CfP: Legacy & Change

Edited volume in the book series:

De Gruyter Studies in Organizational and Management History

Preliminary Title:

Legacy and Change: Perspectives from Organizational History

Co-editors: Andrea Casey, Sonia Coman, and Hamid Foroughi
Chapters to be submitted by February 1, 2024
Chapter length: 7,000-8,000 words

Scope of the book

With this volume, we will explore how past legacies both enable and restrict opportunities for organizational renewal, social change, and the emergence of new forms of organizing. On the one hand, collective memories can be a source of authentication, legitimation, and strategy restoration (Miller et al., 2019; Basque & Langley, 2018; Jaskiewicz et al., 2017; Lubinski & Gartner, 2023; Ravasi et al., 2019; Sasaki et al., 2020); on the other hand, past legacies could restrict our imagination by enforcing path dependency. A particular form of this path dependency is known as the ‘founder shadow’ in family businesses when the next generations of leaders are not able to change organizational course despite changing conditions (Peter & Harveston, 1999; Suddaby, et al, 2023).

Managing legacy can be a challenge for both old and new organizations. Organizations with a long or significant history often find that their legacy is at odds with the realities of the present or the directions they envision for the future (Hatch & Schultz, 2017; Kroeze & Keulen, 2013). In contrast, newly formed organizations often feel they have a deficit in legacy compared with long-established organizations and seek to boost credibility by engaging in activities that can be retrospectively claimed as their legacy as they tell their story internally and in the public forums.

In either case, when aspects of the purpose of an organization, understood as its raison d’être, change or the emphasis shifts from one aspect to another, the organizational identity is threatened, and legacy becomes an obstacle to overcome to effect change. We do not know yet what factors make this tension more difficult to resolve or whether this tension is stronger in some sectors, for instance, in purpose- driven organizations, given members’ emotional attachment to old memories and identities (Foroughi, 2020). We propose that the difference lies with the way the past is remembered. Central to understanding the relationship between legacies and imagined future is the recognition that what we understand as our legacy is socially and politically construed (Foroughi, Coraiola, Rintamäki, Mena & Foster, 2020) and is shaped by the agentic work of actors who can be termed ‘agents of memory’ (Schwartz, 1991) or ‘identity custodians” (Dacin et al, 2019). While this custodianship is important in maintaining and restoring past legacies, at the same time, it often implies silencing certain histories that

are deemed incompatible (Anteby & Molnar, 2012). This volume aims to contribute a deeper understanding of legacies and imagined futures as they pertain to organizational identity and change.

We enthusiastically invite chapters encompassing both theoretical and empirical contributions that delve into the intricate interplay between legacy and change, examining this dynamic from a diverse array of theoretical vantage points. Our call extends a special invitation to submissions that not only usher in fresh concepts to enrich the existing literature but also embark on the task of critically examining and redefining established theories. We welcome a wide spectrum of inquiries, which may include, but are not confined to, the following questions:

How do we theorize legacy and change in relation to organizational identity?
How does the intersection of legacy and change emerge in different types of organizations?
How has legacy been successfully leveraged for organizational change that contributed to societal well-being? Under what conditions does legacy promote change/rigidity?
What factors influence how the tension between legacy and change is experienced in an organization?
Why is the tension between legacy and change stronger in some sectors, such as purpose-driven organizations?
How can critical historical work help recover forgotten histories of alternative forms of organization?
How can we envision alternative forms of organizing by critically examining past legacies?

References:

Anteby, M., & Molnar, V. (2012). Collective memory meets organizational identity: Remembering to forget in a firm’s rhetorical history. Academy of Management Journal, 55(3), 515-540.

Basque, J., & Langley, A. (2018). Invoking Alphonse: The founder figure as a historical resource for organizational identity work. Organization Studies, 39(12), 1685-1708.

Brunninge, O. (2009). Using history in organizations: How managers make purposeful reference to history in strategy processes. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 22: 8–26.

Bucheli, M., Wadhwani, R. D. eds. (2014). The Future of the Past in Management and Organization Studies. Organizations in Time: History, Theory, Methods. New York: Oxford University Press.

Casey, A. J., Olivera, F. (2011). Reflections on organizational memory and forgetting. Journal of Management Inquiry, 20: 305–310.

Coman, S. & Casey, A. (2020). The enduring presence of the founder in collection museums: A historical and interdisciplinary perspective. Historical Organization Studies: Theory and Applications, edited by Maclean, M., Clegg, S. R., Suddaby, R., & Harvey, C. Routledge.

Coman, S. & Casey, A. (2021). Metahistories of Microhistories: How organizations narrate their origin story at different points in their history. EGOS Symposium, Subtheme 33: Historical Organization Studies in Action: Strategy, Entrepreneurship and Social Innovation. July 8 & 9, 2021.

Coraiola, D. M., Foster, W. M., Suddaby, R. (2015). “Varieties of history in organization studies.” In McLaren, P. G., Mills, A. J., Weatherbee, T. G. (eds.), The Routledge Companion to Management and Organizational History: 363–372. New York: Routledge.

Dacin, M. T., Dacin, P. A., & Kent, D. (2019). Tradition in organizations: A custodianship framework.

Academy of Management Annals, 13(1), 342-373.

Davis, P. S., & P.D. Harveston. (1999). “In the founder’s shadow: Conflict in the family firm.” Family Business Review 12.4: 311-323.

Davis-Marks, I. (2020). Why the Houston Museum of African American Culture Is Displaying a Confederate Statue. Smithsonian Magazine. https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/why- houston-museum-african-american-culture-displaying-confederate-statue-180975742/.

Foroughi, H. (2020). Collective memories as a vehicle of fantasy and identification: founding stories retold. Organization Studies, 41(10), 1347-1367.

Foroughi, H., Coraiola, D. M., Rintamäki, J., Mena, S., & Foster, W. M. (2020). Organizational memory studies. Organization Studies, 41(12), 1725-1748.

Hatch, M. J., & Schultz, M. (2017). Toward a Theory of Using History Authentically: Historicizing in the Carlsberg Group. Administrative Science Quarterly, 62(4), 657–697.

Kroeze, R., Keulen, S. (2013). “Leading a multinational is history in practice: The use of invented traditions and narratives at AkzoNobel, Shell, Philips and ABN AMRO.” Business History, 55: 1265–1287.

Lubinski, C., & Gartner, W. B. (2023). Talking about (my) generation: The use of generation as rhetorical history in family business. Family Business Review, 36(1), 119-142.

Miller, K. D., Gomes, E., & Lehman, D. W. (2019). Strategy restoration. Long Range Planning, 52(5), 101855.

Ravasi, D., Rindova, V., & Stigliani, I. (2019). The stuff of legend: History, memory, and the temporality of organizational identity construction. Academy of Management Journal, 62(5), 1523-1555.

Rodgers, D. M., Petersen, J., & Sanderson, J. (2016). Commemorating alternative organizations and marginalized spaces: The case of forgotten Finntowns. Organization, 23(1), 90-113.

Sasaki, I., Kotlar, J., Ravasi, D., & Vaara, E. (2020). Dealing with revered past: Historical identity statements and strategic change in Japanese family firms. Strategic Management Journal, 41(3), 590- 623.

Schwartz, B. (1991). Iconography and collective memory: Lincoln’s image in the American mind. The Sociological Quarterly, 32(3), 301-319.

Suddaby, R., Silverman, B. S., Jaskiewicz, P., De Massis, A., & Micelotta, E. R. (2023). History-Informed Family Business Research: An Editorial on the Promise of History and Memory Work. Family Business Review, 36(1), 4-16.)