Academic Entrepreneurship in Historical Perspective

Over the last couple of years, an interdisciplinary group of historians of science and technology and business historians have been collaborating on a project on “academic entrepreneurship” that has resulted in the publication of two special issues. Links to the  introductions to those special issues and a list of the articles can be found below.

MANAGEMENT AND ORGANIZATIONAL HISTORY (V 12, no. 3, 2017)

R. Daniel Wadhwani, University of the Pacific
Gabriel Galvez-Behar, University of Lille
Joris Mercelis, Johns Hopkins
Anna Guagnini. University of Bologna
Ellan Spero, MIT
Thomas Brandt, Norwegian University of Science and Technology
Gabriel Galvez-Behar, University of Lille
Giovanni Favero,  Universita Venezia
Cyrus C.M. Mody, Maastricht University
HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY (V 33, no. 1, 2017)
Joris Mercelis, Johns Hopkins
Gabriel Galvez-Behar, University of Lille
Anna Guagnini. University of Bologna

Commercializing academic knowledge and reputation in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries: photography and beyond
Joris Mercelis, Johns Hopkins

Wolfgang Konig, German Academy of Science and Technology
Anna Guagnini, University of Bologna
Shaul Katzir, Tel Aviv University
Brian Dick, Chemical History Foundation
Mark Jones, Tech History Works
Advertisements

CFP: Making Managers

Management & Organizational History

Special Issue: Making Managers Guest Editors

Rolv Petter Amdam, BI Norwegian Business School, Oslo, Norway (rolv.p.amdam@bi.no)

Matthias Kipping, Schulich School of Business, Toronto, Canada (mkipping@schulich.york.ca)

Jacqueline McGlade, College of Economics and Political Science, Sultan Qaboos University, Muscat, Oman (jmcglade@squ.edu.om)

Call for papers

This special issue explores the dynamics, processes, and actors involved in making managers over time in a variety of contexts. The issue intends to fill an important gap in the current literature on the history of management education, which has largely been centered on organizational development narratives, i.e. the rise of business schools, the global spread of the American model, business-based academic disciplines, etc. (see, for examples, the Selected References below).

We therefore invite papers that to chronicle the actual preparation of managers in all types, venues and forms; address questions and perspectives that have not been addressed; and cover geographical areas or industries and activities that are not in focus in the extant literature. We seek contributions that consider a variety of dimensions and aspects involved with making managers, both in imagined and real terms. We welcome in particular contributions that address one or several of the following broad domains: (i) organizational settings, such as universities, companies, business associations, governments, public administrations and the military etc.; (ii) programs and their scope, including undergraduate and graduate degrees, executive education, managerial leadership programs, corporate training, online and self-help courses etc.; (iii) cultural and social processes, contributing, among others, to organizational integration, habitus building and elite formation; (iv) global differences, with a particular focus on non-Western contexts.

Possible (though not exclusive) topics

• The role of management education and training in imparting and inculcating shared terminology and language, norms and behavior;

  • The shifting weights of various academic disciplines in the preparation of managers as well as the changing importance of experiential learning;
  • The development of non-traditional manager preparation programs, including alternative contents and new ways of delivery;
  • The efforts by other actors to complement or substitute for extant university- based management degree programs;
  • The attempts by the various management education or training providers to bridge perceived gaps between business knowledge mastery, i.e. “know about” and impactful managerial leadership, i.e. “know-how.”
  • The influence of different national, cultural and institutional contexts on the formal or informal making of managers;
  • The emergence of a cadre of global managers, tied (or not) to multinational enterprises and related phenomena, including offshoring;
  • The homogenizing effects due to dominant models, accreditation or rankings, and how these have been resisted, subverted or adapted;
  • The ways in which education and training contributed (or not) to the expansion and professionalization of management.

    Selected References

    Amdam, R.P. (2008). “Business Education,” in G. Jones and J. Zeitlin, eds., The Oxford Handbook in Business History. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Engwall, L., M. Kipping, and B. Üsdiken (2016). Defining Management: Business Schools, Consultants, Media. New York: Routledge.

    Gourvish, T. R. and Tiratsoo, N., eds. (1998). Missionaries and Managers: American Influences on European Management Education, 1945-60. Manchester: Manchester University Press.

    McGlade, J. (1998). “The big push: the export of American business education to Western Europe after World War II,” in V. Zamagni and L. Engwall, eds., Management education in a historical perspective. Manchester: Manchester University Press.

    Mintzberg, H. (2004). Managers Not MBAs: A Hard Look at the Soft Practice of Managing and Management Development. San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler Publishers.

Submission Process and Deadline

Authors wanting to discuss their ideas or draft papers are encouraged to contact the special issue editors. When writing the manuscript, please make sure to follow the journal’s style guidelines: http://www.tandfonline.com/action/authorSubmission?journalCode=rmor20&page =instructions#.U2-Oqi_6Tp0. Completed manuscripts should be submitted online at: http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/moh, mentioning the special issue. The deadline for submissions is 31 March 2018.

Each submission will initially be reviewed by the guest editors to determine its suitability for the special issue. We might hold a paper development workshop for authors whose manuscripts pass this original screening. Before final acceptance papers will also be double-blind reviewed. Publication of the special issue is planned for the second half of 2019.

About the Editors

Rolv Petter Amdam is Professor of Business History at BI Norwegian Business School in Oslo, Norway. He has published widely on the international development of management education, and edited Management Education and Competitiveness: Europe, the US and Japan (1996), and co-edited with R. Kvålshaugen and E. Larsen, Inside the Business School: The Content of European Business Education (2003)

Matthias Kipping is Professor of Policy and Richard E. Waugh Chair in Business History at the Schulich School of Business, York University in Toronto, Canada. He has published extensively on the international dissemination of management knowledge, and in particular the role of consultants and business schools. He has co-edited, with T. Clark, the Oxford Handbook of Management Consulting (2012) and co-authored, with L. Engwall and B. Üsdiken, Defining Management (2016).

Jacqueline McGlade is Associate Professor at the College of Economics and Political Science, Sultan Qaboos University in Muscat, Oman. She has pioneered some of the early research on the US efforts to spread their models of management education globally – a topic she is continuing to explore, and is currently working on issues of international political economy and trade development, including, most recently, research on the role of SMEs in the Gulf region.

Historical Methods in Management and Organizational Research: A Bibliography

In preparation for the development workshops devoted to methods (see Clio Palooza above) we have created a preliminary bibliography of references of papers, chapters, and books devoted to historical methods in management and organizational research. If you’ve got suggested additions to the list please let us know by coming to one of the sessions or by commenting on this post.

Historical Methods in Management and Organizational Research:
A Bibliography
August 2017

Coraiola, D.M., Foster, W.M. and Suddaby, R., 2015. Varieties of history in organization studies. The Routledge companion to management and organizational history, pp.206-221.

Decker, S., 2013. The silence of the archives: Business history, post-colonialism and archival ethnography. Management & Organizational History8(2), pp.155-173.

Decker, S., 2015. Mothership reconnection. The Routledge Companion to Management and Organizational History, p.222.

Durepos, G. and Mills, A.J., 2012. Actor-network theory, ANTi-history and critical organizational historiography. Organization19(6), pp.703-721.

Forbes, Daniel P., and David A. Kirsch. “The study of emerging industries: Recognizing and responding to some central problems.” Journal of Business Venturing 26, no. 5 (2011): 589-602.

Godfrey, P.C., Hassard, J., O’Connor, E.S., Rowlinson, M. and Ruef, M., 2016. What is organizational history? Toward a creative synthesis of history and organization studies. Academy of Management Review41(4), pp.590-608.

Heller, M. (20016). ‘Foucault, Discourse and the Birth of Public Relations’, Enterprise & Society, 17(3): 651-677.

Harvey, C. and Press, J., 1996. Databases in historical research: Theory, methods and applications. London: Macmillan.

Kirsch, D., Moeen, M. and Wadhwani, R.D., 2014. Historicism and industry emergence: industry knowledge from pre-emergence to stylized fact. Organizations in time: History, theory, methods217.

Kipping, M., Wadhwani, R.D. and Bucheli, M., 2014. Analyzing and interpreting historical sources: A basic methodology. Organizations in time: History, theory, methods, pp.305-329.

Lipartito, K., 2014. Historical sources and data. Organizations in time: History, theory, methods, pp.284-304.

Maclean, M., Harvey, C. and Clegg, S.R., 2016. Conceptualizing historical organization studies. Academy of Management Review41(4), pp.609-632.

Maclean, M., Harvey, C. and Clegg, S.R., 2017. Organization Theory in Business and Management History: Present Status and Future Prospects. Business History Review91(4), forthcoming.

Murmann, J. P. (2010). “Constructing Relational Databases to Study Life Histories on Your PC or Mac.” Historical Methods: A Journal of Quantitative and Interdisciplinary History 43(3): 109 – 123.

Pfefferman, T., 2016. Reassembling the archives: business history knowledge production from an actor-network perspective. Management & Organizational History11(4), pp.380-398.

Rowlinson, M., Hassard, J. and Decker, S., 2014. Research strategies for organizational history: A dialogue between historical theory and organization theory. Academy of Management Review39(3), pp.250-274.

Stutz, C. and Sachs, S., 2016. Facing the Normative Challenges: The Potential of Reflexive Historical Research. Business & Society, p.0007650316681989.

Taylor, S., 2015. Critical hermeneutics for critical organizational history. The Routledge Companion to Management and Organizational History, p.143.

Vaara, E. and Lamberg, J.A., 2016. Taking historical embeddedness seriously: Three historical approaches to advance strategy process and practice research. Academy of Management Review41(4), pp.633-657.

Taylor, S., Bell, E. and Cooke, B., 2009. Business history and the historiographical operation. Management & Organizational History4(2), pp.151-166.

Wadhwani, R.D., 2016. Historical Methods for Contextualizing Entrepreneurship Research. In A Research Agenda for Entrepreneurship and Context. Edward Elgar Publishing, Incorporated.

Wadhwani, R.D. and Decker, S. 2017. “Clio’s Toolkit: The Practice of Historical Methods in Organization Studies,” (with Stephanie Decker) In Sanjay Jain and Raza Mir (eds.) Routledge Companion to Qualitative Research in Organization Studies New York: Taylor and Francis, pp. 113-127.

JoAnne Yates, “Understanding Historical Methods in Organization Studies,” in Marcelo Bucheli and R. Daniel Wadhwani, eds., Organizations in Time: History, Theory, Methods (Oxford: Oxford University Press: 2013), pp. 265-283.

JoAnne Yates, “Time, History, and Materiality,” in Materiality and Time: Historical Perspectives on Organizations, Artefacts and Practices, ed. Francois-Xavier de Vaujany, Nathalie Mitev, Pierre Laniray, Emmanuelle Vaast (London: Palgrave McMillan: 2014), pp. 17-33.

 

Clio Palooza at Academy of Management

This year, the Paper Development Workshops sponsored by the Management History Division at the Academy of Management will feature a series of sessions on historical methods. If you are attending the AoM, please consider joining us. And please let others who may be interested know about these sessions. A listing of sessions, presenters, and locations can be found below.

Historical Methods for Management and Organizational Research

Aug 4, 12:15-2:45pm, Hyatt Embassy Hall E

Coordinator: Stephanie DeckerAston Business School

Coordinator: Diego CoraiolaU. of Alberta

Participant: William FosterU. of Alberta

Participant: JoAnne YatesMIT Sloan School of Management

Participant: Matthias KippingSchulich School of Bus, York U.

Participant: Michael RowlinsonU. of Exeter

Presenter: Christina LubinskiCopenhagen Business School

 

Some Words, A Story, Some Methods, and a Weapons Platform

Aug 4, 12:15pm-2:15pm, Hyatt Embassy Hall G

Coordinator: Andrew CardowMassey U.

Participant: Mie AugierNaval Postgraduate School

Participant: Maciej WorkiewiczESSEC Business School

Participant: M J PrietulaEmory U.

 

Frontiers of Digital History: Methods and Tools

Aug 4, 2:00pm – 4:00pm, Hyatt Hanover Hall E

Presenter: Michael RowlinsonU. of Exeter

Organizer: Robin GustafssonAalto U.

Presenter: Charles Edward HarveyNewcastle U.

Presenter: Mirko ErnkvistRatio Institute

Presenter: Mairi MacleanU. of Bath

Presenter: Johann Peter MurmannU. of New South Wales

Organizer: Mirko ErnkvistRatio Institute

Moderator: Robin GustafssonAalto U.

Presenter: David A. KirschU. of Maryland

 

The Linguistic Turn in Management and Organizational History

August 5, 12:30pm-2pm. Hyatt, Embassy Hall A

Participant: Michael HellerBrunel U.

Participant: Michael RowlinsonU. of Exeter

Participant: Ulf ThoeneU. de La Sabana

Participant: Ellen KorsagerCopenhagen Business School

Participant: Anders SorensenCopenhagen Business School

 

Using Accounting Records for Management History

August 5, 2:45-pm-4:15pm Hyatt, Harris

Organizer: James M. WilsonU. of Glasgow

Presenter: Kirsten KininmonthU. of Glasgow

Presenter: Sam McKinstryU. of the West of Scotland

 

 

 

Call for Papers: Corporate Reputation

CALL FOR PAPERS
Journal of Business Ethics
Special Issue theme: “Linking Corporate Reputation and Accountability: Antecedents, Mechanisms, Paradoxes, and Outcomes”

Deadline: January 1, 2018

Guest Editors:
Craig E. Carroll, New York University, craig.carroll@nyu.edu
Rowena Olegario, Saïd Business School, University of Oxford, rowena.olegario@sbs.ox.ac.uk

Accountability is a concept about being answerable to someone for something that matters. It requires the accountor to be capable of being observed, monitored, and evaluated through its willingness to provide material information and provides clear consequences for failure. Scholars have investigated the roles of corporate governance, CSR reporting, auditors, and credit rating agencies, in upholding – or failing to uphold – corporate accountability (Bendell, 2005; Brennan & Solomon, 2008; Coffee, 2002; Gray, et. al., 1997; Newell, 2005; Partnoy, 1999; Utting, 2008; Valor, 2005). Yet even with these recent studies, corporate accountability remains under-researched and under-theorized.

Many studies of corporate reputation, as well as business folk-wisdom, assume that reputation is a mechanism for keeping companies honest, a crucial attribute of accountability. As business magnate Warren Buffet famously observed: “It takes twenty years to build a reputation and five minutes to ruin it. If you think about that, you’ll do things differently.” Implicit in Buffett’s formulation is the notion that the threat of losing a good reputation always constrains corporate opportunism. Yet recent and classic examples illustrate that even prominent public firms, which stand to lose the most from a tarnished reputation, engage in dishonest behavior for the sake of short-term benefits. At the same time, there are multiple cases of companies that have engaged in malfeasance without suffering lasting reputational harm. In 2017, for example, Volkswagen reported healthy sales despite having been subjected to fines and negative media scrutiny of its emissions cheating. Given that there are so many exceptions to the ‘Buffett rule,’ it is imperative to ask what role reputation plays in holding companies to account, provided that all organizations even care about their reputations in the first place.

We believe that this is an optimal moment to explicitly link the constructs of accountability and corporate reputation. In the past, scholars have equated accountability with being responsible (Lorenzo-Molo & Udani, 2013) or viewed accountability as an outcome of disclosing CSR investment (Brown-Liburd, Cohen, Zamora (in press). Only a few studies have specifically investigated how reputation constrains corporate wrongdoing (Lin-Hi and Blumberg, 2016; Wright, 2016; Sampath, Gardberg, Rahman, 2016; He, Pittman, and Rui, 2016; Hardeck and Hertl, 2014; Ma and Parks, 2012; Reuber and Fischer, 2010; Frances-Gomez and del Rio, 2008; Sacconi, 2007). Accountability, CSR, and corporate reputation are linked– many corporations engage in CSR precisely because they hope to burnish their reputations–but there is growing skepticism about the authenticity, effectiveness, and sufficiency of CSR disclosure and engagement for holding organizations accountable.

Our proposal then is to begin theorizing new ways that reputation can be linked with accountability. We welcome theoretical and empirical papers from a wide range of social science and humanities traditions, particularly on the following questions and approaches:

1. What are the links between corporate reputation, accountability, and ethics?

The special issue calls for papers to reflect upon the nature, full extent, and variety of configurations that can exist between reputation and accountability.

  • Which theoretical lenses explain the opportunities, risks, paradoxes, successes, and failures of reputation mechanisms?
  • How do definitions, goals, and criteria for corporate accountability differ for people on Main Street vs. Wall Street, and how do these different understandings affect the practice and efficacy of reputation mechanism?
  • To what extent are favorable perceptions of an organization’s social, financial, and environmental performance an outcome of, a precursor of, a substitute for, or a means to avoid, corporate accountability? Can transparency be used to avoid accountability?
  • What are the ethical issues at play when excellent performance in one sphere (for example, offering a highly popular consumer product) moderates, distracts, or compensates from poor reputations in other spheres (such as a corporation’s contributions to environmental degradation)?

2. What are the unexplored, adverse, unanticipated and paradoxical relationships between corporate reputation, accountability, and ethics? What are the impacts upon performance of these different relationships?

The special issue seeks papers that look ahead at how instituting accountability mechanisms creates new organization-society dynamics.

  • Is there/will there be such a thing as too much accountability? If so, how does this change our understanding of what constitutes ethical practices?
  • What is the relationship between ‘facts,’ reputation, and accountability? How will recent developments in online platforms and social media change those dynamics in the business sphere?
  • How does organizational performance change the relationship between reputation and accountability? How does accountability change the relationship between reputation and organizational performance?
  • What are the consequences for personal, organizational, and societal health?

References
Bendell, J. (2005). In Whose Name? The Accountability of Corporate Social Responsibility. Development in Practice 15 (3-4): 362-374. doi: 10.1080/09614520500075813

Brennan, N.M. and Solomon, J. (2008). Corporate Governance, Accountability and Mechanisms of Accountability: An Overview. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal 21 (7): 885-906. doi:10.1108/09513570810907401

Brown-Liburd, H., Cohen, J., & Zamora, V. L. (in press) CSR Disclosure Items Used as Fairness Heuristics in the Investment Decision. Journal of Business Ethics, 1-15. doi:10.1007/s10551-016-3307-3

Buffett, M. & Clark, D. (2006). The Tao of Warren Buffett: Warren Buffett’s Words of Wisdom.

Coffee, J.C. (2002). Understanding Enron: ‘It’s About the Gatekeepers, Stupid.’ The Business Lawyer 57 (4): 1403-1420. http://www.jstor.org/stable/40688097.

Frances-Gomez, P. & del Rio, A. (2008). Stakeholder’s Preference and Rational Compliance: A Comment on Sacconi’s ‘CSR as a Model for Extended Corporate Governance II: Compliance, Reputation and Reciprocity.’ Journal of Business Ethics 82(1) 59-76. doi:10.1007/s10551-007-9562-6

Gray, R., Day, C., Owen, D., Evans, R., and Zadek, S. (1997). Struggling with the Praxis of Social Accounting. Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal 10 (3): 325-364. doi:10.1108/09513579710178106

Hardeck, I., & Hertl, R. (2014). Consumer Reactions to Corporate Tax Strategies: Effects on Corporate Reputation and Purchasing Behavior. Journal of Business Ethics, 123(2), 309-326. doi:10.1007/s10551-013-1843-7.

He, X., Pittman, J., & Rui, O. (2016). Reputational Implications for Partners After a Major Audit Failure: Evidence from China. Journal of Business Ethics, 138(4), 702-722. doi: 10.1007/s10551-015-2770-6

Lin-Hi, N. & Blumberg, I. (in press). The Link Between (Not) Practicing CSR and Corporate Reputation: Psychological Foundations and Managerial Implications. Journal of Business Ethics. 10.1007/s10551-016-3164-0

Ma, L., & McLean Parks, J. (2012). Your Good Name: The Relationship Between Perceived Reputational Risk and Acceptability of Negotiation Tactics. Journal of Business Ethics, 106(2), 161-175. doi:10.1007/s10551-011-0987-6.

Newell, P. (2005). Citizenship, Accountability and Community: The Limits of the CSR Agenda. International Affairs 81 (3): 541-557. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-2346.2005.00468.x

Partnoy, F. (1999). The Siskel and Ebert of Financial Markets: Two Thumbs Down for the Credit Rating Agencies. Washington University Law Quarterly 77 (3): 619-714.

Reuber, A. R., & Fischer, E. (2010). Organizations Behaving Badly: When Are Discreditable Actions Likely to Damage Organizational Reputation? Journal of Business Ethics, 93(1), 39-50. doi:10.1007/s10551-009-0180-3.

Sacconi, L. (2007). A Social Contract Account for CSR as an Extended Model of Corporate Governance (II): Compliance, Reputation and Reciprocity. Journal of Business Ethics 75 (1): 77-96. Doi: 10.1007/s10551-006-9014-8

Sampath, V. S., Gardberg, N. A., & Rahman, N. (in press). Corporate Reputation’s Invisible Hand: Bribery, Rational Choice, and Market Penalties. Journal of Business Ethics, 1-18. doi:10.1007/s10551-016-3242-3

Utting, P. (2008). The Struggle for Corporate Accountability. Development and Change 39: 959-975. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-7660.2008.00523.x

Valor, C. (2005). Corporate Social Responsibility and Corporate Citizenship: Towards Corporate Accountability. Business and Society Review 110 (2): 191-212. doi: 10.1111/j.0045-3609.2005.00011.x

Wright, C. F. (2016). Leveraging Reputational Risk: Sustainable Sourcing Campaigns for Improving Labour Standards in Production Networks. Journal of Business Ethics, 137(1), 195-210. doi: 10.1007/s10551-015-2552-1

Process for submitting papers
Questions about expectations, requirements, the appropriateness of a topic, etc, should be directed to the guest editors of the special issue: Craig Carroll or Rowena Olegario.

Papers submitted must not have been published, accepted for publication, or presently under consideration for publication elsewhere. Submissions should be approximately 8,000 words in length. Papers should employ standard English and provide authors’ names, affiliations, and e-mail addresses, telephone numbers, and physical addresses on the front page. Manuscripts must follow the journal’s guidelines. Authors are strongly encouraged to refer to the Journal of Business Ethics website and the instructions on submitting a paper. For more information see: http://www.springer.com/social+sciences/applied+ethics/journal/10551.

Submission to the special issue– by January 1, 2018 – is required through Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/busi/. Upon submission, please indicate that your submission is to this Special Issue of JBE, Linking Corporate Reputation + Accountability.

Proposed Schedule
The deadline for the first completed draft is January 1, 2018 followed by a peer-review process until April, 4, 2018. The deadline for the second draft is December 4, 2018. The deadline for the whole volume will be March 1, 2019.

About Journal of Business Ethics
The Journal of Business Ethics publishes only original articles from a wide variety of methodological and disciplinary perspectives concerning ethical issues related to business that bring something new or unique to the discourse in their field. The Journal’s impact factor is 1.837 (2015). This journal is one of the 50 journals used by the Financial Times in compiling the prestigious Business School research rank.

Craig Carroll, Ph.D.
Adjunct Professor
New York University
239 Greene Street, 8th Floor
New York, NY 10003
Office: (917) 410-0627
Mobile: (919) 360-9188
craig.carroll@nyu.edu
W: http://amazon.com/author/craigecarroll
L: http://www.linkedin.com/in/craigecarroll
For appointments, http://calendly.com/craigecarroll

New Book: The Emergence of Routines (Raff and Scranton)

Business historians Dan Raff and Phil Scranton have published an interesting new edited collection that explores the intersection of business history, business strategy, and entrepreneurship. Published by OUP, The Emergence of Routines includes a series of historical case studies examining the origins of organizational order in firms. The book includes a conceptual introduction and an intriguingly titled concluding chapter on “learning from history” that should be of interest to readers of this blog.

From the OUP Site’s Description:

This book is a collection of essays about the emergence of routines and, more generally, about getting things organized in firms and in industries in early stages and in transition.

These are subjects of the greatest interest to students of entrepreneurship and organizations, as well as to business historians, but the academic literature is thin. The chronological settings of the book’s eleven substantive chapters are historical, reaching as far back as the late 1800s right up to the 1990s, but the issues they raise are evergreen and the historical perspective is exploited to advantage.

The chapters are organized in three broad groups: examining the emergence of order and routines in initiatives, studying the same subject in ongoing operations, and a third focusing specifically on the phenomena of transition. The topics range from the Book-of-the-Month Club to industrial research at Alcoa, from the evolution of procurement and coordination to project-based industries such as bridge- and dam-building and the governance of defence contracting, and from the development of project performance appraisal at the World Bank to the way the global automobile industry collectively redesigned the internal combustion engine to deal with after the advent of environmental regulation. The chapters are vivid and thought-provoking in themselves and, for pedagogical purposes, offer excellent jumping-off points for discussion of relevant experiences and cognate academic literature.

Historical Perspectives on Org Studies: The End of an Era

IMG_0415-2

The final meeting of Standing Working Group 8 (Historical Perspectives on Org Studies) took place at the European Group for Organization Studies Meeting in Naples, Italy this past week. SWG 8 was established by Lars Engwall, Matthias Kipping, and Behlul Usdiken six years ago and has served as an important institutional platform for the discussion and development of work related to historical approaches to management and organizational research over that time. Many of the articles, chapters, and books that have been produced in the last few years were born out of the working group. Though, by EGOS rules, the standing working group has a limited term, the bigger project on the development of historical approaches to organizational research will continue next year at the EGOS meeting in Copenhagen, thanks two new sub themes related to history and organization studies. These are Subtheme 43 (Theorizing the Past, Present, and Future of Organization Theory) and Subtheme 44 (Rethinking History, Rethinking Business Schools).

PhD Courses in Historical Approaches to Business and Management

Kyoto PhD Course

One of the important challenges that Management and Organizational History must face is cultivating the next generation of scholars. There are relatively few established PhD courses that train students in business and management history, and little attention to what constitutes a foundational curriculum in the field.

Last week, I had a chance to test out some ideas for a curriculum when I co-taught a one-week PhD course at Kyoto University with Professor Takafumi Kurosawa. The students included early and mid-stage PhD students from 5 countries. We took a basic introductory orientation to the field. The topics covered: 1. Historiography, 2. Advantages of Historical Conceptualization, 3. Historical Research Processes and Methods, 4. Applications.

Some basic thoughts occurred to us as we taught that I think provide lessons for such efforts in the future. 1. Business, Economic, and Management History tends to engage in relatively little historiographical reflection about the development of historical approaches, and yet it’s crucial to not only the intellectual coherence but also socialization into the field. 2. We tend to place insufficient attention to the historical research process, and particular to the question of why one turns to history at all. But a discussion of the historical research process, and a comparison to research process in other social sciences, is incredibly helpful to students in comprehending and communicating how they are going about their work. 3. Specific examples are worth their weight in gold.

We’d love to hear the experiences of others, and engage in a discussion of how to train PhD students. So, when you get a chance, share your thoughts!

ESRC seminar 3: Narrative Construction of Memory

On December 10, 2015 CBS hosted the ESRC workshop on the Narrative Construction of Memory. The program and pictures are below.

Speakers

9.00 – 9.30 Welcome & Introduction

9.30 – 10.15 Tor Hernes, Copenhagen Business School: Temporal Trajectory and Organizational Narrative

10.15 – 11.00 Robin Holt, Copenhagen Business School: Memory and Mnemosyne

11.00 – 11.15 Coffee

11.15 – 12.00 Dan Wadhwani, University of the Pacific: Creating Histories without a Past: Uses of History in the Entrepreneurial Processes

12.00 – 13.00 Lunch

13.00 – 14.15 Ronald Kroeze, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam: The Use of History and Narratives by Dutch Top Managers and Companies

14.15 – 14.30 Coffee

14.30 – 15.15 Roy Suddaby, University of Victoria: Rhetorical History and Narrative History

15.15 – 16.00 Per Hansen, Copenhagen Business School: Narratives as the Basis of Memory and History

16.00 – 16:30 Discussion & Conclusion

 

Beyond the Managerial Utopia of American Schools of Business Administration: Early Emergence of European Management Education in the 18th and 19th centuries

Call for Papers

The 2016 Association pour l’Histoire du Management et des Organisations Conference will hold a special track on the “Emergence of European Management Education in the 18th and 19th centuries.” This special track invites new thinking and empirical findings on 18th and 19th century European management education that both supplement present history and facilitate broader analysis of the interplay with the now dominant US model. In line with the main scientific orientation of the 21st AHMO conference, contributions could, for instance, investigate two main issues:

1) Could 18th-19th century European management education have offered a managerial utopia alternative to the American model?

2) How was early European management education institutionalized? Were there gaps between the ideals presented and the institutionalisation process in practice?

The full call for papers can be found here: http://ahmo.hypotheses.org/1122

Contributors are expected to submit their papers to the co-organizers: lise.arena@unice.frthomas.durand@cnam.fr and jcspender@gmail.com by January 5th, 2016 and will be notified of acceptance by January 15th, 2016.

The track will be held on March 18th during the 21st JHMO at UTBM Sevenans (Territoire de Belfort), FRANCE.

 

The Association pour l’Histoire du Management et des Organisations is a French research community that gathers researchers in management, organisations studies, history, sociology and economics. The annual AHMO “Journées” aim to facilitate discussion and to stimulate pluridisciplinary collaborations on the history of management and organizations. The aim of the association is also to promote the integration of history in teaching curricula and to help Ph.D. students for early careers developments.