Job: Uses of the Past in International Economic Relations

Exciting opportunity at Oxford University

Research Associate – Uses of the Past in International Economic Relations

Faculty of History, George Street, Oxford

Grade 7: £31,076 p.a.

An exciting new opportunity has arisen for a Research Associate to conduct their own research and contribute to a major international project. The research will focus on international banking and financial markets to examine how the past is used in the assessment of risk, how reputation was built and what lessons were drawn from successive crises.

You will manage your own research and administrative activities, undertaking archival work as required and developing your own ideas for new projects. You will participate in project workshops and conferences, collaborate in the preparation of publications, and contribute to the project’s social media and public engagement activities.

You will hold a doctorate in a relevant subject (or show evidence that a doctorate is imminent) and have an excellent knowledge of relevant research languages. You will have the capacity for independent research along with the ability to work collaboratively with the team and a willingness to develop a knowledge of the wider historical context of your own research area. You must also have exceptional communication skills which you will use to successfully promote the project through publication and presentations.

This post is full-time for a fixed-term of 2 years, tenable from 1 September 2017 or as soon as possible thereafter. Applications are particularly welcome from women and black and minority ethnic candidates who are under-represented in Oxford.

Applications for this vacancy are to be made online. To apply for this role and for further details please contact the person below.

The deadline for applications is 12.00 noon on 30 August 2017.

Contact Person : Jeannie Scott

Vacancy ID : 129767

Contact Phone : 01865 615019

Closing Date : 30-Aug-2017

Contact Email : recruitments@history.ox.ac.uk

 

SI on Narratives & Business History now out!

I am very pleased to announce that the final issue of the year for Business History is the excellent special issue on narratives in Business History, edited by Mads Mordhorst & Stefan Schwarzkopf.

Business History, Volume 59, Issue 8, November 2017 is now available online on Taylor & Francis Online.

Narrative Turn and Business History

This new issue contains the following articles:

Original Articles

Theorising narrative in business history
Mads Mordhorst & Stefan Schwarzkopf
Pages: 1155-1175 | DOI: 10.1080/00076791.2017.1357697

The strategic use of historical narratives: a theoretical framework
William M. Foster, Diego M. Coraiola, Roy Suddaby, Jochem Kroezen & David Chandler
Pages: 1176-1200 | DOI: 10.1080/00076791.2016.1224234

How business historians can save the world – from the fallacy of self-made success
Pamela Walker Laird
Pages: 1201-1217 | DOI: 10.1080/00076791.2016.1251904

Narrative, metaphor and the subjective understanding of historic identity transition
Mairi Maclean , Charles Harvey & Lindsay Stringfellow
Pages: 1218-1241 | DOI: 10.1080/00076791.2016.1223048

Writing business history: Creating narratives
Andrew Popp & Susanna Fellman
Pages: 1242-1260 | DOI: 10.1080/00076791.2016.1250742

Narrating histories of women at work: Archives, stories, and the promise of feminism
Gabrielle Durepos, Alan McKinlay & Scott Taylor
Pages: 1261-1279 | DOI: 10.1080/00076791.2016.1276900

Histories of leadership in the Copenhagen Phil – A cultural view of narrativity in studies of leadership in symphony orchestras
Søren Friis Møller
Pages: 1280-1302 | DOI: 10.1080/00076791.2017.1335306
Book Reviews

La place financière de Paris au xxe siècle. Des ambitions contrariées
Hubert Bonin
Pages: 1303-1305 | DOI: 10.1080/00076791.2016.1156219

Les concessions hydroélectriques dans le grand sud-ouest, Histoire et débats 1902/2015
Alain Beltran
Pages: 1305-1306 | DOI: 10.1080/00076791.2017.1321165

Wall streeters: The creators and corruptors of American finance
C. Edoardo Altamura
Pages: 1306-1308 | DOI: 10.1080/00076791.2017.1326434

America’s bank: The epic struggle to create the Federal Reserve
Linda Arch
Pages: 1308-1309 | DOI: 10.1080/00076791.2017.1326435

Start with the future and work back: a heritage management manifesto
Daniele Pozzi
Pages: 1310-1311 | DOI: 10.1080/00076791.2017.1328995

The international aluminium cartel, 1886–1978: The business and politics of a cooperative industrial institution
Valerio Cerretano
Pages: 1311-1313 | DOI: 10.1080/00076791.2017.1331544

 

Job: Oxford University, Global history of capitalism

Career Development Fellow – Global History of Capitalism

University of Oxford – Faculty of History

The Global History of Capitalism project is seeking a dedicated Career Development Fellow to join their team to conduct rigorous academic research and to inform debates on the history of capitalism.

The successful applicant will have an active research interest in the global history of capitalism and be able to work individually and collaboratively with researchers across disciplines. You will conduct relevant archival research as well as field-based research where relevant. You will manage your own academic research and administrative duties, contribute ideas for new projects and collaborate in the presentation of publications. You will also provide teaching relief to one of the Co-Directors and co-design a new undergraduate course in business history.

You will hold a relevant doctorate (or show evidence that a doctorate is imminent) and have an excellent knowledge of the languages relating to your specialism. You will be able to demonstrate a strong research record and excellent communication skills along with the ability to teach. An ability to work independently as well as collaboratively within a team is essential.

The post is full-time and fixed term for 3 years; the start date is negotiable but must be no later than January 2018.

Applicants are required to submit a research proposal as part of their application.

Applications must be made online. To apply for this role and for further details, including the job description and selection criteria, please click on the link below.

The deadline for applications is 12.00 noon on 13 September 2017.

Applications are particularly welcome from women and black and minority ethnic candidates who are under-represented in research posts in Oxford.

https://www.recruit.ox.ac.uk/pls/hrisliverecruit/erq_jobspec_version_4.jobspec?p_id=130104

PDW on Historical methods at AOM2017

Last Friday we ran our professional development workshop on the uses of historical methods at the Academy of Management. We had a full house, seven excellent presentations and lively discussions with the audience. We also distributed our draft bibliography on historical methods in a previous post and hope you can give us some feedback and suggestions.

Dan, Diego and I plan to run future events focused on historical methodology in management and organization studies and are open to your feedback, suggestions and requests. Below you find links to our presentations from the day.

Introduction: AOM2017_PDW Hist Meth intro

JoAnne Yates: JY history and organizational studies AOM 2017

Michael Rowlinson: AOM pdw Historical Methods

Steph Decker: AOM2017_PDW-Archival Ethnography

Bill Foster: 2017 AOM Ethnostatistics PDW presentation

Christina Lubinski: AOM Distant Markets Christina

Michael Prietula: AoM-2017-PDW-prietula-2

 

All Academy Event on economic nationalism

On Sunday the Management History division at the Academy of Management hosted an all academy symposium on historical perspectives on business and management in an age of rising nationalism.

The panel comprised of Dan Wadhwani as the host and moderator, Matthias Kipping (York University), Takafumi Kurosawa (Kyoto University) and myself, Stephanie Decker (Aston University).

We argued that history can provide management scholars with a unique lens for understanding the current rise of nationalism, and the choices that businesses, managers, and entrepreneurs face in response to those changes. In part, this is because both supporters and critics of the current wave of nationalism point to historical examples and their consequences in justifying their positions. But, even more so, historical waves of globalization and de-globalization allow us a mirror for reflecting on the options and consequences that both policymakers and managers face today.

For instance, on the eve of World War I, much of the world economy was economically integrated, with the relatively free mobility of firms, people, and capital across borders. This earlier wave of global integration fell apart with the rise of nationalism and nationalist policies during the interwar period, and a different kind of globally integrated economy had to be rebuilt by policymakers and businesspeople in the post-World War II world.

We discussed not only potential lessons of earlier waves of nationalism de-globalization, but also the uses of the past by politicians, and the way in which corporate strategies can be shaped in the long term by historical experiences.

Ultimately, the discussion revolved around the relevance of history for understanding managerial choices and consequences in the face of nationalism in our own time.

CfP: Special issue on War & Peace in Organizational Memory

Management and Organizational History

Call for papers

 Special Issue: War and Peace in Organizational Memory

 

Theme

Organizations are known for marking their own centennial, bicentennial and other anniversaries. These celebrations are good opportunities for organizations to reflect on their past. The commissioned corporate history that often stems from these events helps the organization to understand its past. This work can then be used externally to form part of its marketing strategy or internally as a way to firm up its identity (Suddaby, Foster and Quinn Trank 2016). The past and longevity also confers legitimacy upon the organization (Roowaan 2009). Other commemorative dates and remembrance ceremonies are of similar importance. While not the traditional focus of business historians, these dates are nevertheless observed by organizations as they participate in the social process of remembering events. This is especially apparent in the experience of war and, as we have seen more recently, terrorist attacks.

A special Issue of Management and Organizational History will be timed to coincide with 11th November 2018 as the 100th year anniversary of Armistice Day. It will be devoted to the examining the impact that war, as a social and political event, had upon organizational identity. How did organizations understand and rationalize their national, regional, religious or racial identity and behavior in times of conflict? What objects, rituals and ceremonies organizations initiate to remember and commemorate the lives lost in war – if at all? To what extent were memorials or commemorations specific to organisations themselves, albeit embedded within wider systems of meaning? How does the end of conflict and peace time change these gestures or attitudes towards other nations or groups? We welcome empirical and theoretical papers that consider case studies or adopt long run historical analysis as well as encouraging the submission of work that utilizes new approaches to concepts of memory. Papers that examine the influence of World War I would be pertinent contributions to the issue but it is not confined to focusing on this war alone. Submissions that consider other wars or conflicts, such as the Hundred Years War, Wars of Independence, Civil Wars, Napoleonic War, World War II, the Cold War, would be relevant and we invite papers from all periods and geographical zones.

Since the ‘historic turn’, a shift has begun to take place in the study of organizational change whereby business historians and historical analysis more generally has taken a greater role. Using history in forming organizational identity often involves sense-making by companies (Ravasi and Schultz, 2006). Recent research has included analysis of ceremonies, rituals and objects. Rituals, as historic events, contain rich levels of symbolism and follow a set of established conventions (Dacin et al., 2010). Objects, such as ornaments, portraits, other paraphernalia and even architecture or museums, exist as a manifestation of a collective memory, a historical record of the organization’s past (Decker 2014; Suddaby, Foster and Quinn Trank 2016, Barnes and Newton, 2017). They serve as ‘talking points’ or a ‘show and tell’ to explain organizational culture, an event or the meaning of an act which has taken place (Ames, 1980; Rafaeli and Pratt, 1993). Textual and oral memory forms can be used as memory cues, which enable those in the present to construct organizational identity that complies with current and future requirements (Schultz and Hernes 2013, 4). While the past can be used and manipulated, it is not always controlled by those with power at the top of the hierarchy (Rowlinson and Hassard 1993; Maclean et al. 2014).

There is a wealth of literature on the memorialization of war at the individual, national, European and international level.  Mosse examines the commemoration of soldiers after war, and the role this has in turning war into a sacred event (1990).  The role that remembering of war has in creating both national and European identities is considered by Niznik (2013) and its role in influencing post-war European politics is analyzed by Muller (2002). Others consider an international perspective (Sumartojo and Wellings, 2014), whilst the role of museums in remembering war is considered by Williams (2007) and Kjeldbaek (2009). Yet less has been written about how organizations remember war and how such remembering (or forgetting) influences their identify.

This call for papers invites potential contributions from those that employ innovative methodologies to examine individuals, groups or organizations and their experience of war.

Potential topics might include:

  • Corporate acts, events, rituals or memorials that remember the war and lives lost
  • Decisions not to mark or otherwise commemorate war and/or conflict
  • War reparations and other related acts
  • The organization’s narrative of its involvement in the war
  • The disruptive atmosphere of war and crisis management on staff
  • The impact of war or peace on the organization’s national, regional, religious or racial identity
  • Approach of multinational firms to this issue and uniformity or difference in subsidiary organisations
  • Remembering as a means of connecting with local stakeholders, such as customers and the general public
  • Debates about retaining war memorials and the issues with existing stakeholders

Process and timeline

Those interested in potentially contributing should contact the two guest editors at the earliest opportunity:

Victoria Barnes: Barnes@rg.mpg.de

Lucy Newton: L.A.Newton@henley.ac.uk

A paper development workshop will be held in Henley Business School, University of Reading in December 2017.

Manuscripts are to be submitted to Management and Organization History in the normal way. Authors should make it clear that the paper is intended to be part of the Special Issue.

The deadline for submission of papers for the Special Issue is February 28th 2018 with an aim to get final versions accepted by September 2018 for publication.

The Special Issue is timed to coincide with Armistice Day and will appear in November 2018 (Vol. 13, No. 4).

References

Ames, K.L., 1980. Material Culture as NonVerbal Communication: A Historical Case Study. J. Am. Cult. 3, 619–641. doi:10.1111/j.1542-734X.1980.0304_619.x

Dacin, M.T., Munir, K., Tracey, P., 2010. Formal Dining at Cambridge Colleges: Linking Ritual Performance and Institutional Maintenance. Acad. Manage. J. 53, 1393–1418. doi:10.5465/AMJ.2010.57318388

Decker, Stephanie. 2014. ‘Solid Intentions: An Archival Ethnography of Corporate Architecture and Organizational Remembering’. Organization 21 (4): 514–42. doi:10.1177/1350508414527252.

Kjeldbæk, Esben (ed.). 2009. The power of the object : museums and World War I.  Edinburgh : Museums Etc.

Maclean, M., Harvey, C., Sillince, J.A.A., Golant, B.D., 2014. Living up to the past? Ideological sensemaking in organizational transition. Organization 21, 543–567. doi:10.1177/1350508414527247

Mosse, George L. 1990. Fallen soldiers: reshaping the memory of the world wars.  New York and Oxford : Oxford University Press.

Müller, Jan-Werner (ed.). 2002.  Memory and power in post-war Europe: studies in the presence of the past.  Cambridge, UK; Cambridge University Pres..

Niżnik, Józef (ed.). 2013.  Twentieth century wars in European memory.  Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.

Rafaeli, A., Pratt, M.G., 1993. Tailored Meanings: On the Meaning and Impact of Organizational Dress. Acad. Manage. Rev. 18, 32–55. doi:10.5465/AMR.1993.399750

Ravasi, D. M. and Schultz, Majken. 2006. ‘Responding to Organizational Identity Threats: Exploring the Role of Organizational Culture’. Academy of Management Journal 49 (3): 433-458

Roowaan, Reis. 2009. A Business Case for Business History: How Companies Can Profit from their Past. Amsterdam: Uitgeverij Boom.

Rowlinson, Michael and Hassard, John. 1993. ‘The Invention of Corporate Culture: A History of the Histories of Cadbury’. Human Relations 46: 299-326.

Suddaby, Roy, William M. Foster, and Chris Quinn Trank. 2016. ‘Re-Membering: rhetorical history as identity work’. In The Oxford Handbook of Organizational Theory and Behaviour, edited by Michael G. Pratt, Majken Schultz, Blake E. Ashforth and David Ravasi. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Sumartojo, Shanti and Ben Wellings, (eds.). 2014. Nation, memory and Great War commemoration: mobilizing the past in Europe, Australia and New Zealand.  Bern, Switzerland : Peter Lang.

Williams, Paul Harvey. 2007. Memorial museums: the global rush to commemorate atrocities. Oxford : Berg.

 

AOM PDW on Historical methods

*** Apologies for cross-posting ***

 

PDW on “Historical Methods for Management and Organizational Research”

 

Coordinators

Stephanie Decker, Aston Business School

Diego M. Coraiola, U. of Alberta

 

Participants

William Foster, U. of Alberta

JoAnne Yates, MIT Sloan School of Management

Matthias Kipping, Schulich School of Bus, York U.

Michael Rowlinson, U. of Exeter

Christina Lubinski, Copenhagen Business School

 

Program Information

Session Type: PDW Workshop

Program Session: 107 | Submission: 12154 | Sponsor(s): (MH, CMS)

Scheduled: Friday, Aug 4 2017 12:15PM – 2:45PM at Hyatt Regency Atlanta in Embassy Hall E

 

 

Description

The PDW will be divided in two parts.

  1. In the first part the participants will present on topics related to the use of historical methods in management and organizational research. After the presentations we will have time for questions and answers from the audience.
  2. In the second part the participants will be distributed in roundtables and the audience will be invited to join them to discuss specific topics of the practice and publishing of historical research in management journals and receive feedback on their research projects.

 

Registration

***No registration required.

 

We do not require a formal registration. However, if you are planning to join us, we strongly encourage you to prepare a brief summary of a research project you are working on together with any doubts or puzzling issues you have been facing that you might want to discuss and get feedback on during the roundtables.

 

Abstract

Historical approaches to management and organizations have seen many promising developments in recent years, with several articles, special issues and edited books highlighting the important contribution that historical research can make to our understanding of contemporary organizations. Theoretical debates on the status of historical approaches within management and organization studies have dominated so far. These are important as they determine what kind of historical methods align with scholars’ epistemological and theoretical approach. Hence this PDW has two aims: to introduce scholars interested in the more practical questions of how we can use historical methods for organizational research to a range of option, and by highlighting the methodological implications of using specific historical approaches. This PDW will bring together several scholars who have used historical methodologies in their research. Their presentations will introduce participants to a range of methodologies and offer them the opportunity to subsequently discuss the relevance of these approaches for participants’ research projects in small groups in the second half of the session.

 

 

 

BH 59,7 October 2017 issue is now out!

Business History, Volume 59, Issue 7, October 2017 is now available online on Taylor & Francis Online.

Business and Global Environmental History

This new issue contains the following articles:

Special Issue Articles

Uniting business history and global environmental history
Andrew Smith & Kirsten Greer
Pages: 987-1009 | DOI: 10.1080/00076791.2017.1338688
Knowing nature in the business records of the Hudson’s Bay Company, 1670–1840
George Colpitts
Pages: 1054-1080 | DOI: 10.1080/00076791.2017.1304914

Original Articles

Making the global local? Overseas goods in English rural shops, c.1600–1760
Jon Stobart
Pages: 1136-1153 | DOI: 10.1080/00076791.2017.1293040

LAEMOS 2018 – Organizational History & Memory

 LAEMOS 2018

 Sub-Theme Proposal –  Organizational History and Memory

Diego M. Coraiola – Universidade Positivo, Brazil (dcoraiola@gmail.com)

Roy Suddaby – University of Victoria, Canada (rsuddaby@uvic.ca)

Maria Jose Murcia – University of British Columbia, Canada and IAE Universidad Austral, Argentina (majosemurcia@gmail.com)

Mar Pérezts – EMLYON Business School, France (perezts@em-lyon.com)

Bill Cooke – York University, UK (bill.cooke@york.ac.uk)

The notion of organizational resilience implies an implicit theory of organizations in time. Organizational survival lies in the ability of adapting to present and future demands from the environment as well as remaining true to an organization’s essence. Simply put, resilience is about being able to change and yet to remain the same. Reaching a proper balance between the old and the new or the past and the future is an ambidexterous act of exploration and exploitation or a paradox of similarity-distinctiveness. It involves establishing links between the legacies of organizational identities established in the past to aspirational strategies of an imagined future organization. However, there is still little knowledge of how the connections between the present and past of organizational action are created and sustained over time.

There is mixed evidence about the role of the past and history in organization survival. The past, it seems, can both enable and constrain adaptation and change. While for some scholars history defines the boundaries of organizational action and the possibilities of organizational resilience (David, 1985; Hannan & Freeman, 1989; Marquis, 2003; Porter, 1998; Teece, Pisano, & Shuen, 1997), for others the meaning of past actions and events is open for reinterpretation and reshaping through present actions and capabilities. (Coraiola, Foster, & Suddaby, 2015; Mena, Rintamäki, Fleming, & Spicer, 2016; Suddaby & Foster, 2016; Suddaby, Foster, & Trank, 2010; Zundel, Holt, & Popp, 2016). Empirical research on the mnemonics of organizational life might provide a better understanding of the organizational capabilities in generating alternative paths and adapting to changing environmental conditions and at the same time remaining true to themselves.

Our goal for this sub-theme, therefore, is to encourage theory on the mnemonic processes managers and organizations engage with in order to generate continuity and change with the past in ways that assure organizational survival and advantage them in the present and future. This calls for great variety of theoretical perspectives and empirical settings in order to start generating the cumulative evidence about the influences of historical legacies and the organizational ability for managing the past. Submissions focusing on the mnemonics of organizational resilience could look at:

  1.  What are the implications of past managerial action for organizational success and survival (Greve & Rao, 2014; Marquis, 2003; Schrempf-Stirling, Palazzo, & Phillips, 2016; Sydow & Schreyögg, 2013)?
  2.  What are the practices and routines organizations engage with in order to balance the reproduction and renovation of the past (Coraiola, Suddaby, Foster, 2017; Suddaby, Foster, Quinn-Trank, 2010)?
  3.  How managers use history to manage processes of organizational change (Brunninge, 2009; Maclean, Harvey, Sillince, & Golant, 2014; Ybema, 2010)?
  4.  How organizational identity is created and reproduced over time through various processes of remembering and forgetting (Anteby & Molnár, 2012; Ravasi & Schultz, 2006; Schultz & Hernes, 2013; Suddaby, Foster, & Trank, 2016)?
  5.  How organizations develop mnemonic practices to manage legitimacy threats and corporate scandals (Janssen, 2012; Mena, Rintamäki, Fleming, & Spicer, 2016)?
  6.  What are the boundary conditions around the uses of organizational mnemonics to foster organizational resilience (Foster, Coraiola, Suddaby, Kroezen, & Chandler, Forthcoming; Zundel et al, 2016)?
  7.  How management and organization scholars contribute to the understanding and the engagement of managers and organizations with the past (Lasewicz, 2015; Suddaby, 2016; Taylor, Bell, & Cooke, 2009).

The focus of this sub-theme is thus to provide new and more encompassing evidence about the enabling and constraining effects of the past for organizational resilience and survival. Researchers are encouraged to submit papers for this sub-theme with theoretical, methodological, and empirical contributions. Our goal is to foster discussions around the influence of the past, present, and future of managerial action on organizational continuity and change.

References

Anteby, M., & Molnár, V. (2012). Collective Memory Meets Organizational Identity: Remembering to Forget in a Firm’s Rhetorical History. Academy of Management Journal, 55(3), 515-540.

Brunninge, O. (2009). Using history in organizations: How managers make purposeful reference to history in strategy processes. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 22(1), 8-26.

Coraiola, D. M., Foster, W. M., & Suddaby, R. (2015). Varieties of History in Organization Studies. In P. G. McLaren, A. J. Mills & T. G. Weatherbee (Eds.), The Routledge Companion to Management & Organizational History (pp. 206-221). New York: Routledge.

David, P. A. (1985). Clio and the Economics of QWERTY. The American Economic Review, 75(2), 332-337.

Foster, W. M., Coraiola, D. M., Suddaby, R., Kroezen, J., & Chandler, D. (Forthcoming). The strategic use of historical narratives: A theoretical framework. Business History.

Greve, H. R., & Rao, H. (2014). History and the present: Institutional legacies in communities of organizations. Research in organizational behavior, 34, 27-41.

Hannan, M. T., & Freeman, J. (1989). Organizational Ecology. New York: Oxford University Press.

Janssen, C. I. (2012). Addressing Corporate Ties to Slavery: Corporate Apologia in a Discourse of Reconciliation. Communication Studies, 63(1), 18-35.

Lasewicz, P. C. (2015). Forget the Past? Or History Matters? Selected Academic Perspectives on the Strategic Value of Organizational Pasts. The American Archivist, 78(1), 59-83.

Maclean, M., Harvey, C., Sillince, J. A. A., & Golant, B. D. (2014). Living up to the past? Ideological sensemaking in organizational transition. Organization, 21(4), 543-567.

Marquis, C. (2003). The Pressure of the Past: Network Imprinting in Intercorporate Communities. Administrative Science Quarterly, 48(4), 655-689.

Mena, S., Rintamäki, J., Fleming, P., & Spicer, A. (2016). On the Forgetting of Corporate Irresponsibility. Academy of Management Review, 41(4), 720-738.

Porter, M. E. (1998). Cluster and the new economics of competition. Harvard Business Review, 76(6), 77-90.

Ravasi, D., & Schultz, M. (2006). Responding to organizational identity threats: Exploring the role of organizational culture. Academy of Management Journal, 49(3), 433-458.

Schrempf-Stirling, J., Palazzo, G., & Phillips, R. (2016). Historic Corporate Social Responsibility. Academy of Management Review, 41(4), 700-719.

Schultz, M., & Hernes, T. (2013). A Temporal Perspective on Organizational Identity. Organization Science, 24(1), 1-21.

Suddaby, R. (2016). Toward a Historical Consciousness: Following the Historic Turn in Management Thought. M@n@gement: Revue officielle de l’Association Internationale de Management Stratégique, 19(1), 46-60.

Suddaby, R., & Foster, W. M. (2016). History and Organizational Change. Journal of Management, 43(1), 19-38.

Suddaby, R., Foster, W. M., & Trank, C. Q. (2010). Rhetorical history as a source of competitive advantage. In J. A. C. Baum & J. Lampel (Eds.), Advances in Strategic Management: The Globalization of Strategy Research (pp. 147-173). Bingley: Emerald.

Suddaby, R., Foster, W. M., & Trank, C. Q. (2016). Re-membering: Rhetorical History as Identity-Work. In M. G. Pratt , M. Schultz, B. E. Ashforth & D. Ravasi (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Organizational Identity (pp. 297-316). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Sydow, J., & Schreyögg, G. (2013). Self-reinforcing processes in and among organizations. Hampshire: Palgrave.

Taylor, S., Bell, E., & Cooke, B. (2009). Business history and the historiographical operation. Management & Organizational History, 4(2), 151-166.

Teece, D. J., Pisano, G., & Shuen, A. (1997). Dynamic Capabilities and Strategic Management. Strategic Management Journal, 18(7), 509-533.

Ybema, S. (2010). Talk of change: Temporal contrasts and collective identities. Organization Studies, 31(4), 481-503.

Zundel, M., Holt, R., & Popp, A. (2016). Using history in the creation of organizational identity. Management & Organizational History, 1-25.

 

Note: We thank Maria Del Pilar Acosta Collazos, Sébastien Mena, and William M. Foster for their contribution in developing the proposal for this sub-theme.

Moshik Temkin’s Assertions about the Limits of Analogical-Historical Reasoning

Reblogged from The Past Speaks:

The Past Speaks

Moshik Temkin is an associate professor of history and public policy at the Harvard Kennedy School. He recently published a piece in the New York Times on the limits of analogical historical reasoning.  He observes that the chaotic Trump presidency has increased the demand for the services of historians.

Donald Trump might be disastrous for most Americans and a danger to the world, but he has been a boon to historians. The more grotesque his presidency appears, the more historians are called on to make sense of it, often in 30-second blasts on cable news or in quick-take quotes in a news article.

Temkin notes that one of the most popular analogies used to understand Trump is the Nixon presidency. Temkin cautions against the use of this historical analogy and all of the other historical analogies currently being used to make sense of Trump. He writes that

We teach our…

View original post 983 more words