Benjamin Laker, Henley Business School, University of Reading

Sven Horak, St. John's University

Toyin Ajibade Adisa, Royal Docks School of Business and Law, University of East London

Fulya Acikgoz, University of Sussex Business School

Inclusion has become a defining aspiration in modern human resource management. It is embedded in recruitment policies, leadership development strategies, employee engagement programmes, and organisational values. Yet, the institutional standing of inclusion is increasingly precarious. Across sectors and geographies, political retrenchment, economic turbulence, organisational ambivalence, and cultural contestation have converged to destabilise the norms and mechanisms that once sustained inclusive HRM.

This special issue examines the institutional fragility of inclusion—a condition in which inclusion is publicly endorsed but inconsistently enacted, weakly governed, or symbolically maintained in the absence of substantive commitment. In this context, we ask: What becomes of workplace inclusion when its institutional scaffolding weakens, but identity difference endures—embodied, politicised, and inescapable?

We invite theoretical, empirical, and methodological contributions that investigate how identity is constructed, contested, and regulated through HRM systems under conditions of institutional uncertainty. We encourage authors to move beyond static, categorical approaches to identity and instead theorise inclusion as a dynamic process shaped by power, legitimacy, and resistance. This includes examining how HRM practices—such as recruitment, development, performance management, and reward—reify dominant norms, marginalise difference, or function as sites of identity negotiation and contestation.

Contributions grounded in intersectionality and social identity theory are especially welcome, as are those drawing on critical race, feminist, or postcolonial perspectives. We particularly encourage comparative and globally informed studies that examine how inclusion is refracted through diverse institutional logics, legal regimes, and cultural contexts.

Potential topics

• Organisational responses to the erosion or contestation of inclusion mandates
• Identity construction, negotiation, and resistance within HRM systems
• Symbolic inclusion vs substantive change in HRM practice and policy
• How performance systems, leadership pipelines, or 'culture fit' criteria embed normative assumptions about who belongs
• Comparative and global analyses of inclusion across varied institutional, legal, and cultural settings
• HRM as a mechanism of voice suppression, identity masking, or strategic silence
• The effects of intersectional identity configurations (e.g. gender × race × class) on access to opportunity, recognition, and legitimacy in HRM
• How informal networks and shadow structures sustain or subvert inclusion efforts
• Experiences of inclusion and exclusion when organisations retreat from formal DEI commitments
• Institutional logics, power asymmetries, and the politics of belonging in HRM systems
• Decolonial or Indigenous critiques of Western-centric inclusion frameworks in global HRM

Timeline

• November 30, 2026: Manuscript deadline

Debora Gottardello, University of Edinburgh

Narda R. Quigley, Villanova University

Susanne M. Bruyère, Cornell University

Neurodivergent adults, including those with autism, ADHD, dyslexia, and dyspraxia, encounter systemic barriers in employment such as recruitment difficulties, limited career progression, and retention issues, often leading to underemployment and premature career exits. These challenges are structural rather than incidental, as many workplace practices adhere to neurotypical norms, viewing cognitive differences as liabilities instead of diverse strengths requiring adaptive practices. Efforts towards inclusion frequently focus on early-career hiring and a single diagnostic category, usually autism, neglecting mid and late-career trajectories and the multifaceted nature of disadvantage. Single-axis approaches may overlook how compounded inequalities manifest within organizational contexts.

Experiences of neurodivergence are not uniform but shaped by intersections of gender, race/ethnicity, class, migration status, sexuality, and age. These intersections create distinct patterns of risk and resilience, for instance, compounded discrimination and mental-health burdens among LGBTQ+ people of colour and trans communities. In the workplace, intersectional stigma constrains belonging, progression, and leadership for autistic and broader neurodivergent employees. Minority-stress processes link distal stressors (e.g., biased recruitment, literacy-laden testing, accent bias) and proximal stressors (e.g., masking), with effects varying by identity and life stage.

Leadership norms can amplify exclusion when neurotypical, masculine-coded expectations, like rapid verbal responsiveness and charisma, are seen as universal indicators of potential, often undervaluing strengths linked with neurodivergence such as systematic problem-solving and pattern recognition. Life-course elements, such as late or retroactive diagnosis and static performance systems, can accelerate career attrition, especially during mid and late career stages. Physiological changes, like menopause, additionally shape the work experiences of neurodivergent individuals.

Seemingly neutral institutional structures often perpetuate inequality. Literacy-dependent testing and narrow credential recognition can exclude dyslexic and linguistically diverse workers; language bias and accent discrimination compound these barriers. Standard accommodations and policies fail without strategies that address intersectional complexities, risking exhaustion and career stagnation.

This Special Issue of the Journal of Managerial Psychology responds to that need. We invite research that applies psychological principles and theory to executive and managerial roles to clarify when, how, and for whom organisational practices enable or constrain inclusion and effectiveness across the career span. We welcome empirical, conceptual, and practice-oriented contributions examining the relevance of established theories within intersectional neurodiversity contexts and proposing new frameworks grounded in organizational realities. Of particular interest are studies that translate intersectional insights into actionable levers—selection and assessment, feedback and appraisal, work and sensory design, communication norms, leader development, and culture and policy—and explicitly state managerial implications.

Authors should identify psychological mechanisms through which management influences outcomes like belonging, safety, and retention. The Special Issue aims to show how intersectionally informed, psychologically grounded management can foster healthy and productive organizations.

Potential topics

• Intersectional patterns of inclusion, retention, progression and wellbeing across early, mid and later career stages for ageing neurodivergent workers
• HR and line-management practices-recruitment, appraisal, promotion and leadership development; intersecting biases and evidence-based redesign for equity
• Intersectional experiences of neurodivergence at work (e.g., ethnicity, gender, sexuality, class, migration status, age)
• Physiological and health transitions in relation to neurodivergence (e.g., menopause, chronic conditions)
• Late/retroactive diagnosis, professional identity, disclosure and workplace support; trajectories, risks and career consequences
• Organisational culture, leadership and policy frameworks for neurodivergent inclusion, foregrounding intersecting identities and power dynamics
• Cross-cultural and non-Western perspectives, including decolonial approaches, highlighting how local norms and colonial legacies shape intersecting experiences of neurodivergence at work
• Comparative case studies of inclusion regimes and workplace adaptations across sectors and settings (including precarious/gig work), with attention to differential outcomes across intersecting identities
• Participatory and co-produced approaches that centre multiply marginalised voices, with ethics and accessibility designed for intersectional needs
• Sector-specific analyses (e.g., academia, public sector, technology, healthcare) specifying intersectional implications for policy and practice and for distinct workforce groups

Timeline

• January 3, 2026: Opening date for manuscripts submissions
• December 31, 2026: Closing date for manuscripts submission