Chen\, V. T. 2021. “What if” and “if only” futures beyond conventional capitalism and bureaucracy: Imagining collectivist and democratic possibilities for organizing. In K. K. Chen & V. T. Chen (Eds.)\, Research in the sociology of organizations: 1–28. Emerald Publishing Limited. \n\n\n\nClegg\, S. R. 2014. Managerialism: Born in the USA. Academy of Management Review\, 39(4): 566–576. \n\n\n\nColombo\, L. A. 2023. Civilize the business school: For a civic management education. Academy of Management Learning & Education\, 22(1): 132–149. \n\n\n\nColombo\, L. A.\, Moser\, C.\, Muehlfeld\, K.\, & Joy\, S. 2024. Sowing the seeds of change: Calling for a social–ecological approach to management learning and education. Academy of Management Learning & Education\, 23(2): 207–213. \n\n\n\nDiefenbach\, T. 2020. The democratic organisation: Democracy and the future of work. Routledge. \n\n\n\nEsper\, S. C.\, Cabantous\, L.\, Barin-Cruz\, L.\, & Gond\, J.-P. 2017. Supporting alternative organizations? Exploring scholars’ involvement in the performativity of worker-recuperated enterprises. Organization\, 24(5): 671–699. \n\n\n\nFairchild\, E.\, & Crage\, S. 2014. Beyond the debates: Measuring and specifying student consumerism. Sociological Spectrum\, 34(5): 403–420. \n\n\n\nFerreras\, I. 2017. Firms as political entities: Saving democracy through economic bicameralism. Cambridge University Press. \n\n\n\nFigueiró\, P. S.\, Neutzling\, D. M.\, & Lessa\, B. 2022. Education for sustainability in higher education institutions: A multi-perspective proposal with a focus on management education. Journal of Cleaner Production\, 339: 130539. \n\n\n\nFotaki\, M.\, & Prasad\, A. 2015. Questioning neoliberal capitalism and economic inequality in business schools. Academy of Management Learning & Education\, 14(4): 556–575. \n\n\n\nFournier\, V. 2006. Breaking from the weight of the eternal present: Teaching organizational difference. Management Learning\, 37(3): 295–311. \n\n\n\nFrye\, H. 2022. Commons\, Communes\, and Freedom. Politics\, Philosophy & Economics\, 21(2): 228–244. \n\n\n\nInternational Co-operative Alliance. n.d. Cooperative identity\, values & principles. https://www.ica.coop/en/cooperatives/cooperative-identity\, February 4\, 2021. \n\n\n\nKalmi\, P. 2007. The disappearance of cooperatives from economics textbooks. Cambridge Journal of Economics\, 31(4): 625–647. \n\n\n\nKociatkiewicz\, J.\, Kostera\, M.\, & Parker\, M. 2021. The possibility of disalienated work: Being at home in alternative organizations. Human Relations\, 74(7): 933–957. \n\n\n\nKumar\, A.\, Soundararajan\, V.\, Bapuji\, H.\, Köhler\, T.\, Alcadipani\, R.\, Morsing\, M.\, & Coraiola\, D. M. 2024. Unequal Worlds: Management Education and Inequalities. Academy of Management Learning & Education\, 23(3)\, 379-386. \n\n\n\nLindebaum\, D. 2024. Management Learning and Education as “big picture” social science. Academy of Management Learning & Education\, 23(1): 1–7. \n\n\n\nLocke\, R. R.\, & Spender\, J.-C. 2011. Confronting managerialism: How the business elite and their schools threw our lives out of balance. Bloomsbury Publishing. \n\n\n\nLuyckx\, J.\, Schneider\, A.\, & Kourula\, A. 2022. Learning from alternatives: Analyzing alternative ways of organizing as starting points for improving the corporation. In R. E. Meyer\, S. Leixnering\, & J. Veldman (Eds.)\, Research in the Sociology of Organizations: 209–231. Emerald Publishing Limited. \n\n\n\nMailhot\, C.\, & Lachapelle\, M. D. 2024. Teaching management in the context of Grand Challenges: A pragmatist approach. Management Learning\, 55(2): 167–191. \n\n\n\nMair\, J.\, & Rathert\, N. 2021. Alternative organizing with social purpose: Revisiting institutional analysis of market-based activity. Socio-Economic Review\, 19(2): 817–836. \n\n\n\nManley\, S. W.\, Julian. 2021. Co-operative education: From Mondragón and Bilbao to Preston. The Preston Model and Community Wealth Building. Routledge. \n\n\n\nMazutis\, D. 2024. Making a difference: Taking community stakeholders seriously. Academy of Management Learning & Education\, amle.2022.0342. \n\n\n\nMcLaren\, P. G.\, Bridgman\, T.\, Cummings\, S.\, Lubinski\, C.\, O’Connor\, E.\, et al. 2021. From the editors—new times\, new histories of the business school. Academy of Management Learning & Education\, 20(3): 293–299. \n\n\n\nMeek\, C. B.\, & Woodworth\, W. P. 1990. Technical training and enterprise: Mondragon’s Educational system and its implications for other cooperatives. Economic and Industrial Democracy\, 11(4): 505–528. \n\n\n\nMichael\, C. 2017. The Employee Ownership Trust\, an ESOP Alternative. Probate and Property\, 31(1): 42–47. \n\n\n\nNaidoo\, R.\, Shankar\, A.\, & Veer\, E. 2011. The consumerist turn in higher education: Policy aspirations and outcomes. Journal of Marketing Management\, 27(11–12): 1142–1162. \n\n\n\nPache\, A.-C.\, & Chowdhury\, I. 2012. Social entrepreneurs as institutionally embedded entrepreneurs: Toward a new model of social entrepreneurship education. Academy of Management Learning & Education\, 11(3): 494–510. \n\n\n\nParker\, M. 2018. Shut Down the Business School. London: Pluto Press. https://ideas.repec.org//b/ucp/bkecon/9780745399171.html. \n\n\n\nParker\, M. 2021. The critical business school and the university: A case study of resistance and co-optation. Critical Sociology\, 47(7–8): 1111–1124. \n\n\n\nParker\, S.\, Racz\, M. M.\, & Palmer\, P. W. 2018. Decentering the learner through alternative organizations. Academy of Management Proceedings\, 2018(1): 16086. \n\n\n\nPek\, S. 2021. Drawing out democracy: The role of sortition in preventing and overcoming organizational degeneration in worker-owned firms. Journal of Management Inquiry\, 30(2): 193–206. \n\n\n\nPek\, S. 2023. Reconceptualizing and improving member participation in large cooperatives: Insights from deliberative democracy and deliberative mini-publics. M@n@gement\, 26(4)\, 68-82. \n\n\n\nPepin\, M.\, Tremblay\, M.\, Audebrand\, L. K.\, & Chassé\, S. 2024. The responsible business model canvas: Designing and assessing a sustainable business modeling tool for students and start-up entrepreneurs. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education\, 25(3): 514–538. \n\n\n\nPrasad\, A.\, & Śliwa\, M. 2024. Critiquing the backlash against wokeness: In defense of DEI scholarship and practice. Academy of Management Perspectives\, 38(2): 245-259. \n\n\n\nRankin\, R.\, & Piwko\, P. M. 2022. An analysis of the coverage of cooperatives in U.S. introductory business textbooks. Journal of Accounting and Finance\, 22(3). https://articlearchives.co/index.php/JAF/article/view/5228. \n\n\n\nReedy\, P.\, & Learmonth\, M. 2009. Other possibilities? The contribution to management education of alternative organizations. Management Learning\, 40(3): 241–258. \n\n\n\nRomero\, E. J. 2008. AACSB accreditation: Addressing faculty concerns. Academy of Management Learning & Education\, 7(2): 245–255. \n\n\n\nSavic\, K.\, & Hoicka\, C. E. 2023. Indigenous legal forms and governance structures in renewable energy: Assessing the role and perspectives of First Nations economic development corporations. Energy Research & Social Science\, 101\, 103121. \n\n\n\nSchiller-Merkens\, S. 2024. Prefiguring an alternative economy: Understanding prefigurative organizing and its struggles. Organization\, 31(3): 458–476. \n\n\n\nSchugurensky\, D.\, & McCollum\, E. 2010. Notes in the margins: The social economy in economics and business textbooks. Researching the Social Economy: 154–175. University of Toronto Press. \n\n\n\nSolbreux\, J.\, Hermans\, J.\, Pondeville\, S.\, & Dufays\, F. 2024. It all starts with a story: Questioning dominant entrepreneurial identities through collective narrative practices. International Small Business Journal\, 42(1): 90–123. \n\n\n\nSpicer\, A.\, Jaser\, Z.\, & Wiertz\, C. 2021. The future of the business school: Finding hope in alternative pasts. Academy of Management Learning & Education\, 20(3): 459–466. \n\n\n\nTracey\, P.\, & Phillips\, N. 2007. The distinctive challenge of educating social entrepreneurs: A postscript and rejoinder to the special issue on entrepreneurship education. Academy of Management Learning & Education\, 6(2): 264–271. \n\n\n\nTubb\, D. G. L. 2018. The everyday social economy of Afro-descendants in the Chocó\, Colombia. In C. S. Hossein (Ed.)\, The Black social economy in the Americas: Exploring diverse community-based markets: 97–117. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. \n\n\n\nWanderley\, S.\, Alcadipani\, R.\, & Barros\, A. 2021. Recentering the Global South in the making of business school histories: Dependency ambiguity in action. Academy of Management Learning & Education\, 20(3): 361–381. \n\n\n\nWright\, S.\, Greenwood\, D.\, & Boden\, R. 2011. Report on a field visit to Mondragón University: A cooperative experience/experiment. Learning and Teaching\, 4(3): 38–56. \n\n\n\nZamagni\, S.\, & Zamagni\, V. 2010. Cooperative enterprise: Facing the challenge of globalization. Edward Elgar Publishing. \n\n\n\nZulfiqar\, G.\, & Prasad\, A. 2021. Challenging social inequality in the Global South: Class\, privilege\, and consciousness-raising through critical management education. Academy of Management Learning & Education\, 20(2): 156-181.
URL:https://www.aom.org/event/management-learning-and-education-as-drivers-of-fundamental-alternative-forms-of-organizing-2/
CATEGORIES:Call for Special Issue Papers,Journal Workshops & Publications Events
ATTACH;FMTTYPE=image/png:https://www.aom.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/amle_cfs.png
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=America/New_York:20251001T000000
DTEND;TZID=America/New_York:20251031T000000
DTSTAMP:20260526T074949
CREATED:20260226T041304Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20260429T180603Z
UID:10000021-1759276800-1761868800@www.aom.org
SUMMARY:AMD Special Research Forum - Organizational Insights in Health Care
DESCRIPTION:Initial Submission Window: 1 October 2025- 31 October 2025 \n\n\n\nGuest Editors\n\n\n\n\nMarlys Christianson\, University of Toronto\n\n\n\nBrian Hilligoss\, University of Arizona\n\n\n\nChristopher Myers\, Johns Hopkins University (AMD Associate Editor)\n\n\n\nKathleen Sutcliffe\, Johns Hopkins University\n\n\n\nTimothy Vogus\, Vanderbilt University\n\n\n\n\nOverview\n\n\n\nRecent years have seen a cascade of changes to work organizations\, impacting every facet of organizational life\, from the nature of employee collaboration to the fundamental structure and boundaries of what it means to be an “organization.” These changes are of interest to management and organizational scholars\, inviting empirical research that can help illuminate new or under-explored organizational phenomena in ways that update\, refine\, and advance the field’s understanding of the modern world of work.  \n\n\n\nNowhere are these evolving\, complex\, and dynamic features of work organizations more apparent than in the domain of health care\, as seen in the increased attention to human and organizational determinants of health care since the turn of the century (e.g.\, To Err is Human\, 2000)\, more recent evolutions in health care structure and financing (e.g.\, through the 2010 Affordable Care Act in the United States)\, and the turbulence of the global COVID-19 pandemic (and its associated disruptions to the world of work). Clearly\, health care has seen an incredible array of challenges and advancements in the recent past\, and the future promises more of the same.  \n\n\n\nHealth care is an inherently broad domain\, encompassing not only organizations that directly provide health care to patients\, but also an array of related industries\, regulators\, funders\, and professions that together create a maze of organizational and interpersonal interdependencies. As Ramanujam and Rousseau (2006) note\, the health care setting is characterized by multiple (and at times conflicting) missions\, a multi-professional workforce\, complex external environments (with a wide range of stakeholders)\, and the provision of inherently complex\, dynamic work tasks. Moreover\, by most metrics (GDP\, employment\, spending\, utilization\, etc.)\, health care is a dominant sector of the global economy\, and is a domain where failures of organization and management have dire consequences (Mayo\, Myers\, Sutcliffe\, 2021; Ramanujam & Rousseau\, 2006). \n\n\n\nOrganizational Science and Health Care\n\n\n\nGiven these features\, health care contexts represent an incredibly valuable research domain for management scholars interested in a wide range of topics and levels of analysis. As DiBenigno and D’Aunno (2024) recently commented\, health care “has it all\,” with prior work exploring this context from macro-\, meso-\, and micro-level perspectives to generate valuable insights. Given the inherently interdisciplinary nature of studying organizational phenomena in the health care setting\, past work has spanned a range of disciplines\, often bridging domains of organizational scholarship\, industrial relations\, and health care scholarship (e.g.\, health policy\, health services research\, medicine\, medical sociology\, and nursing)\, yielding key insights for theory and practice. \n\n\n\nFor example\, integrating across these disciplines\, we know that organizational strategic choices have important implications for both adherence to evidence-based practices and financial outcomes (e.g.\, Everson\, Lee\, & Adler-Milstein\, 2016; Lee & Kapoor\, 2017) and that institutional and network factors influence the adoption of new health innovations and technologies across the industry (e.g.\, D’Aunno\, Succi\, & Alexander\, 2000; Westphal\, Gulati\, & Shortell\, 1997). We also know that team-based care can be important for enhancing the provision of care (e.g.\, Reddy et al.\, 2018; Reiss-Brennan et al.\, 2016)\, and that factors such as experience working together\, team scaffolds\, boundary management\, and training can enhance health care team effectiveness (e.g.\, Hughes et al.\, 2016; Luciano et al.\, 2018; Mayo\, 2022; Valentine & Edmondson\, 2015). At the individual level\, we have some understanding of the impact of health care workers’ strong professional identities (e.g.\, DiBenigno\, 2022; Pratt\, Rockmann\, & Kauffman\, 2006) and how health care workers’ job satisfaction is enhanced by perceptions about leadership\, teamwork\, and justice (e.g.\, Perry et al.\, 2018; Djukic et al.\, 2017; Sheridan et al.\, 2018; Trybou et al.\, 2016). \n\n\n\nThe examples above provide just a sampling of the ways in which organizational phenomena can be studied and understood in health care settings in ways that shed light on the experience of work in modern organizations. Indeed\, in their recent review of the field\, Mayo and colleagues (2021) take stock of the body of scholarship in both management- and health-focused journals that address organizational phenomena\, detailing some of the more well-studied topics across the field (specifically organizational change\, learning\, coordination/collaboration\, teaming\, and performance). \n\n\n\nThis recent review\, however\, also highlights the much longer list of organizational topics that have received comparatively less attention in past research on health care (see Mayo et al.\, 2021; Table 2 – provided as an appendix to this Call for Papers). In addition\, Mayo and colleagues (2021) highlight the fragmentation and dispersion of existing research in the field across different outlets (i.e.\, management vs. health care journals) and different research orientations. Specifically\, they highlight a tendency\, often observed in research published in management journals\, for researchers to treat health care as merely an incidental context from which they seek to glean universally generalizable theory about organizing processes (which they term “organizational science in health care”). This contrasts with a tendency\, observed more frequently in health care journals\, to deploy organizational concepts to solve specific problems and generate insights unique to a particular health care domain or organization (in pursuit of what the authors term an “organizational science of health care”; Mayo et al.\, 2021). Each of these approaches has advantages and drawbacks\, leading the authors to conclude their review with a call for more work that stands in between these extant approaches – adopting an “organizational science and health care” orientation that balances generalizability and contextualization and offers insights for both organizing and organizations in health care and beyond (Mayo et al.\, 2021). \n\n\n\nGoals of the Special Issue\n\n\n\nGiven the list of organizational phenomena unexplored in health care settings\, as well as the disparate approaches taken in prior work\, the goals of this special issue are to publish novel empirical explorations while taking seriously the invitation to balance organizational science and health care – in other words\, work that takes seriously both the charge to develop a richly contextualized understanding of a key empirical discovery and develop its implications for a more generalized understanding of work\, strategy\, organizations\, management\, and institutions. \n\n\n\nWe see these as complementary goals – recognizing that generalizability is enhanced\, rather than harmed\, by careful attention to contextualizing research (Johns\, 2006; Rousseau & Fried\, 2001) – and ones that are particularly well-suited to the nature of AMD as an outlet for “articles motivated by research questions that address compelling and underexplored phenomena … that present clear and compelling discoveries: empirical findings that challenge existing assumptions while opening new theoretical paths or that otherwise promote future\, ‘down-the-road\,’ theorizing.” (AMD website) \n\n\n\nWe invite papers that study any organizational phenomena relevant to the experience and functioning of health care (broadly defined) for this special issue. This could include “classic” topics central to organizational scholarship that are particularly visible or impactful\, but still poorly understood\, in health care (i.e.\, many of the topics listed in Table 2 of Mayo et al.\, 2021; see Appendix). It also includes phenomena that are particular to health care settings\, but might carry important implications for all organizational environments (e.g.\, the study of handoffs and transitions\, which are central to health care delivery settings\, but are increasingly occurring in many organizations that switch to project-based work coordinated across disparate teams or units; Hilligoss & Vogus\, 2015; LeBaron et al.\, 2016). \n\n\n\nWe intentionally take a “big tent” view of health care\, recognizing that care is increasingly delivered outside of clinical settings and organizations (including at home or in the workplace); that this care relies on inputs from a broad range of industries\, professions\, and individuals; and that the health of the workforce is increasingly considered a core responsibility of any organization’s leadership (e.g.\, via a corporate Chief Medical Officer; Myers\, Polsky\, & Desai\, 2022). We thus welcome submissions that consider a variety of dimensions of health and health care (including mental health) at any level of analysis. We also encourage submissions that involve and engage practitioners in the development and presentation of discoveries (for more\, see the recent AMD “From the Editors” essay on practitioner involvement in empirical research; Ben-Menahem\, 2024). \n\n\n\nSample Topics\n\n\n\nThe topics listed below present a non-exhaustive list of empirical phenomena in health care that might be appropriate for this special issue. We\, however\, stress again that the scope for this special issue is intentionally quite broad and we welcome submissions from a broad range of conceptual traditions\, methods\, and domains. Moreover\, most of the topics below are subject to empirical exploration at different levels of analysis or across multiple levels of analysis (as is true of many aspects of health care). In each domain\, research might fruitfully explore the implications for workers and the workforce\, the consequences for organizations or patients (e.g.\, their experience of care and quality of care)\, or the impact of relevant policy\, industry\, and organizational conditions. Questions about the suitability of a particular topic should be directed to a member of the editorial team. \n\n\n\n\nEvolving Intersections of Health Care and Work\n\nIntroduction of AI in health and health care\n\n\n\nUse of new technologies (e.g.\, robotics\, additive manufacturing) in health care\n\n\n\nDisruptive events and health crises (e.g.\, COVID-19)\n\n\n\nThe individual\, organizational\, and sectoral/institutional consequences of operating in a politically charged and polarized domain\n\n\n\nThe competing ethics of health care and care delivery (e.g.\, professional\, organizational\, and personal ethics)\n\n\n\n\n\nStructural Shifts in Health Care\n\nNew ownership and governance structures (e.g.\, private equity investments)\n\n\n\nFunding\, payment\, and regulatory shifts affecting health care\n\n\n\nProvision of health services (e.g.\, caregiving\, mental health care) in non-health organizations and work settings\n\n\n\nPersonalized medicine\n\n\n\nComplex system dynamics and achieving safe\, reliable care\n\n\n\n\n\nTrends in Health Care Delivery\n\nEmergence of new professions (or proto-professions like community health workers)\, evolution of professional roles\, and changing scope-of-practice\n\n\n\nNew work arrangements (e.g.\, remote work\, “travel” nursing)\n\n\n\nNew modalities of care delivery (e.g.\, virtual health care and telemedicine)\n\n\n\nWork implications of home health care and long-term care providers\n\n\n\nWorkforce composition and demographics\, workload\, and burnout\n\n\n\nGlobalization of the health care workforce\n\n\n\nLearning and decision-making in the face of limited evidence (e.g.\, COVID-19 treatment)\n\n\n\n\n\n\nAbout AMD\n\n\n\nAMD is a premier journal for the empirical exploration of data describing or investigating compelling phenomena. AMD is not a journal for deductive theorizing or hypothesis testing. Authors are encouraged to present findings without the need to “reverse engineer” any theoretical framework or hypotheses. AMD publishes discoveries resulting from both quantitative and qualitative data sources. AMD articles are phenomenon-forward rather than theory-forward. This means that AMD papers look quite different in comparison to articles sent to other empirical journals. The goal at the front end of an AMD paper should primarily be to demonstrate the novelty/interestingness of the phenomenon and why current theory fails to explain the phenomenon. It is in the discussion of an AMD paper where a plausible theoretical explanation—the theoretical contribution—is provided. The goal for every AMD paper is that the discoveries derived from empirical exploration open new lines of research inquiry. For further information about the goals of AMD\, we encourage potential submitters to review recent “From-the-Editors” articles from AMD’s current and previous Editors (Miller\, 2024; Rockmann\, 2023) or visit the AMD website. \n\n\n\nSubmission Guidelines\n\n\n\nStandard guidelines apply to papers sent in for this Special Issue. Manuscripts may be submitted as traditional papers or as Discoveries-through-Prose. Discoveries-through-Prose are crafted in more creative and engaging ways than traditional papers. When composing such manuscripts\, we encourage authors to relax their use of traditional headings and traditional “academic writing” in order to create a compelling narrative from start to finish. More information about Discoveries-through-Prose can be found on the AMD website. \n\n\n\nReferences\n\n\n\nBen-Menahem\, S. M. 2024. Engaging practitioners in empirical exploration. Academy of Management Discoveries\, 10(2): 155-162. \n\n\n\nD’Aunno\, T.\, Succi\, M.\, & Alexander\, J. A. 2000. The role of institutional and market forces in divergent organizational change. Administrative Science Quarterly\, 45(4): 679-703. \n\n\n\nDiBenigno\, J. 2022. How idealized professional identities can persist through client interactions. Administrative Science Quarterly\, 67(3): 865-912. \n\n\n\nDiBenigno\, J.\, & D’Aunno\, T. 2024. A necessary prescription: How studies of healthcare can advance theory and practice. Administrative Science Quarterly. Research Curation. \n\n\n\nDjukic\, M.\, Jun\, J.\, Kovner\, C.\, Brewer\, C.\, & Fletcher\, J. 2017. Determinants of job satisfaction for novice nurse managers employed in hospitals. Health Care Management Review\, 42(2): 172-183. \n\n\n\nEverson\, J.\, Lee\, S. Y. D.\, & Adler-Milstein\, J. 2016. Achieving adherence to evidence-based practices: Are health IT and hospital-physician integration complementary or substitutive strategies? Medical Care Research and Review\, 73(6): 724–751. \n\n\n\nHilligoss\, B.\, & Vogus\, T. J. 2015. Navigating care transitions: A process model of how doctors overcome organizational barriers and create awareness. Medical Care Research and Review\, 72(1): 25-48. \n\n\n\nHughes\, A. M.\, Gregory\, M. E.\, Joseph\, D. L.\, Sonesh\, S. C.\, Marlow\, S. L.\, Lacerenza\, C. N.\, Benishek\, L. E.\, King\, H. B.\, & Salas\, E. 2016. Saving lives: A meta-analysis of team training in healthcare. Journal of Applied Psychology\, 101(9): 1266-1304. \n\n\n\nJohns\, G. 2001. In praise of context. Journal of Organizational Behavior\, 22(1): 31-42. \n\n\n\nKohn\, L. T.\, Corrigan\, J. M.\, & Donaldson\, M. S. 2000. To Err Is Human: Building a Safer Health System. Institute of Medicine. Washington\, DC: National Academies Press. \n\n\n\nLeBaron\, C.\, Christianson\, M. K.\, Garrett\, L.\, & Ilan\, R. 2016. Coordinating flexible performance during everyday work: An ethnomethodological study of handoff routines. Organization Science\, 27(3): 514-534. \n\n\n\nLee\, J. M.\, & Kapoor\, R. 2017. Complementarities and coordination: Implications for governance mode and performance of multiproduct firms. Organization Science\, 28(5): 931–946. \n\n\n\nLuciano\, M. M.\, Bartels\, A. L.\, D’Innocenzo\, L.\, Maynard\, M. T.\, & Mathieu\, J. E. 2018. Shared team experiences and team effectiveness: Unpacking the contingent effects of entrained rhythms and task characteristics. Academy of Management Journal\, 61(4): 1403-1430. \n\n\n\nMayo\, A. T. 2022. Syncing up: A process model of emergent interdependence in dynamic teams. Administrative Science Quarterly\, 67(3): 821-864. \n\n\n\nMayo\, A. T.\, Myers\, C. G.\, & Sutcliffe\, K. M. 2021. Organizational science and health care. Academy of Management Annals\, 15(2): 537-576. \n\n\n\nMiller\, C. C. 2024. Pirates\, adventurers\, and free spirits: The people of Academy of Management Discoveries. Academy of Management Discoveries\, 10(1): 1-6. \n\n\n\nMyers\, C. G.\, Polsky\, D.\, & Desai\, S. 2022. The growing role of chief medical officers in major corporations. JAMA Health Forum\, 3(7): e222194. \n\n\n\nPerry\, S. J.\, Richter\, J. P.\, & Beauvais\, B. 2018. The effects of nursing satisfaction and turnover cognitions on patient attitudes and outcomes: A three‐level multisource study. Health Services Research\, 53(6): 4943-4969. \n\n\n\nPratt\, M. G.\, Rockmann\, K. W.\, & Kaufmann\, J. B. 2006. Constructing professional identity: The role of work and identity learning cycles in the customization of identity among medical residents. Academy of Management Journal\, 49(2): 235-262. \n\n\n\nRamanujam\, R.\, & Rousseau\, D. M. 2006. The challenges are organizational not just clinical. Journal of Organizational Behavior\, 27(7): 811–827. \n\n\n\nReddy\, A.\, Wong\, E.\, Canamucio\, A.\, Nelson\, K.\, Fihn\, S. D.\, Yoon\, J.\, & Werner\, R. M. 2018. Association between continuity and team-based care and health care utilization: An observational study of medicare-eligible veterans in VA patient aligned care team. Health Services Research\, 53(2): 5201-5218. \n\n\n\nReiss-Brennan\, B.\, Brunisholz\, K. D.\, Dredge\, C.\, Briot\, P.\, Grazier\, K.\, Wilcox\, A.\, Savitz\, L.\, & James\, B. 2016. Association of integrated team-based care with health care quality\, utilization\, and cost. JAMA\, 316(8): 826-829. \n\n\n\nRockmann\, K. 2023. Embracing an exploratory mindset: How amd is changing the script of good science. Academy of Management Discoveries\, 9(4): 419-423. \n\n\n\nRousseau\, D. M.\, & Fried\, Y. 2001. Location\, location\, location: Contextualizing organizational research. Journal of Organizational Behavior\, 22(1): 1-13. \n\n\n\nSheridan\, B.\, Chien\, A. T.\, Peters\, A. S.\, Rosenthal\, M. B.\, Brooks\, J. V.\, & Singer\, S. J. 2018. Team-based primary care. Health Care Management Review\, 43(2): 115-125. \n\n\n\nTrybou\, J.\, Gemmel\, P.\, & Annemans\, L. 2016. The impact of economic and noneconomic exchange on physicians’ organizational attitudes. Health Care Management Review\, 41(1): 75-85. \n\n\n\nValentine\, M. A.\, & Edmondson\, A. C. 2015. Team scaffolds: How mesolevel structures enable role-based coordination in temporary groups. Organization Science\, 26(2): 405-422. \n\n\n\nWestphal\, J. D.\, Gulati\, R.\, & Shortell\, S. M. 1997. Customization or conformity? An institutional and network perspective on the content and consequences of TQM adoption. Administrative Science Quarterly\, 42(2): 366-394.  \n\n\n\nAppendix\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nReproduced from: Mayo\, A. T.\, Myers\, C. G.\, & Sutcliffe\, K. M. 2021. Organizational science and health care. Academy of Management Annals\, 15(2): 537-576.
URL:https://www.aom.org/event/amd-special-research-forum-organizational-insights-in-health-care/
CATEGORIES:Call for Special Issue Papers,Journal Workshops & Publications Events
ATTACH;FMTTYPE=image/png:https://www.aom.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/amd_cfs.png
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=America/New_York:20251001T000000
DTEND;TZID=America/New_York:20251031T000000
DTSTAMP:20260526T074949
CREATED:20260226T041303Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20260429T181058Z
UID:10000020-1759276800-1761868800@www.aom.org
SUMMARY:AMP Call for Special Issue Papers: Making it Better by Working Together
DESCRIPTION:Submit via the AMP Manuscript Central site\n\n\n\n\nSee the related Paper Development Workshop details for this Special Issue. \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nGuest Editors:\n\n\n\n\nSophie Bacq\, IMD\, Switzerland\n\n\n\nJanet Bercovitz\, University of Colorado\, USA\n\n\n\nFrank de Bakker\, IESEG School of Management\, France\n\n\n\nAline Gatignon\, University of Pennsylvania\, USA\n\n\n\nIrene Henriques\, York University\, Canada\n\n\n\n\nAMP Associate Editor:\n\n\n\n\nSandro Cabral\, Insper\, Brazil\n\n\n\n\nBackground\n\n\n\nThe COVID-19 pandemic underscored that complex problems cannot be effectively tackled by organizations acting in isolation. Collaboration between businesses\, governments\, and civil society organizations proved necessary. The coordinated response from pharmaceutical companies\, public authorities\, nonprofit organizations\, and social enterprises leveraging their financial resources\, expertise\, and local knowledge to develop and distribute reliable and effective vaccines\, was vital in saving lives worldwide. 1 This cooperation not only addressed immediate public health needs but also established a precedent for future collaborative responses to global challenges. Similarly\, major technological innovations such as smartphones owe their existence to substantial public investments in basic research\, the entrepreneurial spirit of private innovators\, and the significant contributions of nonprofit institutions like Stanford University.2 In the same vein\, coordinated actions between firms and civil society groups have proven essential in reducing deforestation and increasing community well-being while ensuring economic benefits for businesses and numerous stakeholders in underserved communities.3 \n\n\n\nDespite these success stories\, management scholarship has been slow to embrace the full complexity of cross-sectoral collaborations. It frequently emphasizes free-market solutions and the business case for collaboration—such as how firms can leverage relationships with public and civil society organizations—while tending to overlook broader societal challenges. 4 In this special issue\, we aim to highlight practical ways that these relationships can be reshaped to better address the evolving social\, environmental\, and economic challenges of our time. \n\n\n\nScope and Open-Ended Research Questions\n\n\n\nWe invite scholarly studies that explain how the major challenges of our time can be or have been better addressed through specific reconfigurations of the relationships between firms\, governments\, and civil society organizations\, which include nonprofits cooperatives\, associations\, and social movements. We encourage both conceptual and empirical papers that are grounded in rigorous analysis and support specific and significant managerial and policy actions. In short\, we want papers that show what can or does work\, in ways that managers and policymakers can use. \n\n\n\nPlease note that AMP’s mission and format differ from many other leading academic journals. AMP papers are managerially driven\, not theory driven. Successful submissions clearly define the managerial issue from the outset and make a compelling case for its importance. They do not simply tack managerial implications on to a standard academic study. Rather\, AMP papers provide actionable insights that guide managerial behavior and influence policy decisions. We strongly encourage potential authors to review AMP’s guidelines at aom.org/amp before submission. Note that we also welcome Practitioner Perspectives essays and Constructive Confrontations papers for this special issue. Guidance for both formats is also on our website. \n\n\n\nFor this special issue\, we welcome submissions of relevant\, rigorous\, and readable papers that address a broad range of topics\, including but not limited to the following: \n\n\n\n\nBridging Different Perspectives and Interests: Which frameworks and processes can bring together diverse stakeholders with differing objectives to foster alignment and cooperation? How can collaborations be structured to benefit all parties involved? How do firms\, either in isolation or in collaboration with other cross-sector partners\, reconcile financial performance and societal goals?\n\n\n\nAccounting for Power Imbalances: How can the power disparities between larger entities\, such as governments\, multilateral organizations\, multinational corporations\, and smaller actors\, such as nonprofits\, local communities\, and disenfranchised groups\, be addressed to foster more equitable and effective partnerships? What innovative approaches can mitigate these imbalances and ensure that all actors are meaningfully included in decision-making? How can we foster collaborative governance arrangements and effectively engage firms\, nonprofits\, and civil society organizations when governments take a leading role in these efforts\, particularly in addressing grand challenges?\n\n\n\nIntegrating Understudied or Underserved Communities: How can we center the voices of understudied or underserved communities in cross-sector collaborations? How can we avoid “helicoptering” solutions into and out of these communities? What roles can these communities play as central actors in addressing societal challenges?\n\n\n\nGeographic Levels of Collaboration: How do solutions to societal problems vary across different geographic levels\, from local to global? How can polycentric governance models—where decision-making occurs across multiple\, interconnected scales—be employed to address global challenges while considering local needs? What level of analysis should managers adopt as they consider these challenges?\n\n\n\nInstitutional Context and Country Settings: How can institutional frameworks and country-specific factors be accounted for and managed in cross-sector collaborations? How can different governance structures\, legal frameworks\, and cultural contexts be addressed to improve the success of these partnerships? How does corporate political activity by one or more parties alter cross-sector partnership dynamics?\n\n\n\nMicro-Processes of Collaboration: What are the specific\, day-to-day processes through which individuals from different sectors—public\, private\, and civil society organizations—build trust\, share knowledge\, and foster collaborative solutions? How can managers encourage individuals to spend time in other sectors and how can this time be structured to break down barriers to collaboration? How can these individual interactions be scaled up to influence larger organizational and societal outcomes and\, eventually\, social and environmental impacts?\n\n\n\nImpact Measurement in Cross-Sector Collaborations: How can we measure the long-term societal impact of partnerships between businesses\, governments\, nonprofits\, and civil society organizations? What frameworks are most useful in assessing both financial and non-financial performance\, including social and environmental benefits?\n\n\n\nThe Role of Communication and Social Media: How can communication practices\, information technologies\, and social media platforms be leveraged to enhance transparency\, accountability\, and collaboration between businesses\, governments\, and civil society organizations?\n\n\n\n\nIn an era where the intersection of business\, government\, and civil society has never been more critical\, we encourage submissions that offer fresh perspectives and innovative solutions that managers and policymakers can implement to reshape these relationships for a more equitable and sustainable future. \n\n\n\nDeadline\, Submission\, and Review Process\n\n\n\nThe submission deadline is 31 October 2025. Papers must be submitted on the AMP website at https://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/amp. \n\n\n\nAll papers will be reviewed according to the current policies of Academy of Management Perspectives. AMP papers should be grounded in evidence or robust conceptual frameworks\, address relevant real-world managerial and policy issues\, offer actionable insights\, avoid theory fetish\, and be written in a style accessible to non-specialists and practitioners. \n\n\n\nWe intend to host a Paper Development Workshop at the 2025 AOM Conference in Copenhagen for selected authors to further develop their manuscripts. Participation in this workshop is neither a guarantee nor a prerequisite for publication. This special issue is expected to be published in 2027.  \n\n\n\nEndnotes\n\n\n\n1 S. Bacq and G. Lumpkin\, G. “Social Entrepreneurship and COVID‐19\,” Journal of Management Studies 58\, no. 1 (2021): 285; S. Cabral\, Strategy for Public and Nonprofit Organizations: An Applied Perspective (London: Palgrave Macmillan\, 2024). \n\n\n\n2 M. Mazzucato The Entrepreneurial State: Debunking Public vs Private Sector Myths (New York: Anthem Press Mazzucato\, 2013). \n\n\n\n3 S. Bacq\, C. Hertel\, and G. Lumpkin\, (2022). “Communities at the Nexus of Entrepreneurship and Societal Impact: A Cross-Disciplinary Literature Review\,” Journal of Business Venturing 37\, no. 5 (2022): 106231; M. L. Barnett\, I. Henriques\, and B. W. Husted\, “Beyond Good Intentions: Designing CSR Initiatives for Greater Social Impact\,” Journal of Management 46\, no. 6 (2020): 937–64; A. Gatignon and L. Capron\, “The Firm as an Architect of polycentric Governance: Building Open Institutional Infrastructure in Emerging Markets\,” Strategic Management Journal 44\, no. 1 (2023): 48–85; G. Lumpkin and S. Bacq\, “Civic Wealth Creation: A New View of Stakeholder Engagement and Societal Impact\,” Academy of Management Perspectives 33\, no. 4 (2019): 383–404; A. M. McGahan and L. S. Pongeluppe\, “There Is no Planet B: Aligning Stakeholder Interests to Preserve the Amazon Rainforest\,” Management Science 69\, no. 12 (2023): 7860–81. \n\n\n\n4 S. Cabral\, J. T. Mahoney\, A. M. McGahan\, and M. Potoski\, “Value Creation and Value Appropriation in Public and Nonprofit Organizations\,” Strategic Management Journal 40\, no. 4 (2019): 465–75.
URL:https://www.aom.org/event/amp-call-for-special-issue-papers-making-it-better-by-working-together/
CATEGORIES:Call for Special Issue Papers,Journal Workshops & Publications Events
ATTACH;FMTTYPE=image/png:https://www.aom.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/08/amp_cfs.png
END:VEVENT
END:VCALENDAR