Author: Steph

I am a professor at the University of Birmingham Business School specializing in organizational history and international strategy.

BizHist Collective: Roundtable on Slavery and Business History

Steph

Date: 14/10/2020 @ 16.00 hrs London

Speakers: Sherryllynne Haggerty (University of Nottingham), Rafael Pardo (Emory University), Stephen Mullen (University of Glasgow)

Discussant: Cheryl McWatters (University of Ottawa)

Organiser/Hosts: Nicholas Wong and Andrew Perchard (both at Northumbria University)

Register here. See session abstracts below.

‘I am so chained down by my business to this spot’ Making Money in Jamaica, 1756

Sherryllynne Haggerty (University of Nottingham)

When Gilbert Ford wrote that he was ‘so chained down by my business’, he was of course alluding to the institution of slavery by which all free Jamaicans made their money, whether explicitly or implicitly. Ford was a planter, and one of the elite, however, this paper uses a rare set of letters sent from Jamaica in autumn 1756 to focus on the non elite. It asks how did non-elite free people contribute to, and benefit from, the local, regional and Atlantic economy of Jamaica? In 1756, despite the start of the Seven Years’ War, Jamaica was at the centre of Britain’s slave ‘system’ and its largest producer of sugar. The island produced huge wealth for white plantation owners at the expense of an enslaved labour force. However, this paper will demonstrate that for non-elites, men and women, white and of colour, there was a more complicated story.

On Bankruptcy’s Promethean Gap: Building Enslaving Capacity into the Antebellum Administrative State

Rafael Pardo (Emory University)

As the United States contends with the economic crisis triggered by the Covid-19 pandemic, should it continue to approach application of federal bankruptcy law to resolve issues of financial distress from the same perspective of the past 120 years—namely, that bankruptcy is about the resolution of private debt matters? To answer that question, this paper looks to modern U.S. bankruptcy law’s first forebear, the 1841 Bankruptcy Act, which Congress enacted in response to the depressed economic conditions following the Panic of 1837. New Orleans was among the cities that financially suffered the worst during that crisis. By the time of the Act, it was the nation’s third-most-populous city; its slave market was the nation’s largest; and its money market was one of the nation’s largest, if not the largest. This paper tells the cautionary tale about the bankruptcy administration and sale of Banks Arcade, a block-long, three-story building that was one of antebellum New Orleans’s premier commercial exchanges for auctioning enslaved African Americans. This history about how the federal administrative state restructured one component of the U.S. slavery complex should prompt us to think critically about what it means to manage the financial fallout from capitalistic excess through the bankruptcy system.

The University of Glasgow Model of Institutional Slavery Income

Stephen Mullen (University of Glasgow)

On 16 September 2018, the University of Glasgow released the report ‘Slavery, Abolition and the University of Glasgow’ that acknowledged slave-owners, merchants and planters with connections to New World slavery – and their descendants – donated capital between 1697 and 1937 that influenced the development of the institution. In doing so, the institution became the first British university to declare historical income derived from transatlantic slavery. In response to the report, a nine-point programme of reparative justice was launched, the first British university to launch a project on such a scale. This attracted global interest and was reported in The Times of London, the Guardian, and various other outlets in the Caribbean and the United States. Report authors estimated the university historically benefitted from income valued at, depending on which comparator was adopted, ranging from £16m to £198m (2016 values). Although the historical comparators were included simply as an estimation of scale, it is an imprecise science – the three different estimates are equally valid – the media reported the highest possible values. This paper discusses ‘The University of Glasgow Model of Institutional Slavery Income’; challenges, issues with the methodology; opportunities for further research, and potential transferability to other universities and institutions more broadly.

Biz Hist Collective are looking for a new editor to join

Steph

Colleagues

We are looking for one person to join the editorial board of the the Business History Collective (Global). What follows is an invitation for you to take an active part of this initiative, a brief explanation of the initiative itself and the tasks involved. 

Expressions of interest directly to me at Bernardo.batiz-lazo@northumbria.ac.ukby Monday October 12, 2020.

Thanks

Bernardo

The Microhistory Network

Steph

For those of us interested in microhistory as an approach, there is an interested resource online that I only recently discovered: The Microhistory Network:

“The Microhistory Network was created as a loose group in January 2007 to bring together historians interested in the theory and practice of microhistory through a homepage with a bibliography, links to the members’ homepages and other relevant webpages that would give information about conferences, events, the publication of books and articles. The founding members of the Microhistory Network are Mihail Boytsov, Carlo Ginzburg, Marion Gray, Ingar Kaldal, Giovanni Levi, David M. Luebke, Sigurdur Gylfi Magnússon, Sarah Maza, Edward Muir, Matti Peltonen, Guido Ruggiero, David Sabean and István Szijártó. The coordinator of the Microhistory Network is Kristóf Kovács and István Szijártó (Eötvös University, Budapest).”

I have read the work of several of these scholars with great interest, and they have just announced an online course:

ONLINE COURSE
From September 2020, Eötvös University (Budapest) offers the online course Introduction into microhistory for a limited number of students. Attending the classes is free of charge. For details see the course homepage.

BizHizColl talk TODAY!

Steph

Historical Cognition and Strategic Entrepreneurship

Date: 25/09/2020 @ 16.00 hrs London
Speaker: Diego Coraiola, University of Alberta
Chair: Nicholas Wong, Northumbria University

Register here. See abstract below.

Abstract

There is an emerging ‘historical turn’ in strategy and entrepreneurship research. Scholars are realizing that history can be a source of competitive heterogeneity and foster entrepreneurial action. However, scholars disagree upon the reasons why history matters. Objective approaches have theorized the inertial and path dependence effects of historically acquired resources and competencies. Contrarily, narrative approaches argue that history can be conceived as a form of rhetoric used to generate competitive advantage. Thus, in spite of the recognized importance of history for entrepreneurial and strategic behaviour, we lack an overarching theoretical framework clarifying the role of history in strategic entrepreneurship. In this chapter, we develop an integrative approach to history grounded on the notion of historical consciousness. Our cognitive view of history integrates previous approaches and outlines new avenues for the study of strategic entrepreneurship.

Accounting History International Emerging Scholars’ Colloquium

Steph

Call for Research Proposals

The Accounting History International Emerging Scholars’ Colloquium

Portsmouth, United Kingdom, 8 September 2021

The Accounting History International Emerging Scholars’ Colloquium (AHIESC) will be held as part of the eleventh Accounting History International Conference (11AHIC) being held in Portsmouth, United Kingdom during 8-10 September 2021.

This international forum is designed for emerging scholars of all ages and career stages, including doctoral degree students, new faculty and other emerging accounting researchers who have an interest in accounting history, and who seek to obtain feedback from senior faculty members on their historical accounting research projects in an intellectually stimulating environment.

Please find attached the ‘Call for Research Proposals’. Further details about the 11AHIC can be found at the following site: https://www.port.ac.uk/11AHIC

Please also note these important dates:

  • 2 November 2020 Submission opening
  • 19 March 2021 Submission deadline

Best wishes

Carolyn, Carolyn and Laura

Carolyn Cordery, Carolyn Fowler and Laura Maran

Editors, Accounting History

EBHA E-Congress

Steph

This week our blog comes out on Monday to highlight the EBHA eConference taking place this week Friday – below the registration details and the day’s timetable.

September 11th, 2020

Hosted by CUNEF – Madrid (Zoom platform)

Registration: https://ebha.org/public/C3

Globalization Challenged

Keynote Speech

9.15 – 10.15 am (CEST) Introduction and Chair: Andrea Colli, EBHA President

Keynote speech: Martin Wolf, Financial Times

Discussant: Teresa da Silva Lopes, EBHA Vice-president

Globalization Challenged: the perspective of Business History

10.30 – 12.15 pm (CEST) Introduction and Chair: Bram Bouwens, Utrecht University and EBHA Council member

Panelists:

  • Tomasz Olejniczak, Department of Management, Kozminski University (Warsaw)
  • Grace Ballor, Harvard Business School
  • Ann-Kristin Bergquist, Unit of Economic History and Centre for Environmental and Resource Economics, Umeå University
  • Edoardo Altamira, Department of International History, Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies (Geneva)

EBHA Annual General Meeting

12.30 – 1.15 pm (CEST) Separate virtual room.

EBHA members can register at: https://ebha.org/public/C5

Roundtable “Teaching Business History in Distance Learning”

2.30 – 4.00 pm (CEST) Coordinator: Maiju Wuokko, University of Turku

Panelists:

  • Adoración Álvaro-Moya, CUNEF University (Madrid) and EBHA Secretary
  • Ludovic iCaullet, Edhec Business School (Roubaix)
  • Andrea Colli, Bocconi University Milan and
  • EBHA President Andrew Smith, University of Liverpool 

1st Organization Theory Winter Workshop

Steph

November 13–14, 2020 [online]

The Organization Theory (OT) Winter Workshop is aimed at organization and management researchers who wish to write high quality and impactful theoretical papers for journal publication (in Organization Theory, Organization Studies, Academy of Management Review, or elsewhere).

Call for Papers

The 1st Organization Theory (OT) Winter Workshop 2020 will offer detailed coaching and hands-on feedback sessions on participants’ papers as well as plenary sessions by members of the OT editorial team on key aspects of developing and writing theory (developing a theory contribution, construct clarity, genres of theory writing).
 
This will be the first edition of an annual workshop that will bring together organization and management scholars, the editors of Organization Theory, and senior academics with experience in writing theory papers as additional facilitators and mentors.
 
Applications for the OT Winter Workshop 2020 are now open (please see details below); we encourage both senior researchers as well as researchers in earlier stages of their careers to submit conceptual papers to be considered for this workshop. We are open to theoretical perspectives from outside the ‘mainstream’ and are keen to support the development of papers which are currently not under review. – Please note that empirical papers (those with either quantitative or qualitative data) will NOT be accepted.
 
This workshop will be online, with sessions taking place via ZOOM [tbc].

Convenors

Eva Boxenbaum | Copenhagen Business School, Denmark
Joep Cornelissen | Erasmus University Rotterdam, The Netherlands
Penny Dick | University of Sheffield, United Kingdom
Joel Gehman | University of Alberta, Canada
Markus Höllerer | UNSW Sydney, Australia
Juliane Reinecke | King’s College London, United Kingdom
David Seidl | University of Zurich, Switzerland

This year’s theme: “New Theoretical Perspectives on Organizations, Organizing and the Organized”

Over the past years, we have witnessed a growing criticism of the standard model of theorizing through propositions and hypotheses (“if, then” clauses), and the degree to which this model can by itself conceptually capture the complexity and dynamics of organizational phenomena. Based on this criticism, there has been a repeated call for alternative ways of theorizing that unsettle, challenge and extend our current ways of knowing and understanding organizations and processes of managing and organizing, including key topics such as CSR and sustainability, power and resistance, strategy, identity, change, design, knowledge, leadership, technology, sensemaking, routines, practices, and institutions.
Whilst the standard model has its strengths and limitation, it’s not the only viable way to develop theory (Cornelissen & Höllerer, 2020). There are other ways of theorizing and writing, including various forms of critique, process theorizing, provocative thought experiments, meta-theorizing, and hermeneutic inquiries, amongst other forms. The new EGOS journal Organization Theory (OT) is open to these different forms of theorizing, and in doing so aims to be the driving force behind intellectual pluralism and theoretical developments in our field.
In line with this pluralistic ethos and our aim of opening up new theoretical perspectives, we seek contributions for the OT Winter Workshop 2020 from a wide range of theoretical perspectives and on different topic areas. Specifically, our intention is to offer an open forum and supportive environment for theory development in the broadest possible sense; we aim to provide opportunities for authors to draw novel connections across proximate disciplines, including management studies, philosophy, social and political theory, sociology, and ethics, to name a few, while retaining a clear focus on organizations and practices of organizing. We are keen to receive work that challenges existing theory, as well as papers that significantly deepen and stretch our understanding of current organizational theories and topics. Furthermore, we explicitly encourage submissions which introduce theoretical ideas from different scholarly communities around the world and aim to disclose these to a broader international audience.
Following the workshop, the best papers from the workshop can be submitted for a fast-track review process for possible publication in Organization Theory. Details on this process will be shared during the workshop.

Submissions

The 1st Organization Theory Winter Workshop will take place online on November 13 & 14, 2020.

  • Those interested in participating should submit an abstract by September 7, 2020 through the OT Workshop website: https://osofficer.wixsite.com/otworkshop. – Abstracts should not comprise more than 1,000 words.
    Authors will be notified of acceptance or otherwise by September 21, 2020.
  • Full papers must be submitted by October 20, 2020.
  • Further details on the logistics of the workshop will be published through the OT Workshop website.

Reference

Cornelissen, J., & Höllerer, M.A. (2020): “An Open and Inclusive Space for Theorizing: Introducing Organization Theory.”
Organization Theory, 1 (1); first published on December 5, 2019
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/2631787719887980

BAM2020 and how history can help us to “Take Race Seriously”

Steph

It’s been a great start to the BAM2020 Conference in the Cloud today. A genuinely nice way to start the new academic years, which is nearly upon us (and promises to be a genuinely strange experience at universities everywhere). And as it is 2020, the conference is of course virtual, and consequently in a different format. Individual presentations only take place asynchronously, so I am not clear how much feedback and engagement anyone who has submitted papers will receive, but it is an interesting innovation.

The main conference is now a series of panel discussion around key topics, which so far have been informative and practical (such as “The Art of Reviewing”) as well as timely and topical. The BAM fellows session addressed issues of “Taking Race Seriously”, and highlighted not just what is happening in businesses and other organizations, but also in academia. Prof Nelarine Cornelius emphasised the role that a more critical approach to teaching business and imperial history could play in making our curricula more diverse. She particularly referred to the role of chartered companies, such as the East India company, and merchant venturers as creating the institutions that anchored global trade – an influence that continues to the present day. Including any history in business school curricula, either as standalone modules or within existing ones, is often advocated (particularly when there’s a crisis on) but it is not clear how to engage students in history when this is not what they came to management and business schools for. Mention anything before the year 2000, and enjoy the puzzled look in your students faces (back when you could actually still see them).

When it comes to thinking about how to draw on history to raise awareness for the racist and violent expansion of imperialist powers in the “First Global Economy”, it brings with it a critical and at times subversive view on the very models and approaches that we teach. Whether it is the origins of management ideas in the plantation economy of the antebellum South US (and therefore in the management of slave labour) or a more general reassessment of how we think management ideas were developed – this kind of knowledge challenges what we thing we know about the past as much as the present.

But it also raises the issue that perhaps not enough of this research has taken place and that there is a scarcity of material out there that we can teach our students about. It is not solely WHAT to teach them (although that is an issue as well), but also HOW to link this into the broader curriculum and learning objectives. It is of course one way in which business and management schools could decolonise the curriculum, but finding and integrating such resources is not always easily done. This was particularly highlighted by a very interested talk I chaired for the Business History Collective (on Twitter: @bizhiscol) last week. Profs Leon C Prieto and Simone Phipps talked about their research about the ‘hidden’ pioneers of African-American management thought, focusing on three individuals few management scholars may have heard of, because their contribution to business history and management ideas were ignored in many ways, both at the time and by posterity. You can access a recording of their talk here (you will need to enter this password: 0?bUF83n).

Going forward, we will hopefully see more of this kind of research that we can bring into our teaching. While business and management journals, of course, continue to publish a wide variety of research, there is a noticeable shift in many mainstream journals towards engaging with these issues. See, for example, a recent issue in AMLE featuring articles bringing historical and postcolonial perspectives to bear on management education. Nevertheless, such work still needs to contribute to theory and address the key concerns of journals by making a connection to existing conversations. Tomorrow, BAM2020 will start with our regular Meet the Editors session – again chaired by yours truly. Even if you cannot be there, do make sure you watch the really informative advance video of the editors of BJM, IJMR, EMJ and JMS, which is a great resource to better understand how to get published in these journals. As historical research is becoming more mainstream and the issues with what we think we know about the origins of management practices and thought ever more apparent and controversial, it is important to join these wider conversations.

FBR SI: History-informed Family Business Research

Steph

Family Business Review (FBR) Special Issue on History-informed Family Business Research

SUBMISSION DUE DATE: July 1, 2021

Guest Editors

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

Brian S. Silverman, University of Toronto (silverman@rotman.utoronto.ca)

Alfredo De Massis, Free University of Bozen-Bolzano and Lancaster University (Alfredo.DeMassis@unibz.it)

Peter Jaskiewicz, University of Ottawa (Peter.Jas@uOttawa.ca)

Evelyn R. Micelotta, University of Ottawa (Micelotta@telfer.uottawa.ca)

Special Issue Theme

History is pervasive in family business settings, where values, beliefs, narratives, and artefacts of the founding family are handed down from generation to generation (Colli, 2003). The history of a family and its business therefore pervades family business goals, practices, and outcomes, creating a close link between the history of family businesses, their present traditions, and future aspirations (De Massis et al., 2016; Jaskiewicz et al., 2015; Zellweger et al., 2012).

Because of the prominence of history in family businesses, these firms have often been stigmatized as a form of business organization that is steadfast to its history and traditions, path dependent, conservative, resistant to changes and unable to adapt to dynamic and constantly evolving markets (Chandler, 1977; Morck & Yeung, 2003; Poza et al., 1997). Yet, family businesses remain dominant in any economy (La Porta et al., 1999), many of them are highly innovative (De Massis et al., 2018), resilient to crises, and equipped with the stamina to pursue entrepreneurial projects over generations (Jaskiewicz et al., 2016; Sinha, Jaskiewicz, Gibb, & Combs, 2020). The latter is consistent with emerging research suggesting that the history and traditions of families and their businesses do not have to be a rigid burden but, in some cases, can be a holy grail for enduring innovation and change (Erdogan et al., 2020; Jaskiewicz, Combs, & Ketchen, 2016; Suddaby & Jaskiewicz, 2020).

While researchers thus recognize the paradoxical nature of the family business as an organization that can be burdened or empowered by history, theory on how history actually ties into family business’ tradition, change, and aspiration remains scarce (De Massis, Frattini, Kotlar, Messeni Petruzzelli, & Wright, 2016; Erdogan et al., 2020; Sinha et al., 2020; Suddaby, Coraiola, Harvey, & Foster, 2020; Suddaby & Jaskiewicz, 2020). One reason for this unsatisfactory status quo is the weak connection between history and family business scholarship that has limited current understanding of what family business scholars can learn from the wealth of history and historical research, and how they can integrate related learnings in the study of family business (e.g., Colli, 2003; Colli & Fernandez Perez, 2020).

Considering the rapidly growing interest in studying the link between history and family businesses, we believe that it is warranted and timely to build a strong foundation for a history-informed approach to the study of family businesses, by which we refer to family business research that draws on historical research methods and/or leverages history as a key component (or variable) of theory or empirical analysis (Argyres et al., 2020; Sasaki et al., 2020; Sinha et al., 2020; Suddaby & Foster, 2017; Suddaby et al., 2020).

This Special Issue therefore calls for new, interdisciplinary research on family firms that extends our understanding of how and why history and historical research methods can enrich theoretical explanations of family business behavior and of temporal phenomena happening in family business settings. We call for both “history in theory” and “history to theory” studies. We call for original studies that propose novel and more fine-grained theoretical understanding of the role and use of history in family business processes as well as a reconceptualization of history and the use of history in family business research. At the same time, we encourage scholars to develop and apply historical research methods that allow them to use historical data and records to build and test their theoretical models about family business behaviors and outcomes. By doing so, this Special Issue favors the development and application of new perspectives and innovative methodological approaches for addressing critical questions in family business that favor a better integration of the academic fields of history and family business.

Manuscripts may address, but are not limited to, the following topics:

  • How can family business phenomena be better theorized when the historical context where they take place, and the complex temporal dimensions through which they occur, are explicitly taken into account?
  • How do family businesses and their actors use history to give meaning to the present, inform their expectations about the future, and make business and family decisions?
  • What is the role of rhetorical history in shaping family business behavior, its determinants and outcomes? (Suddaby, Foster, & Trank, 2010). What is the relationship between narrative, story-telling, and history in the strategy processes of a family business?
  • How can traditions be (re-)conceptualized in family business settings to better account for their ambivalent roles for family business’ goals, behavior, and outcomes?
  • How can history-informed research be used to manage the tradition and innovation paradox or other typical paradoxes characterizing family business behavior?
  • How can family firms leverage their history, and/or resources pertaining to different points in their past, to make their way toward the future through acts directed to innovation (e.g., “innovation through traditions”) and/or entrepreneurship (e.g., “entrepreneurial legacy”), or other vital organizational processes?
  • How can change and innovation be used in a family business setting to perpetuate history and traditions (e.g., “tradition through innovation”)?
  • What are the distinctive organizational routines and capabilities that enable family firms to combine and reconfigure their history over time and build a bundle of valuable historical resources?
  • What are the distinctive organizational routines and capabilities that enable family firms to adopt retrospective and prospective approaches to using their resources to concurrently perpetuate tradition and achieve innovation (e.g., “temporal symbiosis”)?
  • How do the past and the historical context inform how family-centered and business-centered goals are set in the family business context?
  • How do the past and the historical context inform how new business opportunities are identified, evaluated and exploited? What’s the role played by history for transgenerational entrepreneurship in the family enterprise?
  • How can the assumptions behind transgenerational or path dependence-based predictions about family business behavior (e.g., decline in entrepreneurial attitude across generations) be understood when the historical context is considered?
  • How did specific and non-recurrent events or actions in the history of the family and/or its business lead to particular firm behaviors, and to the development of organizational capabilities (or lack thereof)?
  • What are the advantages of employing a historically embedded approach to improve current understanding of how family businesses learn, innovate, and make strategic decisions over time? How can such approaches be adapted and extended by family business scholars?
  • How do family business phenomena and practices evolve over time, and how are they shaped by the interactions between family firms, families, and their histories?
  • What are the unpredictable, nonrecurrent events either in the family or in the business system that change the course of history and the evolution of a family business organization?
  • How do different actors, groups, or family business organizations perceive time when it is conceived as a complex, socially constructed concept?
  • How do individuals and groups within family businesses conceive time in practice, and allocate their attention differently to the past, present, and future?
  • How do different temporal foci and/or orientations of different actors within the family business, and /or their perception of the past, influence the behavior and performance of the family firm? How do such orientations change in the presence of specific situational factors, such as intra-family succession or business exit?
  • How can an “historical cognizance” perspective (Kipping & Üsdiken, 2014) that incorporates period effects and historical contingencies into the theorizing process be useful to predict family firm behavior and its effect on family and business outcomes?
  • How can historical research methods and historical data be useful to family business research for understanding the context of contemporary phenomena, identifying sources of exogenous variations, developing and testing informed causal inferences and theories, and supporting analyses of temporal phenomena occurring across generations?

Submission Process

Manuscripts must be submitted through the Family Business Review web site indicating “Special Issue History” as the manuscript type. The special issue guest editors will review the received manuscripts for publication consideration in this special issue of FBR. Editors reserve the right to desk reject complete papers if they are deemed underdeveloped for this issue.

Timeline for 2022 Special Issue on History

May 28/29, 2021       Paper Development Workshop at FERC Conference

July 1, 2021               Manuscripts due. Please submit manuscripts via the FBR online submission portal at http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/fbr (please be sure to select “Special Issue History” as the submission type).

Sept. 1, 2021              1st round feedback on reviews provided to authors

Feb 1, 2022                Invited revisions due

April 1, 2022              2nd round feedback on reviews provided to authors

Sept 1, 2022               2nd round invited revisions due

Nov 1, 2022               3rd round feedback on reviews provided to authors

Jan 1, 2023                 All papers & editor’s introduction finalized; contents transferred to Sage

March 2023               FBR Special Issue “History-informed Family Business Research” published

Paper Development Workshop

We encourage authors to attend the Paper Development Workshop (PDW) for this Special Issue before submitting their manuscripts. The PDW will be offered during the Family Enterprise Research Conference (FERC) at the University of Florida Atlantic University, Delray Beach, Florida on May 28-29, 2021. More information about FERC in 2021 can be found here: https://business.fau.edu/ferc-2020/. We will add more detailed information on the PDW to the webpage at the beginning of 2021.

About FBR

Launched in 1988, Family Business Review is an interdisciplinary scholarly forum publishing conceptual, theoretical, and empirical research that aims to advance the understanding of family business around the world. FBR has a 2-year impact factor of 6.188, ranking it 13th out of 147 journals in the category business.

Conclusion

We look forward to receiving your manuscripts and working hard with you to make this issue a success for our field. For questions, please contact any member of the Special Issue co-editors.

References

Argyres, N. S., De Massis A., Foss N. J., Frattini F., Jones G., Silverman B.S. (2020). History-informed strategy research: The promise of history and historical research methods in advancing strategy scholarship. Strategic Management Journal, 41(3), 343-368.

Chandler, A. D. (1977). The visible hand: The managerial revolution in American business. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press.

Colli, A. (2003). The history of family business, 1850-2000 (Vol. 47). Cambridge University Press.

Colli, A., & Perez, P. F. (2020). Historical methods in family business studies. In Handbook of qualitative research methods for family business. Edward Elgar Publishing.

De Massis, A., Audretsch, D., Uhlaner, L., Kammerlander, N. (2018). Innovation with limited resources: Management lessons from the German Mittelstand. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 35(1), 125-146.

De Massis, A., Frattini, F., Kotlar, J., Messeni-Petruzzelli, A., Wright M. (2016). Innovation through tradition: Lessons from innovative family businesses and directions for future research. Academy of Management Perspectives, 30(1), 93-116.

Erdogan I., Rondi E., De Massis A. (2020). Managing the tradition and innovation paradox in family firms: A family imprinting perspective. Entrepreneurship Theory & Practice, 44(1), 20-54.

Jaskiewicz, P., Combs, J. G., Ketchen Jr, D. J., & Ireland, R. D. (2016). Enduring entrepreneurship: antecedents, triggering mechanisms, and outcomes. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 10(4), 337-345.

Jaskiewicz, P., Combs, J. G., & Rau, S. B. (2015). Entrepreneurial legacy: Toward a theory of how some family firms nurture transgenerational entrepreneurship. Journal of Business Venturing, 30(1), 29-49.

Kipping, M., & Üsdiken, B. (2014). History in organization and management theory: More than meets the eye. The Academy of Management Annals, 8(1), 535-588.

La Porta, R., Lopez‐de‐Silanes, F., & Shleifer, A. (1999). Corporate ownership around the world. The journal of finance, 54(2), 471-517.

Morck, R., & Yeung, B. (2003). Agency problems in large family business groups. Entrepreneurship theory and practice, 27(4), 367-382.

Poza, E. J., Alfred, T., & Maheshwari, A. (1997). Stakeholder perceptions of culture and management practices in family and family firms ‐ A preliminary report. Family Business Review, 10(2), 135-155.

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.

Sinha, P. N., Jaskiewicz, P., Gibb, J., & Combs, J. G. (2020). Managing history: How New Zealand’s Gallagher Group used rhetorical narratives to reprioritize and modify imprinted strategic guideposts. Strategic Management Journal, 41(3), 557-589.

Suddaby, R., Coraiola, D., Harvey, C., & Foster, W. (2020). History and the micro‐foundations of dynamic capabilities. Strategic Management Journal, 41(3), 530-556.

Suddaby, R., & Foster, W. M. (2017). 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. Advances in Strategic Management, 27, 147-173.

Suddaby, R. & Jaskiewicz, P. (2020). Managing traditions: A critical capability for family business success. Family Business Review, forthcoming.

Zellweger, T. M., Kellermanns, F. W., Chrisman, J. J., & Chua, J. H. (2012). Family control and family firm valuation by family CEOs: The importance of intentions for transgenerational control. Organization Science, 23(3), 851-868.

Online seminar: Elites, Oil, and Economic Nationalism

Steph

Presenter: Madihah Alfadhli and Bernardo Bátiz-Lazo (Northumbria)

Host/discussant: Daniel Castillo (Las Palmas)

Elites, Oil, and Economic Nationalism: The Darwish Al-Fakhro Family case in Qatar, 1935 to 1971

August 26, 2020, 10am German summer time

Abstract

Research in this paper departs from the study of imperial oil policy and the strategy of multinational companies in the Middle East, to consider how elites and nationalism intertwine with the formation of domestic reform. Specifically, how the efforts of the merchant Abdullah Al-Darwish Al-Fakhro, representative of the then ruler of Qatar (Ali bin Al-Thani, 1949 –1974), helped this oil dependent economy to gradually gain total control of its oil industry in 1971. Source material to compose this biography emerged from family papers of the Qatari commercial elites and the British National Archive. The story tells of the evolution of the Qatari oil industry from 1935 to 1971 with special attention to negotiations with multinational companies and foreign governments in the 1950s and 1960s.

Part of the Online Seminars in Business History series hosted by Gesellschaft fuer Unternehmensgeschichte

Register for this event here.