Navigation

Special Issue Call for Papers: Decentering Strategic Leadership and Governance Research: Insights from Diverse Institutional Landscapes

By on June 25, 2025 in Uncategorized

Submission Window: 15-30 June 2026

 

Guest Editors:

Floor Rink, University of Groningen, The Netherlands (f.a.rink@rug.nl)

Ruth V. Aguilera, Northeastern University, USA and ESADE Business School, Spain (r.aguilera@northeastern.edu)

Sarosh Asad, University of Groningen, The Netherlands (s.asad@rug.nl)

Mariano L.M. Heyden, Monash University, Australia (pitosh.heyden@monash.edu)

Sun Hyun Park, Seoul National University, Korea (sunpark@snu.ac.kr)

Dennis Veltrop, University of Groningen, The Netherlands (d.veltrop@rug.nl)

 

JMS Editor: Tiffany Trzebiatowski, Colorado State University, USA (tiffany.trzebiatowski@colostate.edu)

 

BACKGROUND OF THE SPECIAL ISSUE

How executives and boards set their organization’s strategic direction and navigate corporate challenges is intertwined with the national governance frameworks, economic structures, political and legal systems, labor markets, and societal cultural expectations in which they operate. However, much of the existing strategic leadership research on the subject disproportionately draws from U.S.-based studies, often focusing on samples of large, publicly traded corporations. While the economic prowess of these firms is not disputed, the Anglo-Saxon, shareholder-owned corporate form they represent is not the predominant organizational model globally. In fact, it is somewhat of an exception. Governance and leadership in organizations are influenced by unique institutional contexts, making it unlikely that best practices from one setting can be seamlessly transferred to another. Each national or regional setting contains distinctive, macro-level elements that shape who is most likely to lead and govern an organization, as well as the actions they take. To date, our understanding of how these institutional influences impact such micro-level leadership dynamics remains underdeveloped. We, therefore, propose a special issue that decenters the conversation about this research topic, to shift the current universalist assumptions of strategic leadership and governance practices toward a more pluralistic view that recognizes the interplay between macro-level institutional factors and micro-level dynamics.

 

Topic relevance

Recent developments in global business and political dynamics underscore the relevance of the special issue topic. Economic power centers were already shifting as Global South markets expand, but we now see geopolitical alliances evolving, sometimes straining even long-standing relationships (e.g., within NATO). Moreover, we observe an increasing variation across world regions in firm commitments to major global initiatives, such as the United Nations’ development goals aimed at combating social inequality and climate change. As these transformations have a significant societal impact, they underscore the need for a special issue that represents a collection of papers that enhances our multi-level, contextual understanding of strategic leadership and governance.

 

AIMS AND SCOPE OF THE ISSUE

For conciseness, we refer to strategic leadership and governance practices broadly in this call for papers, but we adhere to their definition as “the functions performed by individuals at the top levels of an organization (CEOs, TMT members, Directors, General Managers) that are intended to have strategic consequences for the firm” (Samimi et al., 2022, p. 3). Management scholars commonly emphasize that micro-level processes like leadership styles (Georgakakis et al., 2022; Park et al., 2011; Steinberg et al., 2022), relational dynamics within (and between) TMTs and boards (Asad et al., 2023; Heyden et al., 2017; Rink et al., 2022, Veltrop et al., 2021), and strategic decision-making processes (Witt, Fainshmidt, & Aguilera, 2022) underpin the practices.

 

The goal of this special issue is twofold, First, it aims to move beyond a single-level focus by inviting research that explores how strategic leadership and governance practices, as well as their effects on meso-level firm processes and firm outcomes (both financial and non-financial), are influenced by macro-level features of an organization’s institutional context. Second, the special issue aims to demonstrate how recent trends in these contexts, such as political developments, industry innovations, or new regulations (including, but not limited to, those addressing sustainability concerns or reflecting geopolitical change), are uniquely reshaping the institutional contexts in which strategic leaders must operate, and hereby their practices.

 

Specifically, the special issue encourages submissions that contextualize strategic leadership and governance through three distinct lenses:

  1. Within-country studies that explore how macro-level institutional features and micro-level factors within organizations interact to shape leadership and governance practices (i.e., studies on subnational institutional variety);
  2. Cross-country comparative research that examines how cultural, institutional, or economic differences influence these practices across national or regional settings;
  3. Studies of interconnected responses to larger regional developments, such as specific geopolitical shifts, crises, or changes in business ecosystems, and how these impact leadership and governance practices within countries situated in those regions.

 

Why these three focus points?

The three insights we aim to achieve through contextualization will help expand our scholarship beyond its traditional foundations. The first, within-country inquiry enables a deeper and more context-sensitive understanding of how leadership and governance are embedded in local institutional configurations. The second comparative lens helps define the boundaries of such country-centric models, offering opportunities to refine or challenge prevalent theorizing on the topic, which is still primarily built on single-country sources. The third approach, focused on transnational trends, further helps to distinguish leadership practices rooted in local institutional norms from those shaped by broader macro-level forces. Together, these perspectives open up new theoretical ground and broaden the scope of strategic leadership research.

 

In conclusion, studies on these topics can establish counterfactuals and challenge taken-for-granted assumptions. Take, for instance, theoretical assumptions about effective executive decision-making developed within the legal and institutional frameworks of Anglo-Saxon economies (Hambrick & Mason, 1984). In other cultures, strategic decision-making is likely driven by other micro-social and cultural dynamics (e.g., Qian et al., 2013). Without a broader geographic lens, we thus risk applying models that do not fully capture how leadership and governance practices function in alternative contextual realities, particularly in regions with economies that yield substantial global influence.

 

Research examining how enduring versus changing institutional logics influence strategic leadership and governance practices, and vice versa, can also shift current scholarly thinking in the field. For instance, governance structures in parts of Europe and Asia innately differ from the Anglo-Saxon structure because they can formally integrate employee representatives into board decision-making, have different director remuneration incentives (e.g., Hillman & Dalziel, 2003) and prescribe different collaboration systems (i.e., one-tier versus two-tier systems; Heyden et al., 2015). This fundamental institutional difference may trigger variations in leaders’ normative views on stakeholder participation and board independence at the micro-level. At the same time, broader regional institutional developments can uniquely reshape the landscape in which leadership and governance are situated. Prior macro-level comparative research has examined organizations’ market responses to such developments; however, it remains unclear how specific, culturally determined leadership and governance practices at the micro-level (e.g., leadership styles, executive board dynamics, and strategic decision-making) influence an organization’s response to broader institutional changes. While recognizing that organizations may show a certain degree of response convergence to a (commonly experienced) change, culturally distinct leadership views may explain possible regional divergences in firm strategies to a significant market transformation (Cloutier et al., 2025; Park et al., 2020; Schneider & Meyer, 1991).

 

Importantly, our goal is not to study global-level developments as such or to call for replicational work, but rather to encourage ecologically valid research that appreciates the diverse and changing institutional contexts in which strategic leaders operate, yielding theoretical advancements or new paradigms. In light of this purpose, we welcome papers that draw on management research, as well as papers from adjacent social science domains (e.g., economics, psychology, and sociology), and papers that take an interdisciplinary approach. Moreover, we encourage submissions across the entire methodological, theoretical, and paradigmatic traditions of JMS.

 

Representative research questions

  1. What are the key leadership and governance challenges faced by organizations operating internationally or across borders?
  2. In what ways do macro-level institutional factors, such as cultural, economic, political, and legal systems, shape leadership and governance practices at the organizational (micro) level?
  3. How do these macro-level institutional contexts influence the effectiveness of strategic leadership and corporate boards in driving firm-level outcomes?
  4. How can organizations best tailor their top management and board structures – including composition, governance codes, decision-making processes, and operational systems – to align with the specific institutional environments in which they operate?
  5. How does institutional variety cause different leadership and governance practices within countries?
  6. How can comparative cross-country studies, or studies between the Anglo-American setting and other settings, advance our understanding of strategic leadership and governance? For example, to what extent do theoretical frameworks developed in one context translate to other institutional environments?
  7. What are the implications of varying governance systems across countries for the micro-level leadership practices of non-listed organizations (e.g., foundation-owned firms, public organizations, semi-private organizations, private equity-backed companies, and family businesses?
  8. Do organizational leadership and governance responses to broader institutional developments (e.g., geopolitical shifts, crises, or industry transitions) reflect shared regional patterns or culturally specific strategies?
  9. What data sources and methodological approaches are most effective in capturing the multi-level contingencies inherent in national and regional leadership studies, and what challenges arise in researching governance across these levels?

 

SUBMISSION PROCESS AND DEADLINES 

 

 

SPECIAL ISSUE EVENTS 

 

Online information sessions: The Guest Editors will organize two virtual information sessions designed for a global audience to provide an overview of the Special Issue, clarify its objectives, and address any queries from potential contributors. These sessions will enable prospective co-authors to engage with the editorial team, ensuring a clear understanding of the submission process and expectations, and encouraging high-quality, well-aligned submissions (exact dates, times, and formats to be announced).

 

Post-submission paper development workshop: We aim to organize a dedicated (in-person) symposium in late 2026 (exact date, time, and format TBA) to provide support for authors invited to revise and resubmit their manuscripts. This post-submission symposium will serve as an interactive platform to support authors in refining their research and aligning it with the Special Issue’s objectives. 

 

Participation in the information sessions or post-submission workshop does not guarantee acceptance of the paper in the Special Issue and attendance is not a prerequisite for publication.

 

REFERENCES

Aguilera, R. V., De Massis, A., Fini, R. and Vismara, S. (2024). ‘Organizational goals, outcomes, and the assessment of performance: reconceptualizing success in management studies’. Journal of Management Studies, 61, 1-36.

Aguilera, R. V., Aragón-Correa, J. A., Marano, V. and Tashman, P. A. (2021). ‘The corporate governance of environmental sustainability: A review and proposal for more integrated research’. Journal of Management, 47, 1468-1497.

Aguilera, R. V. and Jackson, G. (2010). ‘Comparative and international corporate governance’. The Academy of Management Annals, 4, 485-556.

Aguilera, R. V. and Jackson, G. (2003). ‘The cross-national diversity of corporate governance: Dimensions and determinants’. Academy of Management Review, 28, 447-465.

Asad, S., Hennig, J. C., Oehmichen, J., Wolff, M. and Haas, V. (2023). ‘From attention to action: How board environmental expertise influences corporate environmental performance’. Strategic Organization, 14761270231197995.

Bjørnåli, E., Asad, S. and Terjesen, S. (2024). ‘Determinants of intra-board behavioral integration in high-tech start-ups’. Journal of Management and Governance, 28, 215-236.

Cowen, A. P., Rink, F., Cuypers, I. R., Grégoire, D. A. and Weller, I. (2022). ‘Applying Coleman’s boat in management research: Opportunities and challenges in bridging macro and micro theory’. Academy of Management Journal, 65, 1-10.

Hambrick, D. C. and Mason, P. A. (1984). ‘Upper echelons: The organization as a reflection of its top managers’. Academy of Management Review, 9, 193-206.

Heyden, M. L., Fourné, S. P., Koene, B. A., Werkman, R. and Ansari, S. (2017). ‘Rethinking ‘top‐down’ and ‘bottom‐up’ roles of top and middle managers in organizational change: Implications for employee support’. Journal of Management Studies, 54, 961-985.

Park, S. H., Westphal, J. D. and Stern, I. (2011). ‘Set up for a fall: The insidious effects of flattery and opinion conformity toward corporate leaders’. Administrative Science Quarterly, 56, 257-302.

Park, S. H. and Zhang, Y. (2020). ‘Cultural entrepreneurship in corporate governance practice diffusion: Framing of “independent directors” by US-listed Chinese companies’. Organization Science, 31, 1359-1384.

Qian, C., Cao, Q. and Takeuchi, R. (2013). ‘Top management team functional diversity and organizational innovation in China: The moderating effects of environment’. Strategic Management Journal, 34, 110-120.

Rink, F., de Waal, M., Veltrop, D. and Stoker, J. I. (2022). ‘Managing C-suite conflict: The unique impact of internal and external governance interfaces on top management team reflexivity’. Long Range Planning, 55, 102121.

Samimi, M., Cortes, A. F., Anderson, M. H. and Herrmann, P. (2022). ‘What is strategic leadership? Developing a framework for future research’. The Leadership Quarterly, 33, 101353.

Steinberg, P. J., Asad, S. and Lijzenga, G. (2022). ‘Narcissistic CEOs’ dilemma: The trade‐off between exploration and exploitation and the moderating role of performance feedback’. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 39, 773-796.

Veltrop, D. B., Bezemer, P. J., Nicholson, G. and Pugliese, A. (2021). ‘Too unsafe to monitor? How board–CEO cognitive conflict and chair leadership shape outside director monitoring’. Academy of Management Journal, 64, 207-234.

Veltrop, D. B., Molleman, E., Hooghiemstra, R. B. and van Ees, H. (2017). ‘Who’s the boss at the top? A micro‐level analysis of director expertise, status and conformity within boards’. Journal of Management Studies, 54, 1079-1110.

Wellman, N., Tröster, C., Grimes, M., Roberson, Q., Rink, F. and Gruber, M. (2023). ‘Publishing multimethod research in AMJ: A review and best-practice recommendations’. Academy of Management Journal, 66, 1007-1015.

Witt, M. A., Fainshmidt, S. and Aguilera, R. V. (2022). ‘Our board, our rules: Nonconformity to global corporate governance norms’. Administrative Science Quarterly, 67, 131-166.