Download the Call for Papers here (PDF, French and English) >>
Anaïs Boutru, DRM M-Lab, Université Paris-Dauphine, PSL (anais.boutru@dauphine.psl.eu)
Linda Rouleau, HEC Montréal (linda.rouleau@hec.ca)
Géraldine Schmidt, IAE Paris, Université Paris 1 Panthéon-Sorbonne (schmidt.iae@univ-paris1.fr)
Albéric Tellier, DRM M-Lab, Université Paris-Dauphine, PSL (alberic.tellier@dauphine.psl.eu)
IBM’s blindness to the rise of personal computing, Xerox’s strategic myopia toward the graphical user interface developed in its own Palo Alto Research Center, the fall of Nokia overtaken by smartphones, the Mann Gulch fire, Elton Mayo’s Hawthorne experiments: these are among the celebrated cases that populate the collective memory of management scholars. These ‘cold cases’, endlessly cited and taught, have become genuine founding myths of the field. They structure ways of thinking and play a central role in the construction of epistemic communities by providing a shared foundation of representations (Brown, 1998).
Yet, despite their ubiquity, few studies scrutinize the empirical robustness, theoretical validity, or performativity of these emblematic cases. In management research, and particularly in qualitative research, the risk of circularity (Dumez, 2013) is significant. While the material collected by researchers is inevitably heterogeneous and incomplete, the theories they mobilize are general and decontextualized. As a result, researchers may, even unconsciously, select data that confirm their theoretical priors, set aside disconfirming evidence, and ultimately favor demonstrations of the ‘as if’ type.
Management research, in its pursuit of ‘theoretical gaps’ (Alvesson & Sandberg, 2011), has often privileged the production of new concepts at the expense of verification, reinterpretation, or falsification (Popper, 1959, 2005). This predilection leads to a stratification of knowledge: certain studies become canonical and generate ‘halo effects’ (Rosenzweig, 2009), while others sink into oblivion, not because they are invalid, but because they do not fit the dominant narratives of the discipline (Bourdieu, 2001). The aim of this special issue is to ‘reopen the files of management’: to challenge established truths, revisit myths, excavate forgotten cases, and analyze the processes of canonization and erasure that structure disciplinary memory.
Indeed, several studies have focused on individual characteristics, such as motivation (Jansen et al., 2009) and the cognitive abilities of individuals in building higher-order capabilities (Duran et al., 2022; Adner & Helfat, 2003). Thus, Adner and Helfat (2003) highlight the importance of three managerial characteristics: human capital (manager’s experience), social capital (manager’s network), and managerial cognition (mental model serving as the basis for decision-making). Furthermore, several researchers have emphasized the importance of organizational structure (e.g., agility) as a microfoundation of social innovation (Vézina et al., 2019) and internationalization (Chebbi et al., 2023; Neesen et al., 2019). Regarding corporate social responsibility (CSR), Borah, Dogbe and Marwa (2025: 912) suggest the concept of green dynamic capability, which “refers to firm’s ability to adapt and thrive in a rapidly changing business environment, while prioritizing sustainability and environmental responsibility”. In this perspective, Borland et al. (2016) advanced the literature on dynamic capabilities’ microfoundations for ecological sustainability by proposing two new dynamic capabilities’ components to sensing, seizing and transforming: remapping and reaping (Borland et al., 2016). Thus, it is only recently that researchers have begun to examine CRS’s antecedents (Gond et al., 2017; Pacheco et al., 2018), such as executive commitment and individual values (Muller & Kolk, 2010).
Famous, emblematic cases, sometimes elevated to the status of ‘textbook cases’, are not mere illustrations: they are performative of the managerial realities they purport to describe (Callon, 1998; MacKenzie & Millo, 2003). They shape analytical frameworks and influence how researchers conceptualize their objects of study (Latour, 2005). In this sense, such cases (Kodak, IBM, Enron, Nokia, etc.) must be regarded as epistemic artifacts, produced, reproduced, and sometimes distorted by scholarly communities, and bearing a narrative, moral, and institutional dimension (Czarniawska & Joerges, 1996).
M@n@gement has established itself since its founding as a privileged venue for critical, reflexive, and interdisciplinary approaches in management research. With this special issue, we wish to continue this tradition by inviting the community to undertake an archaeology of its own knowledge (Foucault, 1969). More broadly, revisiting ‘cold cases’ means interrogating how management research constructs its own history, its certainties, and its silences. It is also a call to strengthen the cumulative and self-critical dimension of the field, by restoring a rightful place to research grounded in the replication of experiments, the challenging of established findings, and recontextualization. Furthermore, at a time when researchers are constantly pressured to produce ‘new’ knowledge, this special issue proposes to rehabilitate slow, reflexive research, research capable of revisiting taken-forgranted assumptions, reopening closed debates, and reinvigorating the controversies that are constitutive of knowledge production.
For this special issue, we invite researchers to submit contributions on revisited cold cases
through three distinct sections: ‘Original research articles’, ‘Business Voice’, and ‘Essays’.
Each section addresses different audiences and objectives, offering a diversity of opportunities
for both researchers and practitioners to enrich our understanding of the mechanisms
that shape strategic thinking.
For each of these sections, submissions must comply with the format indicated on the
M@n@gement website at: https://management-aims.com/index.php/mgmt/preparation
Submission deadline: December 31, 2026
Authors considering submitting a paper to this special issue will have the opportunity to participate in a paper development workshop dedicated to the special issue. This workshop, which will be held online, is scheduled for October 14, 2026. Authors who submit their articles (either a complete article or a long abstract of 2–3 pages) to the workshop will have the opportunity to present their research, receive feedback on the relevance of their article for the special issue, and use these comments to improve their work before the final submission deadline in December 2026. Participation in the workshop is not mandatory for submission to the special issue.
Read the full Call for Papers and information here >>
Acquier, A., Daudigeos, T., & Valiorgue, B. (2011). Corporate social responsibility as an
organizational and managerial challenge: The forgotten legacy of the Corporate Social
Responsiveness movement. M@n@gement, 14(4), 222–250. https://doi.org/10.3917/
mana.144.0222
Alvesson, M., Hardy, C., & Harley, B. (2008). Reflecting on reflexivity: Reflexive textual
practices in organization and management theory. Journal of Management Studies,
45(3), 480–501. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6486.2007.00765.x
Alvesson, M., & Sandberg, J. (2011). Generating research questions through problematization.
Academy of Management Review, 36(2), 247–271. https://journals.aom.org/doi/
abs/10.5465/amr.2009.0188
Banerjee, S. B. (2003). Who sustains whose development? Sustainable development
and the reinvention of nature. Organization Studies, 24(1), 143–180. https://doi.
org/10.1177/01708406030240013417
Benabdelkrim, M., Levallois, C., Savinien, J., & Robardet, C. (2020). Opening fields: A
methodological contribution to the identification of heterogeneous actors in unbounded
relational orders. M@n@gement, 23(1), 4–18. https://doi.org/10.37725/mgmt.v23.4245
Bourdieu, P. (2001). Science de la science et réflexivité. Cours du collège de France (200-2001).
Raisons d’agir.
Brown, A. D. (1998). Narrative, politics and legitimacy in an IT implementation. Journal of
Management Studies, 35(1), 35–58. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-6486.00083
Callon, M. (1998). The Laws of the Markets. Blackwell.
Czarniawska, B., & Joerges, B. (1996). Travels of ideas. In B. Czarniawska & G. Sevón
(Eds.), Translating Organizational Change (pp. 13-48). De Gruyter. https://doi.
org/10.1515/9783110879735.13
Cummings, S., Bridgman, T., Hassard, J., & Rowlinson, M. (2026). Why we needed (and still
need) new histories of management and organization. Management & Organizational
History, 21(1–2), 10–20. https://doi.org/10.1080/17449359.2026.2626424
Deuten, J. J., & Rip, A. (2000). Narrative infrastructure in product creation processes.
Organization, 7(1), 69–93. https://doi.org/10.1177/135050840071005
Dumez, H. (2016). Méthodologie de la recherche qualitative. Les 10 questions clés de la
démarche compréhensive (2nd ed.). Vuibert.
Foucault, M. (1969). L’archéologie du savoir. Gallimard.
Haraway, D. (2013). Situated knowledges: The science question in feminism and the privilege
of partial perspective. In M. Wyer, M. Barbercheck, D. Cookmeyer, H. Ozturk, & M. Wayne
(Eds.), Women, Science, and Technology (pp. 455–472). Routledge.
Hardy, C., & Clegg, S. (1997). Relativity without relativism: Reflexivity in post-paradigm
organization studies. British Journal of Management, 8(S1), 5–17. https://doi.
org/10.1111/1467-8551.8.s1.2
Hubbard, R., & Vetter, D. E. (1996). An empirical comparison of published replication research
in accounting, economics, finance, management, and marketing. Journal of Business
Research, 35(2), 153–164. https://doi.org/10.1016/0148-2963(95)00084-4
Latour, B. (2005). Reassembling the Social: An introduction to actor-network-theory. Oxford
University Press.
Lin-Hi, N., & Müller, K. (2013). The CSR bottom line: Preventing corporate social
irresponsibility. Journal of Business Research, 66(10), 1928–1936. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jbusres.2013.02.015
MacKenzie, D., & Millo, Y. (2003). Constructing a market and performing theory: The historical
sociology of a financial derivatives exchange. American Journal of Sociology, 109(1), 107–
145. https://doi.org/10.1086/374404
Mintzberg, H., Pascale, R. T., Goold, M., & Rumelt, R. P. (1996). CMR Forum: The ‘Honda effect’
revisited. California Management Review, 38(4), 77–117. https://doi.org/10.2307/41165855
Popper, K. (2005). The Logic of Scientific Discovery. Routledge.
Rosenzweig, P. (2009). L’effet halo, ou les mirages de la performance. Le Journal de l’École
de Paris du management, (79), 9–16. https://doi.org/10.3917/jepam.079.0009
Spicer, A. (2020). Playing the bullshit game: How empty and misleading communication takes
over organizations. Organization Theory. https://doi.org/10.1177/2631787720929704
Tellier, A. (2023). La chute de Kodak : une affaire classée ? Annales des Mines – Gérer et
comprendre, (151), 42–52. https://doi.org/10.3917/geco1.151.0042
Weick, K. E. (1995). Sensemaking in Organizations. Sage.
Walsh, J. P., & Ungson, G. R. (1991). Organizational memory. Academy of Management Review,
16(1), 57–91. https://doi.org/10.2307/258607
Download the Call for Papers here (PDF, French and English) >>
Sarah Richard Audencia Business School
Lucie Noury Audencia Business School
Pauline de Becdelièvre Université Paris Saclay RITM
Céline Louche Waikato Management School—University of Waikato
Stéphan Pezé Université Toulouse Capitole, TSM-R, CNRS
The production and dissemination of knowledge, particularly on inequalities, climate change, and biodiversity, are increasingly under attack. These attacks are reflected in some political and administrative decisions adopted across several national contexts, such as the measures taken by President Donald Trump since his return to power (Yourish et al., 2025). Beyond the US, academic freedom is being directly or indirectly undermined in many countries. For example, in France, controversies surrounding ‘Islamo-leftism’ within universities, reignited by the Minister of Higher Education, have been accompanied by concrete attacks on several scientific institutions (Le Nevé, 2021).
Although research on grand challenges (Gariel & Bartel-Radic, 2024; Mercier-Roy & Mailhot, 2024), sustainability, and ecosystem transitions is still ongoing (Barlatier et al., 2025), climate policies and the low-carbon transition are also under attack from many sides. These attacks range from climate scepticism to misinformation and lobbying, and aim to delay or weaken existing or future standards, as illustrated by the recent deregulation movement in Europe around the Omnibus law. Despite research pointing to the depletion of global resources (Berkowitz et al., 2019), sustainable finance, ESG investing, and CSR are becoming increasingly polarized. For example, some asset managers are taking a more cautious approach to their commitments (Harmes, 2025), and major players such as BlackRock announced in 2024 that they would be withdrawing ESG-labelled financial products (Posner, 2024). Some companies are reviewing their CSR practices and communication by adopting withdrawal or ‘silence’ strategies (Carols & Lewis, 2018).
At the same time, the movement for equity, equality, and inclusion seems to be reaching a peak when it comes to considering diverse identities within organizations (Ayoko & Fujimoto, 2023). And yet, it is simultaneously accompanied by growing opposition. The murder of George Floyd and the ensuing protests in 2020 intensified diversity initiatives, while fuelling a conservative backlash (Scott et al., 2025). In connection with these events, the public statements of certain companies, far from achieving consensus, have sometimes crystallized negative reactions (Folberg et al., 2024).
Finally, the flexibilisation of work is also undergoing changes. While teleworking, parttime work and flexible hours have become the norm, particularly because of the health crisis (Wheatley et al., 2024), the ideal of constant availability remains dominant (Zanhour & Sumpter, 2022; Chung & Seo, 2024). Barriers to the use of these arrangements (such as stigmatization and career penalties) persist and are even becoming more pronounced, while calls for a return to the office are growing (Le Monde, 2025).
Whether it be attacks on science, the retreat from climate and financial commitments, the contestation of inclusion policies or the questioning of individualized management systems, these developments reflect a critical re-evaluation of social and ecological advances perceived as progressive: a phenomenon known as ‘backlash’.
At its most basic level, backlash is defined as resistance to social progress (Flood et al., 2021). It is an active ‘counterattack’ against initiatives, programmes, knowledge, and policies that aim to change existing patterns of inequality and injustice. Used at a political level, the term refers to a retrograde goal of returning to a previous social condition, using extraordinary objectives and tactics that challenge dominant narratives to interfere with the dominant public discourse (Alter & Zürn, 2020). The concept of ‘backlash’ emerged in the 1970s in the United States, in political science, to describe and analyse right-wing extremism (Lipset & Raab, 1970). The emphasis is then placed on the link between ‘backlash’ and symbolic investment in the past (Alter & Zürn, 2020): beyond simple opposition, backlash is often associated with fear of loss and nostalgia for an idealized past. In the 1990s, the feminist movement took up this notion (Burke & Black, 1997), suggesting that every advance made by women triggers a hostile reaction to block or reverse their gains. Since then, it has been particularly mobilized in the field of gender studies and research on diversity, equality, and inclusion (Rudman & Phelan, 2008; Phelan & Rudman, 2010), which combine backlash with the study of the negative social and economic consequences affecting individuals who go against social norms.
Today, some researchers attribute a systematic nature to backlash. All projects aiming for social justice encounter resistance from privileged groups seeking to restore or maintain their power, contributing to a growing polarization of opinions (Ross et al., 2019). This development has been fuelled by several structural and psychological factors that have broadened its scope, including fear of losing resources, fear of the emergence of new dominant values, and questioning of existing values (Iyer, 2022).
In management literature, the issue has mainly been explored from the perspective of diversity. Studies have focused on how women, particularly those in leadership positions, who challenge gender stereotypes may face a number of sanctions, such as hostile messages, negative evaluations, lack of promotion, or tensions with colleagues (e.g. Rudman & Phelan, 2008; Saint-Michel, 2018; Ciancetta & Roch, 2021).
However, in a context where organizations play an increasingly political role (Scherer et al., 2014; Mair & Rathert, 2025), where they constitute a microcosm reflecting societal aspirations, and are part of increasingly connected networks of stakeholders, the phenomenon of backlash impacts organizations as a whole. Management and organization studies, together with other disciplines such as political science, sociology and psychology, can contribute to exploring the phenomenon at the institutional, organizational, managerial, and individual levels to shed new light on these dynamics, help us analyse them critically and position ourselves, as researchers and practitioners, in these debates.
At the institutional level, backlash can be understood through the three pillars—regulatory, normative, and cultural-cognitive—that structure the legitimacy of practices (Scott, 2001). It is not simply a matter of decline, but rather the outcome of institutional efforts aimed at undermining or redefining norms that were previously thought to be established (Lawrence et al., 2011). For example, the recent decline in commitment to sustainable development in the United States is based on anti-ESG laws passed in 37 states and decisions by the Supreme Court (Ybarra & Turk, 2025). At the same time, a ‘backlash industry’ is mobilizing framing marketing strategies to influence norms and representations (Scott et al., 2025). Nevertheless, institutional work does not only serve to destabilize institutions; it can also aim to defend, maintain, or strengthen them through various institutional maintenance practices involving stakeholders both inside and outside organizations (Micelotta et al., 2013).
At the organizational level, backlash can be overt, as illustrated by the explicit withdrawal of social or environmental policies under pressure following governance or political evolutions. These changes can generate opposition from stakeholders and can prove difficult to implement depending on how deeply rooted they are in regulations, culture, or processes. Alongside these apparent shifts, more subtle forms of backlash are also emerging: resource reductions, the withdrawal of objectives, silence, and changes in vocabulary, generating tensions between discourse and practice. Among stakeholders, trade unions play a central role in protecting existing rights (Godard, 2014; Kaufman, 2015). They constitute a counter-power that can either slow down backlash or contribute to it (Heery, 2016).
Managers appear to be key intermediaries, caught up in contexts of ambiguity, conflicting values and contradictory demands. Neither mere executors nor fully autonomous, they are faced with moral and political dilemmas (Alvesson & Spicer, 2016; Contu, 2018), which sometimes lead them to support strategic changes, and sometimes to resist or attempt to preserve certain commitments. However, backlash remains poorly conceptualized as a specific managerial challenge with both organizational and societal dimensions.
At the individual level, organizational contexts characterized by normative uncertainty or contested values can exacerbate the identity and moral tensions experienced by individuals, with lasting effects on their commitment, well-being and career choices (Petriglieri, 2011). These tensions drive action, with employees who are particularly sensitive to social or environmental issues making their voices heard within organizations in the form of internal activism (Briscoe & Gupta, 2016). But threat is as much a cause as a consequence of backlash: it can emerge from perceived threats to the identity, status, or legitimacy of certain dominant groups, revealing ambivalent dynamics.
Taken together, these different levels do not function in isolation but feed into each other: institutional transformations redefine the organizational and managerial scope for action, which influences individual experiences, which in turn can help to consolidate, influence, or challenge existing institutional frameworks.
This special issue aims to contribute to the theorization of the backlash phenomenon by analysing its institutional, organizational, managerial, and individual manifestations. The objective is to gain a better understanding of the internal and external mechanisms that promote backlash, as well as its effects and their complex relationships. Ultimately, this special issue will seek to understand the representations and experiences of the various stakeholders faced with backlash, including the multiple forms of resistance it can generate.
This special issue calls for papers based on a variety of methodological and conceptual approaches and encourages the adoption of multidisciplinary approaches at the intersection of management science, sociology, political science, psychology, communication, philosophy and law, among others. Submitted articles may be conceptual or empirical and based on a variety of ontologies. They may explore in depth one of the manifestations of backlash (e.g. questioning of science, environmental commitments, DEI policies, or flexible work), take a more comprehensive approach to the phenomenon of backlash, or conduct comparative studies. Submitted manuscripts may also offer an analysis focused on a specific level of analysis (individual, managerial, organizational, or institutional, for example) or undertake a multi-level analysis.
Although the subject of backlash is broad and covers various aspects related to organizations, submissions can address a range of topics that include, but are not limited to, the following:
At the institutional level:
• What are the different forms of backlash affecting organizations? Are there ‘invisible’
forms of backlash?
• How and to what extent does backlash contribute to the deinstitutionalization of
established norms (e.g. ESG, DEI, climate)?
• What forms of institutional work produce or hinder backlash?
At the organizational and managerial level:
• What roles do different modes of governance and different forms of organization
play in weakening or, conversely, protecting social progress? Are democratic organizations,
in particular, more or less prone to backlash?
• How do organizations respond, resist, protect themselves, and participate in
backlash?
• What are the risks, uncertainties, and tensions generated by backlash? How can
they be managed?
• What forms of collective response are organized to face backlash (e.g. meta-organizations,
networks, lobbying)?
At the individual level:
• How do individuals participate in or resist backlash (e.g. through employee
activism)?
• What is the impact of backlash on individuals (identity, career paths, values, social
representations, experience)?
• How does backlash transform or disrupt individuals’ relationships with work and
the company?
• What forms of individual and collective resistance to backlash can be observed?
What are the conditions and effects of this resistance?
Finally, the interactions between these different levels:
• What is the role of researchers and what stance should they adopt in response to
this phenomenon?
• What methodological and epistemological approaches are best suited to studying
backlash, its mechanisms, and its consequences? What methodological innovations
are needed to better understand its contemporary forms?
• How can organizational theory contribute to understanding the phenomenon of
backlash?
• What are the multi-level interactions between societal, organizational, and individual
backlash?
• How can backlash contribute to the emergence of other backlashes?
The submitted manuscript must comply with the guidelines indicated here: https://
management-aims.com/index.php/mgmt/preparation.
Proposals for papers must be submitted from 1 February 2027 to 1 June 2027 at the latest, via M@n@gement’s submission platform, for publication in December 2028.
An online paper development workshop, organized by the guest editorial team, will take place on 19 November 2026 across different time zones. Proposals (maximum 3,000 words, including references) should be submitted to lnoury@audencia.com by 19 October 2026. Participation in this workshop is not a prerequisite for submitting to the special issue.
Alter, K. J., & Zürn, M. (2020). Theorising backlash politics: Conclusion to a special issue on
backlash politics in comparison. The British Journal of Politics and International Relations,
22(4), 739–752. https://doi.org/10.1177/1369148120947956
Alvesson, M., & Spicer, A. (2016). The stupidity paradox: The power and pitfalls of functional
stupidity at work. Profile Books.
Ayoko, O. B., & Fujimoto, Y. (2023). Diversity, inclusion, and human resource management:
A call for more belongingness and intersectionality research. Journal of Management
& Organization, 29(6), 983–990. https://doi.org/10.1017/jmo.2023.72
Barlatier, P.-J., Du, J., Josserand, E., Bardon, T., Hermel, P., & Ruiz, É. (2025). Delivering
sustainability through ecosystem innovation: A multilevel framework for sustainability
transitions. M@n@gement, 28(5), 110. https://doi.org/10.37725/mgmt.2025.13718
Berkowitz, H., Prideaux, M., Lelong, S., & Frey, F. (2019). The urgency of sustainable ocean
studies in management. M@n@gement, 22(9), 297–315. https://doi-org.distant.bu.univrennes2.
fr/10.3917/mana.222.0297
Briscoe, F., & Gupta, A. (2016). Social activism in and around organizations. Academy of
Management Annals, 10(1), 671–727. https://doi.org/10.5465/19416520.2016.1153261
Burke, R. J., & Black, S. (1997). Save the males: Backlash in organizations. Journal of Business
Ethics, 16(9), 933–942. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1017991421416
Carlos, W. C., & Lewis, B. W. (2018). Strategic silence: Withholding certification status as a
hypocrisy avoidance tactic. Administrative Science Quarterly, 63(1), 130–169. https://doi.
dox.org/10.1177/0001839217695089
Ciancetta, L. M., & Roch, S. G. (2021). Backlash in performance feedback: Deepening
the understanding of the role of gender in performance appraisal. Human Resource
Management, 60(4), 641–657. https://doi.org/10.1002/hrm.22059
Chung, H., & Seo, H. (2024). Flexibility stigma across Europe: How national contexts can shift
the extent to which flexible workers are stigmatised. Social Indicators Research, 174(3),
945–965. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-024-03420-w
Contu, A. (2018). ‘… The point is to change it’ – Yes, but in what direction and how? Intellectual
activism as a way of ‘walking the talk’of critical work in business schools. Organization,
25(2), 282–293. https://doi.org/10.1177/1350508417740589
Flood, M., Dragiewicz, M., & Pease, B. (2021). Resistance and backlash to gender equality.
Australian Journal of Social Issues, 56(3), 393–408. https://doi.org/10.1002/ajs4.137
Folberg, A. M., Dueland, L. B., Swanson, M., Stepanek, S., Hebl, M., & Ryan, C. S. (2024).
Racism underlies seemingly race‐neutral conservative criticisms of DEI statements
among Black and White people in the United States. Journal of Occupational and
Organizational Psychology, 97(3), 791–816. https://doi.org/10.1111/joop.12491
Gariel, C., & Bartel-Radic, A. (2024). Tidying up the concept of grand challenges. A bibliometric
analysis. M@ n@ gement, 27(3), 58–79. https://doi.org/10.37725/mgmt.2024.8884
Godard, J. (2014). The psychologisation of employment relations? Human Resource
Management Journal, 24(1), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1111/1748-8583.12030
Harmes, A. (2025). The anti-ESG backlash and asset manager capitalism. Politics & Society,
53(4), 603–629. https://doi.org/10.1177/00323292251346266
Heery, E. (2016). British industrial relations pluralism in the era of neoliberalism. Journal of
Industrial Relations, 58(1), 3–24. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022185615598190
Iyer, A. (2022). Understanding advantaged groups’ opposition to diversity, equity, and
inclusion (DEI) policies: The role of perceived threat. Social and Personality Psychology
Compass, 16(5), e12666. https://doi.org/10.1111/spc3.12666
Kaufman, B. E. (2015). Evolution of strategic HRM as seen through two founding books: A 30th
anniversary perspective on development of the field. Human Resource Management,
54(3), 389–407. https://doi.org/10.1002/hrm.21720
Lawrence, T. B., Suddaby, R., & Leca, B. (2011). Institutional work: Refocusing institutional
studies of organization. Journal of Management Inquiry, 20(1), 52–58. https://journals.
sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1056492610387222
Le Nevé, S. (2021, February 16). Frédérique Vidal lance une enquête sur « l’islamogauchisme
» à l’université. Le Monde. https://www.lemonde.fr/societe/
article/2021/02/16/frederique-vidal-lance-une-enquete-sur-l-islamo-gauchisme-al-
universite_6070195_3224.html
Lipset, S. M., & Raab, E. (1970). The non-generation gap. Commentary, 50(2), 35–39.
Mair, J., & Rathert, N. (2025). The political side of social enterprises: A phenomenon‐based
study of sociocultural and policy advocacy. Journal of Management Studies, 62(6), 2358–
2386. https://doi.org/10.1111/joms.13134
Mercier-Roy M., & Mailhot, C. (2024). Collective action for a multispecies world: A
compositionist approach to grand challenges. M@n@gement, 27(3), 45–57. https://doi.
org/10.37725/mgmt.2024.8881
Micelotta, E. R., & Washington, M. (2013). Institutions and maintenance: The repair
work of Italian professions. Organization Studies, 34(8), 1137–1170. https://doi.
org/10.1177/0170840613492075
Phelan, J. E., & Rudman, L. A. (2010). Reactions to ethnic deviance: The role of backlash
in racial stereotype maintenance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 99(2),
265–281. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0018304
Posner, M. (2024, September 4). How Blackrock abandoned social and environmental
engagement. Forbes. https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelposner/2024/09/04/
how-blackrock-abandoned-social-and-environmental-engagement/
Rodier, A. (2025, October 6). « Retour au bureau, pression, zéro flexibilité… Depuis six mois,
l’atmosphère a radicalement changé » : dans les entreprises, les chefs reprennent
la main. Le Monde. https://www.lemonde.fr/economie/article/2025/10/06/
Ross, A. D., Rouse, S. M., & Mobley, W. (2019). Polarization of climate change beliefs: The role
of the millennial generation identity. Social Science Quarterly, 100(7), 2625–2640. https://
doi.org/10.1111/ssqu.12640
Rudman, L. A., & Phelan, J. E. (2008). Backlash effects for disconfirming gender stereotypes in
organizations. Research in Organizational Behavior, 28, 61–79. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
riob.2008.04.003
Saint-Michel, S. E. (2018). Leader gender stereotypes and transformational leadership: Does
leader sex make the difference? M@n@gement, 21(3), 944–966. https://doi.org/10.3917/
mana.213.0944
Scott, M. L., Mende, M., & García Ramón, L. (2025). Inclusivity in the marketplace through
the lens of social-movements and counter-movements theories. Journal of Business
Research, 189, 115058. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2024.115058
Scott, W. R. (2001). Institutions and organizations (2nd ed.). Sage.
Scherer, A. G., Palazzo, G., & Matten, D. (2014). The business firm as a political actor: A new
theory of the firm for a globalized world. Business & Society, 53(2), 143–156. https://doi.
org/10.1177/0007650313511778
Wheatley, D., Broome, M. R., Dobbins, T., Hopkins, B., & Powell, O. (2024). Navigating choppy
water: Flexibility ripple effects in the COVID-19 pandemic and the future of remote
and hybrid working. Work, Employment and Society, 38(5), 1379–1402. https://doi.
org/10.1177/09500170231195230
Ybarra, C. E., & Turk, T. A. (2025). The backlash against environmental, social, and governance
in the United States: A resource-based view. Corporate Governance & Sustainability
Review, 9(3), 266–275. https://doi.org/10.22495/cgsrv9i3sip7
Yourish, K., Daniel, A., Datar, S., White, I., & Gamio, L. (2025, March 10). These words are
disappearing in the new Trump administration. The New York Times. https://www.
nytimes.com/interactive/2025/03/07/us/trump-federal-agencies-websites-wordsdei.
html
Zanhour, M, & Sumpter, D. M. (2024). The entrenchment of the ideal worker norm during the
COVID‐19 pandemic: Evidence from working mothers in the United States. Gender, Work
& Organization, 31(2), 625–643. https://doi.org/10.1111/gwao.12885
Special Issues:
‘Cold Cases’: Revisiting founding myths, iconic cases,
and forgotten stories in management
(Download call (PDF))
_____________________
Is progress taken for granted? Social change, backlash, and resistance in organizations (Download call (PDF))
Our sponsors
Published with the support of CNRS sciences humaines et sociales (Institute of Humanities and Social Sciences), 2023-2024
Published by AIMS, in cooperation with:
Published by AIMS under the terms of a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International (CC BY-NC 4.0) License
Published with the support of CNRS Humanities and Social Sciences, 2023–2025
ISSN 1286-4692
Contact | Privacy Policy | Copyright & licensing | M@n@gement | For Readers | For Authors | For Libraries | News
