MH division newsletter is out!

The newsletter of the Management History division of the Academy of Management, “Historically Speaking”, is out. See newsletter.

It marks two important events:

  • Michael Rowlinson, my co-author, received the Ronald Greenwood Award Recipient Mick Rowlinson for contributions to the field of Management History – which I thought was fantastic!
  • The Journal of Management History changed editors, and Bradley Bowden is taking over as of tomorrow I believe. Great news and for anyone interested in the journal, follow this link!

Bill Cooke on why management history matters

With thanks to Andrew Smith of The Past Speaks to alerting me to this interesting YouTube video.

Prof Bill Cooke talks about my management history matters, and how it allows present day phenomena to be put into a general context.

 

Popp’s history of an entrepreneurial family

It is always great to see the work of colleague’s reviewed by scholars outside organizational history, and this one is a particularly charming and insightful discussion into how private history, organizational process and those of us who research those things can be closely intertwined:

Emotional Historians? A review of Andrew Popp’s Entrepreneurial Families

What happens when historians fall in love with their subjects? Love is supposed to make us blind, isn’t it? Does this mean we can’t write ‘objectively’ about the object of our fascination and affection? I am regularly besotted by some of the people I study, from the good (the adorable Northumbrian engraver, Thomas Bewick) to the bad (William Ettrick, the wife-beating justice of the peace), to the lovely (Mary Robinson, who seduced theatre audiences, princes, and her readers).

ShawJSSa

It is not just individuals. I fell for a whole family while researching my last book Parenting in England; the Shaws: John and Elizabeth who grew a family and a successful business in Staffordshire in the first half of the 19th century. Reading their correspondence through their courtship and marriage (1811-1839) created a powerful picture for me of the couple’s admirable characters, their loving relationship with each other and their children and parents, and – in fact – the appeal of the minutiae of their daily lives.

If you’d like to read the full review, click here.

Seminar Program ‘The Narrative Construction of Memory’

Program for the ESRC Seminar ‘The Narrative Construction of Memory’

December 10, 2015 – Copenhagen Business School, Denmark

 9.00 – 9.30           Welcome & Introduction

9.30 – 10.15         Tor Hernes, CBS: “Temporal Trajectory and Organizational Narrative”

10.15 – 11.00       Robin Holt, CBS: “Memory and Mnemosyne”

11.00 – 11.15       Coffee

11.15 – 12.00       Dan Wadhwani, University of the Pacific: “Projecting Plausible Futures: Uses of Historical Narratives in the Entrepreneurial Process”

12.00 – 13.00       Lunch

13.00 – 14.15       Ronald Kroeze, Free University of Amsterdam: “The Use of History and Narratives by Dutch Top Managers and Companies”

14.15 – 14.30       Coffee

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

15.15 – 16.00       Per Hansen, CBS: “Narratives as the Basis of Memory and History”

16.00 – 16.15       Coffee

16.15 – 17.00       Discussion & Conclusion

For further information, please see the poster.

CfP: Applied microhistory: A workshop

Applied microhistory: A workshop.

 Ecole des Hautes Etudes en Sciences Sociales, Paris

Tuesday, 15 March 2016.

As time puts things into perspective, the heated and sometimes misleading historiographical debates of the 1970s and 1980s on micro-history and its focus on small subjects seem to fade away. Yet in the meantime historical micro-analysis has emerged as a useful method to approach a very diverse set of questions in different fields of social sciences and humanities.

Micro-analysis focuses on the reduction of scale as an instrument to answer theoretical general questions, maintaining a dynamic tension between ‘emic’ and ‘etic’ perspectives. In so doing, it offers a logical procedure to infer general considerations from specific cases, regardless of their statistical representativeness. At the same time, this approach implies a contingent view of the relationship between agency and structure, highlighting the creativity of the former and the complexity of the latter.

This workshop aims at discussing the contribution of micro-analytical historical approaches to research in different fields, from the most classical focus on local communities to the challenge of studying at micro level global connections and institutions, as well at the organizational level. Contributors are invited to address the methodological issues implied in the use of a micro-analytical approach with reference to a diverse range of research fields.

Scholars interested in participating should send a title and short abstract of their proposed contribution by January 15 to Giovanni Favero (Università Ca’ Foscari Venezia) – gfavero@unive.it

References:

Decker, Stephanie (2015) Mothership reconnection: Microhistory and institutional work compared. In T.G Weatherbee, P.G. McLaren, & A.J. Mills (Eds.), The Routledge Companion to Management and Organizational History (pp. 222-237). London: Routledge. https://goo.gl/hBJD7A

Fellman, Susanna & Rahikainen, Marjatta (Eds.) (2012) Historical Knowledge: In Quest of Theory, Method and Evidence. Newcastle Upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing. http://goo.gl/znojt0

Magnússon, Sigurour G. & Szijártó, Istvan M. (2013) What is Microhistory? Theory and Methods. London: Routledge. https://goo.gl/G9yzYa

Trivellato, Francesca (2011). Is there a future for Italian microhistory in the age of global history? California Italian Studies Journal, 2(1). http://escholarship.org/uc/item/0z94n9hq

 

 

Nostalgia Conference in London

By chance I came across the announcement for a conference at the German Historical Institute in London on the topic of “Nostalgia: Historicizing the Longing for the Past”. The influential historian David Lowenthal was one of the contributors, and one of the keynotes was delivered by the social psychologist Konstantin Sedikides, one of the leading nostalgia researchers in the field. Multi-disciplinary in nature, it was a fascinating two day event, which the GHIL has covered in a blog that recounts the different panels and discussion. If you are interested, see https://nost.hypotheses.org/. The website also includes a “reading list” of texts discussed at the event, which underscores how varied the academic research on nostalgia is.

Deadline for EGOS SWG8: The future of organizational history

Sub-theme 08: (SWG) History and Organization Studies: The Ways Forward

To upload your short paper, please log in to the Member Area.
  • Please upload by:  Monday, January 11, 2016, 23:59:59 CET
Convenors:
R. Daniel Wadhwani, University of the Pacific, USA, and Copenhagen Business School, Denmark
Matthias Kipping, Schulich School of Business, York University, Canada
Stephanie Decker, Aston Business School, UK

Call for Papers


Historical sources, methods, and theoretical constructs have gained considerable attention in management and organizational studies in recent years (Üsdiken & Kipping, 2014). Researchers have mades a range of notable conceptual (Bucheli & Wadhwani, 2014; Rowlinson et al., 2014) and empirical contributions (O’Sullivan & Graham, 2010; Rowlinson et al., 2014; Kipping & Üsdiken, 2014) that have laid the foundations for a diverse array of approaches to historical research and reasoning in organization studies. Moreover leading journals, such as Organization Studies and Academy of Management Review, have supported these developments by announcing special issues devoted to historical research and theory. Indeed, one could fairly state that the nature and value of historical research has come to be more broadly understood and accepted than when the EGOS Standing Working Group (SWG) on “Historical Perspectives in Organization Studies” was formed.

In this, the final year of the SWG 08, we seek a broad range of empirical papers that explicitly build on the foundations that have been established but move the conversation between history and organization studies forward in interesting and novel ways. We also welcome innovative conceptual papers based on previous research. Some of the ways in which this might be done includes:

  • Building new bridges between history and other approaches to the study of organizations that are sensitive to time and context, such as process research, institutional theory, and evolutionary theory.
  • Extending the work that has been done on history and organization theory to related domains, including strategy and entrepreneurship.
  • Introducing new or underused methods for interpreting historical sources related to organizations and organizing.
  • Exploring novel types of historical source material.
  • Examining new and understudied historical periods or regions.
  • Considering new ways in which the past is used in organizations and organizing

Short paper submissions should not only describe the empirical research conducted and elaborate on theoretical claims, but should also explicitly engage the extant work on historical approaches to management and organization studies and point to promising new theoretical, methodological, and empirical directions.

References

  • Bucheli, M., & Wadhwani, R.D. (eds.) (2014): Organizations in Time: History, Theory, Methods. New York: Oxford University Press.
  • Kipping, M., & Üsdiken, B. (2014): “History in organization and management theory: more than meets the eye.” Academy of Management Annals, 8 (1), 535–588.
  • O’Sullivan, M., & Graham, M.B.W. (2010): “Moving Forward by Looking Backward: Business History and Management Studies.” Journal of Management Studies, 47 (5), 775–790.
  • Rowlinson, M., Hassard, J., & Decker, S. (2013): “Strategies for organizational history: A dialogue between historical theory and organization theory.” Academy of Management Review, 39 (3), 250–274.
  • Rowlinson, M., Casey, A., Hansen, P.H., & Mills, A.J. (2014): “Narratives and Memory in Organizations.”Organization, 21 (4), 441–446.
  • Üsdiken, B., & Kipping, M. (2014): “History and organization studies: A long-term view.” In: M. Bucheli & R.D. Wadhwani (eds.): Organizations in Time: History, Theory, Methods. New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 33–55.
R. Daniel Wadhwani is Fletcher Jones Associate Professor of Management at University of the Pacific, USA, and Visiting Professor at Copenhagen Business School, Denmark. His research has used historical approaches to study a range of organizational issues, including the emergence of new markets, the nature of entrepreneurial agency, and the processes of categorization and value determination in organizational fields. He is co-editor (with Marcelo Bucheli) of “Organizations in Time: History, Theory, Methods” (Oxford University Press, 2014), which examines the role of historical research and reasoning in organization studies.
Matthias Kipping is Professor of Policy and Chair in Business History at the Schulich School of Business, York University in Toronto, Canada. His research has focused on the development and role of the different institutions of management knowledge, namely management consulting and business education. In his publications, as well as in his teaching, he has been trying to link historical research with organizational theory. He is active in a variety of scholarly associations in both business history and management and organization studies.
Stephanie Decker is Professor of Organization Studies and History at Aston Business School, UK. As a historian working at a business school, most of her work is concerned with the relation between organization theory and history. She is co-editor of ‘Business History’ and is the recipient of the prestigious Leverhulme Trust Research Fellowship 2014–15, as well as the principal organizer of a seminar series on organizational history funded by the Economic and Social Science Research Council (UK). She co-authored “Research Strategies for Organizational History” (Academy of Management Review, 2014) with Michael Rowlinson and John Hassard.
To upload your short paper, please log in to the Member Area.

Cross-posting: Organizational history and international business

This has been cross-posted from Andrew Smith at The Past Speaks – if interested please contact Andrew!

The Journal of World Business is calling for proposals for Special Issues (see below). As someone who strongly believes that Business History can offer a great deal to scholars in International Business and International Management, I would be interested in forming a team to submit a proposal for a special issue on Business History to this journal. I’m thinking that a team of three guest editors would be ideal for this project. One of them should be an established IB or IM scholar who is interested in historical research methods.

If you are interested in helping me to craft a proposal for the Special Issue of this prestigious journal (ranked 4 in the ABS journal guide), please contact me.

JOURNAL OF WORLD BUSINESS

CALL FOR SPECIAL ISSUE PROPOSALS

Due date: January 15, 2016

Please send proposals to

Kim Cahill, Managing Editor

 The Journal of World Business (JWB) invites proposals for special issues with a due date of January 15, 2016.

JWB has a long tradition of publishing high impact special issues on emerging or provocative topics within the editorial purview of the journal. The objective of these special issues is to assemble a coherent set of papers that move understanding of a topic forward empirically and theoretically. Therefore, as a rule, JWB will not publish special issues based solely on papers presented at conferences or workshops. Rather, special issues must be motivated by a clear and compelling focus on an issue that is timely, significant and likely to generate interest among JWB‘s readership.

PROCESS

Prospective guest editor(s) should submit written proposals that incorporate the rationale for the special issue topic, positions it in the literature, and include some illustrative topics that papers could focus upon.The proposal should also include a draft of the actual call for papers and outline the credentials of the guest editor(s).

After the closing date, the JWB editorial team will review the proposals submitted and select one to three for further assessment. This additional analysis may include communication with prospective guest editors, suggestions as to how to strengthen the proposal and/or recommendations for the addition of other guest editors. Following this consultation, one proposal will generally be selected by the Editor in Chief to progress, although the guest editor(s) may still be asked to develop and refine the proposal further. The Editor-in-Chief will generally assign a JWB Senior Editor to serve on the SI editorial team as the Supervising Editor. The Supervising Editor will be responsible for acting as a liaison between the JWBeditorial team and the guest editor(s) and ensuring that JWB editorial standards are maintained through the special issue process. She/he will be actively involved in the entire editorial process, including helping to select which papers are sent for review, identifying and assigning reviewers and in preliminary decisions throughout the review process. However, the ultimate decision to accept or reject papers rests with the Editor in Chief.

GUEST EDITOR(S)’ ROLE

 The guest editor(s) will be responsible for publicizing the call for papers and for generating submissions for the special issue. If appropriate, they may host a workshop for papers being considered for the special issue but attendance at the workshop cannot be a prerequisite for the acceptance of papers. They will also be actively involved in all stages of the review process in terms of inviting reviewers and making preliminary decisions on submissions. The review process will be managed online through the EES system. It is also expected that the guest editors will write an introductory article that will position the special issue in the relevant literature and briefly introduce the papers in the issue. This paper will be subject to editorial review. In order to prevent any perception of conflicts of interest, it is JWB policy that Guest Editors cannot submit to the special issue as authors of papers beyond the introductory article.

ToC: Business History 58, 1 (2016) now available

Please note that this issue features an editorial on the special issue policy for the journal!

Business History, Volume 58, Issue 1, January 2016 is now available online on Taylor & Francis Online.

Special Issue: Business Groups around the World

This new issue contains the following articles:

Articles
Editorial: special issues in Business History
Andrea Colli, Stephanie Decker, Abe de Jong, Paloma Fernández Pérez, Neil Rollings & Ray Stokes
Pages: 1-5
DOI: 10.1080/00076791.2015.1060961

Business groups around the world: an introduction
María Inés Barbero & Nuria Puig
Pages: 6-29
DOI: 10.1080/00076791.2015.1051530

The only way to grow? Italian Business groups in historical perspective
Andrea Colli, Alberto Rinaldi & Michelangelo Vasta
Pages: 30-48
DOI: 10.1080/00076791.2015.1044518

Business groups in Portugal in the Estado Novo period (1930–1974): family, power and structural change
Álvaro Ferreira da Silva, Luciano Amaral & Pedro Neves
Pages: 49-68
DOI: 10.1080/00076791.2015.1044520

Business groups, entrepreneurship and the growth of the Koç Group in Turkey
Asli M. Colpan & Geoffrey Jones
Pages: 69-88
DOI: 10.1080/00076791.2015.1044521

Imprints of an Entrepreneur and Evolution of a Business Group, 1948–2010
Mehmet Erçek & Öner Günçavdı
Pages: 89-110
DOI: 10.1080/00076791.2015.1044522

The nexus between business groups and banks: Mexico, 1932–1982
Gustavo A. Del Angel
Pages: 111-128
DOI: 10.1080/00076791.2015.1044519

‘Interlocked’ business groups and the state in Chile (1970–2010)
Erica Salvaj & Juan Pablo Couyoumdjian
Pages: 129-148
DOI: 10.1080/00076791.2015.1044517

Book Reviews
Reimagining business history
Robin Holt
Pages: 149-153
DOI: 10.1080/00076791.2015.1031325

Veuve Guérin & fils. Banque et soie. Une affaire de famille (Saint-Chamond-Lyon, 1716–1932)
Hubert Bonin
Pages: 153-155
DOI: 10.1080/00076791.2015.1016299

Historical and international comparison of business interest associations, 19th–20th Centuries
Hubert Bonin
Pages: 155-158
DOI: 10.1080/00076791.2015.1017288

CfP Historical Research on Institutional Change, due 31 March 2016

Business History Special Issue

Historical Research on Institutional Change

 Manuscripts should be submitted at http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/fbsh before 31 March 2016.

Guest editors

Stephanie Decker, Aston University, UK, s.decker@aston.ac.uk
Lars Engwall, Uppsala University, Sweden, lars.engwall@fek.uu.se
Michael Rowlinson, Queen Mary University, London, m.rowlinson@qmul.ac.uk
Behlül Üsdiken, Sabanci University, Istanbul, Turkey, behlul@sabanciuniv.edu

Call for papers

The important role that institutions play for all forms of organizations has been recognized in a wide variety of disciplines. Douglass North’s (1990) book on the nature of institutional change in economic history was influential in both economics and history. Likewise has among others the article by DiMaggio and Powell’s (1983) been significant in sociology and organization studies. Nevertheless, the nature of institutional change has remained a heavily contested subject that has not seen the same degree of theoretical and empirical development.

Institutional change is by its very definition a process that unfolds over long time periods with fundamentally unpredictable outcomes that can only be properly evaluated with hindsight. Because institutional change is a fundamental feature in historical research, many historians do not necessarily define or reflect on this as a research phenomenon in its own right. On the other hand many research debates in organization studies have remained curiously a-historical when developing the antecedents, outcomes and mediating factors for processes of institutionalization, institutional maintenance, and deinstitutionalization (Dacin, Munir and Tracey, 2010).

Nevertheless, between these two extremes there are many processes of institutional change in organizations that develop over time periods that are too long to research with the standard methods of qualitative social science such as interviews or participant observations. Here some historical approaches based on archival research may create more interesting research designs (Wright and Zammuto, 2013). Historical theory also has different insights to offer organization studies (Rowlinson, Hassard and Decker, 2014). It is in these areas that management and organizational history could contribute by investigating phenomena from a more long-term perspective. Suddaby, Foster and Mills (2014) have similarly argued for a more historical institutionalism to address unresolved issues in institutional theory, such as the paradox of embedded agency.

Within business and organizational history, there is an increasing interest in questions of theory and methodology. Alternative approaches, not just those drawn from the social sciences, but also from historiography, such as oral history or microhistory, offer new ways of approaching research. Historians interpret institutional theory in different ways from organization scholars (Rowlinson and Hassard, 2013), which offers new avenues for interdisciplinary dialogue.

Submissions may address the following issues and questions, although this list is not exclusive:

  • The five C’s of historical thinking (change over time, context, contingency, causality and complexity) and the possibilities of institutional theory (Andrews and Burke, 2007).
  • New institutional theory in organizational sociology has lost the focus of old institutionalism on issues of politics and power. Would historical institutionalism offer a useful corrective?
  • Alternative methodologies for historical institutionalism: oral history, microhistory, ANTi-history.
  • Institutional transplants beyond legal and economic history.
  • Institutional entrepreneurs and institutional work – the return of historical actors and contingent decision-making.
  • Institutional logics or politically-motivated ideologies: old wine in new bottles?
  • Routines, practices and process vs. the eventful temporality of history.
  • Beyond path dependency in explaining long-term structural change in historical perspective.

We hope to attract papers with a long-term perspective focusing on institutions, organizations as well as on organizational fields. We envisage that papers will be empirically rich but also they are linked to current institutional theories. In addition we shall also consider theoretically or methodologically oriented contributions provided they address both historical and institutional theory concerns.

About the guest editors

Stephanie Decker is Professor of Organization Studies and History at Aston Business School, UK. As a historian working at a business school, most of her work is concerned with the relation between organization theory and history. She is co-editor of ‘Business History’ and is the recipient of the prestigious Leverhulme Trust Research Fellowship 2014-15, as well as the principal organizer of a seminar series on organizational history funded by the Economic and Social Science Research Council (UK). She co-authored “Research Strategies for Organizational History” (Academy of Management Review, 2014) with Michael Rowlinson and John Hassard.

Lars Engwall is Professor Emeritus of Business Administration at Uppsala University. His research has been directed towards the development of industries and organizations as well as the creation and diffusion of management knowledge. Among his publications related to the sub-theme can be mentioned Mercury Meets Minerva (2009/1992), Management Consulting (2002, ed. with Matthias Kipping), The Expansion of Management Knowledge (2002, ed. with Kerstin Sahlin-Andersson), and Reconfiguring Knowledge Production (2010 with Richard Whitley and Jochen Gläser).

Michael Rowlinson is Professor of Management and Organizational History in the School of Business and Management, Queen Mary University of London. He has published widely on the relationship between history and organization theory in journals such as the Academy of Management Review, Business History, Human Relations, Organization, and Organization Studies. His research on corporate history concerns the representation of history by organizations, especially the dark side of their involvement in war, slavery, and racism. This has been published in journals such as Critical Perspectives on Accounting, Journal of Organizational Change Management, and Labour History Review. His current interests include the methodology of interpretive historical research in organization studies. He edited the Journal Management & Organizational History from 2008 to 2013 and he is now a Senior Editor for Organization Studies and a co-editor for the Special Topic Forum of the Academy of Management Review on ‘History and Organization Studies: Toward a Creative Synthesis.’

Behlül Üsdiken is Professor of Management and Organization at Sabanci University, Istanbul, Turkey. Previously, he was a professor at Bogazici University. He has contributed to numerous journals as well as a variety of edited collections. He has served as a Co-editor of Organization Studies in 1996–2001 and a Section Editor of the Journal of Management Inquiry in 2007–2012. His current research focuses upon family business groups, management education and universities.

References

Andrews, T. and Burke, F. (2007). What Does It Mean to Think Historically? Perspectives on History 45, 1: 32-35.

Dacin, M.T., Munir, K. and Tracey, P. (2010) Formal Dining at Cambridge colleges: Linking ritual performance and institutional maintenance. Academy of Management Journal 53, 6: 1393-1418.

DiMaggio, P.J. and Powell, W. W. (1983) The Iron Cage Revisited: Institutional Isomorphism and Collective Rationality in Organizational Fields. American Sociological Review 48,2: 147-160.

North, D.C. (1990) Institutions, Institutional Change and Economic Performance, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Rowlinson, M. and Hassard, J. (2013). Historical Neo-institutionalism or Neo-institutionalist Jistory? Historical Research in Management and Organization Studies. Management & Organizational History 8, 2: 111-126.

Rowlinson, M., Hassard, J., and Decker, S. (2014). Research Strategies for Organizational History: A Dialogue between Historical Theory and Organization Theory. Academy of Management Review 39,3: 205-274.

Suddaby, R., Foster, W. M., and Mills, A. J. (2014). Historical Institutionalism. Organizations in Time: History, Theory, Methods. Ed. By M. Bucheli and R. D. Wadhwani. Oxford, Oxford University Press: 100-123.

Wright, A. L. and Zammuto, R. F. (2013). Wielding the Willow: Processes of Institutional change in Englısh County Cricket. Academy of Management Journal, 56(1), 308–330.