Author: Steph

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

OS SI CfP: Organizational Control

Steph

Call for Papers

Special Issue on Organizational control and surveillance of new work practices

NEW Deadline for paper submissions: August 31st 2018

Guest Editors :

François-Xavier de Vaujany (Université Paris-Dauphine, France)

Aurélie Leclercq-Vandelannoitte (CNRS, LEM UMR 9221, IESEG School of Management, France)

Iain Munro (Newcastle University Business School, United Kingdom)

Yesh Nama (RMIT University, Australia)

Robin Holt (Copenhagen Business School)

 

Introduction

Agnès, a young new startupper at the ‘Coworking Space’ in Berlin, explains[1]:

 Convivial, flat, free, fun, effective, adaptable, remarkable, transparent….this is how this coworking space described itself. In reality, I’ve never had the impression to be in an environment freed of hierarchy. We were all installed in a large, open space, separated from each other of only some meters… … except our CHO (Chief Happiness Officer), who had his own office, and could suddenly burst in. There was no overtime, only flexible hours. Actually overtime was considered the norm. We were all together in the same space, looking at each other’s’ comings and goings. When a coworker left at 6 pm, we all ironically (and legitimately) asked him if he was having a break! Fortunately beers and pizzas were distributed after 7 pm to motivate us to stay… we all seemed to enjoy this kind of stomach control. The rule for those who arrived late in the morning – 9 was the norm – was to bring pastries … However over time, I had the feeling that being late was met with disapproval. After all, maybe it was a sign that people were less motivated by, less confident in, or less passionate about their projects? One day, I felt ill at ease with this climate, it stifled me… I isolated myself in the restrooms, took my smartphone, and called my boyfriend to get some kind of support…

The emergence of new work practices and workplaces, as shown by the joint search for more mobility, openness (e.g. with open innovation), horizontality (e.g. with coworking practices and collaborative entrepreneurship), digital and collaborative practices (including more and more external stakeholders, e.g. customers and citizens, in the co-production of services), has raised new questions of organizational control, and surveillance. In a global context marked by the invisible revolution of surveillance capitalism (Zuboff, 2015) and the resurgence of risk (Beck, 1992), security fears and terror, which have re-legitimized the need for close surveillance and control, new work practices and workplaces have transformed the ‘premises of human involvement in organizations’ (Kallinikos, 2003, p. 595), as well as the mechanisms and conditions of control and surveillance. In particular, work transformations (project-based work, teleworking, distributed work arrangements, collaborative entrepreneurship and the emergence of third and collaborative practices and spaces, e.g. coworking spaces, maker spaces, innovation labs) are revealing how work increasingly gets performed outside the typical physical, spatial and temporal boundaries of the organization or within the context of third spaces and liminal spaces (Oldenburg, 1989; Garrett et al., 2017; Sewell and Taskin, 2015; Spinuzzi, 2012; Waber et al., 2014; Johns and Gratton, 2013).

These work transformations and new ‘sites’ (Schatzki, 2005) of work alter the structure of ‘presence’ and ‘visibility’ of employees and consequently affect the nature of the control of work practices (from supervision to more reporting, from technocratic to more social, peer- and self- control): both horizontal relationships (with co-workers) and vertical relationships (with supervisors) are transformed. These new work practices imply a ‘dispersal’ and ‘distantiation’ (Beyes and Stayaert, 2012; Sewell and Taskin, 2015) in the time and space of control (Bauman and Lyon, 2013; Orlikowski, 1991), and raise singular and often paradoxical challenges. On the one hand it entails collaborative forms of management control that extends beyond direct visual sight (Dambrin, 2004; Halford, 2005; Sewell, 2012), and on the other, forms of self-disciplining and transformation in which autonomy becomes almost a synonym for governance. Under the impress of both trends, surveillance has become increasingly mobile, flexible, pervasive and unbounded (Bauman and Lyon, 2013), and in turn encourages them.

It is important, however, not to limit understanding of control and surveillance to the digital and immaterial. Indeed, it seems they are more than ever constituted by, embedded in and infused in the materiality, corporeity, spatiality and temporality of new work practices and workplaces. Organizational control and surveillance should be conceived of not only as digital, virtual, fluid, flexible and discursive, but also as ever more deeply grounded in the concrete, material, spatial, embodied underpinnings (e.g. work practices, spatial practices, places, bodies, technologies in use, information tactics) of everyday life (Munro and Jordan, 2013; Leclercq-Vandelannoitte, 2011). New work practices and recent work transformations enhance the complexity of situations to control and highlight the ambiguity of spaces, instruments, objects, artefacts, management systems (Miller, 2008, 2009; Dale, 2005; Dale and Burrell, 2008; Lorino, 2013; de Vaujany and Vaast, 2014; Munro, 2016). The evolution of organizational control and surveillance through new work practices also points to the versatility of the uses of technologies in control and surveillance efforts (Orlikowski and Scott, 2008); some research for example emphasize a resurgence of ancient, bureaucratic forms of administration in new work settings, as managers seek to compensate for the distance, absence, and lack of visibility of their subordinates (Sewell and Taskin, 2015; Orlikowski and Scott, 2008; Halford, 2005). These new practices, coupled to evolving IT uses, constitute a new kind of organising of employees, placing them on an almost permanent front stage (Goffman, 1959). Such evolutions thus call for a deeper investigation of the materiality, corporeity, spatiality and temporality of control and surveillance through new work practices and work settings.

Furthermore, the continuous evolution of work practices and emergence of new work practices (e.g. remote work, digital mobility, collaborative entrepreneurship, coworking practices, Do It Yourself, makers, corporate hacking…) characterized by a potential shift—from static, central oversight to untethered, dispersed (auto)organization, embedded in material technologies—raises important tensions in terms of power relations, morality and ethics, with potentially paradoxical consequences. Novel types of control and surveillance find increasing legitimacy among those being subjugated, who may cooperate willingly, in a relation that raises new tensions between technology and human flourishing (Bauman and Lyon, 2013). Developments of consumer surveillance, biometrics, workplace surveillance, and ubiquitous computing constitute the embodied individual not only as a target of continuous oversight, but also as a subject of (self) exposure, through a process of data representation, interpretation and sharing, so that games of visibility (exhibitionism), observation (voyeurism) and secrecy (hiding one’s work) now abound in the workplace (Brivot and Gendron, 2011).

Thus, the tensions between the material, the virtual, the social, the embodied individual, and their implications, have never been so crucial to theories of control and surveillance. Emerging practices and organizational forms fuel tensions between our notions of freedom and security, physical and virtual or digital spatiality, the material with the social, the visible with the invisible, the continuous with the discontinuous, the reified with the virtual, the mind with the body, political (domination and oversight) with cultural or ideological control (persuasion and consent), and manipulation and collaboration.

With this special issue, we seek to rethink control and surveillance by developing a more materialized, spatialized, embodied and temporalized view in relation to new work practices that can supplement and so counterbalance a vision these being purely virtual and digitally enabled. By such we refer to theoretical analyses and contributions that emphasize the entanglement of social and material dimensions of control and work practices and the importance of ontological questions (i.e. what should be the main – ‘real’- focus of analysis: objects, activities, processes, perceptions, practices…?); issues of space, time, corporeity, embodiment, visuality and materiality involved in control devices and new work practices (Dale, 2005), as well as their relationships with organizations and organizing (Robichaud and Cooren, 2013); and broader ontological debates (Leonardi et al., 2012; Carlile et al, 2013; Orlikowski, 1991; Orlikowski, 2007; Scott and Orlikowski, 2012), across different ‘epistemic communities’ (Holt and den Hond, 2013; Boxenbaum et al., 2015; de Vaujany and Mitev, 2015).

Potential approaches and questions to be addressed in the special issue

To summarize, this special issue seeks to advance the study of organizations and organizing by exploring the materiality, meaning, nature and forms of control and surveillance of and through new work practices in contemporary society. We hope to involve a diverse range of scholars and scholarly traditions in debate. We welcome submissions that address control and surveillance from different ontological vantage points, in different contexts, using different methodologies.

Authors intending to submit papers to this special issue are encouraged to focus on some of the broad issues in the following far from exhaustive list:

  • Philosophical, historical and sociological roots of societal and organizational control and surveillance of work practices;
  • The unexpected presence and emergence of control and surveillance in the context of new work practices (e.g. sharing economy, remote work, digital mobility, collaborative entrepreneurship, coworking practices, Do It Yourself, makers, corporate hacking…);
  • Semiosis and digital infrastructure of control and surveillance processes in organizations and organizing;
  • The role of corporations and the ‘security–industrial complex’ in the deployment of new techniques;
  • Materiality, ontologies, politics of control and surveillance, and new agencies for such;
  • Concern for materiality, spatiality, liminality and temporality in control, discipline and surveillance;
  • Critical perspectives on new work practices and the emergence of control;
  • The rise of terrorism (often in the city) and challenges for control and surveillance in the public and private spaces;
  • Accomplishments and failures of control and surveillance;
  • The role of risk-management culture and risk-management tools in the emergence of surveillance capitalism and its material, corporeal, spatial and temporal forms;
  • Relations between control and surveillance in new work practices and governance;
  • The disciplinary nature of control and surveillance in new work practices;
  • New work and collaborative practices (e.g. coworkers, digital nomads, makers, hackers);
  • Managerial and leadership techniques of control and surveillance.

Submissions

Please submit papers through the journal’s online submission system, SAGE track, by visiting http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/orgstudies. Create your user account (if you have not done so already), and for “Manuscript Type,” choose the corresponding Special Issue. All papers that enter the review process will be double-blind reviewed, following the journal’s normal review process and criteria. You may submit papers for this Special Issue through SAGE Track until August 31st 2018.

For further information about this CFP, please contact:

oscontrolwork@gmail.com

For administrative support and general queries, please contact:

Sophia Tzagaraki, Managing Editor, Organization Studies: osofficer@gmail.com.

 

Indicative references

Bauman, Z., & Lyon, D. (2013). Liquid surveillance: a conversation. New York: John Wiley & Sons.

Beck, U. (1992). Risk society: Towards a new modernity (Vol. 17). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Beyes, T., Steyaert, C. (2012). Spacing organization: non-representational theory and performing organizational space.  Organization, 19(1): 45-61

Boxenbaum, E., Jones, C., Meyer, R., & Svejenova, S. (2015). The Material and Visual Turn in Organization Theory: Objectifying and (Re)acting to Novel Ideas. Call for Papers, Special Issue of Organization Studies, http://oss.sagepub.com/content/35/10/1547.extract.

Brivot, M. and Gendron, Y. (2011). Beyond panopticism: on the ramifications of surveillance in a contemporary professional setting. Accounting, Organizations and Society 36(3), 135–155.

Carlile, P. R., Nicolini, D., Langley, A., & Tsoukas, H. (Eds.). (2013). How matter matters: Objects, artifacts, and materiality in organization studies. OUP Oxford.

Dale, K. (2005). Building a social materiality: Spatial and embodied politics in organizational control. Organization, 12, 649–678.

Dale, K., & Burrell, G. (2008). The spaces of organisation and the organisation of space: Power, identity and materiality at work. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan

de Vaujany, F. X., & Mitev, N. (2015). The post-Macy paradox, information management and organizing: Good intentions and a road to hell? Culture & Organization, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14759551.2015.1103242.

de Vaujany, FX. & Vaast, E. (2014). If these walls could talk: The mutual construction of organizational space and legitimacy, Organization Science, 25(3),713-731.

Garrett, L.E., Spreitzer, G.M., Bacevice, P.A., (2017). Co-constructing a Sense of Community at Work: The Emergence of Community in Coworking Spaces. Organization Studies 0170840616685354. doi:10.1177/0170840616685354.

Goffman, E. (1959). The presentation of self in everyday life. Doubleday Anchor Books, New York.

Halford, S. (2005). Hybrid workspace: Re-spatialisations of work, organisation and management. New Technology, Work and Employment, 20, 19–33.

Holt, R. & Den Hond, F. (2013), Sapere Aude. Organization Studies, 34(11), 1587-1600.

Johns, T. & Gratton L. (2013), The third wave of virtual work. Harvard Business Review, January-February, pp. 66-73.

Kallinikos, J. (2003). Work, human agency and organizational forms: an anatomy of fragmentation. Organization Studies, 24 (4), 595-618.

Leclercq-Vandelannoitte A., (2011). Organizations as discursive constructions: A Foucauldian approach, Organization Studies, 32 (9), 1247-1271.

Leonardi, P. M., Nardi, B. A., & Kallinikos, J. (Eds) (2012). Materiality and organizing: Social interaction in a technological world. Oxford University Press on Demand.

Lorino, P. (2013). Management Systems As Organizational ‘Architextures’. In: Materiality and Space. Organization, Artefacts and Practices. Basingstoke (UK) et New York (Basingstoke (UK) et New York, Palgrave Macmillan, 2013, p. 62-95.

Miller, D. (2008). The Comfort of Things. Cambridge: Polity.

Miller, D. (2009). Stuff. Cambridge: Polity.

Munro, I. (2016) Organizational resistance as a vector of deterritorialization: The case of WikiLeaks and secrecy havens. Organization, 23(4): 567–587

Munro I, Jordan S. (2013). ‘Living Space’ at the Edinburgh Festival Fringe: Spatial tactics and the politics of smooth space. Human Relations, 66(11), 1497-1525.

Oldenburg, R. (1989). The Great Good Place: Cafes, Coffee Shops, Community Centers, Beauty Parlors, General Stores, Bars, Hangouts, and How They Get You Through the Day. New York: Paragon House.

Orlikowski, W. (1991). Integrated information environment or matrix of control? The contradictory implication of information technology, Accounting, Management & Information Technologies, 1(1): 9:42.

Orlikowski, W. J. (2007). Sociomaterial practices: Exploring technology at work. Organization Studies, 28(9), 1435-1448.

Orlikowski, W.J., & Scott, S.V. (2008). Sociomateriality: Challenging the separation of technology, work and organization. The Academy of Management Annals, 2 (1), 433–474.

Robichaud, D., & Cooren, F. (Eds.). (2013). Organization and organizing: Materiality, agency and discourse. Routledge.

Schatzki, T. R. (2005). Peripheral vision: The sites of organizations. Organization studies, 26(3), 465-484.

Scott, S.V. & Orlikowski, W.J., 2012. Reconfiguring relations of accountability: Materialization of social media in the travel sector. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 37 (1), 26-40.

Sewell, G. (2012). Employees, organizations and surveillance. In K. Ball, K. D. Haggerty, & D. Lyon (Eds.), The handbook of surveillance studies (pp. 303–312). London: Routledge.

Sewell, G. & Taskin, L., (2015). Out of sight, out of mind in a new world of work? Autonomy, control, and spatiotemporal scaling in telework. Organization Studies, 36 (11), 1507-1529.

Spinuzzi, C. (2012) ‘Working alone together: Coworking as emergent collaborative activity’, Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 26 (4), 399-441.

Waber B., Magnolfi J. and Lindsay G. (2014). Workspaces That Move People, Harvard Business Review, pp.69-77.

Zuboff, S. (2015). Big other: surveillance capitalism and the prospects of an information civilization. Journal of Information Technology, 30, 75–89.

[1] Inspired and adapted from the story of Ramadier M. (2017) Bienvenue dans le nouveau monde, comment j’ai survécu à la coolitude des startups, Premier Parallèle.

CfP: History, Memory, and the Past

Steph

CALL FOR PAPERS
HISTORY, MEMORY, AND THE PAST IN MANAGEMENT AND ORGANIZATION STUDIES

RAE-Revista de Administração de Empresas
(Journal of Business Management)
Deadline: June 30th 2019
Guest editors: Amon Barros (FGV´s Sao Paulo School of Business Administration – EAESP),
Diego M. Coraiola (University of Alberta), Mairi Maclean (University of Bath), William M. Foster (University of Alberta)

Details of the call can be found here.

Reconstructing the B-School

Steph

Reblogged from NEP-HIS:

Mitch Larson very kindly reviewed our article in Business History: “Clio in the Business School: Historical Approaches in Strategy, International Business and Entrepreneurship”, which the publishers have made available for free for a time: Business History, 59(6): 904-27

Review by Mitchell J. Larson (University of Central Lancashire)

Recently Martin Parker (Bristol) has taken to the airwaves promoting the idea of bulldozing the business school. In sharp contrast, Andrew Perchard, Niall MacKenzie, Stephanie Decker, and Giovanni Favero make a compelling case for certain disciplines in the management sciences to open themselves to alternative methodological and epistemological approaches. They argue that the fields of strategy, international business, and entrepreneurship have not embraced historically-oriented research to the same extent as other fields within business and management studies. The authors also admit that many scholars conducting historical business research have not made a sufficiently solid case about the robustness of their historical methodology(s) or data to convince other social scientists about the validity of their claims. Drawing upon an impressive range of previous works to develop their discussion, the paper attempts to reconcile these discrepancies to highlight how a more explicit articulation of the historian’s process could overcome the concerns of ‘mainstream’ management scholars regarding theorization and methodology in these three fields specifically and in management studies generally.

To continue reading, click here: https://nephist.wordpress.com/2018/07/24/reconstructing-the-b-school/

 

CfP: BHC 2019

Steph

Globalization and De-Globalization: Shifts of Power and Wealth

Annual Meeting of the Business History Conference
Hilton Cartagena de Indias, Colombia
March 14 – 16, 2019
Proposals due October 1, 2018 

The theme of the 2019 Business History Conference annual meeting will be “Globalization and De-Globalization: Shifts of Power and Wealth.” The recent phenomena of the spread of populist and economic nationalist regimes throughout North America, Europe, Asia and elsewhere taking positions against the major trading blocks and the free movement of people and goods make the topic of this conference very timely. The conference aims to concentrate on business history research agendas that enable a nuanced understanding of the phenomena of globalization and de-globalization.

The conference theme encourages contributions from a variety of approaches to business history research, covering a broad range of geographies and periods. The program committee of Marcelo Bucheli (co-chair), Andrea Lluch (co-chair), Takafumi Kurosawa, Espen Storli, Laura Sawyer, and Teresa da Silva Lopes (BHC president) invites papers proposals addressing on the following topics, but not limited to:

  • the contribution of firms and the entrepreneurs to globalization and de-globalization;
  • the role and responsibility of business in shifts of power, wealth and inequality;
  • the rise of emerging markets and the globalization of firms from those markets;
  • globalization and environmental and social sustainability;
  • business and gender during waves of globalization and de-globalization
  • and risk management during globalization waves

While we encourage proposals to take up this theme, papers addressing all other topics will receive equal consideration by the program committee in accordance with BHC policy. Proposals may be submitted for individual papers or for entire panels. Each proposal should include a one-page abstract and one-page curriculum vitae (CV) for each participant. Panel proposals should have a cover letter containing a title, a one-paragraph panel description, and suggestions for a chair and commentator, with contact information for the panel organizer. To submit a proposal go to <http://thebhc.org/2019-bhc-meeting> and click on the link Submit a Paper/Panel Proposal.

All sessions take place at the Hilton Hotel Cartagena. Rooms (all suites) are $169/night single and $189/double occupancy (plus tax) and include a full breakfast. General questions regarding the BHC’s 2019 annual meeting may be sent to conference coordinator Roger Horowitz, rh@udel.edu.

The K. Austin Kerr Prize will be awarded for the best first paper delivered by a new scholar at the annual meeting.  A “new scholar” is defined as a doctoral candidate or a Ph. D. whose degree is less than three years old. You must nominate your paper for this prize on the proposal submission page where indicated. Please check the appropriate box if your proposal qualifies for inclusion in the Kerr Prize competition.

The deadline for receipt of all paper and panel proposals is 1 October 2018. Acceptance letters will be sent by 15 December 2018. Everyone appearing on the program must register for the meeting. Graduate students and recent PhDs (within 3 years of receipt of degree) whose papers are accepted for the meeting may apply for funds to partially defray their travel costs; information will be sent out once the program has been set.

The BHC awards the Herman E. Krooss Prize for the best English-language dissertation in business history by a recent Ph.D. in history, economics, business administration, the history of science and technology, sociology, law, communications, and related fields. To be eligible, dissertations must be completed in the three calendar years immediately prior to the 2019 annual meeting, and may only be submitted once for the Krooss prize. After the Krooss committee has reviewed the proposals, it will ask semi-finalists to submit copies of their dissertations. Finalists will present summaries of their dissertations at a plenary session and will receive a partial subsidy of their travel costs to the meeting. Proposals accepted for the Krooss Prize are not eligible for the Kerr Prize. If you wish to apply for this prize please send a cover letter indicating you are applying for the Krooss prize along with a one-page CV and one-page (300 word) dissertation abstract via email to BHC@Hagley.org. The deadline for proposals for the Krooss prize is 1 October 2018.

The BHC Doctoral Colloquium in Business History will be held in conjunction with the BHC annual meeting. This prestigious workshop, funded by Cambridge University Press, will take place in Cartagena Wednesday March 13 and Thursday March 14. Typically limited to ten students, the colloquium is open to early stage doctoral candidates pursuing dissertation research within the broad field of business history, from any relevant discipline. Topics (see link for past examples) may range from the early modern era to the present, and explore societies across the globe.  Participants work intensively with a distinguished group of BHC-affiliated scholars (including at least two BHC officers), discussing dissertation proposals, relevant literatures and research strategies, and career trajectories.  Applications are due by 1 November 2018 via email to BHC@Hagley.org and should include: a statement of interest; CV; preliminary or final dissertation prospectus (10-15 pages); and a letter of support from your dissertation supervisor (or prospective supervisor). Questions about the colloquium should be sent to its director, Edward Balleisen, eballeis@duke.edu. All participants receive a stipend that partially defrays travel costs to the annual meeting.  Applicants will receive notification of the selection committee’s decisions by 1 December 2018.

On the 14th March 2019 there will be a special workshop on ‘Latin American Business in a Global and Historical Perspective’ which will be in the Spanish and Portuguese languages and aims to attract papers by academics who prefer to present their research in their native languages. The deadline for submissions is 1 October 2018. For more details about the call for papers and the submission process contact Joaquin Viloria De la Hoz (Banco de la República / Central Bank of Colombia) at: jvilorde@banrep.gov.co.

BH SI CfP: Nationality of the Company

Steph1 Comment

Call for Papers for a Special Issue of Business History

“International Business, Multi-Nationals, and the Nationality of the Company”

(latest submission by 15 January 2019, early submissions appreciated)

Business historians have stressed the international dimensions of business for a long time. Research on multinational enterprises (MNE) including the Free-Standing Company (FSC) belongs to the important contributions of Business History to the fields of international business, strategy, and management. The very question of “nationality” and which “nationality”, always present in the background, is rarely directly addressed even though national dimensions including politics evidently pervade international business activities. Corporate structure, corporate governance, and international branding are the most obvious but not the only fields in which “nationality” matters in international business. With Brexit, Trumpism and the re-nationalization of the political discourse within larger parts of Europe “nationality” that once was supposed to have lost its relevance in the global economy returns back to the agenda of international business in terms of political risk.

Most relevant is the issue of “nationality” for the MNE, of course. And the internationalization literature from Perlmutter, Dunnings, and Johanson and Vahlne to Matthews thematises the issue of the “nationality” of the home country and the host county in different ways. Recent work deals more fundamentally with the relations between the nation-state and the MNE. Most researchers follow, however, a seemingly ‘unproblematic’ legal construction of “nationality” in terms of the seat of the headquarters that is usually assumed to be the centre of ownership and control. An exception to this is research on the FSC with capital and headquarters in a home country and business activities only in distant locations, most often overseas colonies. Here, and also for business groups, corporate “nationality” is particularly difficult to determine since basic firm functions such as corporate finance and managerial control are dependent on the place of legal jurisdiction, formal headquarters, and firm registration. However, more detailed analysis shows that in very many cases the place of registration, the residence of shareholders, and the “nationality” of management are separate issues. Today, increasingly nationalist politics makes this visible.

Historical approaches allow studying corporate “nationality” in an internationally comparative perspective and over time. By tracing firm behaviour in different political environments, both geographically and in terms of time, historical research can unpack the mechanisms through which “nationality” works and can be used. The company’s national identity, always a construct and like the broader concept of corporate identity a matter of communication and perception, is influenced by its legal nationality, the location of its headquarters, the nationality of its shareholders and directors, the places of production, and attributions of nationality for example to its products. Historical research on the firm’s evaluation of the costs and benefits of “nationality” and on actors’ rationale for choosing, constructing, and designing “nationality” for commercial and strategic purposes helps explicate the evolutionary process in which companies address issues of politics, risk, and legitimacy.

With the Special Issue we want to connect to the internationals business and strategy literature that indeed identifies different patterns of internationalisation over time but most often does not consider historical change of the political-economic environment (and of the company) as a particular object of analysis, whereas historians might be more strongly interested in how entrepreneurial activity was carried on, the circumstances under which it was constructed, how it developed and how practices, strategies and narratives changed over time. Also the question of how a firm’s nationality is perceived and represented in the host country or at its place of origin is relevant in many ways, for instance for political decision makers and for consumers.

In order to develop these ideas, contributions to the Special Issue should engage with the following broad topics:

  • What explains the location of MNEs, FSCs, and business groups, the location of their activities in other countries and their choice of “nationality”? What is the impact of financial and fiscal aspects, what is the impact of political and other factors?
  • Decisions of whether to use branches, to set up subsidiaries, or to use independent companies in order to operate within a “host” country are often explained with favourable or unfavourable institutional arrangements. Do the “nationality” of the company going abroad and the respective host country (or countries) – the image and reputation of the firms’ countries – as well as particular historical conditions, matter for internationalisation strategies?
  • Companies interested in doing business abroad need to negotiate for example with governments and bureaucracies. How does the “nationality” of the firms in question affect these relationships? And how did these relationships change, for instance, in the era of decolonization when many Western companies regarded newly independent nations not only as a source for raw materials but also as promising markets?
  • In the early 21st century, new emerging market multinationals are going global. Do they take new approaches and in how far are their internationalisation strategies particular ?
  • “Nationality” also serves as managerial device creating competition between international branches of a MNE, for example in terms of productivity or labour costs. Therefore, in case of take-overs but also in case of relocation of corporate activities, employees and their trade unions often contribute to constructing “nationality”. How do they shape, how do they conceive of “nationality” of the firm and of investors?

Submission instructions

This special issue welcomes contributions to the theme International Business, Multi-Nationals, and the Nationality of the Company that cover crucial aspects of the outlined research agenda and should be based on original research and innovative analysis.

The maximum length of the paper should be 9,000 words (including graphs and tables). The papers should not be under consideration by another journal. All proposals should be submitted by 15 January 2019 via ScholarOne, using the drop down menu to indicate that they are submissions to the Special Issue on International Business, Multi-Nationals, and the Nationality of the Company. All the articles will be peer reviewed and, therefore, some may be rejected. Authors should ensure that their manuscripts fully comply with the publishing style of formatting regulation of Business History (Instructions for authors). Authors may be asked to use an English language copyeditor before final acceptance.

Editorial information

Guest Editor: Boris Gehlen, University of Bonn (b.gehlen@uni-bonn.de)

Guest Editor: Christian Marx, University of Trier (marxchr@uni-trier.de)

Guest Editor: Alfred Reckendrees, Copenhagen Business School (are.mpp@cbs.dk)

Slaven doctoral colloquium 2018

Steph

Workshop report by Julia Fernando, doctoral student at Aston Business School:

This year, I had the pleasure of attending the seventh annual Tony Slaven Doctoral workshop held by the Association of Business Historians (ABH) conference. The workshop is designed to enable doctoral students to share their research with academics and other students from the field of business history and receive feedback.

I submitted my proposal to the workshop with some hesitation – my academic and professional background is firmly rooted in Work and Organisational Psychology, with a particular focus on the experiences of women in the world of work. My current research, however, is inter-disciplinary, drawing on Area Studies, Work Psychology and Business History to explore the contemporary and historical factors influencing the patterns of female entrepreneurship in Uganda.

Prior to my doctoral studies, I had come across historical methods in my wider reading of the social sciences but had never perceived a compatibility between the two disciplines. My lack of knowledge about history and historical methods threatened to dissuade me from applying to the workshop. However, the workshop’s reputation of having an informal and supportive atmosphere fought back the pangs of imposter syndrome and I successfully submitted a proposal.

The workshop preceded the annual ABH conference 2018, at the Open University, Milton Keynes. Upon arrival, I was invited to join a small selection of doctoral students and academics, who were congregating around the refreshments in the upstairs foyer of the Michael Young Building. My nerves immediately eased as we were warmly welcomed by Mitchell Larson and given an overview of the day.

The workshop comprised of presentations by doctoral students and skills sessions led by experienced academics. The day kicked off with two excellent student presentations on the history of banking and finance in the UK. Carolyn Keber discussed her research on UK investment trusts before WW1 and Oluwatoyin Olojido shared insights from her study on the role of aristocracy in British new share issues in 1891-1914.

A roundtable on doctoral examinations followed the morning’s presentations. I learnt about the common challenges facing final year students and the ways to best prepare for your final year defence from the perspective of experienced examiners in the room. As a first-year student, I listened in with great interest but a degree of psychological detachment – stressors for next year, I reminded myself…

After lunch, Professor Peter Miskell shared fascinating insights in his interactive session on the publication patterns of business historians. Learning that the Business History of Africa remains partial and less frequented, only further sparked my motivation for adopting historical methods in my study of female entrepreneurship in Uganda.

Beatriz Rodriguez and I presented our research on the Business History of developing economies. Beatriz shared her proposed research design investigating the financing varieties of capitalism in Colombia after 1950 and I gave an overview of my research and motivations to contribute a Business History of women entrepreneurs in Uganda. A lively discussion followed both of our presentations, which spilled over into side conversations and discussions sometime after the workshop closed.

I walked into the Tony Slaven Workshop unclear about how historical methods could precisely complement the research question I am pursuing. I walked out with a sense of direction, pages of recommended reading and contact details of the academics who have already offered me extensive, informal support. I have felt hugely supported by the Tony Slaven Workshop organisers, attendees and the ABH community as a whole and would thoroughly recommend the workshop to any doctoral students incorporating an element of business history in their research.

The Slaven doctoral colloquium will run again next year, please go to the ABH website for updates: http://www.abh-net.org/ 

 

Conf: Transmission of Financial Knowledge in Historical Perspective

Steph

The Transmission of Financial Knowledge in Historical Perspective, 1840-1940

March 8-9, 2019

German Historical Institute, Washington, DC

Conveners: Nicholas Osborne (Ohio University) and Atiba Pertilla (GHI Washington)

Submission Deadline: August 1, 2018

(Call for Papers Stable URL: https://www.ghi-dc.org/events-conferences/event-history/2019/conferences/financial-knowledge.html?L=0)
—

Nicholas Osborne, PhD

Lecturer, Honors Tutorial College

Ohio University

Columbia University, GSAS ’14

Department of History

TOC: BH 60(6)

Steph

The  new issue of Business History is out:

The British corporate network, 1904–1976: Revisiting the finance–industry relationship
John F. Wilson, Emily Buchnea & Anna Tilba
Pages: 779-806 | DOI: 10.1080/00076791.2017.1333106

Retailing under resale price maintenance: Economies of scale and scope, and firm strategic response, in the inter-war British retail pharmacy sector
Peter Scott & James T. Walker
Pages: 807-832 | DOI: 10.1080/00076791.2017.1340455

Development built on crony capitalism? The case of Dangote Cement
Akinyinka Akinyoade & Chibuike Uche
Pages: 833-858 | DOI: 10.1080/00076791.2017.1341492

A moving target: The geographic evolution of Silicon Valley, 1953–1990
Stephen B. Adams, Dustin Chambers & Michael Schultz
Pages: 859-883 | DOI: 10.1080/00076791.2017.1346612

‘In the best position to reap mutually beneficial results’: Sole-agency agreements and the distribution of consumer durables in inter-war Britain
Nicholas D. Wong & Andrew Popp
Pages: 884-907 | DOI: 10.1080/00076791.2017.1360287

Deadlock in corporate governance: Finding a common strategy for private telephone companies, 1978–1998
Pasi Nevalainen
Pages: 908-929 | DOI: 10.1080/00076791.2017.1366448

Book Reviews

Innovation and technological diffusion: An economic history of early steam engines
Alessandro Nuvolari
Pages: 930-931 | DOI: 10.1080/00076791.2017.1369635

 

Profits and Sustainability. A History of Green Entrepreneurship
Ann-Kristin Bergquist
Pages: 931-933 | DOI: 10.1080/00076791.2017.1371433

 

Natural resources and economic growth. Learning from history
Valeria Giacomin
Pages: 933-935 | DOI: 10.1080/00076791.2017.1376391

 

From main street to mall: The rise and fall of the American department store
Franck Cochoy
Pages: 935-939 | DOI: 10.1080/00076791.2017.1376396

 

Les banques françaises et la Grande Guerre
Hubert Bonin
Pages: 939-940 | DOI: 10.1080/00076791.2016.1269525

Erratum

Correction to: The expansion of branding in international marketing: The case of olive oil, 1870s–1930s
Pages: x-x | DOI: 10.1080/00076791.2017.1361621

Peter Miskell: Content & Practice of Business History

Steph1 Comment

Last weekend at the Association of Business Historians’ Conference, Peter Miskell (Henley Business School) gave a really insightful talk about the current state of business history. He kindly agreed to share the slides and write up a short summary for the Organizational History Network.

Who are business historians, and what is it that they do? Or more bluntly, what is business history? These are questions that have troubled professional business historians for at least a couple of decades, and to which no clear consensus has yet emerged. In one sense, this doesn’t seem to matter greatly. Business history conferences continue to be relatively well attended, attracting scholars from a range of related disciplines; business history journals are publishing an increasing quantity of articles; and business history related sub-groups are evident within wider scholarly communities such as the Academy of Management, the American Historical Association, and the European Group on Organisation Studies. On this evidence business history is thriving. Yet if pressed to define the intellectual core of the discipline – the central questions it addresses and the methods it uses to tackle them – it is difficult to identify a clear answer on which all can agree. If business historians appear to lack an agreed sense of intellectual mission, they also lack a common institutional home. Those of us who may have the confidence to self-identify as business historians at social gatherings are not, as a rule, employed in departments of business history. Within our workplaces we are often lone scholars, and in many cases our identity as business historians co-exists with (or is subordinate to) another disciplinary identity. In this sense business history is not an academic disciplines on a par with, say, economics or psychology or communication studies. It is a sub-discipline, but it is not entirely clear (even among its practitioners) what it is a sub-discipline of.

Rather than attempting to identify the core intellectual identity of business history, or to outline a grand vision of how the (sub-)discipline should develop in the coming years, perhaps it would be more useful to pause and take stock of what the business community actually looks like. Where is it that business historians actually work? Who pays their (our) salaries? What are the institutional ‘rules of the game’ within which they (we) work?

In attempting to address these questions I decided to set myself the simple task of finding out which academic departments business historians are affiliated to. Academic departments in universities, I would argue, constitute the key institutional structures within which most intellectual disciplines function. Different academic disciplines have their own institutional norms and conventions, which are typically learned and reinforced within academic departments through mechanisms such as recruitment practices, mentoring, tenure and promotion systems. In most cases the health (and viability) of these departments is measured by their ability to attract students. (There are some countries where departments are also explicitly measured on the quality of their research outputs, but these provide indications of reputation or prestige rather than of financial viability). Departments which fail to attract a sufficient volume of students are at risk of closure or merger, as exemplified by the fate of many departments of economic history in the UK. This means that business historians (like most academics) ultimately make a living through their teaching rather than their research. And since there are very few students applying to study business history degrees (and thus no departments of business history), this in turn means one of two things for business historians: either they need to teach business history in such a way as to make it relevant and interesting to students whose primary focus is elsewhere; or they need to teach subject matter that would not normally be regarded as business history at all (which might be marketing, entrepreneurship, strategy, or perhaps 19th century literature, or 20th century European history). The types of academic departments within which business historians find themselves may be more a matter of necessity than of choice. Mapping out the institutional contexts within which business historians work is an important step in understanding the nature of the discipline, and the challenges (and opportunities) with which it is presented.

The way I have chosen to do this is by collecting data on every article published in the three leading business history journals during the five year period from 2013-2017. In each case the first-named author has been identified, along with their home institution, their academic department, as well as information about the article itself (period, sector and geographical focus of the study). Not all of the authors identified this way would identify themselves primarily as business historians (though much the same could be said of many people who attend business history conferences). By looking at those individuals who have taken the trouble to submit their research to the main business history journals, and whose work has been accepted after a process of peer review, we at least have access to a community of scholars who have shown a willingness to engage in ideas and debates that are of interest to business historians.

I do not pretend that the methodology employed here constitutes a comprehensive census of business history around the world. The exclusive focus on English language journals is one obvious limitation, the focus on journal articles rather than books is another. But the trends which emerge are, I think, important ones. I hope the slides that accompany this post, at least provide some empirical evidence in relation to claims and assertions that are often made about business history, and the institutional contexts within which it is conducted. I plan to work this up into a paper for publication (perhaps in one of the three journals referred to here), but in the meantime would be very happy to receive any thoughts or comments from those who are interested.

Peter Miskell, Henley Business School, UK

 

2018 Hagley Prize winner

Steph

Hagley Museum and Library and the Business History Conference are pleased to announce the 2018 winner of the Hagley Prize:  Matatu:  A History of Popular Transportation in Nairobi (The University of Chicago Press, 2017) by Kenda Mutongi of Williams College.   Hagley Museum and Library and the Business History Conference jointly offer the Hagley Prize awarded to the best book in Business History (broadly defined) and consists of a medallion and $2,500.  The prize was awarded at the Business History Conference annual meeting held in Baltimore, Maryland, April 7th, 2018.

The prize committee encourages the submission of books from all methodological perspectives.  It is particularly interested in innovation studies that have the potential to expand the boundaries of the discipline.   Scholars, publishers, and other interested parties may submit nominations.  Eligible books can have either an American or an international focus.   They must be written in English and be published during the two years (2017 or 2018 copyright) prior to the award.

Four copies of a book must accompany a nomination and be submitted to the prize coordinator, Carol Ressler Lockman, Hagley Museum and Library, PO Box 3630, 298 Buck Road, Wilmington DE  19807-0630,  The deadline for nominations is November 30, 2018.   The 2019 Hagley Prize will be presented at the annual meeting of the Business History Conference in Cartagena, Colombia, March 16th, 2019.