---

Editorial Overview to the Special Issue on Addressing Health and Wellbeing Issues in the Contemporary Business School

The role of context, collegiality and leadership

Workplace surveys in the UK stress that 60% of all sickness absences derive from issues of stress, anxiety and depression, while there are a growing number of accounts that reference anxiety and ongoing wellbeing challenges linked to higher education and specifically business schools (Bothello and Roulet, 2019; Korica, 2022).

Cary Cooper’s foreword to this issue carefully outlines his lifelong research journey in the fields of organisational psychology and health, and highlights the importance of designing and structuring workplace settings that promote healthy and wellbeing cultures in practice. The strength of his National Forum on wellbeing in the UK attests to the recognition by many managers and leaders of the need to build healthy, strong, collaborative cultures in the workplace (whether that is in higher education or other sectors of business, government and society) but also the challenges associated with doing so.

In this collection, we build upon Cary’s path-breaking work with a set of contributions written by leading global authorities in the field. They examine three main themes in their essays.

The first theme and set of contributions focus on identifying conceptual frameworks and theoretical initiatives that carefully diagnose the challenges experienced within the contemporary business school, and the wellbeing impacts that manifest. They share insights into how these challenges might be addressed, and offer suggested actions for a range of actors, including leadership teams both within and beyond the school, accreditation bodies and wider faculty.

Our second set of contributions documents a series of context-specific responses to the challenges experienced by business schools. These articles provide an insight into how circumstances are playing out in a range of global business school workplaces and the ways that leadership teams are building cultures and developing locally-driven responses in an attempt to support wellness. As the articles demonstrate, this requires responding to a combination of local and global challenges and developing approaches that are deemed appropriate to their geographical and cultural context.

Recognising that business schools do not operate in isolation, the third set of articles focuses on the institutional environment within which business schools operate. These contributions highlight the ways in which leadership teams navigate and interact with governance systems and structures, whether these are sector-specific (e.g. accreditation and rankings systems) or institutional (e.g. a parent university governance structure), to build health and wellbeing cultures that proactively address complex problems and challenges.

Across the collection, each of our contributions advocates for meaningful organisational change that can enable business schools to sustain and enhance collaborative and collegiate workplace cultures. Cognisant of the need to address the root causes of health and wellbeing issues, rather than just designing ‘sticking plaster’ responses that can appear somewhat tokenistic, we note that the recommendations from our contributors tend to align with a more purposeful and agentic orientation for business schools that prioritises the creation of public value and a more meaningful contribution to cultural, economic, environmental and social wellbeing.

What Is Going Wrong and Why? The Diagnosis Is That the Crisis Is Real, Structural, but Not Deterministic

An analysis of views from authors in elite Western and Asian city schools

We have chosen to start our commentary on the six papers in the first section by sharing some of the very honest personal reflections by a long-term business school insider, namely Professor Anand Narasimhan. In this auto-ethnographic essay titled ‘Seeing Things as They Are: A Reflection on Wellbeing and Not-So-Wellbeing in Business Schools’, we find a narrative that could be characterised as the journey of an academic from ‘burnout’ to personal and institutional transformation.

His statement that “he has known both wellbeing in a business school; collegiality, learning; fulfilment, growth and development,” as well as “not-so-wellbeing; exhaustion; feelings of inefficacy and inadequacy, envy, shame and regret” will surely resonate with many business school academics. He confesses that he has taught while tired, led while worried, but that over time, he has learned to notice his own sense of overwhelm with a little more care.

His story begins with the advice from a counsellor coach who says, “Anand, if you continue like this, you will have a heart attack and die.” This ‘wake-up call’ (his Darkness episode) led him to a passage of enlightenment (Discovery) via studying Buddhism and Mindfulness-based Cognitive Therapy (MBCT), followed by ‘Delight’ in successfully presenting a case study of ‘mindfulness’ at a German software firm (SAP) in IMD’s signature executive programme, ‘Orchestrating Winning Performance’.

This then led to ‘Doubt’, and then came success through his MBCT initiative, implementing executive mindfulness programmes at IMD as well as elective courses in IMD’s highly regarded MBA programmes.

Jochen Reb’s paper on the mindfulness curriculum in SMU also shows us how a very significant change was made in SMU’s undergraduate programme. This took the form of a pillar course on mindfulness designed by Jochen’s mindfulness institute for SMU’s highly regarded four-year liberal arts undergraduate programme, which cited clear evidence of its success from student feedback and the careful positioning of the course in the first or second year of the programme.

Anand concludes his honest essay by saying he simply does not know where responsibility for wellbeing sits in a business school. He says, “perhaps responsibility is shared, elastic and situational. And the best we can do is keep on noticing when care turns into control, when autonomy drifts into neglect, when help is needed, and it is not noted or offered.” He concludes that “seeing things as they really are may be the only commitment with confidence we can make to wellbeing in practice.”

As Thomas and Ambrosini, Delbridge and Suddaby identify, successive authors, including Martin Parker (2021), Peter Fleming (2021), Billsberry et al. (2023), have written about the ‘neo-liberal business school’ in the rankings era. Scholars have highlighted how business schools and their faculty have found themselves governed by, and trapped within, an ‘iron cage’ and ‘publish or perish’ culture where ‘command and control’ managers in business schools adopt citation metrics as performance indicators, and view them as judgments of academic quality (Starkey and Thomas, 2019). Critics argue that the impressive production line of research articles from business schools often does little to address and advance managerial practice or leverage societal impact, as highlighted by Fenwick in his case study of Sasin, Thailand, later in the collection. In addition, there is growing evidence of the negative impact on cultures of collegiality in business schools, and a detrimental impact on health and wellbeing, with levels of pressure experienced by faculty becoming increasingly severe.

With this context and growing levels of stress and anxiety and increasing workloads in mind, Thomas and Ambrosini deploy the term ‘zombie academics’ as a metaphor for ‘living death in hyper managerial cultures’, beset with mental health problems, concerns around research integrity and talent flight from academic jobs. While they identify that early-career academics feel overwhelmed, Thomas and Ambrosini also highlight the ‘mercenary’ behaviour of some senior colleagues who ‘play the game’ and then mentor others accordingly, encouraging them to ‘follow suit’.

In his paper on Managerial Pathologies, Roy Suddaby identifies a further challenge for business schools – the growth of administrative bloat, and emphasises that, as a result, we have undergone a major transformation from collegial to managerial governance. He contends that this has contributed to a wellbeing crisis, which has been particularly felt by early-career academics seeking to develop a rounded profile and make a more meaningful contribution. Suddaby identifies that early-career academics are more likely to see themselves as ‘institutional resistors’ and supporters of a more progressive form of academia. This resonates with Thomas and Ambrosini, who advocate for the emerging movement Positive Academia (Sathish and Harzing, 2025) that “seeks to reimagine academic life through values of care, collegiality, and collective transformation” by “promoting a culture of psychological safety and celebrating purpose and impact beyond top-tier publications.”

The papers of Suddaby, Delbridge and Smith/Safeer illustrate that structural, managerial ‘command and control’ governance processes can manifest in a form of ‘managed collegiality’ where colleagues are merely ‘engaged with’ or ‘consulted’ on any change, rather than being able to fully participate in collegial decisions. However, our contributors indicate that more meaningful models of collegiality can persist, including ones that provide strong benefits through intentional leadership initiatives and systematic relational approaches.

In particular, Delbridge argues from his ABS case study that “islands of collegiality can be created and sustained within existing university systems through empathetic, relational leadership by deans and other leaders.” He contends, though, that such a ‘living initiative’ requires active reproduction and proactive peer relationships and support, as well as informal networks, healthy communication norms, and “collegial, participatory, and nurturing leadership”. Similarly, Suddaby argues that “crafting collegiality” requires “cultivating leaders who act as custodians of moral purpose rather than as managers of metrics” and can “realign managerialist professionalism with collegial purpose.” Smith and Safeer propose a human capital systems framework at the school level. This, they suggest, can offer actionable frameworks for organisational wellbeing, with particular emphasis on developing organisational cultures and a leadership structure, which stimulates talent, growth and progression within the school. Finally, Thomas and Ambrosini highlight scope for us all to engage in “subtle activism” in the form of everyday actions that “challenge toxic norms without confrontation.”

In summary, this first set of papers outlines and evidences the crisis of managerial structures in universities and business schools, with a strong emphasis that collegiality must be actively crafted, not passively preserved. Deans and senior leaders are pivotal here as in-system managers, school relationship protectors, value creators, infusers, institutional resistors, and, in Anand’s case, vulnerable transformers. Clearly, governance constraints are proving to be increasingly challenging in restricting the nature of local responses, for example, workload models are often institution-wide rather than school-specific. But perhaps deans and their leadership teams have much more local agency than they think. While the crisis of managerialism can be evidenced, both structurally and culturally, it is not necessarily deterministic. Deans, senior faculty and students are increasingly aware that health and wellbeing matters, and that we have the potential to create a more humane business school workplace through collective approaches rather than by trying to cope as best we can on an individual basis. This might take the form of group mentoring, collective lobbying actions by deans, or faculty movements, such as Positive Academia.

It is useful to offer a few provocative comments here. First, business schools teach management, but it seems we do not always role model the finest management practice. We run leadership programmes, but our leadership teams often seem unable to meet the challenges associated with the contemporary workplace as well as the needs of stakeholders. Where does attention to students feature in a ‘publish or perish’ culture, for example? Second, and in contrast to other disciplines, why have business schools allowed themselves to become trapped in a performative journal ranking regime which distorts behaviour and harms wellbeing, but still no one wants to opt out of?

Implementation of Wellness Concepts and Initiatives: What We’ve Done and How Well It Has Worked

Institutional case studies and cultural practices from diverse global contexts

The six papers in this section come from leaders or directors of schools in diverse regions, in emerging markets and middle-income countries.

Our overview of the contributions to this second section begins with Gina Grandy’s personal, honest reflection on her two deanships, in which she contrasts her appointments as both an ‘Internal Dean’ and an ‘External Dean’. She frames the context as imperfect, gendered and burdensome in an environment of the managerialism crisis, well documented by Thomas and Ambrosini, Delbridge, and Suddaby in the first section. She states that, “Now more than ever, cultivating a culture of wellness in business schools is critical but likely never more difficult.” She adds that, “As a woman dean navigating leadership, wellness and culture transformation in a business school, I propose that cultivating a wellness culture is grounded in people and systems, and it doesn’t always feel good when trying to get there.” And she continues, “here I conceptualise wellness as considering wellbeing, dignity at work, and related concepts such as care, connection, engagement and sustainability.” This resonates with the holistic approach to wellbeing documented in Alvarado and Romero’s study of IPADE, Mexico where the focus is on “physical, emotional, social, intellectual, financial, occupational, and spiritual dimensions.”

Gina emphasises that her experiences as dean have taught her the importance of investing in building trust, which takes a lot of time and effort, as well as good health. And she argues that wellness at work also ties to the wise use of space, nourishment and health involving social interaction and a process of continuous improvement that grows a sustainable and meaningful organisational culture that works effectively. Indeed, she stresses that, “As a woman dean and scholar of women in leadership, I would be remiss not to reflect on how cultivating a culture of wellness can be intertwined with the gendered scripts of care and community …. I would like to think that colleagues describe my leadership style as a positive combination of results-driven, accountable, tenacious, strategic, empathetic, nurturing and relationship-oriented. A balance of doing gender well and gender differently … While I recognise that my experience as a woman dean does not reflect the experience of all woman deans in business schools, my lived experience is that the rules are different for us.” What is important in Grandy’s comments is her humility. We believe that her list of lessons for actioning what she calls an ‘ethics of care’ – her enacted practice – is a useful platform for all readers.

Our summary of the global responses of the six schools in this section reveals some commonalities in their responses and initiatives responses, which are outlined below:

Business School Purpose as a Foundation for Wellbeing

• ‘when purpose drives culture … and wellbeing’, with an explicit Christian humanistic mission and daily spiritual moments (IPADE, Mexico)
• ‘the mission directs everything’ (Woxsen, India)
• Mission evolution drives wellbeing (Sasin, Thailand)
• Alignment of wellbeing initiatives with institutional purpose (ESCA, Morocco)

Creating Space for Connection, Community and Relationship Building

• Institutional events bringing units of the school together (ESCA, Morocco)
• ‘Feed people well and often’ (Haskayne, Canada)
• Free daily breakfast and lunch for faculty and staff (IPADE, Mexico)
• Thirty-plus student clubs, plus team building days for staff and students (MSB, Tunisia).

Comprehensive, Wrap-Around Faculty Support

• Benefits are double the legal requirements, with the school offering retirement preparation and family support packages (IPADE, Mexico)
• ACC Counselling, Summer kids’ programmes and training plans are all offered (MSB, Tunisia).
• Conference subsidies, flexible work procedures and attention to gender equity (ESCA (Morocco)
• Professional development and collaborative recognition systems (Woxsen (India)

Leaders as Architects of Meaningful Cultural Change

All six leaders see themselves as custodians and enhancers of culture, and not just managers. Grandy’s honest set of reflections suggests that leadership can sometimes be burdensome, but all the leaders demonstrate a belief in their own agency to shape the local environment and build strong relationships in their schools. Adopting a Self-Determination Theory perspective with specific attention to autonomy, competence, and relatedness, Yennek and Triki focus on wellbeing for students and administrative staff, as well as faculty. Their application to a case study of MSB identifies actions related to professional development, recognition, and community that have supporting wellbeing. They consider how this perspective might extend beyond an individual lens, and elements of their holistic SDT-Based Framework for Implementing Eudaimonic Wellbeing in Business Schools might usefully be considered elsewhere.

The six leaders also identify commonalities across their schools. For example, in their case study of IPADE in Mexico, Alvarado and Romero discuss challenges to wellbeing, including “workload pressures, cultural cohesion across campuses, generational differences, and digital transformation” that resonate across business schools. However, they also identified challenges, for example, with experiences of accreditation systems, which as Fenwick discusses in the case of Sasin, Thailand demonstrated “the imperfect fit of the North America model to the Asian reality, and the closer—but still imperfect match—with the European model.”

Context and cultural diversity are evident within these contributions and naturally have profound implications in terms of the specifics of the wellbeing challenges being experienced and the ways that schools respond. As Ghorfi and Hatimi emphasise in their case study of ESCA Ecole de Management in Morocco there are challenges, including limited resources and technological disruptions, specific to the Moroccan context, so any approach to addressing health and wellbeing must be context-driven and holistic. In their case, this has involved aligning wellbeing actions with “institutional purpose, strategy, culture, structure, and policies” so they correspond to stakeholders’ expectations and personal values. Similarly, referencing Sasin in Thailand, Fenwick advocates for an integrated, collegial approach, rather than pursuing wellbeing as a separate concern. He identifies purposeful strategic alignment and opportunities for collective, syncretic participation as key to enhancing health and wellbeing: “Faculty members thrive not just because their immediate working conditions are satisfactory, but because they see themselves as involved contributors to meaningful collective endeavours.”

The accounts document interventions that have generated some successful outcomes, such as those illustrated by Yennek and Triki’s case study of MSB, Tunisia (see Table 1) and in Rodriguez’ case study of Woxsen, India, where there is some evidence that pedagogic revisions to student programmes to prioritise wellbeing, practice and social responsibility have prompted improvements in indicators of graduate success. While these provide some inspiration and hope for other schools, somewhat understandably, responses are often made in response to wellbeing effects, rather than taking the form of interventions that address root causes, which are often sector or institution-wide. Some further attention to upstream wellbeing interventions, coupled with evaluation and tracking of outcomes and organisational impacts over time will be vital in shaping our understanding of ways we can build sustainable business school communities and systems of wellness.

Rhetoric Meets Reality? Field Level Systems and Practitioner Implementation

Our third set of papers focuses on the implementation of wellbeing initiatives and unsurprisingly they highlight a range of system and governance issues that manifest at school, university and global level. Whatever the specific context of the school, the key overall message from these contributions is that the challenges associated with wellbeing and related initiatives cannot be resolved by individuals, and that any potential solutions are likely to require collective action.

The findings from the Cornelius et al., sector-wide research study of twenty leaders at UK business schools illustrate the stark contrast between well-meaning leadership rhetoric and the reality of lived experience in business schools. The paper highlights that while UK business schools and universities are signalling their strategic intent to address EDI (equality, diversity, inclusion) and wellbeing through institutional charter marks and awards, faculty are experiencing escalating workloads, fragile collegiality and a lack of progress on entrenched inequalities. For example, many universities and business schools now operate formalised workload models designed to improve equity, yet the authors identify that more than 50% of UK academics in business schools report unmanageable workloads and that ‘invisible labour’ (e.g. student support, emotional work, picking up slack) disproportionally affects women and minorities.

The research findings prompted concerns around collegiality as well, due to changing working patterns, something Delbridge also identifies. While flexibility to work from home is clearly much valued by business school faculty, traditional forms of informal support, such as corridor chats and communal working have been much missed post-Covid. Worryingly, they observed that colleagues were not reporting wellbeing concerns, fearing they would be seen as ‘not coping’, which may affect their chances of progression.

On the other hand, we have a reflective ethnographic personal essay by Professor Enase Okonedo, who is a university president at Lagos. In her career at Lagos Business School, she progressed from a faculty member post to that of an Associate Dean role, and then became the provost and now the president of the parent university (Pan-Atlantic University). Her thoughtful account demonstrates how, during her journey in the business school, she sought to sustain and enhance a supportive and collegial culture rooted in the communitarian African values of Ubuntu (defined loosely as ‘I am who I am through you’) and solidarity (communal support). However, she identifies that the global business school system, shaped by accreditation and journal rankings, undermined her attempt to design a purposeful business school reflective of cultural context and quotes a comment from a faculty member who asked, “Do we need this accreditation? Are we chasing a Western model (a Western hegemony in management education) that will destroy the very culture that makes this school special?” Enase’s response to this challenge has been to view the individual professorial contribution as one that includes but goes beyond publications; to develop wellness programmes and mental health support mechanisms in the school; and to lobby the accreditation bodies to recognise the significance of the cultural context.

The third paper from Lily Kong, the President of Singapore Management University (SMU), a new university with seven schools (including the Lee Kong Chian School of Business), provides an authoritative and comprehensive argument connecting wellbeing to what she describes as a research integrity crisis. She argues that the so-called ‘publish or perish’ culture can create mistreatment of researchers and academics in business schools in terms of stress, anxiety, isolation and mental health problems: misconduct in the form of breaches of academic integrity via AI-generated fake papers; data hacking and data fabrication; and finally, citation gaming activities (e.g. lobbying for coercive citation). She contends that we require alternative assessment frameworks and has been reviewing ALTmetrics to develop a more integrative framework for researchers. She also advocates for a Researchers’ Oath for scholars, similar to the Hippocratic Oath taken by medical professionals.

The fourth paper is a collaborative conversation between Rajani Naidoo, Deputy VC and Vice President for People and Culture at the University of Exeter (a Russell Group University) and Howard and Michael Thomas. In contrast to the other contributions in this set, which present their problem diagnoses and approaches for building wellbeing communities and cultures, this paper focuses more on implementation and reflects on the role of senior leaders. Specifically, the focus is on the implementation of a cultural transformation programme at Exeter, overseen by a Vice-President for ‘People and Culture’ at the institutional level. The initiative is characterised by a focus on the development of a collegial community, e.g. the Wellbeing Inclusion Culture Community of Practice, and prioritises in building leadership and mentoring competence throughout the university. Rajani reflects that her core guiding principles have been first, that, “we can only transform culture through collaboration,” second, “by listening carefully and treating people fairly,” and third, in turn, “communities must listen, learn and take action.” She adds that for her, success in implementation is viewed in terms of whether the initiative positively impacts people, but that the true test of success is ultimately a cultural one.

Summary of the Collection of Papers

There is a growing literature on health and wellbeing in business schools, and this collection of articles adds further weight to the mounting body of evidence that illustrates the extent and severity of wellbeing challenges for those working within, and leading, business schools. The articles are by no means the final word, but they do shed further light on the role of culture, collegiality and leadership in the context of health and wellbeing, while our contributors have identified fruitful avenues for further research and useful ways that we can all contribute to wellness cultures in business schools.

We recall the statement of Anand’s coach – “if you continue like this, you will have a heart attack and die.” All too often wellbeing is perceived as an individual crisis, but, as our collection illustrates, what we are evidencing and experiencing in business schools is a systemic crisis that is apparent within and across diverse institutions, diverse contexts, diverse continents and diverse cultures.

The evidence suggests that business school academics could be operating within toxic and challenging cultures that are largely generated by the system in which we operate. In addressing this, we have both intellectual and ethical challenges to face, and we occupy an uncomfortable position in doing so. Many business schools were founded within a market context, and competition and marketisation, driven by publications, rankings and accreditation, have been actively encouraged and embraced by some of our schools and certain of our sub-disciplines. Yet ironically, as business school scholars, we have generated evidence that demonstrates the dangers that lie in such an approach. We embrace, teach and research stakeholder engagement, while not prioritising our own stakeholders. We profess responsible and sustainable management practices, while creating unsustainable workplaces and champion evidence-based practices, while ignoring the evidence on some of the perverse consequences of business school-specific systems and practices. We should confront these contradictions directly.

In conclusion, therefore, it seems sensible and profitable to reflect on the productive tensions and paradoxes that the authors surface, discuss and attempt to resolve. Attacking these may improve ways in which we build cultures of positive academia in business schools via ‘islands of collegiality’ and craft governance and business school cultures, which improve the conduct of management practice and do not work to the detriment of health and wellbeing.

They include the following:

Critique vs Construction

• Critiques of systemic managerialism and the tyranny of rankings and performance metrics as faculty evaluation criteria can sometimes be countered with constructive alternatives in terms of both purpose and community-driven cultures. These can be field-wide, such as the Positive Academia movement, or practice-specific, e.g. learning from initiatives such as Exeter’s WICC programme, focusing on supporting collaborative health and wellbeing initiatives across the university community.

Local Agency vs Structural Constraints

• Contrast the local agency and leadership that Delbridge and Suddaby, IPADE and Exeter demonstrate with the structural systems and constraints evident in the Lagos, and UK/SMU cases. It prompts questioning about how much freedom some leaders have in practice and whether there is more agency than we might imagine. It also provokes questions about the type of leadership required. For Suddaby, the key is whether business schools can be governed in a way that “preserves and cultivates meaning” and so he urges deans to “recover leadership as a moral craft.” This resonates with the ‘ethics of care’ approach advocated by Grandy.

Elite Resources vs Resource Constraints

• Does the degree of wellness rely purely on the level of investment an institution can make? IPADE/SMU and indeed Exeter invest substantially in wellbeing initiatives, but Lagos notes that “limited funds might hinder wellbeing programmes.” Yet in the Lagos case, Ubuntu and the communitarian spirit cost relatively little, so it is likely that cultural, rather than financial advantage, may dominate in certain cultures and contexts.

Symbolic vs Substantive

• Accreditation and national charter award schemes, e.g. Athena Swan, etc., test rhetoric against reality, with evidence in some cases of ‘institutional peacocking’ with little longitudinal impact. A greater scope within accreditation to distinguish institutions, their challenges and responses based on their distinctive cultures and context might help to reduce the ‘reality gap’.

Theory vs Practice

• Many authors know what should happen to close the gap in theory, yet almost all our contributions demonstrate how challenging this is to achieve in practice. Addressing the issues impacting poor health and wellbeing is a daunting task – as Grandy states, “it doesn’t always feel good when trying to get there.” This often leads organisations to focus on enhancements, which can sometimes be interpreted as tokenistic, rather than working collectively to address systemic wellbeing challenges.

Finally, the existence of a broad geographic lens in the origin of the papers and their authors is extremely important. Our contributors are writing from different academic leadership positions, but in each case a variety of geopolitical, economic and cultural features shape wellbeing impacts, levels of agency and scope for action. There is no ‘one size fits all’, in how business schools and universities should adapt to their country, cultural and contextual environments in ensuring the creation and enduring presence of healthy wellbeing workplaces and cultures. However, by sharing experiences, contributing to debates, and working collectively, we can provide a platform for further improvements in sustaining, enhancing and leading purposeful and collegial workplace environments across and within contemporary business schools.

---

References

Billsberry, J., Ambrosini, V. and 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), pp. 439-458.

Bothello, J. and Roulet, T. J. (2019). The imposter syndrome, or the mis-representation of self in academic life. Journal of Management Studies 56(4), pp. 854-861.

Fleming, P. (2021). Dark academia: How universities die. London: Pluto Books.Fleming, P. and Harley, B. (2024). Collegiality as control? How uncounted work gets done in the neoliberal business school. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 23(1), pp. 176-190.

Kitchener, M. and Delbridge, R. (2020). Lessons from creating a business school for public good: Obliquity, waysetting, and wayfinding in substantively rational change. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 19(3), pp. 307-322.

Korica, M. (2022). A hopeful manifesto for a more humane academia. Organization Studies, 43(9), pp. 1523-1526.

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

Sathish, C. and Harzing, A-W. (2025) Let’s form a positive academia collective transformation: Re-imagining our academic values and interactions. Management Learning https://doi.org/10.1177/13505076251351089

Starkey, K. and Thomas, H. (2019) The Future of Business Schools: Shut them down or broaden our horizons? Global Focus 13(2), pp. 44-49