Author: Steph

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

EGOS tracks with history

Steph

Next year, the Standing Working Group 8: History in Organization Studies, will no longer run at the European Group for Organization Studies Annual Conference. But since Copenhagen Business School is celebrating its centenary (please see the final call for sub-theme 44), there are in fact three tracks that mention history in their call. Hopefully see you next year at one of these tracks!

Sub-theme 04: (SWG) Long-shots and Close-ups: Organizational Ethnography, Process and History

… Ethnography – or, to emphasize its processual nature: ethnographying (Tota, 2004) – typically means, first, having a prolonged and intensive engagement with the research setting, following actors, issues, materials as they move through time and space (fieldwork). Second, ethnography embraces a sensibility towards overt, tacit and/or concealed processes of meaning-making (sensework). Third, ethnographic analyses are commonly presented through a written text, which places both author and reader at the scene, in the midst of a process, while also placing the day-to-day happenings within a social, political, and historical context (textwork). This allows organizational ethnographers to capture the unfolding of organizational life and its dynamism in at least two different ways (van Hulst et al., forthcoming; Ybema et al., 2009): taking ‘long shots’ that follow developments over an extended period of time (long-term dynamics) and making ‘close-ups’ of the dynamics of day-to-day organizational life (short-term dynamics). Some ethnographic researchers stretch their fieldwork over many months or years of present-time work; others include historical analysis and archival data. Both of these allow researchers to follow slow-paced developments or sudden transformations over long periods of time. These longitudinal ethnographies offer in-depth accounts of organizational life across time. A second potential strength of ethnography for studying organizational processes lies in its quality of eyeing the moment-to-moment details of everyday organizing. Having a shorter term focus, these studies bring into view, for instance, situational dynamics or organizational bricolage. …

For more details, please see the EGOS website.

Sub-theme 43: Theorizing the Past, Present and Future in Organization Theory

We have already posted the full call, but here just a quick introduction:

“Many organizational outcomes are the result of processes that occur over long periods of time. In spite of this, within much macro-level research the passage of time tends to be assumed or ignored, rather than theorized rigorously (Bluedorn & Denhardt, 1988; Goodman et al., 2001; Lee & Liebenau, 1999). One way in which we exclude time from our theories is by studying climactic moments of change. Although these “moments of institutional choice” are inherently interesting, focusing on them risks privileging the instance of change at the expense of the essential groundwork that generated the conditions under which the opportunity for change emerged (Pierson, 2004, p. 136). That is, our preference for studying dramatic instances of revolutionary change means that we know relatively little about processes of evolutionary change.”

For more details, please see the EGOS website.

Sub-theme 44: Rethinking History, Rethinking Business Schools

The EGOS Colloquium in 2017 coincides with the 100th anniversary of Copenhagen Business School (CBS), which will be commemorated in part by the publication of a history of the Business School written by members of the Centre for Business History at CBS. This coincidence provides an opportunity to rethink both the role of history in business schools, as well as the history of business schools themselves, along with the part played by management and organization studies within that history.

Both business schools and organization studies have sought to legitimate themselves through history in relation to older disciplines in the university. Textbooks regularly claim Max Weber as a founder for the so-called “Classical School” of management and organization studies even though Weber himself could never have been an adherent of such a school because it was only invented, along with organization studies, long after he died (Cummings & Bridgman, 2011). When Harvard Business School was facing criticism in the 1930s for the banality of management research, one response from the Dean, Wallace B. Donham, was to hire a historian to study management and to use a donation from the retailer Gordon Selfridge to buy historical business documents from Italy relating to the Medici family during the Renaissance (O’Connor, 2012, p. 58). …

For more details, please see the EGOS website.

Review: The Impossible Necessity of History

Steph

Crossposted from: http://howardaldrich.org/2016/05/the-impossible-necessity-of-history/

Howard Aldrich reviews Ged Martin’s “Past Futures”

Some book titles are so compelling that you’d feel guilty if you didn’t at least pick the book up and skim it. Such is the case with Ged Martin’s book, Past Futures: the Impossible Necessity of History (University of Toronto Press, 2004), based on the 1996 Joanne Goodman lectures at the University of Western Ontario. Despite his thoroughly convincing arguments that historical explanation, as we know it, is methodologically and analytically impossible, he managed to convince me that it is nonetheless worth doing. This is the kind of book that people used to describe as a tour de force. What’s Martin’s argument? He asserts that the data available to historians are hopelessly incomplete, the models they build are fraught with selection bias, and our view of the past is unjustifiably judgmental. He advocates giving up traditional historical scholarship in favor of locating events in time, identifying their relationship to each other, and connecting them to the provisional present.

In terms of data, three problems confront anyone turning to the historical record for evidence about what “happened in the past.” First, throughout most of human history, very little that happened was permanently documented. Hugely significant events went unrecorded or noted with incomplete details using fragile techniques and materials, which disintegrated, burned, and were lost forever. Second, only a minuscule fraction of the population has ever been in a position to actually have their actions recorded. Much of what we do know about the past concerns that vanishingly small segment of the population some have recently labeled the 1%: elites who had the luxury of employing others to document what they did or the resources to create semi-permanent records using materials such as stone or parchment. The vast majority of the population engaged in activities that are now essentially invisible to us, although forensic anthropology and archaeology are pretty good at working with the few artifacts we can find. Third, more problematic is the tendency of those people who did leave records behind to engage in hyperbole, self-aggrandizement, and untrustworthy accounts of the role they actually played in historical events. Although the rise of modern digital technology would seem to have improved matters greatly, Martin argues that the problem still exists, but now on a grander scale. It is simply impossible to know everything that happened in the past.

In terms of model building, contemporary historians are in the unfortunate position of knowing exactly how things turned out. First, scholars are tempted to build their explanations backwards, starting from outcomes and then searching for plausible prior events, continuing back through history until reaching a “satisfactory” explanation. But, they will be working with historical materials left behind from each era by people who had their own theories of why things had happened and structured their documentation accordingly. Second, almost all events have multiple causes.  Prioritizing them and determining how much leverage each exerted on an outcome of interest is nearly impossible, given the data problems mentioned above. Martin compares this task unfavorably to the situation that laboratory scientists work with, which allows them to run multiple experiments, under conditions where they can control many possible causes, and isolate the influence of specific factors. By that test, of course, almost all social science explanations will also fail. Third, and perhaps more important, uncertainty permeates every aspect of human activity, with people facing multiple options at every turn. Even focusing on “decision-making,” as Martin advocates, doesn’t remove the problem of people having only the faintest of ideas concerning what’s going to happen next, given the action they take. Moreover, because we have no way of getting inside the heads of the people who made those important decisions, we can only speculate as to what they were thinking at the time they acted.

The “past futures” of the title refers to the fact that from the perspective of the present, everything in the past could be viewed as the realized futures of people who had little clue as to what was coming next. Today, we are their future, but it is highly unlikely that one any of them foresaw it. In writing history by looking backwards, from the present, it is tempting to make our “known past” part of our explanation by treating it as the intended future of humans who were making decisions about what options to pursue. But of course, lacking clairvoyance, they had no ability to imagine all the possible futures that would unfold. Nonetheless, the temptation to write linear, coherent narratives about why things had to happen the way they did overwhelms most scholars.

But wait, there’s more! Martin also takes historians to task for imposing normative judgments on the actions of historical figures, using contemporary values. The severity of the normative judgment increases, the further back in time the historian travels. He uses the example of people involved in the slave trade in the 17th and 18th centuries, as well as more contemporary examples. Martin’s point is that such normative judgments cloud the construction of analytic arguments, biasing the selection of cases and causal principles.

Despite the incredibly bleak picture Martin draws of the impossibility of historical analysis, he nonetheless concludes his book with the argument that contemporary social scientists “need” historical analysis. Giving up their quest for comprehensive explanations of historical events, historians can instead simply locate events in time and identify their relationships to one another. They can tentatively indicate which events were more significant than others by making comparisons to possible alternatives, now known because we have the luxury of looking backwards. Abandoning the conceit of the superior present, they can remind us that “each succeeding present is merely provisional, nothing more than a moving line between past and future.”

Discerning readers of my blog post will now recognize why I like this book so much: this is a very evolutionary argument, cognizant of the need for humility in building tentative explanations of social phenomenon. “Past futures” are always explicable, if one is willing to commit the kinds of methodological and analytic fallacies that Martin points out. Don’t go there. He argues that contemporary historiography has plenty to do, without falling into the trap of building “neat and tidy” explanations. Instead, historians can make us aware of our own ethical standpoints and caution us against ransacking the past for justifications of currently favored policies. The future awaits us, but it is probably not the one that we envisioned, nor could we.

SMJ CfP: History & Strategy Research

Steph

Call for Papers for a Special Issue – Strategic Management Journal

 

History and Strategy Research: Opening Up the Black Box

Submission Deadline: September 30, 2017

 

Guest Editors

Nicholas S. Argyres, Washington University in St. Louis

Alfredo De Massis, Free University of Bozen-Bolzano and Lancaster University

Nicolai J. Foss, Bocconi University

Federico Frattini, Politecnico di Milano

Geoffrey Jones, Harvard University

Brian S. Silverman, University of Toronto

SMJ Advising Editors

Sendil Ethiraj and Constance Helfat

  

Background

Business history and strategy research have traditionally had a close relationship. Thus, Chandler’s seminal research is often seen as key input into the development of strategy as an academic research field. Historical research methods and historical data are used to study a diverse set of strategic issues including industry evolution, technology strategy, dynamic capabilities and diffusion of innovation. More recently, interest has been growing with respect to exploring the nexus between history and strategy.

Historical analysis may be broadly defined as “empirical research that uses remote sensing and a contextualist approach to explanation.” Such analysis can be highly useful in strategy research that seeks to analyze path dependence or understand the origins/evolution of contemporary phenomena, identify sources of exogenous variation, develop and test historically informed theory, and add more detail to existing theories. Historical analysis allows strategy scholars to historically embed the study of how organizations learn, innovate and make strategic decisions over time. Equally important, such analysis enables scholars to understand how actors strategically develop interpretations of historical facts that shape their present behavior and set expectations for the future, and use artifacts from the past to create the basis for strategies in the present.

Aims and Scope

This Special Issue will push forward research at the intersection between history and strategy, to further integrate these two disciplines. We welcome empirical papers that apply established and innovative research methodologies to strategy questions by using historical data and records. In particular, we encourage research that uses novel datasets that support tracing over time how organizations, groups and individuals—by acting in a particular historically embedded context, and by mutually interacting—built, implemented and modified strategies. We also call for theoretical modeling that builds on history and provides new insights into the historical implica­tions of strategy.

Below we suggest two research themes that  illustrate the intersection of strategy and historical analysis. However, many other such themes can be envisaged and would be welcome as submissions to the Special Issue.

  1.  How do firms, groups and individuals use the past to give meaning to the present, inform their expectations about the future, and make strategic decisions? Within this research theme we encourage scholars to develop a more fine-grained understanding of the way in which the past influences how organizational goals are set, how future technology and market trends are forecast, and how new business opportunities are identified, evaluated and exploited. Path dependence suggests that the decisions an organization makes are influenced and limited by the decisions it has made in the past. However, we need more precise explanations of how specific and non-recurrent facts (or actions taken) in the past have led to particular strategic behaviors and to the development of organiza­tional capabilities. Such explanations of how the past somehow acquires cognitive salience and normative force can only be developed in close interplay with actual historical inquiry.
  1. How do firms, groups and individuals use knowledge and resources stemming from the past to trigger and realize acts of organizational change and innovation? Current research tends to portray the past as a constraining force that reduces flexibility and produces resistance to change, thus leading to organizational inertia, competence lock-ins, and escalating commitments to past actions. However, research suggests that firms can create competitive advantage through acts of innovation and organizational renewal by searching for, accessing, and using knowledge created at different points in the past, i.e., through “temporal search.” This opens up a set of timely and relevant research questions. What are the firm-, individual- and group-level capabilities required to successfully search, identify and recombine knowledge resources acquired in the past? How do firms learn to make innovations in their products, services, business models, procedures and strategies from the past? How do innovation processes and practices evolve over time, and how are they shaped by the interactions between firms and the past?

Submission Process

Submitted papers must be in accordance with the requirements of the Strategic Management Journal. Original manuscripts are due by the Submission Deadline of September 30, 2017, and must be submitted using the SMJ Submission system at https://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/smj. Authors should indicate that they would like the submission to be considered for the special issue “History and Strategy Research: Opening Up the Black Box”. Authors of papers invited to be revised and resubmitted will be expected to work within a tight timeframe for revisions.

Further Information

Questions concerning pertaining to this special issue may be directed to:

For questions about submitting to the special issue contact the SMJ Managing Editor, Sara DiBari (smjeditorial@wiley.com) or visit http://smj.strategicmanagement.net/.

 

 

CFP: EGOS Sub-Theme: Theorizing the Past, Present and Future in Organization Theory

Steph

Crossposted from The Past Speaks

andrewdsmith's avatarThe Past Speaks

Sub-theme 43: Theorizing the Past, Present and Future in Organization Theory

Convenors:

David Chandler
University of Colorado Denver, USA
david.chandler@ucdenver.edu

Mar Pérezts
EMLyon Business School, France
perezts@em-lyon.com

Roy Suddaby
University of Victoria, Canada, & Newcastle University Business School, United Kingdom
rsuddaby@uvic.ca

Call for Papers
Many organizational outcomes are the result of processes that occur over long periods of time. In spite of this, within much macro-level research the passage of time tends to be assumed or ignored, rather than theorized rigorously (Bluedorn & Denhardt, 1988; Goodman et al., 2001; Lee & Liebenau, 1999). One way in which we exclude time from our theories is by studying climactic moments of change. Although these “moments of institutional choice” are inherently interesting, focusing on them risks privileging the instance of change at the expense of the essential groundwork that generated the conditions under which the opportunity for change emerged (Pierson, 2004, p. 136)…

View original post 1,139 more words

Corporate Archives in Global Perspective: Preliminary timetable

Steph

Cross-posted from The Past Speaks

andrewdsmith's avatarThe Past Speaks

This is the programme of the workshop on Corporate Archives that will be held at the University of Gothenburg in November.

Thursday 24th November 2016:

10.00 Opening of workshop, words of welcome, practical information

10.15. Key note 1:

11.00 -12.15 Session I: National vs. International Perspectives on Preservation of Corporate Archives

Karl-Magnus Johansson (Landsarkivet i Göteborg), “Short Introduction to Swedish Corporate Archives and their Preservation.”

Anders Houltz (Centre for Business History, Sweden), “Private Interests and National heritage: A Swedish Model for Preserving Corporate Archives.”

Diego Coraiola (University of Victoria, Canada) & Stephanie Decker (Aston Business School, UK), “International Archives and National Institutions.”

Lunch: 12.15-13.15

13.15-14.45 Session II: Public needs vs Private Interests? Competing Models for Preserving Corporate Archives

Neill Forbes (University of Coventry, UK), “New connections for the BT Archives?

Inte Fintland & Torkel Thime (Arkivverket, Norway), “The Potential and Possible Problems in Combining Private and Public Archival Material.”

View original post 193 more words

CfP: The Nationality of the Company

Steph

CALL FOR PAPERS

The “Nationality” of the Company: Historical Approaches to a Possible Paradox

 

University of Frankfurt am Main, 17.-18. November 2017

Organizer: Boris Gehlen (University of Bonn), Christian Marx (University of Trier), Werner Plumpe (University of Frankfurt/M.), and Alfred Reckendrees (Copenhagen Business School)

The relationship between nation states and the companies based in their respective territories is often ambiguous. Companies provide employment and they pay taxes, they contribute to national income and frequently to “national identity” (Disney, Dior, Daimler). Companies and businessmen engage in bilateral and international diplomacy, e.g. as door-openers for new relationships of the West to the Soviet Union in the 1950s or to China in the late 1970s. At other times, companies supported national policies of war and crimes against humanity. The histories of Chrysler, Krupp, or Rolls-Royce – to name just a few examples – provide abundant evidence of embeddedness and dependence on state capacity. Time and again, even companies describing themselves as multi- or trans-national seem to appreciate the security net of a nation state with its government and constituency of taxpayers, who act as lenders of last resort. In times of financial crisis there is no dearth of companies that claim to be citizens of a nation state for the sake of access to the respective state’s resources. At the same time the modern state has developed towards a ‘competition state’ acting like a company in a market of countries vying for investments. Nation states brand themselves; they try to attract customers and to service international markets. The question of companies and their nationality opens the discussion about how companies relate to society and the nation state, and vice versa. What nationality (if it has one) does a company have and how can it be conceived? In this call for paper we present some topics and examples indicating that nationality might matter in specific ways and that discussing a company’s nationality and studying how it is produced and/or how it changed over time might be a promising enterprise. The topics are not conclusive; all proposals discussing the issue of nationality in regard to (private) companies are welcome.

Perceptions and construction of nationality

The perception of what a company is about differs. Owners, employees, customers, and other stakeholders entertain different views on the same company. Employment might be one of the crucial factors in the discussion about the “nationality” of a company, products are perhaps another. The history of products is full of national narratives and sentiments; for more than a century “nationality” has been an element in marketing strategies and in the attempt to protect domestic markets (‘Made in Germany’, ‘Buy British’ etc). When Toyota set up subsidiaries in the USA in the 1980s, it employed American workers; its products continued to be “Japanese” cars, though, an argument frequently used to denounce Detroit’s competitors. What changed in the period of “globalization”? Many companies still produce “national” identities to promote specific products or strategies. Are these instances of “glocalization” turned “national”? It is generally assumed that McDonalds is an American corporation, and perhaps it is. But what about Atomic, the icon of Austrian skiing, owned by the Finnish corporation Amer Sports? Or Braun, whose products are perceived as the best of “German” industrial design? Since 1967 Braun has been owned by the “American” Gillette until in 2005 Gillette, and with it Braun, was sold to Procter & Gamble. Today, “Swiss” watches are sold with reference to national culture and values though the firm may be owned by a “Japanese” holding, the watch movement produced in Switzerland defines the nationality on the wrist. However, a Volkswagen car produced in Poland continues to be “German” car – how come?

Nationality as strategy

A company’s nationality is produced over time, and there are many factors to it, not least political factors. Yet, it does not seem as if a company’s nationality was a mere figment of imagination or only a matter of perception that can easily be neutralized or simply changed. When Deutsche Bank set out to depart from its “national identity” it turned out to be impossible; and companies that aimed at establishing themselves as part of the respective host nation’s community (be it open as in the case of Unilever or IBM Deutschland, or secret as ownership cloaking in the Interwar period) very often had a difficult time. Internationalization strategies, the decision of whether to use branches or to set up independent subsidiaries that operate according to the regulations of the “host” country is often explained with favourable or unfavourable institutional arrangements or with the range of foreign activities. Political risk may play a role as well. Does the “nationality” of the company going abroad and does the respective host countries also matter for the respective strategy? And, moreover, what about the relation of size and strategy? Do small and medium-sized companies pursue a different approach to “nationality” in comparison to large-scale companies? Are “small-multinationals” more nationally (or regionally) embedded?

Nationality in international companies and international mergers

Very many companies go abroad with their products, their brand, or parts or even all of their production; they internationalize and some of them seem to create new supranational entities that may outdo medium sized states in terms of economic power. Yet management may use the concept of nationality as a device to instil a sense of competition between different sites of production and the respective workforces within the corporation. Scepticism and fear of alien domination may arise when firms are taken over by foreign investors. Depending on the perceived “nationality” of the investor there seem to be good and bad takeovers, but what defines a good or a bad “nationality”? In the context of unwanted take-overs, employees and their trade unions often contribute to the construction of the “nationality” of a company.

National diversities

Business historians have long debated ‘national management styles’ and management practices. And there may indeed be leadership styles more prevalent in some national contexts and institutional environments than in others. But should one distinguish between ‘American’, ‘German’, or ‘Japanese’ firms or capitalisms? This notion includes more than historically developed institutional varieties as discussed in the Varieties-ofCapitalism literature; it implies that cultural differences and “nationality” matter in a certain way. This question, among others, is dealt with in the fields of immigrant entrepreneurship and ethnic business groups. And it should not be limited to the field of management styles. Companies are fields of action of different corporate agents including managers, executive staff members, workers or employee representatives. Do, for example, German work councils feel responsible for British employees? Would it be possible to assign industrial relations within a company to a specific “nationality”?

Companies in (post)colonial settings

In the era of decolonization, many Western companies saw the newly independent nations of Asia and Africa not only as sources for raw materials but also as promising markets. In some cases older business ties were reactivated or strengthened; in other cases companies entered the new nations as newcomers. Since many former colonies opted for planned, protected economies and restricted foreign direct investment, companies interested in doing business there had to negotiate with governments and bureaucracies. How did the “nationality” of the firms in question affect these relationships? Furthermore, post-colonial multi-ethnic societies often invented new variants of the nation state. There might be a specific corporate response to new nationalism in post-colonial countries for companies having roots within or outside the respective new states. Also, behavioral patterns of “foreign” companies might be contingent on their relationship to the previous colonial power. Similar questions arise of course also regarding the colonial period.

Economic nationalism

One root of economic nationalism is the nation state and the protection of its citizens and their interests. Yet the quest for protection as well as the range of protection differs over time. The fear of foreign domination is often used as an argument to promote anti-foreign politics. Yet it is not only the political realm from which come calls for protectionism and anti-foreign measures. Companies ask for state protection as well in the shape of tariffs, subsidiaries, or other forms of legal, material, or moral support. When do we find economic nationalism in business? There is evidence for corporate support both to economic openness and to economic nationalism. One would expect export-oriented companies to behave different from those predominantly active in domestic markets, or companies relying on foreign finance to be in favour of open trade. But does this assumption hold? Some areas in which these relations are manifest are national and international cartels, restrictions on FDI, barriers to trade, currency issues, etc.

We invite scholars and Ph.D. students of any relevant (sub-) discipline to submit paper proposals relating to the wide range of topics that come under to the “nationality of the company”.

Abstracts of 500 to 1,000 words (PDF format) presenting the subject, the conceptual framework and the analytical approach along with a brief CV (one page at the most) should be sent to Boris Gehlen [b.gehlen@uni-bonn.de], Christian Marx [marxchr@uni-trier.de], or Alfred Reckendrees [are.mpp@cbs.dk] by September 30, 2016. At this point in time funding of travelling expenses and hotel for active participants is not guaranteed. Yet, we are optimistic that our funding application will be successful.

ToC Business History 58(7) October

Steph

Original Articles

‘Inequality’ and ‘value’ reconsidered? the employment of post office women, 1910–1922
Mark J. Crowley
Pages: 985-1007 | DOI: 10.1080/00076791.2016.1155556

The burden of the family company: Leopoldo Pirelli and his times
Franco Amatori
Pages: 1008-1033 | DOI: 10.1080/00076791.2016.1154046

The development of integrated marketing communications at the British General Post Office, 1931–39
Michael Heller
Pages: 1034-1054 | DOI: 10.1080/00076791.2016.1155557

Food chains and the retailing revolution: supermarkets, dairy processors and consumers in Spain (1960 to the present)
Fernando Collantes
Pages: 1055-1076 | DOI: 10.1080/00076791.2016.1155558

Cartels and norms in the Swedish steel industry 1923–1953
Birgit Karlsson
Pages: 1077-1094 | DOI: 10.1080/00076791.2016.1156086

The rise of the LP: the politics of diffusion innovation in the recording industry
Mark Harvey
Pages: 1095-1117 | DOI: 10.1080/00076791.2016.1156673

Issues in European business education in the mid-nineteenth century: a comparative perspective
Adrien Jean-Guy Passant
Pages: 1118-1145 | DOI: 10.1080/00076791.2016.1158251

EBHA 2017: Transformations in Business and Society

Steph

European Business History Association
21st annual congress, Vienna

Transformation in Business and Society:
An Historical Approach

The term “transformation” is often associated with Karl Polanyi’s famous analysis of how, in the early 19th century, England’s traditional, communitybased “welfare system” collapsed as new poor laws replaced local authorities’ responsibility for the welfare of the needy born in their jurisdictions. But Polanyi’s “Great Transformation” is just one, albeit prominent, example of how legal, organizational, technological, and political developments force broader socioeconomic change.
Managing dramatic changes in social patterns and modes of production, such as that entailed by the ”fourth industrial revolution,” serve as both a challenge and opportunity for business. These transformations represent a sort of “exogenous force with the power of a tsunami,” as one commentator put it. (© Nicholas Davis of the World Economic Forum) In our own era, for example, they create entirely new options for automatization and digitization, by rearranging a host of business costs and potential benefits. Historically, as Schumpeter wrote, these challenges to the existing order push the entrepreneur to relentless “creative destruction,” fundamental to business innovation. Even financial crises, political revolutions and regime changes have served as catalysts for the transformation of business institutions and organizations. By changing incentives, legal frameworks, internal compliance and accountability, political upheaval refocuses business energies and structures.
For the European Business History Association’s 21st annual congress , which will be held in Vienna on August 24-26, 2017 , we, the organizers, therefore propose to discuss transformation processes in business and society in a broad, historical perspective. Such a perspective, in our view, should include political and social factors as well as technological and organizational innovations affecting businesses and the broad economy, both on national and international levels, into this century. Since Vienna, our conference site, was once the capital of an extended, East Central European multinational empire, we especially welcome the submission of papers that deal with the volatile history of the ECE region. The implementation, management and eventual implosion of „real socialism” and the ensuing efforts to reposition formerly socialist economies and businesses along marketcapitalistic lines deserve to be called transformations of genuinely secular importance, comparable in geographic scope and impact with events as old as the abolition of rural feudal obligations around the middle of the nineteenth century. With the recent Brexit vote, this topic of transformation has taken on even greater significance.

We especially invite anyone interested in the conference theme of “Great Transformations” to propose papers and/or sessions and larger panels.

Additional topics include:
1. What business models are particularly important to developing economies?
2. How and why do organizations change over time?
3. How have business’s regulatory contexts affected commercial activity?
4. How have international capital flows transformed business models and business
organizations?
5. How have business’s relationships with its principal stakeholders (for example, consumers, workers, unions, NGOs, media, national governments, and international institutions) changed over time and in different regions?
6. What is business’s relationship to environmental sustainability?
7. How does public and private entrepreneurship promote innovation?
8. How has internationalization affected companies? Do advantages and disadvantages relate to the category – form of business (family enterprises – multinationals)?
9. How do ethnic networks and family businesses affect business models?
10. What impact does immigration have on business globalization?
11. How has the image of business’s social contribution and professionalism changed since the 2008 Crisis?
12. What roles have women managers and investors played in the development of business?
13. How have the methods and sources of business history changed and how should these be adapted in order to meet the challenges resulting from digitalisation?
14. How did the creation of the European Union and its possible demise affect business?
Papers with other foci, however, will be considered as well. We also invite other formats, such as workshops, debates, discussions and poster presentations. Those should be sent direct to the organizers.
Three formats are typical:
1. Single papers create sessions based on submitted standalone
papers where the sessions are constructed by the program committee,
2. Session proposals of three to five papers suggested by the applicants,
3. Tracks of more than one session (up to three sessions – one afternoon)

Other formats might include, for example:
● Workshops groups of scholars who want to use the opportunity of the congress to meet
to discuss publications or specific themes, for example. The precondition for workshop
formats is openness to new participants; all material to be discussed must have been
published on the conference webpage three weeks before the congress.
● Roundtable discussions on the state of the field/select aspects
● Debates on new research agendas or new approaches in teaching “business history”
● Discussions on “business history” in the public arena, such as in films, museums, etc.

Requirements for paper proposals 

The submission system consists of a template that specifically asks for
(1) Author information
Affiliation
Short CV
Authored publications related to the paper proposal
(2) An abstract of no more than six hundred words
(3) Additional information important to the program committee
Clear statement of the research question (not more than 150 words)
Brief information on the theoretical/conceptual framework used
Major research areas to which the paper relates
(4) Joint papers need a responsible applicant who will be at the conference if the proposal is accepted.
Please have this information ready to enter into the submission system via copy and paste.

Requirements for panel/track proposals
The criteria for single paper proposals also apply to session (and track ) proposals. There is, however, a specific template for session/track proposals.
Sessions tend to work better in the Congress because they create a more focused theme and papers that clearly relate to each other. They can be ninety minutes long (usually three papers) or two hours to accommodate more papers. A successful panel leaves significant time for the audience to raise questions, to comment and to generally discuss the panel’s theme. Good panels have a balance between cohesiveness and analytical breadth.
Tracks combine up to three sessions (a whole afternoon) in order to allow for a broader discussion of a specific approach, or large themes important to the field. In a track it is expected that the audience and the presenters, will engage in a wider discussion that continues throughout the track.
Organizers of panels/tracks are suggested to make an open call for the panel/track. This also draws attention to the congress and the potentially interesting debates that might take place.

Please note that paper, session/panel and track proposals must be submitted via the congress website. Paper proposals should include the title, abstracts (between 75 and 150 words in length), and the author’s (the authors’) CV (s). In addition, they should include a brief introduction to the overall topic addressed to the session. See the Conference Website for further details.

The deadline for the proposals is January 15, 2017.

Please use this link http://ebha.org/public/C7 to upload proposals.

Contact:
Charlotte Natmeßnig
charlotte.natmessnig@wu.ac.at
Institut für Wirtschaftsgeschichte
WU Vienna University of Economics and Business
Welthandelsplatz 1, D4
A1020
Wien
Tel. +43 1 313 36 5255

Andrea H. Schneider
ahschneider@unternehmensgeschichte.de
Gesellschaft für Unternehmensgeschichte e.V.
Sophienstr. 44
D60487
Frankfurt am Main
Tel. +49 69 972033 15
Fax +49 69 972033 57

http://www.ebha.org

Prize Essay Competition in the Philosophy of History

Steph

THE ROYAL INSTITUTE OF PHILOSOPHY

2016 Prize Essay Competition

The Royal Institute of Philosophy and Cambridge University Press are pleased to announce the 2016 Philosophy Essay Prize. The winner of the Prize will receive £2,500 with his or her essay being published in Philosophy and identified as the essay prize winner.

The topic for the 2016 essay competition is:

Can there be a credible philosophy of history?

Many thinkers from classical times onward have seen history as having a predetermined direction. Some have seen it in terms of inevitable decline, others in terms of progress to a utopian future. The idea that history has a predetermined direction has been criticised by many, who stress the unpredictability of the future in general or the effects of human freedom, creativity and ingenuity, or other ways in which the course of events may change radically. Are these or other criticisms conclusive, or is it still possible to hold a deterministic or evolutionary view, either despite the criticisms or by refuting them directly? Even given historical unpredictability in detail, are there still trends in history which can be discerned? If history has no direction, is there anything left to be said about the philosophy of history? Authors may address the question by considering some of the issues raised above or by attempting other approaches of their own.

In assessing entries priority will be given to originality, clarity of expression, breadth of interest, and potential for advancing discussion. All entries will be deemed to be submissions to Philosophy and more than one may be published. In exceptional circumstances the prize may be awarded jointly in which case the financial component will be divided, but the aim is to select a single prize-winner.

Entries should be prepared in line with standard Philosophy guidelines for submission (see http://royalinstitutephilosophy.org/…/philosophy-informati…/). They should be submitted electronically in Word, with PRIZE ESSAY in the subject heading, to assistant@royalinstitutephilosophy.org<mailto:assistant@royalinstitutephilosophy.org>.

The closing date for receipt of entries is 3rd October 2016.

Entries will be considered by a committee of the Royal Institute of Philosophy, and the winner announced by the end 2016. The winning entry will be published in Philosophy in April 2017.

http://www.royalinstitutephilosophy.org/

The Royal Institute of Philosophy is registered in the United Kingdom as a charity, number 313834, and is a company limited by guarantee, registered in England and Wales with number 205110, and with a registered office at 14 Gordon Square, London WC1H 0AR.

BAM PDW: ANALYSING THE PAST AND ITS TRACES IN MANAGEMENT AND ORGANIZATION RESEARCH AND TEACHING

Steph

Colleagues, if you’re attending the British Academy of Management conference in Newcastle in September, this workshop may be of interest:

ANALYSING THE PAST AND ITS TRACES IN MANAGEMENT AND ORGANIZATION RESEARCH AND TEACHING

BAM 2016 Newcastle

6 September 2-3.30p, Room B29, Barbara Strang Teaching Centre

Presenters

Bill Cooke, University of York, UK: histories of managerialism in global context

Stephanie Decker, Aston University, UK: post- and neo-colonial histories of international business

Ron Kerr, University of Edinburgh, UK: historically informed examinations of the banking crisis in management education

Linda Perriton, University of Stirling, Scotland: business and management history in the service of criticality in the curriculum

Michael Rowlinson, University of Exeter, UK: constructing management histories within and beyond organizations

Kevin Tennent, University of York, UK: business history and strategy.

Organizers

Sarah Robinson, University of Glasgow, UK

Scott Taylor, University of Birmingham, UK

There are regular workshops at conferences that call for greater acknowledgement of the role of history in management research and education. There is also a developing literature in management & organization studies that argues for organization analysts to seek rapprochement with historians and vice versa, often underpinned by critical perspectives. This workshop responds to these frequent calls and this developing literature by bringing together presenters with expertise in historical methods, organization analysis and critical management education to provide a space to contribute to making histories and developing historically-informed teaching. The workshop consists of 30 minutes of presentation, followed by 30 minutes of small group research and teaching development work facilitated by the presenters and organizers. We then conclude with a 30 minute plenary and panel discussion on a) publishing historical work and b) on using history and historical research in critical management education.

Scott Taylor (Dr) – Director of Undergraduate Programmes

Reader in Leadership & Organization Studies, Birmingham Business School, University of Birmingham, Birmingham B15 2TT, UK

s.taylor@bham.ac.uk (+44) 0121 414 6703