Organizational theory has predominantly studied elites, yielding significant insights but creating a narrow perspective on management practices and organizational dynamics. This essay argues that we can advance organizational theory by incorporating a comprehensive focus on populations marginalized across multiple dimensions—economic, educational, geographic, demographic, cultural, and social. Addressing these marginalized groups is crucial as they face barriers, stigma, and discrimination, which are often overlooked in elite-focused research. By bringing greater attention to marginalized populations and embracing an intersectional approach focused on multiple dimensions of marginalization, we have the opportunity to broaden the scope of management research, foster inclusivity, and better reflect the diverse realities of organizational life. This essay provides definitions, operationalizations, and exemplary articles for each dimension of marginalization, ultimately advocating a more comprehensive and inclusive perspective in organizational research.
AbrahamM. (2020). Gender-role incongruity and audience-based gender bias: An examination of networking among entrepreneurs. Administrative Science Quarterly, 65(1), 151–180.
2.
ArakiS. (2020). Educational expansion, skills diffusion, and the economic value of credentials and skills. American Sociological Review, 85(1), 128–175.
3.
BellE.KothiyalN.WillmottH. (2017). Methodology-as-technique and the meaning of rigour in globalized management research. British Journal of Management, 28(3), 534–550.
4.
BernsteinE. S. (2012). The transparency paradox: A role for privacy in organizational learning and operational control. Administrative Science Quarterly, 57(2), 181–216.
5.
BourdieuP. (1984). A social critique of the judgement of taste. Traducido del francés por R. Nice. Routledge.
6.
CameronL. D. (2024). The making of the “good bad” job: How algorithmic management manufactures consent through constant and confined choices. Administrative Science Quarterly, 69(2), 458–514.
7.
CanalesR.BradburyM.SheldonA.CannonC. (2024). Evidence in practice: How structural and programmatic scaffolds enable collaboration in international development. Administrative Science Quarterly, 69(3), 655–710.
8.
ChanC. K.AntebyM. (2016). Task segregation as a mechanism for within-job inequality: Women and men of the Transportation Security Administration. Administrative Science Quarterly, 61(2), 184–216.
9.
CobbJ. A.StevensF. G. (2017). These unequal states: Corporate organization and income inequality in the United States. Administrative Science Quarterly, 62(2), 304–340.
10.
DavissC.CorrellS. (2023). Intersectionality’s publication dilemmas: Innovation, influence and inequality. Working paper. Stanford University.
11.
DiBenignoJ. (2018). Anchored personalization in managing goal conflict between professional groups: The case of U.S. Army mental health care. Administrative Science Quarterly, 63(3), 526–569.
12.
DoeringL. (2016). Necessity is the mother of isomorphism: Poverty and market creativity in Panama. Sociology of Development, 2(3), 235–264.
13.
DupreeC. H. (2024). Words of a leader: The importance of intersectionality for understanding women leaders’ use of dominant language and how others receive it. Administrative Science Quarterly, 69(2), 271–323.
14.
DwertmannD. J.BoehmS. A.McAlpineK. L.KulkarniM. (2025). Organizational burden or catalyst for ideas? Disability as a driver of cognitive flexibility and creativity. Administrative Science Quarterly, 00018392251326110.
15.
ElyR. J.ThomasD. A. (2001). Cultural diversity at work: The effects of diversity perspectives on work group processes and outcomes. Administrative Science Quarterly, 46(2), 229–273.
16.
FeldbergA. C. (2022). The task bind: Explaining gender differences in managerial tasks and performance. Administrative Science Quarterly, 67(4), 1049–1092.
17.
FleissJ. L.LevinB.PaikM. C. (1981). The measurement of interrater agreement. Statistical Methods for Rates and Proportions, 2(212–236), 22–23.
18.
FureyJ. (2021). Relative to whom? Comment on “Relative education and the advantage of a college degree.”American Sociological Review, 86(5), 1000–1010.
GelfandM. J.RaverJ. L.NishiiL.LeslieL. M.LunJ.LimB. C.. . .YamaguchiS. (2011). Differences between tight and loose cultures: A 33-nation study. Science, 332(6033), 1100–1104.
21.
GeorgeG.CorbishleyC.KhayesiJ. N.HaasM. R.TihanyiL. (2016). Bringing Africa in: Promising directions for management research. Academy of Management Journal, 59(2), 377–393.
22.
GesthuizenM.SolgaH.KünsterR. (2011). Context matters: Economic marginalization of low-educated workers in cross-national perspective. European Sociological Review, 27(2), 264–280.
23.
GodartF.SeongS.PhillipsD. J. (2020). The sociology of creativity: Elements, structures, and audiences. Annual Review of Sociology, 46, 489–510.
24.
GoffmanE. (1959). The moral career of the mental patient. Psychiatry, 22(2), 123–142.
25.
HallE. V.PhillipsK. W.GlickP.LivingstonR. W.RudmanL.WashingtonE. (2014). Laying the groundwork for future research in intersectionality: Descriptive and prescriptive stereotypes for Black and White women and men. Northwestern University, unpublished manuscript.
26.
HegdeD.TumlinsonJ. (2020). Information frictions and entrepreneurship. Strategic Management Journal, 42(3), 491–528.
27.
Howard-GrenvilleJ. (2020). Grand challenges, Covid-19 and the future of organizational scholarship. Journal of Management Studies, 58(1), 254–258.
28.
HwangK. J.PhillipsD. J. (2024). We are experts on elite entrepreneurs: A call to integrate marginalized populations into entrepreneurship research. Research in Organizational Behavior, 44, 100206.
29.
JeppesenL. B.LakhaniK. R. (2010). Marginality and problem-solving effectiveness in broadcast search. Organization Science, 21(5), 1016–1033.
30.
JoshiA.LiaoH.RohH. (2011). Bridging domains in workplace demography research: A review and reconceptualization. Journal of Management, 37(2), 521–552.
31.
JoshiA.RohH. (2009). The role of context in work team diversity research: A meta-analytic review. Academy of Management Journal, 52(3), 599–627.
32.
JoshiA.SonJ.RohH. (2015). When can women close the gap? A meta-analytic test of sex differences in performance and rewards. Academy of Management Journal, 58(5), 1516–1545.
33.
KanterR. M. (1977). Some effects of proportions on group life: Skewed sex ratios and responses to token women. American Journal of Sociology, 82(5), 965–990.
KarunakaranA. (2024). Frontline professionals in the wake of social media scrutiny: Examining the processes of obscured accountability. Administrative Science Quarterly, 69(3), 747–790.
36.
KhanS. (2012). The sociology of elites. Annual Review of Sociology, 38(1), 361–377.
37.
KhanU. A. (2024). A mixed methods study of the role of dignity and sanctity in poverty alleviation in Pakistan. Academy of Management Proceedings, 1, 14264.
38.
Kinger HansL.MaJ. (2020). Start-up templates and nascent entrepreneurship among women. Academy of Management Proceedings, 1, 18820.
39.
KwonS.-W.HeflinC.RuefM. (2013). Community social capital and entrepreneurship. American Sociological Review, 78(6), 980–1008.
40.
LamC. F.LazzariniS. G.StephensJ. P. (2024). Editors’ comments: Voices from the periphery: Barriers to publication in AMR and opportunities for inclusion. Academy of Management Review, 50(1). DOI:10.5465/amr.2024.0570
41.
LamontM. (1992). Money, morals, and manners: The culture of the French and the American upper-middle class. University of Chicago Press.
42.
LamontM.BeljeanS.ClairM. (2014). What is missing? Cultural processes and causal pathways to inequality. Socio-Economic Review, 12(3), 573–608.
LivingstonR. W.RosetteA. S.WashingtonE. F. (2012). Can an agentic Black woman get ahead? The impact of race and interpersonal dominance on perceptions of female leaders. Psychological Science, 23(4): 354–358.
45.
MairJ.MartiI. (2009). Entrepreneurship in and around institutional voids: A case study from Bangladesh. Journal of Business Venturing, 24(5), 419–435.
46.
MairJ.MartiI.VentrescaM. J. (2012). Building inclusive markets in rural Bangladesh: How intermediaries work institutional voids. Academy of Management Journal, 55(4), 819–850.
47.
MansbridgeJ. (1999). Should blacks represent blacks and women represent women? A contingent “yes.”The Journal of Politics, 61(3), 628–657.
48.
MertonR. K. (1988). The Matthew Effect in science, II: Cumulative advantage and the symbolism of intellectual property. Isis, 79(4), 606–623.
49.
MintzbergH. (1983). Power in and around organizations. Prentice Hall.
50.
MorettiF. (2005). Graphs, maps, trees: Abstract models for a literary history. Verso.
51.
NkomoS. M. (1992). The emperor has no clothes: Rewriting “race in organizations.”Academy of Management Review, 17(3), 487–513.
52.
OgdenJ.LoJ. (2011). How meaningful are data from Likert scales? An evaluation of how ratings are made and the role of the response shift in the socially disadvantaged. Journal of Health Psychology, 17(3), 350–361.
53.
OrtnerS. B. (2006). Anthropology and social theory: Culture, power, and the acting subject. Duke University Press.
54.
PalepuK. G.KhannaT. (1998). Institutional voids and policy challenges in emerging markets. The Brown Journal of World Affairs, 5(1), 71–78.
55.
PaxtonP. (2002). Social capital and democracy: An interdependent relationship. American Sociological Review, 67(2), 254–277.
56.
PhillipsD. J. (2005). Organizational genealogies and the persistence of gender inequality: The case of Silicon Valley law firms. Administrative Science Quarterly, 50(3), 440–472.
57.
PhillipsD. J. (2011). Jazz and the disconnected: City structural disconnectedness and the emergence of a jazz canon, 1897–1933. American Journal of Sociology, 117(2), 420–483.
58.
PongeluppeL. S. (2022). The favela effect: Spatial inequalities and firm strategies in disadvantaged urban communities. Strategic Management Journal, 43(13), 2777–2808.
59.
PongeluppeL. S. (2024). The allegory of the favela: The multifaceted effects of socioeconomic mobility. Administrative Science Quarterly, 69(3), 619–654.
60.
PortesA.CastellsM.BentonL. (1989). The informal economy: Studies in advanced and less developed countries. Johns Hopkins University Press.
61.
PostC.MuzioD.SaralaR.WeiL.FaemsD. (2021). Theorizing diversity in management studies: New perspectives and future directions. Journal of Management Studies, 58(8), 2003–2023.
62.
PrahaladC. K. (2004). The fortune at the bottom of the pyramid. Financial Times/Prentice Hall.
63.
PrattM. G. (2000). The good, the bad, and the ambivalent: Managing identification among Amway distributors. Administrative Science Quarterly, 45(3), 456–493.
64.
PutnamR. D. (2000). Bowling alone: The collapse and revival of American community. Simon and Schuster.
65.
RaginC. C.FissP. C. (2017). Intersectional inequality: Race, class, test scores, and poverty. University of Chicago Press.
66.
RainesG. W.PolhillP. S.HiattS. R.ColesR. S. (2024). Cultural norms and the gendered impact of entrepreneurship policy in Mexico. Administrative Science Quarterly, 69(4), 1006–1043.
67.
RanganathanA. (2018). The artisan and his audience: Identification with work and price setting in a handicraft cluster in Southern India. Administrative Science Quarterly, 63(3), 637–667.
68.
RanganathanA.PedullaD. S. (2021). Work-family programs and nonwork networks: Within-group inequality, network activation, and labor market attachment. Organization Science, 32(2), 315–333.
69.
RayV. (2019). A theory of racialized organizations. American Sociological Review, 84(1), 26–53.
70.
RidgewayC. L. (2011). Framed by gender: How gender inequality persists in the modern world. Oxford University Press.
71.
RiveraL. A. (2015). Go with your gut: Emotion and evaluation in job interviews. American Journal of Sociology, 120(5), 1339–1389.
72.
SalmonE.ChavezR. J. F.MurphyM. (2023). New perspectives and critical insights from Indigenous peoples’ research: A systematic review of Indigenous management and organization literature. Academy of Management Annals, 17(2), 439–491.
73.
SasakiI.BabaS. (2024). Shades of cultural marginalization: Cultural survival and autonomy processes. Organization Theory, 5(1), 26317877231221552.
74.
SawyerK. B.ClairJ. A. (2022). Hope cultures in organizations: Tackling the grand challenge of commercial sex exploitation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 67(2), 289–338.
75.
SmithS. S.SimonJ. (2020). Exclusion and extraction: Criminal justice contact and the reallocation of labor. RSF: The Russell Sage Foundation Journal of the Social Sciences, 6(1), 1–27.
76.
SmithW. K.BesharovM. L. (2019). Bowing before dual gods: How structured flexibility sustains organizational hybridity. Administrative Science Quarterly, 64(1), 1–44.
StephensN. M.FrybergS. A.MarkusH. R.JohnsonC. S.CovarrubiasR. (2012). Unseen disadvantage: How American universities’ focus on independence undermines the academic performance of first-generation college students. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 102(6), 1178–1197.
79.
SwartzD. (1997). Culture and power: The sociology of Pierre Bourdieu. University of Chicago Press.
80.
SwidlerA. (1986). Culture in action: Symbols and strategies. American Sociological Review, 51, 273–286.
81.
TsuiA. S. (2007). From homogenization to pluralism: International management research in the academy and beyond. Academy of Management Journal, 50(6), 1353–1364.
82.
TsuiA. S.NifadkarS. S.OuA. Y. (2007). Cross-national, cross-cultural organizational behavior research: Advances, gaps, and recommendations. Journal of Management, 33(3), 426–478.
WestphalJ. D.MiltonL. P. (2000). How experience and network ties affect the influence of demographic minorities on corporate boards. Administrative Science Quarterly, 45(2), 366–398.
88.
WestwoodR. (2004). Towards a postcolonial research paradigm in international business and comparative management. In PiekkariR.WelchC. (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research methods for international business (pp. 56–83). Edward Elgar.
89.
WilliamsK. Y.O’ReillyC. A.III. (1998). Demography and diversity in organizations: A review of 40 years of research. Research in Organizational Behavior, 20, 77–140.
90.
WilmersN.AeppliC. (2021). Consolidated advantage: New organizational dynamics of wage inequality. American Sociological Review, 86(6), 1100–1130.
91.
WilsonW. J. (2006). Social theory and the concept “underclass.” In RehbergK.-S. (Ed.), Soziale Ungleichheit,kulturelle Unterschiede: Verhandlungen des 32. Kongresses der Deutschen Gesellschaft fuär Soziologie in Muänchen.Teilbd. 1 und 2 (pp. 90–104). Campus Verl.
92.
WilsonW. J. (2012). The truly disadvantaged: The inner city, the underclass, and public policy. University of Chicago Press.
narratives. Book review