Management Learning and Education as “Big Picture” Social Science
2023; Academy of Management; Volume: 23; Issue: 1 Linguagem: Inglês
10.5465/amle.2023.0173
ISSN1944-9585
Autores Tópico(s)Management Theory and Practice
ResumoAcademy of Management Learning & EducationVol. 23, No. 1 From the EditorFree AccessManagement Learning and Education as "Big Picture" Social ScienceDirk LindebaumDirk LindebaumGrenoble Ecole de Management, FrancePublished Online:3 Jul 2023https://doi.org/10.5465/amle.2023.0173AboutSectionsPDF/EPUB ToolsDownload CitationsAdd to favoritesTrack Citations ShareShare onFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditEmail Can one ever feel ready to become an editor in chief? Can one be ready for this adventure, knowing that previous editors in chief have done such a fine job in advancing the Academy of Management Learning and Education's (AMLE's) reputation as a leading theory-driven journal (Foster, 2018; Hibbert, in Rockmann et al., 2021) in management learning and education (MLE), as evidenced in AMLE's standing in the Academic Journal Guide 2021 and the Australian Business Deans Council's ABDC journal quality list?1 And can one be ready knowing that AMLE, in concert with other journals in the field (like Management Learning and Journal of Management Education), has added significantly to the legitimacy of MLE research overall (Greenberg & Hibbert, 2022)? Appreciating the accomplishments of previous editorial teams,2 the answer is a resounding "Yes!" Just before submitting my application for the editor in chief position, intimidation made way for excitement concerning the tremendous opportunities to develop theoretically advanced and practically relevant insights in AMLE and for the broader field of MLE scholarship together with authors, reviewers, and associate editors (AEs).My emphasis on theoretically focused research (Bartunek, 2020; Lindebaum, Moser, Ashraf, & Glaser, 2022) highlights already the first motivation for writing this inaugural "From the Editors"; that is, to explore opportunities for theoretical innovations when we examine the field of MLE through a "big picture" social science lens, and how that examination also holds insights for adjacent fields, such as management and organizations studies, economics, sociology, information systems, and psychology. While I elaborate on what I mean by MLE as "big picture" social science below, the latter should not be construed as establishing any dominance of certain paradigmatic, theoretical, or methodological approaches over others. Far from it. As the journal enters the next phase of development, the agnostic ethos of AMLE (see Foster, 2018) remains in place. However, irrespective of paradigmatic, theoretical, or methodological approaches, the aim is to raise the theoretical bar at AMLE across published articles and essays. Note, however, that raising the theoretical bar in AMLE is not tantamount to theory fetishism (Suddaby, 2014), or inviting "pretentious theory development" (Tourish, 2020). Rather, it implies enhancing our ability to explain, predict, or understand phenomena relevant for MLE research in ways that existing research does not. No more, no less. My second motivation for writing these lines concerns several operational issues of interest to prospective authors, reviewers, and readers of AMLE.MLE AS "BIG PICTURE" SOCIAL SCIENCEArticles and essays published in AMLE often fall into the categories of management learning, management education, or the "business of business schools" (Hibbert, in Rockmann et al., 2021). When the focus is on management learning, questions asked tend to explore what is being learned, and/or how we learn (Huang, Wright, & Middleton, 2022; Loon, 2021). By contrast, management education is often concerned with questions of pedagogical practice and content (Cavanagh, Croy, Cox, & Jong, 2023; Colombo, 2023), including cases when management education colludes in the silencing of topics (e.g., human fallibility; see Hay, 2022). Lastly, AMLE regularly publishes articles that examine the "business of business schools," such as the role of management consultants in shaping post-pandemic strategies of business schools (e.g., Fleming, 2022), or structural barriers against more "impactful" interdisciplinary research in business schools (Trinh, Kirsch, Castillo, & Bates, 2022). From what I can see, these debates often unfold alongside one another, implying an underexplored interface and opportunity for cross-fertilization. Consequently, with a keen eye on theoretically focused research, there is considerable scope to strengthen and innovate theorizing published in AMLE by tying these debates together. Doing so invites the possibility of considering MLE research through the lens of "big picture" social science (e.g., Fromm, 1941/2011; Wright Mills, 1959). Such a perspective invites a concurrent examination of why and how macro- and micro-level phenomena shape one another.3 In other words, a big picture lens is needed to provide fresh insights into the dialectical relationship between individual/group learning and more macro-level goal orientations (e.g., what does it mean to be a productive worker under cognitive, industrial, or digital capitalism?).Seen in this light, a currently underappreciated question concerns the "why" behind management learning,4 as well as "what" the purpose is for it being designed and delivered in management education. In identifying these questions, the limitations of asking how or what we learn become apparent. Paraphrasing Charland's (2011: 84) insights on emotion regulation, the "point is that the 'how' and the means of [management learning] always logically presuppose certain ends, which in the final instance prescribe 'why' [management learning is designed and delivered] one way rather than another [in management education and business schools]." Given that the why question, by necessity, enjoys primacy over the how question,5 the neglect of the former is especially noteworthy in light of learning being defined as "the basic process of human adaptation" (Kolb & Kolb, 2009: 42, italics added) that involves the "continuing reconstruction of experience" (Dewey, 1897: 13). But why do we adapt or reconstruct our experience? Does adaptation always need to be retrospective (i.e., after the fact), or can we also think about it prospectively (i.e., by creating new facts)?6As a possible answer to the retrospective question, future conceptual and empirical work in AMLE could examine more closely how socioeconomic conditions (e.g., economic ideologies, post-colonialism, or culture) shape individual or group behavior and learning in organizations and vice versa. Thus, greater attention can be devoted to the dialectic relationship between macro- and micro-level processes and phenomena of relevance to MLE. For instance, with specific regard to capitalism (as a macro-level phenomenon of economic organization), Fromm (1941/2011: 16, italics in original) noted that the task of social psychology is to "show not only how passions, desires, [and] anxieties change and develop as a result of the social process, but also how [our] energies thus shaped into specific forms … become productive forces, moulding the social process." Consistent with this dialectic approach is Fromm's (1979: 133) notion of social character, or "the blending of the individual psychical sphere and the socioeconomic structure." It signals the dynamic adaptation of human possibility to specific historic and economic conditions of social existence. Framed differently:Social character embodies a theoretical explanation of the transformation of social imperatives into the terms of individual motivation. Social character engenders an alignment of individual desire and social imperatives by ensuring that individuals need or "want" to do what they "have" to do, and hence derive gratification from acting according to social and cultural expectations. (Foster, 2017: 3)7This perspective of Fromm has been harnessed recently to theorize about worker subjectivities in the age of cognitive enhancement (Lindebaum & Langer, 2022).Other macro-level phenomena concern the process of rationalization (in a Weberian sense) in the regulation and organization of higher education, or decolonization as an ideology and discourse and how these affect the readiness of management educators (micro level) to learn about and teach it to students (Woods, Dell, & Carroll, 2022). Finally, a forthcoming AMLE special issue on "addressing socioeconomic inequalities through management education and learning," argued in the call for papers that "concerted scrutiny of the links between management education and re/production of socioeconomic inequalities within and outside organizations has been missing" (Academy of Management, 2023). These examples of macro-level phenomena serve to underline the theoretical significance of asking the pressing question "Why MLE, and for what purpose?" at the interface between the three themes in AMLE (see striped interface in Figure 1).FIGURE 1 Tying AMLE Themes Together to Create an Interface for Future TheorizingTo explain, in Figure 1, the business of business schools is often influenced by demands from organizations and employers to equip students with the skills and competencies to succeed in current economic conditions influenced by capitalism (Fleming, 2017). This demand then shapes how management education curricula across degree levels (undergraduate, postgraduate, executive) are designed and delivered. Through management learning, students can be exposed to dominant socioeconomic thinking that, for instance, normalizes greedy behavior (Wang, Malhotra, & Murnighan, 2011), or economic thinking that renders "honesty" an effortful act (Ong, Cunningham, & Parmar, 2023). However, the effects of designing curricula in business schools around a single mode of economic organization (i.e., capitalism) are now all too apparent. In the words of Colombo (2023: 132), "concerns are expressed about the culture of competition, self-interest, greed, and short-termism that still dominates the business school, despite the irreparable ecological damage that this culture has contributed to create, and the innumerable business scandals it has generated."Therefore, in terms of prospective adaptation, the question "Why MLE, and for what purpose?" also involves creating conditions of possibility; for example, through normatively driven research (Lindebaum, 2022). Seen in this light, AMLE studies can be a force for greater "generalised reciprocity, substantive rationality, diverse organising and a [holistic] system approach" (Colombo, 2023: 132), with the aim of MLE being a vehicle for "producing cooperative humans, substantive business schools, fairer societies, and thriving ecosystems" (Colombo, 2023: 132). Other relevant examples here can be found in studies on "imaginaries" (i.e., the unceasing creation of images that create a shared collective understanding; see Castoriadis, 1987) as forces for sustainable progress. Under this formulation, transformative research projects or courageous individual action then has the potential to shape macro-level phenomena (e.g., when the discourse changes from post-colonialism to decolonization).What Figure 1 suggests is the potential for significant new "space" being opened up for future theorizing and empirical work in AMLE if we "dare to know" more (Holt & den Hond, 2013) about possible dialectal interactions between macro- and micro-level processes and phenomena in the context of MLE research, and how this interaction shapes answers to the key question posed here (see Figure 1). I suspect that many readers will have intriguing examples of their own. However, one interesting example for MLE research concerns the concurrent decrease of individual intelligence (Rindermann & Becker, 2023) and the increase in AI applications (and the mental "de-skilling" that comes with it; see Lindebaum & Ramirez, 2023) in society, given that intelligence is a key to learning, as well as predicting job performance and a nation's wealth and intellectual climate (Rindermann, 2018).OPERATIONAL INNOVATIONS AND NEW EDITORIAL TEAMAMLE is not only theory driven but also service driven in engaging with the AMLE audience. Hence, a few operational issues are worth highlighting. First, we will introduce Talk with the Editor online sessions as a regular monthly opportunity (starting July 2023) to discuss full papers with an AMLE editor prior to submission. The operational details will be published in due course on the AMLE website (Academy of Management, n.d.). Second, future acceptance letters will underline that the acceptance of an AMLE article or essay is only the start, and not the end, of a necessary conversation with a wider set of stakeholders to generate impact through engagement (see also Haley, Cooper, Hoffman, Pitsis, & Greenberg, 2022), or when AMLE studies (Moser, den Hond, & Lindebaum, 2022a) serve as inspiration for practitioner-focused articles (Moser, den Hond, & Lindebaum, 2022b).8New Associate EditorsConsistent with the values of diversity and inclusion, the new editorial team features colleagues from across the globe, establishes gender parity among AEs, and involves highly competent editors at both mid-career and senior levels. In alphabetical order, here are the new custodians and ambassadors (aka AEs) of AMLE. Unless stated otherwise, all AEs handle submissions in the category "research and reviews." Todd Bridgman is professor of management studies at Victoria University of Wellington, New Zealand, and emeritus editor at Management Learning. His research interests lie at the intersection of management history, management education, and critical management studies. In particular, he is interested in challenging conventional histories of management that appear in textbooks and writing alternative histories as a way of rethinking how management is taught to students. Arran Caza is an associate professor of management in the Bryan School of Business and Economics at the University of North Carolina at Greensboro. He studies leaders and followers, with an emphasis on leadership education and development. Laura Colombo is a senior lecturer at the University of Exeter Business School. Her research focuses on issues of scaling in relation to social and co-operative enterprises and alternative food networks. Her teaching practice is inspired by critical pedagogies and developed around civic management education. Laura is responsible for the book and resource review section. Diego M. Coraiola is an associate professor of entrepreneurship at the Peter B. Gustavson School of Business, University of Victoria. His research focuses on collective action and social change. His current projects revolve around social mnemonics, Indigenous organizing, and historical injustices. Bill Harley is professor of management at the University of Melbourne, Australia. He is best known for his critical work on employee experiences of labor management practices, but he also publishes work on research methodology and on contemporary developments in business schools. Bill takes care of the essay section. Simy Joy has a PhD from Case Western Reserve University, and is a fellow of the Higher Education Academy (U.K.). She served as a faculty member at the University of East Anglia (U.K.), as a faculty fellow at the Indian Institute of Management Kozhikode (IIMK), and was a founding member of the Center of Excellence for Social Innovation at IIMK. Her research interests include institutional and organizational sources of inequality, exclusion, and injustice; and social innovations, social enterprises, socio-tech enterprises, and micro-enterprises that attempt to engender equality, inclusion, and justice. Barbara Larson is executive professor of management at Northeastern University in Boston, where she researches and writes about virtual and remote work. Her pedagogical research focuses on the teaching of socioemotional skills related to virtual and remote work, and on the use of technology tools to enhance existing teaching methods such as peer evaluation and team-based learning. Stuart Middleton is a senior lecturer in strategy at University of Queensland, Australia. His scholarship of teaching and learning interests are in the history of management education, and the use of stories to facilitate student learning. Christine Moser is an associate professor of organization theory at Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, the Netherlands. Her research is on corporate social responsibility, knowledge flows in social networks, and the role of technology in social interaction. Katrin Muehlfeld is professor of management, organization studies, and HRM at Trier University, Germany. Among her areas of primary research interest are learning and decision-making processes at the individual and group levels, in formal as well as informal settings, and in the context of present-day (grand) challenges related to technology, sustainability, and global perspectives.CONCLUDING COMMENTSI hope the reader feels as energized after reading these lines about AMLE as I feel having written them. These are exciting times to be at the helm of AMLE and to hear about your big picture ideas. Schneider (1987) once wrote that the "people make the place," which I paraphrase here to emphasize that you—as authors, reviewers, and perhaps future editors—are what makes AMLE a fascinating and leading outlet for MLE research. I invite you to be part of this journey. And now, fasten your seatbelts…1 In both journal lists, AMLE's ranking is identical with that of its sister journals AMR, AMJ, and AMA. That is, in terms of the Academic Journal Guide, AMLE is ranked as a 4* journal—the highest category, defined as "journals of distinction … recognised world-wide as exemplars of excellence" (Chartered Association of Business Schools, 2021: 12). The latest ABDC list also ranks AMLE in the highest category (i.e., as an A* journal) (Australian Business Deans Council, 2023). Mind you, while the influence of rankings in academia is undeniable, relying on rankings only can be problematic. Thus, at AMLE, we will be persistent in highlighting the journal's legitimacy through the quality of studies that it publishes.2 Bill Foster and Paul Hibbert deserve special mentioning here. They were both incredibly helpful and generous in sharing their editorial experiences pre- and post-appointment. Paul, as the outgoing editor in chief, leaves the house polished and in excellent shape.3 Big picture social science stands in contrast to what Merton (1949/2004: 448) called "theories of the middle range: theories that lie between the minor but necessary working hypotheses that evolve in abundance during day-to-day research and the all-inclusive systematic efforts to develop a unified theory that will explain all the observed uniformities of social behavior, social organization, and social change." Importantly, the emphasis on "big picture" social science should not be construed as undermining or discouraging the use of mid-range theorizing in AMLE. Instead, the "big picture" social science lens is offered as another theoretical lens to be explored alongside other approaches to theorizing in AMLE.4 The "why" question has been asked before by previous editors of Management Learning (Bell & Bridgman, 2017), and answered with a focus on reflection and critique, in addition to an emphasis on "engagement" rather than "impact." My answer to the question will point in a different direction, as detailed below.5 This is not to deny the significance of asking "how," which clearly has a central role in explanatory mechanisms that link constructs through propositions, for instance (Whetten, 1989). Without clarity of purpose, however, obtaining said clarity in relation to the "why" question is prior to asking "how," as Charland (2011) eloquently states.6 This "From the Editors" is not the venue for microscopic dialectical theorizing about the interaction between macro- and micro-level issues. However, the view advocated here is that both macro- and micro-level issues can provide meaningful "impulses" to ongoing interactions between the two. When considering retrospective adaption, such impulse is theorized as originating at the macro level (e.g., adapting to socioeconomic conditions). In the case of prospective adaptation, the impulse is located at the micro level, when, for instance, normatively inclined research or courageous individual actions produce shifts in values and action tendencies toward more sustainable outcomes (Colombo, 2023).7 C. Wright Mills's (1959: 5) work on "sociological imagination" is another possible example of big picture social theory, when it argued, for instance, that "no social study that does not come back to the problems of biography, of history, and of their intersections within a society has completed its intellectual journey."8 For clarity, this "invitation" does not imply additional work for a paper to be accepted. However, what it does imply is the encouragement for authors to "go the extra mile" with a paper after acceptance to generate impact through various modes of engagement.AcknowledgmentsI am indebted to my colleagues Marcos Barros, Christine Moser, Paul Hibbert, and Vern Glaser for providing invaluable feedback on earlier versions of this editorial. Likewise, the current editorial team at AMLE provided another excellent set of comments to enhance the theoretical clarity of this editorial. An enormous "thank you" goes to those exceptional colleagues who provided generous feedback on and support for my editor in chief application. These include Bill Foster, Paul Hibbert, Roy Suddaby, Jean Bartunek, and Michelle Greenwood. In all of the world's languages, thank you!REFERENCESAcademy of Management. n.d. Submitting to Academy of Management Learning & Education. Retrieved from https://aom.org/research/publishing-with-aom/author-resources/submitting-to-learning-and-education Google ScholarAcademy of Management. 2023, January 20. AMLE call for special issue papers: Addressing socioeconomic inequalities through management education and learning. Retrieved from https://aom.org/events/event-detail/2023/01/20/higher-logic-calendar/addressing-socioeconomic-inequalities-through-management-education-and-learning Google ScholarAustralian Business Deans Council. 2023. ABDC journal quality list. Retrieved from https://abdc.edu.au/abdc-journal-quality-list Google ScholarBartunek, J. M. 2020. Theory (what is it good for?). Academy of Management Learning & Education, 19: 223–226.Link , Google ScholarBell, E., & Bridgman, T. 2017. Why management learning matters. Management Learning, 48: 3–6. Google ScholarCastoriadis, C. 1987. The imaginary institution of society. Cambridge, U.K.: Polity Press. Google ScholarCavanagh, A., Croy, G., Cox, J. W., & Jong, A. D. 2023. Developing and harnessing historical sensibility to overcome the influence of dominant logics: A pedagogical model. Academy of Management Learning & Education. Forthcoming. Google ScholarCharland, L. C. 2011. Moral undertow and the passions: Two challenges for contemporary emotion regulation. Emotion Review, 3: 83–91. Google ScholarChartered Association of Business Schools. 2021, June. Academic journal guide: Methodology. Retrieved from https://cabs-199e2.kxcdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/12/Academic-Journal-Guide-2021-Methodology-Final.pdf Google ScholarColombo, L. 2023. Civilise the business school: For a civic management education. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 22: 132–149.Link , Google ScholarDewey, J. 1897. My pedagogic creed. School Journal, LIV: 77–80. Google ScholarFleming, P. 2017. The human capital hoax: Work, debt and insecurity in the era of Uberization. Organization Studies, 38: 691–709. Google ScholarFleming, P. 2022. "Never let a good crisis go to waste": How consulting firms are using COVID-19 as a pretext to transform universities and business school education. Academy of Management Learning & Education. Forthcoming. Google ScholarFoster, R. 2017. Social character: Erich Fromm and the ideological glue of neoliberalism. Critical Horizons, 18: 1–18. Google ScholarFoster, W. M. 2018. Our big table approach. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 17: 1–3.Link , Google ScholarFromm, E. 1979. To have or to be? London, U.K.: Abacus. Google ScholarFromm, E. 2011. Escape from freedom. New York, NY: Ishi Press. (Original work published 1941) Google ScholarGreenberg, D., & Hibbert, P. 2022. Beyond legitimacy: A bold agenda for MLE scholarship. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 21: 161–166.Link , Google ScholarHaley, U. C. V., Cooper, S. C. L., Hoffman, A. J., Pitsis, T. S., & Greenberg, D. 2022. In search of scholarly impact. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 21: 343–349.Link , Google ScholarHay, A. 2022. On the neglect of fallibility in management learning and education: From perfect to adequate managers. Academy of Management Learning & Education. Forthcoming. Google ScholarHolt, R., & den Hond, F. 2013. Sapere Aude. Organization Studies, 34: 1587–1600. Google ScholarHuang, P., Wright, A. L., & Middleton, S. 2022. How material objects shape student team learning processes. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 21: 35–60.Link , Google ScholarKolb, A. Y., & Kolb, D. A. 2009. Experiential learning theory: A dynamic, holistic approach to management learning, education and development. In S. ArmstrongC. Fukami (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of management learning, education and development: 42–68. Los Angeles, CA: SAGE. Google ScholarLindebaum, D. 2022. Demystifying essays as an "A-typical" publication format. Business & Society, 61: 845–850. Google ScholarLindebaum, D., & Langer, S. 2022. On the psycho-emotional deficitisation of workers in the age of cognitive enhancement. Organization. Forthcoming. Google ScholarLindebaum, D., Moser, C., Ashraf, M., & Glaser, V. L. 2022. Reading The Technological Society to understand the mechanization of values and its ontological consequences. Academy of Management Review. Forthcoming. Google ScholarLindebaum, D., & Ramirez, M. F. 2023. "Negative" resource review: On the essay-writing algorithm Essay Genius at https://essaygenius.ai. Academy of Management Learning & Education. Forthcoming. Google ScholarLoon, M. 2021. Practices for learning in early careers. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 20: 182–202.Link , Google ScholarMerton, R. K. 2004. On sociological theories of the middle range. In C. CalhounJ. GerteisJ. MoodyS. PfaffI. Virk (Eds.), Classical sociological theory: 448–459. Malden, MA: Blackwell. (Original work published 1949) Google ScholarMoser, C., den Hond, F., & Lindebaum, D. 2022a. Morality in the age of artificially intelligent algorithms. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 21: 139–155.Link , Google ScholarMoser, C., den Hond, F., & Lindebaum, D. 2022b. What humans lose when we let AI decide. MIT Sloan Management Review, 63: 12–14. Google ScholarOng, M., Cunningham, J. L., & Parmar, B. L. 2023. Lay beliefs about homo economicus: How and why does economics education make us see honesty as effortful? Academy of Management Learning & Education. Forthcoming. Google ScholarRindermann, H. 2018. Cognitive capitalism: Human capital and the wellbeing of nations. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press. Google ScholarRindermann, H., & Becker, D. 2023. The future of intelligence: A prediction of the FLynn effect based on past student assessment studies until the year 2100. Personality and Individual Differences, 206: art. 112110. Google ScholarRockmann, K., Bunderson, J. S., Leana, C. R., Hibbert, P., Tihanyi, L., Phan, P. H., & Thatcher, S. M. B. 2021. Publishing in the Academy of Management journals. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 20: 117–126.Link , Google ScholarSchneider, B. 1987. The people make the place. Personnel Psychology, 40: 437–453. Google ScholarSuddaby, R. 2014. Indigenous management theory: Why management theory is under attach (and what we can do to fix it). In J. A. Miles (Ed.), New directions in management and organization theory: 447–456. Newcastle upon Tyne, U.K.: Cambridge Scholars. Google ScholarTourish, D. 2020. The triumph of nonsense in management studies. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 19: 99–109.Link , Google ScholarTrinh, M. P., Kirsch, R., Castillo, E. A., & Bates, D. E. 2022. Forging paths to interdisciplinary research for early career academics. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 21: 318–335.Link , Google ScholarWang, L., Malhotra, D., & Murnighan, J. K. 2011. Economics education and greed. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 10: 643–660.Link , Google ScholarWhetten, D. A. 1989. What constitutes a theoretical contribution? Academy of Management Review, 14: 490–495.Link , Google ScholarWoods, C., Dell, K., & Carroll, B. 2022. Decolonizing the business school: Reconstructing the entrepreneurship classroom through indigenizing pedagogy and learning. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 21: 82–100.Link , Google ScholarWright Mills, C. 1959. The sociological imagination. Oxford, U.K.: Oxford University Press. Google ScholarFiguresReferencesRelatedDetails Vol. 23, No. 1 Permissions Metrics in the past 12 months History Published online 3 July 2023 Published in print 1 March 2024 Information© Academy of Management Learning & EducationAcknowledgmentsI am indebted to my colleagues Marcos Barros, Christine Moser, Paul Hibbert, and Vern Glaser for providing invaluable feedback on earlier versions of this editorial. Likewise, the current editorial team at AMLE provided another excellent set of comments to enhance the theoretical clarity of this editorial. An enormous "thank you" goes to those exceptional colleagues who provided generous feedback on and support for my editor in chief application. These include Bill Foster, Paul Hibbert, Roy Suddaby, Jean Bartunek, and Michelle Greenwood. In all of the world's languages, thank you!Download PDF
Referência(s)