PDW CfP: Uses of the Past- Perspectives, Forms and Concepts in Business History

CBS Paper Development Workshop

Business History Conference, Charlotte, NC, March 12, 2020

In the past years, uses of the past has become a prominent research theme for business historians and organization scholars alike. Studies on the usefulness and appropriation of the past have appeared across diverse fields such as business history, organization studies, marketing, learning & education, and CSR. Uses of history is fashionable. But where will the field go in the future?

In the CBS PDW we seek to focus on questions that have yet to asked, and we would like to explore the theories and methods that might take the field forward.

The workshop offers an opportunity to get feedback and generate ideas of how to develop concrete paper drafts that deal, one way or the other, with uses of the past. In addition, the PDW will serve as a forum where we can discuss future directions and opportunities (and potential dead ends) going forward with a ‘uses-of-the-past’ agenda. What are the questions and research that are yet to be explored, and what are the role for business historians in shaping a ‘uses-of the past’ research agenda?

Themes to be explored in the papers could include, amongst others:

  • Uses of the past for branding, strategy and identity purposes
  • Corporate and public museums
  • The use (and abuse?) of organizational anniversaries
  • Uses of history in action
  • The role and practices of historical consultancies (e.g. Winthrop GroupThe History Factory and others)
  • Historical CSR
  • Theoretical and methodological perspectives connected to uses of the past.
  • Critical perspectives on uses of the past

Submitted texts could take form as extended abstracts or full paper drafts. The important thing is that readers can identify the key arguments, theories and empirical material, for them to provide useful feedback, suggestions and comments.

Depending on the submitted abstracts and full papers, the participants and organizers could potentially explore the opportunity of a subsequent special issue on uses of the past in a relevant academic publication, such as, for example Business History.

Participants are expected to read all circulated papers. Please submit a paper draft or extended abstract before January 10, 2020 to the workshop organizers.

Anders Ravn Sørensen, ars.mpp@cbs.dk

Morten Tinning, mti.mpp@cbs.dk

Organization & Time: Understanding the Past (and Future) in the Present

EGOS Conference Hamburg, 2-4 July 2020

Sub-Theme 1 (SWG)

Convenors:

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

Majken Schultz
Copenhagen Business School, Denmark
ms.ioa@cbs.dk

Roy Suddaby
University of Victoria, Canada, & University of Liverpool, United Kingdom
rsuddaby@uvic.ca


Call for Papers


Contemporary organizations operate increasingly according to a logic of speed and instantaneity, while at the same time increasing their temporal spans to either draw upon their histories or to cope with distant future challenges (Schultz & Hernes, 2013). Within widely varying “temporal depths” (Bluedorn, 2002), different organizational actors carve out wide combinations of temporal structures (Ancona et al., 2001) and trajectories (Lawrence et al., 2001) that shape the organizations themselves and their relationships with other organizational actors. Recent work in organization theory has begun the search for ways to analytically and empirically handle the temporal complexity that organizational actors face (Hussenot & Missonier, 2016). This sub-theme aims to extend this work through joint inquiry.

Within organization theory, many of the actions and outcomes we study are the result of processes that occur over long periods of time (Bluedorn & Denhardt, 1988; Goodman et al., 2001; Lee & Liebenau, 1999). These processes reach into the distant past, but also stretch into the unknown future. In spite of this, within much macro-level research, temporal issues are rarely theorized rigorously. As such, we seek to host a discussion among colleagues from across the range of organization theories to (a) more comprehensively theorize the past, present, and future in relation to organizations and organizing, and (b) stimulate work on theories of time itself (Pierson, 2004). This discussion, we believe, will have profound implications for our understanding of organizations and how they evolve. In particular, this sub-theme builds on the first sub-theme of the SWG (in 2019) to focus on the various ways the past are used in organizations and enacted in the present. We also include topics related to how expectations for the future intersect with uses of the past. Organizations draw upon their own past across widely different timespans, which may extend from a few days to centuries; they also draw upon past practices and symbols from craft, traditions, regions, or myths (e.g., Dacin et al., 2018; Schultz & Hernes, 2013).

Our goal for this sub-theme, therefore, is twofold – to more comprehensively theorize the past, present, and future in relation to organizations and organizing (e.g., fostering more complete analyses of complex temporal processes), but also to stimulate theory about the past, present, and future in a phenomenological sense. We seek to build an inclusive conversation that appeals to many theories and methods within organization theory. For example, we are not simply interested in understanding long periods of time as path-dependent processes, but in understanding things like temporal trajectories, time as a social construct, the past as a resource in the present, and the cumulative evolution of institutions and their underlying values.

The resulting discussion presents the opportunity for an exciting avenue of research that includes, but is not limited, to the following:

  • To explore the effects of “ancestry” and “legacy” on the founding, evolution, and dissolution of descendent organizations (Walsh & Bartunek, 2011).
  • To understand the role of rhetoric in constructing history that serves as a source of competitive advantage for organizations (Suddaby et al., 2010).
  • To focus on the nature of the distant past, exploring how organizations draw on historical artifacts and narratives to build authenticity and shape identity (Hatch & Schultz, 2017).
  • To understand how organizations and other social actors use history strategically to foster identification with key stakeholders (Suddaby et al., 2015).
  • To study character and values as historically-accreted commitments that create meaning for individuals within institutional contexts (Chandler, 2014; Kraatz & Flores, 2015).
  • To conceptualize how distant pasts and distant futures connect, in the present (Chandler & Foster, 2015; Schultz & Hernes, forthcoming). Distant pasts can be evoked in the present, but in a processual or pragmatist view any evoking of the past has a future orientation.

 
In this spirit, researchers across the range of organization theories are encouraged to apply for this sub-theme to help place the past, present, and future on a firmer theoretical footing. Our goal is to foster discussions that encompass theory (e.g., path dependence, sedimentation) and methodology (e.g., qualitative analysis, rhetorical analysis) to enable the more effective theorization and empirical study of the essential role of the past, present, and future in understanding organizations and organizing processes.

 

References

  • Ancona, D.G., Goodman, P.S., Lawrence, B.S., & Tushman, M.L. (2001): “Time: A New Research Lens.” Academy of Management Review, 26 (4), 645–663.
  • Bluedorn, A.C. (2002): The Human Organization of Time: Temporal Realities and Experience. Stanford, CA: Stanford Business Books.
  • Bluedorn, A.C., & Denhardt, R.B. (1988): “Time and Organizations.” Journal of Management, 14 (2), 299–320.
  • Chandler, D. (2014): “Morals, Markets, and Values-based Businesses.” Academy of Management Review, 39 (3), 396–406.
  • Chandler, D., & Foster, W.M. (2015): “A Present Past: A Historical Perspective on Institutional Maintenance and Change.” Academy of Management Annual Meeting. Vancouver, Canada.
  • Dacin, T.M., Dacin, P.A., & Kent, D. (2018): “Tradition in Organizations: A Custodianship Framework.” Academy of Management Annals, 13 (1), 342–373.
  • Goodman, P.S., Lawrence, B.S., Ancona, D.G., & Tushman, M.L. (2001): “Introduction to the Special Issue: Time in Organizations.” Academy of Management Review, 26 (4), 507–511.
  • Hatch, M.J., & Schultz, M. (2017): “Toward a Theory of Using History Authentically: Historicizing in the Carlsberg Group.” Administrative Science Quarterly, 62 (4), 657–697.
  • Hussenot, A.&, Missonier, S. (2016): “Encompassing Stability and Novelty in Organization Studies: An Events-based Approach.” Organization Studies, 37 (4), 523–546.
  • Kraatz, M.S., & Flores, R. (2015): “Reinfusing Values.” In: M.S. Kraatz (ed.): Institutions and Ideals: Philip Selznick’s Legacy for Organizational Studies. Research in the Sociology of Organizations, Vol. 44. Bingley: Emerald Group Publishing Limited, 353–381.
  • Lawrence, T.B., Winn, M.I., & Jennings, P.D. (2001): “The Temporal Dynamics of Institutionalization.” Academy of Management Review, 26 (4), 624–644.
  • Lee, H., & Liebenau, J. (1999): “Time in Organizational Studies: Towards a New Research Direction.” Organization Studies, 20 (6), 1035–1058.
  • Pierson, P. (2004): Politics in Time: History, Institutions, and Social Analysis. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
  • Schultz, M., & Hernes, T. (forthcoming): ““Temporal interplay between strategy and identity: Punctuated, subsumed and sustained modes.” Strategic Organization, first published online on April 30, 2019; https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1476127019843834
  • Suddaby, R., Foster, W., & Quinn Trank, C. (2010): “Rhetorical history as a source of competitive advantage.” In: B. Joel A.C. & J. Lampel (eds.): The Globalization of Strategy Research. Advances in Strategic Management, Vol. 27. Bingley: Emerald Group Publishing Limited, 147–173.
  • Suddaby, R., & Foster, W.M., & Quinn Trank, C. (2015): “Organizational Re-Membering: The Use of Rhetorical History to Create Identification.” In: M. Pratt, M. Schultz, B. Ashforth & D. Ravasi (eds.): Oxford Handbook of Organizational Identity. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 297–316.
  • Walsh, I.J., & Bartunek, J.M. (2011): “Cheating the Fates: Organizational Foundings in the Wake of Demise.” Academy of Management Journal, 54 (5), 1017–1044.

David Chandler is Associate Professor of Management at the University of Colorado Denver, USA. His research focuses on understanding how organizations interact with their complex institutional environments. This research has been published in ‘Administrative Science Quarterly’, ‘Organization Science’, ‘Academy of Management Review’, and ‘Journal of Management’. He has also written the book “Corporate Social Responsibility: A Strategic Perspective” (Business Expert Press, 2015) as part of the UN PRME book collection and is author of the textbook “Strategic Corporate Social Responsibility: Sustainable Value Creation” (5th edition, SAGE Publications, 2020).

Majken Schultz is Professor of Management and Organization Studies at Copenhagen Business School (CBS), Denmark, and member of the Royal Danish Academy of Sciences and Letters. She is co-founder of the Center for Organizational Time at CBS. Her recent research focuses on temporality in organizations, including how history is used for the future, as well as how future strategy becomes meaningful through identity. She has published in ‘Academy of Management Journal’, ‘Academy of Management Review’, ‘Administrative Science Quarterly’, ‘Human Relations’, ‘European Journal of Marketing’ and co-written/edited more than a dozen books.

Roy Suddaby is Professor & Winspear Chair at the Peter B. Gustavson School of Business, University of Victoria, Canada. He is also Research Professor at Newcastle University Business School, Newcastle University, United Kingdom. His research focuses on organizational and social change and has been published in ‘Academy of Management Journal’, ‘Academy of Management Review’, ‘Administrative Science Quarterly’, ‘Human Relations’, ‘Journal of Business Venturing’ and related leading management journals.

PDW “New Histories of Business Schools…” AMLE Special Issue

Lloyd Greif Center for Entrepreneurial Studies, Marshall School of Business, University of Southern California, Fertitta Hall 5th floor, room 502, 610 Childs Way, Los Angeles, CA 90089

Workshop date: Friday, January 31, 2020, 9:30am-4pm PST

Submission deadline: Friday, January 17, 2020, midnight PST

The editors of Academy of Management Learning & Education (AMLE) invite applications for a Paper Development & Reviewing Workshop (PDW) to be held at the University of Southern California on January 31, 2020. The purpose of this event is to improve papers that authors intend to submit for review at AMLE, with a special focus on the special issue “New Histories of Business Schools and How They May Inspire New Futures”. Deadline for final submissions to this special issue is March 31, 2020. For details, see the official call for papers: https://aom.org/uploadedFiles/Publications/AMLE/History_of_bus_schools_for_web.pdf and the video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4gO8BgNjpWw&t.

We encourage submissions from faculty members, post-doctoral researchers and doctoral students who want to develop their papers for publication in the journal. Consistent with the mission of AMLE, draft manuscripts can be submitted on all management learning and management education topics, using all types of theory, at all levels of analysis, and using all empirical methods. The main focus of the workshop will be on paper development. This part of the workshop will consist of roundtable presentations by authors followed by discussions of authors’ work led by at least one of the members of the AMLE editorial team/special issue editors. The intent is for authors to receive actionable feedback that can then be incorporated into their papers.

Submissions approved for inclusion in the workshop will be working papers with the potential to make important and novel contributions to management learning and education scholarship. Papers can be theoretical or empirical in their focus, or they can be aimed at the essays section of the AMLE journal. Workshop participants will be placed with facilitators whose work and areas of expertise are closely aligned. 

An additional focus will be on what makes a good, developmental review, as well as a discussion of some of the main problems that the editorial team encounter in papers submitted to the journal. The workshop is open to all scholars working on any topics that are relevant to management learning and education. As space is limited, preference will be given to participants who are presenting working papers.

For a registration form for the Los Angeles PDW go to: 

http://aom.org/Publications/AOM-Paper-Development-Workshops.aspx

Scroll down to AMLE and click on “Register” to be directed to the registration form.

You can click on “Learn more” to see a version of this announcement.

The deadline for submission of full working papers is Friday, January 17, 2020. We may have places available for students and scholars who wish to attend without submitting a working paper. In this instance, please submit your CV by the submission deadline (Friday, January 17, 2020). Such attendees will be accommodated if there is space on a first come, first served basis. There is no fee for attending the workshop. Participants will be responsible for their own travel and accommodation costs.

If you have any questions and inquiries, please contact: amle@aom.org.

If you have questions for the editorial team, then email the AMLE Editor, Bill Foster (wfoster@ualberta.ca); or the local host Associate Editor, Christina Lubinski (clubinsk@marshall.usc.edu).

We look forward to seeing you in Los Angeles!

AMLE SI: New Histories of Business Schools and How They May Inspire New Futures

Guest Editors:

  • Patricia Genoe McLaren, Wilfrid Laurier University
  • JC Spender, Kozminski University
  • Stephen Cummings, Victoria University of Wellington
  • Ellen O’Connor, Dominican University of California
  • Todd Bridgman, Victoria University of Wellington
  • Christina Lubinski, Copenhagen Business School
  • Gabrielle Durepos, Mount Saint Vincent University

Deadline for Submissions: March 31, 2020

Potential Publication: June 2021

See http://aom.org/Publications/AMLE/Special-Issues-Coming-from-AMLE!.aspx for more information and resources!

Call for Papers

We might do well to re-examine what we are doing and show the executive judgment and courage necessary to implement radical change (Khurana & Spender 2012: 636). Business schools are the institutional locus of management learning and education. In recent years, we have gained a greater understanding of how their structures, processes, and power dynamics influence pedagogy and curricula, management theory and research, faculty, students, graduates and society more broadly. We are also witnessing growing research into, and discussion about, the relative lack of innovation in management theory development, research, pedagogy, and curricula (Alvesson & Sandberg, 2012).

While there have been a small number of inspirational works that have sought to push us towards changing business schools (Augier and March, 2011; Hassard, 2012; Khurana 2007; Spender, 2016), they have not yet spurred the change we might have hoped for. One under-explored route to encourage innovation in this regard is examining how our historical understanding of the formation and form of the business school may be limiting change. Histories highlight particular characters and plots but what we do not include, or write out of, history, is just as important as what is written in (Jenkins, 2003). History is constitutive, in that our own interpretations of the past define and shape our present and our future (Wadhwani & Bucheli, 2014). Compared with other stochastic fields of study, histories of management and business are simplistically linear and monocultural. This constrains how we see them in the present, and can subsequently limit their future development (Cummings & Bridgman, 2016).

The conventional history of the business school tends to follow the emergence of American business schools: from the founding of the Wharton School in 1881, to the rapid growth of business school enrolment within American universities leading up to the 1950s, to the standardization of the schools after the publication of the Gordon-Howell and Pierson reports in 1959 (Hommel & Thomas, 2014). This history has been crafted over many years and now goes largely unchallenged. But it begs the questions: why is this the story we tell, who gains and loses from its telling, and what events and people are missing from a narrative that should be inspirational for a broad range of people?

North American business schools have been studied at various points in a straightforward assessment style – what are they do, how could they “improve” (Bossard & Dewhurst, 1931; Gordon & Howell, 1959; Pierson, 1959; Porter & McKibbin, 1988), and also with a more complex analysis of context, history, power, and influence (Engwall, Kipping, Usdiken, 2016; Khurana, 2007; Pettigrew, Corneul, & Hommel, 2014). Work has also been done on the history of European management education (cf. Engwall, 2004; Harker, Caemmerer, & Hynes, 2016; Kieser, 2004; Kipping, Usdiken, & Puig, 2004; Tiratsoo, 2004; Usdiken, 2004), and some have looked at the global South (Cooke & Alcadipani, 2015). We are beginning to see alternative histories of the development of management theory and education (Bridgman, Cummings, & McLaughlin, 2016; Dye, Mills, & Weatherbee, 2005; Hassard, 2012; Peltonen, 2015).

However, what about histories of schools of business and commerce from other parts of the world (Asia, Africa, Australasia, South America) in more detail? Or from earlier centuries? Or different examples from North America or Europe that did not survive or later morphed toward the standard form? This special issue seeks to move things forward by looking differently when we look back. It encourages submissions that explore emerging interests, historical barriers to change, and their interrelationships by focusing on the emergence and development of business schools as complex entities that are interwoven with universities, the business community, government, and civil society.

It also seeks submissions that explore how these broader understandings may stimulate innovation in the way we configure business schools and, consequently, how we teach, conduct research, view our profession, and relate to our stakeholders. In this call for papers, we – professors/educators, researchers/inquirers, sufferers/critics, and aspirational as well as actual change agents – are the organizational actors, and business schools are our reflective historical setting; more importantly, they are our actual environment. We have a unique opportunity to push management theory, research methods, and interdisciplinarity to better understand and, more importantly, to reinvent business school(s) in light of what is socially or personally meaningful. We have contextual richness, personal and professional stakes, and a sense of crisis. Being able to change our practices from within, we are uniquely situated to bring scholarship, formal positioning, and inhabited experience to bear. Better historical scholarship could, therefore, help us to change ourselves. To engage historical sensibilities and methods, and empirical richness, to push theory and change institutions.

As a call for spurring this process we welcome contributions that address the following questions:

1. What people and events of business schools’ past have been overlooked by conventional historical narratives?

2. What role could new histories play in debates about how business schools should develop? Can new understandings of the past inspire us to think differently for the future?

3. How can we write reflexive or critical histories of business schools that expose the power and politics of business education and what we teach, or do not teach, students?

4. Are histories being used within business schools or other organizations, such as accreditation bodies, academies and societies, to perpetuate traditional structures and/or norms? Why and to what effect?

5. What are the ‘invented traditions’ that support the institution of business schools and what purpose were they invented to serve?

6. What are the stories of the development of business education outside of North America or prior to the late 19th century? Are these different or the same as current norms? How, why, and what can we learn from these alternative histories?

7. How has history traditionally been taught in business schools? What are the positive and limiting effects of this pedagogy? How could we teach history differently?

8. Why should business school students learn more (or less) history? Or learn it differently?

References

Alvesson, M,. & Sandberg, J. 2012. Has management studies lost its way? Ideas for more imaginative and innovative research. Journal of Management Studies, 50(1): 128-152.

Augier, M. and March, J. 2011. The roots, rituals, and rhipping etorics of change: North American business schools after the second World War. Stanford University Press.

Bossard, J. H. S., & Dewhurst, J. F. 1931. University education for business: A study of existing needs and practices. Philadelphia. PA: University of Pennsylvania Press.

Bridgman, T., Cummings, S., & McLaughlin, C. 2016. Restating the case: How revisiting the development of the case method can help us think differently about the future of the business school. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 15(4): 724-741.

Cooke, B., & Alcadipani, R. 2015. Toward a global history of management education: The case of the Ford Foundation and the São Paulo School of Business Administration, Brazil. Academy of Management Learning & Education,14(4): 482-499.

Cummings, S. & Bridgman, T. 2016. The Limits and possibilities of history: How a wider, deeper and more engaged understanding of business history can foster innovative thinking. Academy of Management Learning and Education, 15(2): 250-267.

Dye, K., Mills, A. J., & Weatherbee, T. 2005. Maslow: Man interrupted: Reading management theory in context. Management Decision, 43(10): 1375-1395.

Engwall, L. 2004. The Americanization of Nordic management education. Journal of Management Inquiry, 13(2): 109- 117.

Engwall, L., Kipping, M., & Usdiken, B. 2016. Defining management: Business schools, consultants, media. New York: Routledge.

Gordon, R. A., & Howell, J. E. 1959. Higher education for business. New York: Columbia University Press.

Harker, M. J., Caemmerer, B., & Hynes, N. 2016. Management education by the French Grandes Ecoles de Commerce: Past, present, and an uncertain future. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 15(3): 549-568.

Hassard, J. 2012. Rethinking the Hawthorne Studies: The Western Electric research in its social, political and historical context. Human Relations, 65(11): 1431-1461.

Hommel, U., & Thomas, H. 2014. Research on business schools. In A. M. Pettigrew, E. Corneul, & U. Hommel (Eds.), The institutional development of business schools: 8-36. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Jenkins, K. 2003. Refiguring history: New thoughts on an old discipline. London, U.K.: Routledge.

Khurana, R. 2007. From higher aims to hired hands: The social transformation of American business schools and the unfulfilled promise of management as a profession. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Khurana, R., & Spender, J. C. 2012. Herbert A. Simon on What Ails Business Schools: More than ‘A Problem in Organizational Design’. Journal of Management Studies, 49: 619–639.

Kieser, A. 2004. The Americanization of academic management education in Germany. Journal of Management Inquiry, 13(2): 90-97.

Kipping, M., Usdiken, B., & Puig, N. 2004. Imitation, tension, and hybridization: Multiple “Americanizations” of management education in Mediterranean Europe. Journal of Management Inquiry, 13(2): 98-108.

Peltonen, T. 2015. History of management thought in context: The case of Elton Mayo in Australia. In P. G. McLaren, A. J. Mills, & T. G. Weatherbee (Eds.), The Routledge Companion to Management and Organizational History. Abindon, UK: Sage.

Pettigrew, A. M., Corneul, E., & Hommel, U. 2014. The institutional development of business schools. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Pierson, F. C. 1959. The education of American business men: A study in university-college programs in business administration. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Porter, L. W., & McKibbin, L. E. 1988. Management education and development: Drift or thrust into the 21st century? New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company.

Spender, J.C. 2016. How management education’s past shapes its present. BizEd. Tiratsoo, N. 2004. The “Americanization” of management education in Britain. Journal of Management Inquiry, 13(2): 118-126.

Usdiken, B. 2004. Americanization of European management education in historical and comparative perspective. Journal of Management Inquiry, 13(2): 87-89.

Wadhwani, D., & Bucheli, M. 2014. The future of the past in management and organization studies. In D. Wadhwani, & M. Bucheli (Eds.), Organizations in Time: History, Theory, Methods. New York: Oxford University Press.

GDPR & Historical Archives Workshop

Archival workshop

eabh in cooperation with the European Central Bank

23 March 2020
European Central Bank
Sonnemannstrasse 20
Frankfurt am Main, Germany

Call for papers

This workshop aims to look at the impact of the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) on historical archives, in particular, but not exclusively, in the financial sector. Since May 2018, the GDPR has set common standards of data protection within the European Union and, to a certain extent, beyond. This regulation received critical acclaim by the public and scholars alike, however, not without facing widespread criticism for the severity of the changes it requires. Without a doubt, it has been successful in getting the topic of data protection on the political agenda as well in the public and business sphere. The ever-increasing collection of digital data has required common actions to limit the usage of personal data.

To read the full call, click here

History of Management and Organizations Colloquium

25th Colloquium of the History of Management and Organizations

March 26th and 27th 2020 / Lyon
Organised by the French Association for History of Management and Organizations (AHMO) and the Institute for Education and Research in Healthcare and Social Service Organizations (IFROSS, University Jean Moulin Lyon 3), with the collaboration of the Centre for Historical Research Rhône-Alpes (LARHRA, UMR 5190) and Triangle (UMR 5206).

The Colloquium in History of Management and Organizations (JHMO) is the annual, international and interdisciplinary colloquium organised by the French Association for History of Management and Organizations (AHMO). It gathers scholars in history, management studies, sociology, economics and other
related fields, who share the historical approach of AHMO research topics: organisations, managerial thought and practice, and the field of management studies.

As in previous years, the 25th JHMO is divided in two sessions. The general session is open to any papers dealing with managerial matters using historical methods. The thematic session focuses on “paths and networks”.

General Session

The general session is open to any proposal dealing with AHMO topics (history of the field of management studies and its disciplines, history of organisations, history of managerial thought and practice), with a special interest in accounting history, which has been the foundation of the AHMO community.
Proposals should use historical methods and privilege empirical data, in every sense: archives, textual corpus, interviews, etc. The novelty and originality of the research results will be appreciated.

Thematic Session: paths and networks

The thematic session concerns all topics, issues or methods which utilise the concepts of path or network in the history of organisations and management studies. From a historical perspective, the notions of path and network are deeply linked. Every path is a movement inscribed in time and (geographical, social, economic …) space, which might be described as a network (between locations, people, interests …). Reciprocally, every network is the representation of the relations between people or objects at a given time, and those relations are the consequences of a temporal evolution.

The concepts of path and network are powerful entry points for the history of organisations and management studies. The objective of the thematic session is to bring examples of the use of the concepts of path and network together. Proposals should move beyond the metaphorical use of such concepts, either by focusing
on concrete paths or networks, or by relying on methods based on paths and networks.

a) Taken as concrete historic objects, paths and networks concern every historical period and a variety of topics, such as:

  • banking and financial networks;
  • trade networks (see the study of French merchant networks in the 18th century by Pierre Gervais, Yannick Lemarchand and Cheryl S. McWatters1);
  • colonial networks;
  • professional networks and corps;
  • consumers networks; and
  • family, clan, and diaspora networks.

This list is non-exhaustive and we welcome proposals on any topic related to paths and networks.

b) Paths and networks are also central concepts in quantitative methods which developed in disciplines such as sociology, demography or geography since the 1970s. Despite the adoption by history, and notably economic history, of long-run statistical series throughout the 20th century, the discipline has remained relatively closed to such methods. Nonetheless, in 2008 Claire Lemercier and Claire Zalc underscored the interest of quantitative approaches in their “taking particularly into account the phenomenon of networks and paths that has been put on the agenda of historical research since the 1990s”. Such methods are indeed powerful tools for description and interpretation, but also for hypothesis testing (such as deconstructing ordinary representations relayed in archives or discourses), or even as a heuristic for unveiling “definition problems easier not to mention if one sticks to qualitative methods”. The thematic session is open to any proposal using such quantitative methods for describing and analysing paths and networks in any historical period, such as:

Career paths: the concept of career is of prime importance in the history of organisations and management. Qualitative methods such as biography focus on such a concept, but quantitative methods have also developed to analyse professional trajectories. Primarily used in ancient and medieval history, prosopography has developed particularly in contemporary history for studying the élites or in sociohistorical approaches relying on the theories of Pierre Bourdieu, for example for studying scholars. Other methods such as event history analysis7 are used to study careers in sociology. How might such tools be applied to the history of organisations and management?

History of organisations: the concepts of path and network can be applied equally at the organisational level, especially with social network analysis. For example, the study of interlocking directorates (which “occurs when a person affiliated with one organization sits on the board of directors of another organizations”) is now a classic approach for analysing organisations, particularly the largest US firms. It mainly developed in the field of sociology, economics and management studies, occasionally in a longitudinal perspective based on cross-section analysis, as for example on the British industry in the 20th century. From a historical perspective, this method provides first-rate material for understanding the forms of capitalism and their evolution. What insights could such methods offer to the history of organisations and management, for example on forms of governance or the evolution of strategy?

Diffusion of knowledge: social network analysis has largely spread in social sciences and humanities, notably in history. It provides quantitative tools for studying the dissemination of knowledge in scientific fields or communities (see for example the research programme proposed by Catherine Herfeld on history of economics). For instance, the analysis of co-authorship or citations network has considerably developed since the seminal works of Eugene Garfield who is one of the creators of the bibliographic database Web of Science and the rise of bibliometric analysis of citation impact.

Possibilities offered by such methods remain largely unexplored in the history of the various scientific fields dealing with organisations and managerial practices. How could the concepts of path and network, or the methods based on those concepts, be used to study the diffusion of knowledge within organisations?

This list of topics is non-exhaustive. Proposals adopting other methods based on the concepts of path and network are welcome, for instance, more qualitative approaches relying on actor-network theory.

The Joseph Colleye Prize

The first Joseph Colleye Prize in accounting history, in the amount of €1,500, will be awarded during the 25th Colloquium in the History of Management and Organizations. The call for applications for the prize is available at ahmo.hypotheses.org/2808.

Submission instructions

Proposals should be 1 to 2 pages (5,000 signs, references excluded) and include explicitly:

  • Research question;
  • Sources (archives, textual corpus, interviews, field of observation…);
  • Methods; and
  • Main results if available.

Proposals may be written in French or English. A summary in both French and English should be provided. Proposals are to be submitted to jhmo2020@univ-lyon3.fr or on the website of the conference: jhmo2020.sciencesconf.org

Important deadlines:

  • Submission of proposals: 31 October 2019
  • Notification of acceptance: 18 November 2019
  • Final version of papers (20 to 25 pages, 30 to 40,000 signs, references excluded): 2 March 2020

Proposals will follow a double-blind review process.

Presentation format

Presentations will be organised into sessions of 3 to 4 presentations depending on the topic. The oral presentation should be 20 minutes in length, and will be followed by a 20-minute discussion period. Participants should send a final version of their paper before 2 March 2020 in order to distribute papers to the other participants of their session. Oral presentations may be in French or English.

Date and location

The 25th Colloquium in History of Management and Organizations will be held on Thursday the 26th and Friday the 27th of March 2020, in Lyon. The morning of Thursday the 26th will be dedicated to the doctoral workshop. The colloquium will begin on Tuesday the 26th at 14h00 and end on Friday the 27th at 16h00.

Contact

Email: jhmo2020@univ-lyon3.fr / Website: jhmo2020.sciencesconf.org

AAHANZBS Conference “Institutions and change”

The Association of Academic Historians in Australian and New Zealand Business Schools (AAHANZBS) 11th Annual Conference, 7-8 November 2019, AUT Business School, Auckland, New Zealand

Call for Papers

The Business and Labour History Group (B&LHG) of the Work Research Institute, AUT University Business School, New Zealand, will be hosting the 11th Annual Conference of AAHANZBS on 7-8 November 2019.

You are invited to submit papers addressing the conference theme, including papers relating to accounting history, business history, economic history, labour history, management history, marketing history, tourism history, transport history and other areas of interest relating to historical research in business schools. We also invite papers / panel suggestions around teaching and pedagogy relating to business and labour history.

We welcome papers from researchers outside business schools who have an interest in these fields of study.

Both abstracts and full papers may be submitted for review. Abstracts will be published, and full papers delivered at the conference potentially be reviewed for possible inclusion in journal special issues (details tbc.)

Please submit either a 1000 word abstract or a 6,000 word maximum paper for refereeing by 2 August 2019 to Simon Mowatt at simon.mowatt@aut.ac.nz

The abstract will provide:
(i) A summary of the argument of the paper
(ii) A summary of the findings of the paper
(iii) A selected list of references for the paper

Papers should follow the Labour History style guide – http://asslh.org.au/journal/style-guide/. All authors of the abstracts will be notified by 30 August 2019 at the latest whether their abstracts or papers have been accepted for the conference. Registration and other details will be circulated shortly.

CfP on Diversity and Business Storytelling

Call for Papers on `Diversity and Business Storytelling’

 As part of the series “A World Scientific Encyclopedia of Business Storytelling” (edited by David Boje and Regents Professor), contributions are sought for a proposed volume on Diversity and Business Storytelling (with a submissions delivery date of January 15, 2021).

In the words of David Boje, the overall series seeks “to extend new theories of prospective sensemaking, quantum storytelling (how humans are connected to the environment, not separate), and the relation of narrative-counter narrative dialectics to dialogic webs of multiplicity.” To that end, the series seeks “new business story paradigms that go beyond mere social constructivism, short-term shareholder wealth maximization, and disembodied textual narratives to the work in embodiment, critical accounts for the voiceless and marginalized, socioeconomic storytelling for socially responsible capitalism, and true storytelling principles as an alternative to fake news and fake leadership that infects the old business storytelling paradigm.” Boje and Rosile (in press) are attempting to bring together a critical ‘Storytelling Science’ paradigm.

At first sight it may appear that business and storytelling are two very different endevours; one involving a series of activities to produce services, products, profits, etc., and the other involving the use of tales to explain and make sense of innumerable social activities (Weick, 1995). More often than not, the two are aligned as those involved in business activities seek to explain and support those activities. Examples at the individual level include stories of the `self-made’ man (sic), the characteristics of the successful entrepreneur (Weber, 1967), the transformational leader (Mittal & Dhar, 2015), etc. At the company level examples include corporate histories of successful activities that explain how the company has remained in business over time and the use of artefacts of the past to lend a sense of history to the company’s operations (Corke, 1986; Gunn, 1985). At the industry (or field) level there are accounts that serve to explain such things as the link between strategy (Chandler, 1977), other practices (Pugh & Hickson, 1976; Woodward, 1958) and organizational survival, legitimacy, efficiencies, etc., (DiMaggio & Powell, 1983). And at the overall socio-economic level there are numerous accounts valuing the economic, political, and philosophical outcomes of capitalism (Burnham, 1941; Chandler, 1984; Drucker, 1939, 1942; Fukuyama, 2006) and post-colonial relationships (Banerjee & Linstead, 2001).

Although not uncontested, these various tales of business have collectively served over time to privilege for-profit organizations (Donaldson, 1985; McQuaid, 1994) as the model of economic organization, philosophy, and politics (Drucker, 1947); as the primary and favoured form of organizing economic life (Drucker, 1939); as the main or only legitimate form of organization control and management (Hayek, 1944). In the process business and capitalism became interwoven in ways that cast owner (Marx, 1999), manager (Burnham, 1941), employee (Jacques, 1996) and the market (Burns & Stalker, 1961) as central forms of organizational activity and thought (Bendix, 1974). It has not also shaped the character of business activity but the characters at the heart of those activities, namely, white, upper-class, Western men (Acker, 1990; Jacques, 1997; Prasad, 2012).

Beneath, in tandem with, and/or a reflection on, tales from the field of business there has been another formidable set of stories that has helped to shape the notion of business; namely, the field of business studies (Khurana, 2007). Arguably, the development of business studies as a field of enquiry not only reproduced tales from the field but drew on it to define business studies as a specific area of scientific enquiry; one linked to the professionalization of the business manager (Khurana, 2007). In the process, the field of business studies largely excluded alternative modes of organizing (Foster, Mills, & Weatherbee, 2014; Parker, 2002; Weick, 1995).  Paradoxically, in the quest for scientific legitimacy (Khurana, 2007), one of the most successful attempts to teach business studies has been the advent of the Harvard University case study method (Copeland, 1958; McDonald, 2017). Here we have an essentially fictional account of a business problem written in a way that is presented to the reader (the potential manager) as a `real life’ situation with scientifically established behavioural outcomes. Regardless of how it was intended, the central character is more-often-than-not presented as a white male who is primarily interested in profitability, efficiency and the bottom line (Nkomo, 1992). In other words, it is not only scenarios that are constructed but people who are privileged, ignored and/or marginalized. It is to the processes of marginalization, ignorance and alternative accounts that this volume turns.

We are seeking contributions that explore the various ways that images of the other are developed, presented, and accounted for through powerful and dominant narratives. We are looking for papers that, collectively, help us to understand, resist, and provide strategies of change through various analyses of how business narratives come to develop, get written, are legitimized, are challenged, and get changed over time.

This volume on ‘Diversity and Business Storytelling’ will provide insights into stories fostering the idea and characterization of diversity, including, but not limited to:

  • Cyborgs and other narratives (Haraway, 2006)
  • Network activities and discriminatory tales (Hartt, Durepos, Mills, & Helms Mills, 2017)
  • The role of history and the past in gendered tales of the present (Williams & Mills, 2017)
  • Revisiting classic tales (Acker & Van Houten, 1974)
  • Business narratives and voices from the South (Prasad, 2003)
  • Antenarratives  (Boje, 2010)
  • Case studies as gendered narratives (Godwin, 2017)
  • Business storytelling and gendered narration (Calás & Smircich, 1996)
  • Archival silences and other narratives of marginalization (Decker, 2013)
  • Boundary narratives and decolonizing thought (Mignolo, 1991)
  • Deconstructing organizational stories through a postcolonial lens (Said, 1978)
  • Business storytelling and intersectional characterizations (Brah & Phoenix, 2004)
  • Going Against the Grain and other alternative narratives of business (Prasad, 2012)
  • Dominant narratives and the voices of the Subaltern (Spivak, 1988)
  • Voices of the South and new perspectives of business theory (Faria, Ibarra-Colado, & Guedes, 2010)
  • Reframing Diversity Management (Faria, 2015)
  • Stories of self and resistance (Katila & Merilainen, 2002)

 

Chapters should explore stories/narratives used in the process of producing ideas of diversity. There is no methodological preference for this chapter and authors may use any forms of method ranging from liberal to transnational feminist approaches (Calás & Smircich, 2006).    

Submissions should be no more than thirty pages, double spaced, times new roman 12 font, with one-inch margins.  All questions regarding chapters should be directed to Jean Helms Mills, volume editor (jean.mills@smu.ca). 

Proposals for chapters should be no more than three double spaced pages and are due on May 22, 2019.   

 

Acker, J. (1990). Hierarchies, jobs, bodies: A theory of gendered organizations. Gender & Society, 4(2), 139-158.

Acker, J., & Van Houten, D. R. (1974). Differential recruitment and control: the sex structuring of organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 9(2), 152-163.

Banerjee, S. B., & Linstead, S. (2001). Globalization, multiculturalism and other fictions: Colonialism for the new millennium? Organization, 8(4), 683-722.

Bendix, R. (1974). Work and Authority in Industry. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

Boje, D. M. (2010). Narrative Analysis. In A. J. Mills, G. Durepos, & E. Wiebe (Eds.), Sage Encyclopedia of Case Study Research (Vol. II, pp. 591-594). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Brah, A., & Phoenix, A. (2004). Ain’t I a woman? Revisiting intersectionality. Journal of International Women’s Studies, 5(3), 75-86.

Burnham, J. (1941). The Managerial Revolution. New York: Putnam.

Burns, T., & Stalker, G. (1961). The Management of Innovation. London.: Tavistock.

Calás, M. B., & Smircich, L. (1996). Not Ahead of her Time: Reflections on Mary Parker Follett as Prophet of Management. Organization, 3(1), 147-152. doi:10.1177/135050849631008

Calás, M. B., & Smircich, L. (2006). From the ‘Woman’s Point of View’ Ten Years Later: Towards a Feminist Organization Studies In S. Clegg, C. Hardy, T. Lawrence, & W. Nord (Eds.), The Sage Handbook of Organization Studies. London: Sage.

Chandler, A. D. (1977). The Visible Hand. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Chandler, A. D. (1984). The emergence of managerial capitalism. Business History Review, 58(Winter), 473-503.

Copeland, M. T. (1958). And Mark An Era. The Story of the Harvard Business School. Boston: Little, Brown and Company.

Corke, A. (1986). British Airways. The Path to Profitability. London: Frances Pinter.

Decker, S. (2013). The silence of the archives: business history, post-colonialism and archival ethnography. Management & Organizational  History, 8(2), 155-173.

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

Donaldson, L. (1985). In Defence of Organization Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Drucker, P. F. (1939). The end of economic man : a study of the new totalitarianism. New York: The John Day Co.

Drucker, P. F. (1942). The future of industrial man. New York,: The John Day company.

Drucker, P. F. (1947). Big business : a study of the political problems of American capitalism. London , Toronto: W. Heinemann ltd.

Faria, A. (2015). Reframing Diversity Management. In R. Bendl, I. Bleijenbergh, E. Henttonen, & A. J. Mills (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Diversity in Organizations (pp. 127-149). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Faria, A., Ibarra-Colado, E., & Guedes, A. (2010). Internationalization of management, neoliberalism and the Latin America challenge. Critical Perspectives on International Business, 6(2/3), 97-115. doi:10.1108/17422041011049932

Foster, J., Mills, A. J., & Weatherbee, T. G. (2014). History, field definition and management studies: the case of the New Deal. Journal of Management History, 20(2), 179-199.

Fukuyama, F. (2006). The end of history and the last man (1st Free Press trade pbk. ed.). New York: Free Press ;.

Godwin, M. (2017). Hugh Connerty and Hooters: what is successful entrrpreneurship. In E. Raufflet & A. J. Mills (Eds.), The Dark Side: Critical Cases on the Downside of Business (pp. 36-51). London: Routledge.

Gunn, J. (1985). The defeat of distance : Qantas 1919-1939. St. Lucia, Qld.: University of Queensland Press.

Haraway, D. J. (2006). A Cyborg Manifesto: Science, Technology, and Socialist-Feminism in the Late 20th Century. In J. Weiss, J. Nolan, J. Hunsinger, & P. Trifonas (Eds.), The International Handbook of Virtual Learning Environments (pp. 117-158): Springer Netherlands.

Hartt, C. M., Durepos, G., Mills, A. J., & Helms Mills, J. (2017). Performing the Past: ANTi-History, Gendered Spaces and Feminist Practice. In A. J. Mills (Ed.), Insights and Research on the study of Gender and Intersectionality in International Airline Culture. Bradford: Emerald Books.

Hayek, F. (1944). The Road to Serfdom. London: Routledge.

Jacques, R. (1996). Manufacturing the Employee: Management Knowledge from the 19th to 21st Centuries. London: Sage.

Jacques, R. (1997). The Unbearable Whiteness of Being: Reflections of a Pale, Stale Male. In P. Prasad, A. J. Mills, M. Elmes, & A. Prasad (Eds.), Managing the Organizational Melting Pot: Dilemmas of Workplace Diversity (pp. 80-106). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Katila, S., & Merilainen, S. (2002). Self in research: hopelessly entangled in the gendered organizational culture. In I. Aaltio & A. J. Mills (Eds.), Gender, Identity and the Culture of Organizations (pp. 185-200). London: Routledge.

Khurana, R. (2007). From Higher Aims To Hired Hands. The Social Transformation of American Business Schools and the Unfulfilled Promise of Management as a Profession. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Marx, K. (1999). Capital: a critical analysis of capitalist production (Abridged ed.). London: Oxford University Press.

McDonald, D. (2017). The Golden Passport. New York: Harper-Collins.

McQuaid, K. (1994). Uneasy Partners. Big Business in American Politics 1945-1990. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins.

Mignolo, W. D. (1991). The Idea of Latin America. Oxford: Blackwell.

Mittal, S., & Dhar, R. (2015). Transformational leadership and employee creativity. Management Decision, 53(5), 894-910.

Nkomo, S. (1992). The emperor has no clothes: rewriting “race in organizations”. Academy of Management Review, 17(3), 487-513.

Parker, M. (2002). Against management : organization in the age of managerialism. Cambridge: Polity.

Prasad, A. (Ed.) (2003). Postcolonial Theory and Organizational Analysis: A Critical Engagement. London: Palgrave.

Prasad, A. (Ed.) (2012). Against the Grain. Copenhagen: Copenhagen Business School Press.

Pugh, D. S., & Hickson, D. J. (1976). Organisational Structure in its Context: the Aston Programme I. London: Saxon House.

Said, E. W. (1978). Orientalism. New York: Vintage Books.

Spivak, G. C. (1988). Can the subaltern speak? Basingstoke: Macmillan.

Weber, M. (1967). The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism (T. Parsons, Trans.). London: Allen & Unwin.

Weick, K. E. (1995). Sensemaking in Organizations. London, UK: Sage Publications Inc.

Williams, K. S., & Mills, A. J. (2017). Frances Perkins: gender, context and history in the neglect of a management theorist. Journal of Management History, 23(1), 32-50. doi:10.1108/jmh-09-2016-0055

Woodward, J. (1958). Management and Technology. London: HMSO.

 

CfP on History and Business Storytelling

Call for Papers on History and Business Storytelling

Volume Editor: Albert J. Mills (albert.mills@smu.ca)

  As part of the series “A World Scientific Encyclopedia of Business Storytelling” (edited by David Boje and Regents Professor), contributions are sought for a proposed volume on History and Business Storytelling (with a submissions delivery date of January 15, 2021).

In the words of David Boje, the overall series seeks “to extend new theories of prospective sensemaking, quantum storytelling (how humans are connected to the environment, not separate), and the relation of narrative-counter narrative dialectics to dialogic webs of multiplicity.” To that end, the series seeks “new business story paradigms that go beyond mere social constructivism, short-term shareholder wealth maximization, and disembodied textual narratives to the work in embodiment, critical accounts for the voiceless and marginalized, socioeconomic storytelling for socially responsible capitalism, and true storytelling principles as an alternative to fake news and fake leadership that infects the old business storytelling paradigm.” Boje and Rosile (in press) are attempting to bring together a critical ‘Storytelling Science’ paradigm.

At first sight it may appear that business and storytelling are two very different endevours; one involving a series of activities to produce services, products, profits, etc., and the other involving the use of tales to explain and make sense of innumerable social activities (Weick, 1995). More often than not, the two are aligned as those involved in business activities seek to explain and support those activities. Examples at the individual level include stories of the `self-made’ man (sic), the characteristics of the successful entrepreneur (Weber, 1967), the transformational leader (Mittal & Dhar, 2015), etc. At the company level examples include corporate histories of successful activities that explain how the company has remained in business over time and the use of artefacts of the past to lend a sense of history to the company’s operations (Corke, 1986; Gunn, 1985). At the industry (or field) level there are accounts that serve to explain such things as the link between strategy (Chandler, 1977), other practices (Pugh & Hickson, 1976; Woodward, 1958) and organizational survival, legitimacy, efficiencies, etc., (DiMaggio & Powell, 1983). And at the overall socio-economic level there are numerous accounts valuing the economic, political, and philosophical outcomes of capitalism (Burnham, 1941; Chandler, 1984; Drucker, 1939, 1942; Fukuyama, 2006).

Although not uncontested, these various tales of business have collectively served over time to privilege for-profit organizations (Donaldson, 1985; McQuaid, 1994) as the model of economic organization, philosophy, and politics (Drucker, 1947); as the primary and favoured form of organizing economic life (Drucker, 1939); as the main or only legitimate form of organization control and management (Hayek, 1944). In the process business and capitalism became interwoven in ways that cast owner (Marx, 1999), manager (Burnham, 1941), employee (Jacques, 1996) and the market (Burns & Stalker, 1961) as central forms of organizational activity and thought (Bendix, 1974). It has not also shaped the character of business activity but the characters at the heart of those activities, namely, white, upper-class, Western men (Acker, 1990; Jacques, 1997; Prasad, 2012).

Beneath, in tandem with, and/or a reflection on, tales from the field of business there has been another formidable set of stories that has helped to shape the notion of business; namely, the field of business studies (Khurana, 2007). Arguably, the development of business studies as a field of enquiry not only reproduced tales from the field but drew on it to define business studies as a specific area of scientific enquiry; one linked to the professionalization of the business manager (Khurana, 2007). In the process, the field of business studies largely excluded alternative modes of organizing (Foster, Mills, & Weatherbee, 2014; Parker, 2002; Weick, 1995).  Paradoxically, in the quest for scientific legitimacy (Khurana, 2007), one of the most successful attempts to teach business studies has been the advent of the Harvard University case study method (Copeland, 1958; McDonald, 2017). Here we have an essentially fictional account of a business problem written in a way that is presented to the reader (the potential manager) as a `real life’ situation with scientifically established behavioural outcomes. Regardless of how it was intended, the central character is more-often-than-not presented as a white male who is primarily interested in profitability, efficiency and the bottom line. In other words, it is not only scenarios that are constructed but people who are privileged, ignored and/or marginalized.

In much of these accounts of business, history – either implicitly or explicitly – is drawn on for support and legitimacy (Rowlinson & Hassard, 1993). This ranges from corporate histories of selected businesses (Smith, 1986) or classes of business (Wilkins, 1974) through to histories of the field (George, 1968; Khurana, 2007; Urwick, 1956; Wren, 1972). Over recent years there have been calls not only for more historical analyses in management and organization studies (Clark & Rowlinson, 2004) but also for greater discussion of historical methods (Booth & Rowlinson, 2006; Bowden, 2016, 2018), opening up possibilities for new narratives of business (Cummings, Bridgman, Hassard, & Rowlinson, 2017; Durepos & Mills, 2012; Williams & Mills, 2017).

This volume on ‘History and Business Storytelling’ will provide insights into stories fostering the idea of business, including, but not limited to:

  • the relationship between historical methods and business storytelling (Cummings et al., 2017)
  • the processes through which certain business stories are developed  (Durepos, 2015)
  • revisiting classic tales (Hassard, 2012)
  • re-envisioning the field through alternative narratives (Foster et al., 2014)
  • uses and abuses of storytelling in business (Suddaby, Foster, & Trank, 2010)
  • business narratives and voices from the South (Prasad, 2003)
  • Historical methods as business narratives (White, 1987)
  • Antenarratives  (Boje, 2010)
  • Case studies as narratives of business (Raufflet & Mills, 2009)
  • Business studies as tales of the field (Van Maanen, 1988)
  • Business storytelling and gendered narration (Calás & Smircich, 1996)
  • Business storytelling and intersectional characterization (Brah & Phoenix, 2004)
  • Narratives as organization (Czarniawska & Gagliardi, 2003)
  • Business archives as storytelling cache’s (Decker, 2013)

 

Chapters should explore stories/narratives used in the process of producing the idea of business. There is no methodological preference for this chapter and authors may use any forms of method ranging from positivist (Bowden, 2018)  to postmodernist (Boje, 1995).      

Submissions should be no more than thirty pages, double spaced, times new roman 12 font, with one-inch margins.  All questions regarding chapters should be directed to Albert J. Mills, volume editor (albert.mills@smu.ca). 

Proposals for chapters should be no more than three double spaced pages and are due on May 22, 2019.   

 

Acker, J. (1990). Hierarchies, jobs, bodies: A theory of gendered organizations. Gender & Society, 4(2), 139-158.

Bendix, R. (1974). Work and Authority in Industry. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

Boje, D. M. (1995). Stories of the Storytelling Organization: A Postmodern Analysis of Disney as “Tamara-Land”. The Academy of Management Journal, 38(4), 997-1035.

Boje, D. M. (2010). Narrative Analysis. In A. J. Mills, G. Durepos, & E. Wiebe (Eds.), Sage Encyclopedia of Case Study Research (Vol. II, pp. 591-594). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Boje, D. M.; Rosile, G. A. (in press). Download at https://www.dropbox.com/sh/bd297r9f6lhgjeh/AAChF7KdZH7hvz3aGIySrTJwa?dl=0

Booth, C., & Rowlinson, M. (2006). Management and organizational history: Prospects. Management & Organizational History, 1(1), 5-30.

Bowden, B. (2016). Editorial and note on the writing of management history. Journal of Management History, 22(2), 118-129. doi:10.1108/jmh-02-2016-0009

Bowden, B. (2018). Work, Wealth, & Postmodernism. The intellectual conflict at the heart of business endeavour. London: Palgrave.

Brah, A., & Phoenix, A. (2004). Ain’t I a woman? Revisiting intersectionality. Journal of International Women’s Studies, 5(3), 75-86.

Burnham, J. (1941). The Managerial Revolution. New York: Putnam.

Burns, T., & Stalker, G. (1961). The Management of Innovation. London.: Tavistock.

Calás, M. B., & Smircich, L. (1996). Not Ahead of her Time: Reflections on Mary Parker Follett as Prophet of Management. Organization, 3(1), 147-152. doi:10.1177/135050849631008

Chandler, A. D. (1977). The Visible Hand. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Chandler, A. D. (1984). The emergence of managerial capitalism. Business History Review, 58(Winter), 473-503.

Clark, P., & Rowlinson, M. (2004). The Treatment of History in Organization Studies: Toward an “Historic Turn”? Business History, 46(3), pp.331-352.

Copeland, M. T. (1958). And Mark An Era. The Story of the Harvard Business School. Boston: Little, Brown and Company.

Corke, A. (1986). British Airways. The Path to Profitability. London: Frances Pinter.

Cummings, S., Bridgman, T., Hassard, J., & Rowlinson, M. (2017). A New History of Managment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Czarniawska, B., & Gagliardi, P. (Eds.). (2003). Narratives We Organize By. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.

Decker, S. (2013). The silence of the archives: business history, post-colonialism and archival ethnography. Management & Organizational  History, 8(2), 155-173.

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

Donaldson, L. (1985). In Defence of Organization Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Drucker, P. F. (1939). The end of economic man : a study of the new totalitarianism. New York: The John Day Co.

Drucker, P. F. (1942). The future of industrial man. New York,: The John Day company.

Drucker, P. F. (1947). Big business : a study of the political problems of American capitalism. London , Toronto: W. Heinemann ltd.

Durepos, G. (2015). ANTi-History: toward amodern histories. In P. G. McLaren, A. J. Mills, & T. G. Weatherbee (Eds.), The Routledge Companion to Management and Organizational History (pp. 153-180). London: Routledge.

Durepos, G., & Mills, A. J. (2012). ANTi-History: Theorizing the Past, History, and Historiography in Management and Organizational Studies. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing

Foster, J., Mills, A. J., & Weatherbee, T. G. (2014). History, field definition and management studies: the case of the New Deal. Journal of Management History, 20(2), 179-199.

Fukuyama, F. (2006). The end of history and the last man (1st Free Press trade pbk. ed.). New York: Free Press ;.

George, C. S. (1968). The History of Management Thought. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc.

Gunn, J. (1985). The defeat of distance : Qantas 1919-1939. St. Lucia, Qld.: University of Queensland Press.

Hassard, J. (2012). Rethinking the Hawthorne Studies: The Western Electric research in its social, political and historical context. Human Relations, 65(11), 1431-1461. doi:10.1177/0018726712452168

Hayek, F. (1944). The Road to Serfdom. London: Routledge.

Jacques, R. (1996). Manufacturing the Employee: Management Knowledge from the 19th to 21st Centuries. London: Sage.

Jacques, R. (1997). The Unbearable Whiteness of Being: Reflections of a Pale, Stale Male. In P. Prasad, A. J. Mills, M. Elmes, & A. Prasad (Eds.), Managing the Organizational Melting Pot: Dilemmas of Workplace Diversity (pp. 80-106). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Khurana, R. (2007). From Higher Aims To Hired Hands. The Social Transformation of American Business Schools and the Unfulfilled Promise of Management as a Profession. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Marx, K. (1999). Capital: a critical analysis of capitalist production (Abridged ed.). London: Oxford University Press.

McDonald, D. (2017). The Golden Passport. New York: Harper-Collins.

McQuaid, K. (1994). Uneasy Partners. Big Business in American Politics 1945-1990. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins.

Mittal, S., & Dhar, R. (2015). Transformational leadership and employee creativity. Management Decision, 53(5), 894-910.

Parker, M. (2002). Against management : organization in the age of managerialism. Cambridge: Polity.

Prasad, A. (Ed.) (2003). Postcolonial Theory and Organizational Analysis: A Critical Engagement. London: Palgrave.

Prasad, A. (Ed.) (2012). Against the Grain. Copenhagen: Copenhagen Business School Press.

Pugh, D. S., & Hickson, D. J. (1976). Organisational Structure in its Context: the Aston Programme I. London: Saxon House.

Raufflet, E., & Mills, A. J. (Eds.). (2009). The Dark Side: Critical Cases on the Downside of Business. Sheffield: Greenleaf Publishing.

Rowlinson, M., & Hassard, J. (1993). The invention of corporate culture – A history of the histories of Cadbury. Human Relations, 46(3), 299-326.

Smith, P. (1986). It Seems Like Only Yesterday: Air Canada –  The first 50 Years. Toronto: McClelland and Stewart Limited.

Suddaby, R., Foster, W. M., & Trank, C. Q. (2010). Rhetorical History as a Source of Competitive Advantage. Advances in Strategic Management, 27, 147-173.

Urwick, L. (Ed.) (1956). The Golden Book of Management: A Historical Record of the Life and Work of Seventy Pioneers. London: Newman Neame Limited.

Van Maanen, J. (1988). Tales of the Field. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

Weber, M. (1967). The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism (T. Parsons, Trans.). London: Allen & Unwin.

Weick, K. E. (1995). Sensemaking in Organizations. London, UK: Sage Publications Inc.

White, H. (1987). The Content of the Form: Narrative Discourse and Historical Representation. London: John Hopkins University Press.

Wilkins, M. (1974). The Maturing of Multinational Enterprise. American Business Abroad from 1914 to 1970. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Williams, K. S., & Mills, A. J. (2017). Frances Perkins: gender, context and history in the neglect of a management theorist. Journal of Management History, 23(1), 32-50. doi:10.1108/jmh-09-2016-0055

Woodward, J. (1958). Management and Technology. London: HMSO.

Wren, D. A. (1972). The Evolution of Management Thought. New York: The Ronald Press Co.

 

BH SI CfP: Gender, Feminism, and Business History

Business History Special Issue Call for Papers

Gender, Feminism, and Business History: From periphery to centre

 

Guest editors:

Hannah Dean, University of St Andrews, UK

Linda Perriton, University of Stirling, UK

Scott Taylor, University of Birmingham, UK

Mary Yeager, University of California Los Angeles, USA

 

Submission deadline: 15 January 2020.

 

Gender relations represent one of the most significant social issues of modernity, profoundly affecting both women and men’s educational, economic, and political lives. Feminist theory and activism during the last two centuries is the highest profile marker of this, shaping our understanding of gender relations by focusing on equality, social justice, discrmination, inclusion/exclusion, and latterly the intersection of gender with race and ethnicity. The established territory of business history is the global north, after the mid-19th century, focusing on industrial production companies. Despite the changes provoked by feminism and greater recognition of the material and symbolic importance of gender relations, business history as a field maintains a largely gender-free and feminism-free centre. This special issue is designed to change that, by bringing both gender and feminism from the periphery of business history to its centre.

 

Gendered analysis of business history is a considerable field, but perhaps the most prominent challenge it has mounted to date is to the straightforward narratives of great men founding and building large organizations. The simple ‘great man’ narrative may still be a significant staple of the research undertaken in the field, but it is only one possible approach among many. There is empirical and conceptual space for other, very different, narratives of business history and the history of business.

 

This special issue is the first in this field for almost a decade to be dedicated to gender and business and/or organizational history. With it, we want to create a space for research that brings gender and feminism to business history’s centre, to provoke further dialogue and debate about alternative frameworks for research within and beyond the issue itself. We expect contributions to accomplish either or both of the following  aims:

 

  1. To explore the significance of feminist theories and gender in advancing the analysis and understanding of women in particular as business owners, entrepreneurs, or as funders, silent partners, and designers supporting more visible business activity by men;
  2. To advance understanding of women and men working or living on the margins of the established territory of business history – i.e. outside of the global north, before the mid-19th century, outside of established industries, and as critics of masculinised ways of doing business.

 

In order to develop these broad aims, and in keeping with the aims of Business History, contributions to the Special Issue might explore (but is not limited to) the following topics:

 

  • What source materials and archives might offer a more complete understanding of women and feminism in business history?
  • What are the implications of changes occuring in the archive profession, and other developments such as the increase in feminist archiving?
  • How can gender and feminist perspecitves shed new light on the historical analysis of social strucutures inlcuding social, economic and politics systems as well as power?
  • How can gender and feminist perspectives inform business history not only from a Western perspectives but also from other perspectives inlcuding outside of the Anglo-American bubble i,e, Latin America, Africa and Asia?
  • How can gender and feminist perspectives inform business history before the 19th century?
  • How should the corporate archive and the firm in particular be interpreted when thinking about gender, feminism, and business history?
  • What changes to research questions, methods, or narratives, are necessary to enable women and feminism to be more effectively written into business histories as full participants?
  • How can we account for the role that women played in creating the opportunities e.g. as funders, silent partners, or as designers for ‘great men’ to dominate business histories?
  • How can business history contribute to the conceptual development of key feminist analytics such as sexism, patriarchy, or misogyny?
  • How would a gendered analysis of business history classics contribute to our understanding of them? For example, what would a feminist re-reading of Alfred Chandler’s work tell us?

 

Contributions are expected to build on the rich empirical, analytical, and methodological traditions in this journal and in the field more generally. We would very much welcome contributions from scholars located beyond business and management Schools, interdisciplinary work, and from scholars geographically located outside the global north.

 

Submission Instructions

  • This call is open and competitive. All submissions will be peer reviewed following the standard practice of the journal.
  • To be considered for this special issue, submissions must fit with the Aims and Scope of Business History, as well as this call for papers.
  • The guest editors will select a limited number of papers to be included in the special issue. Other papers submitted to the special issue may be considered for publication in other issues of the journal at the discretion of the Editor-in-Chief.
  • This special issue welcomes all contributions that address the broad themes described above. All submissions should be based on original research and innovative analysis.
  • For empirical papers based on sources or data sets from which multiple papers have been generated, authors must provide the Guest Editors with copies of all other papers based on the same data or sources.
  • The maximum submission length is 10,000 words (including graphs and tables).
  • Submissions must not be under consideration with another journal.
  • The submission deadline is 15 January 2020 via ScholarOne, using the drop-down menu to indicate that the submission is to the Special Issue on Gender, Feminism, and Business History.
  • Please ensure that your manuscript fully complies with the publishing style of formatting regulation of Business Historyas per their ‘Instructions for authors’
  • Authors may be asked to use an English language copyeditor before final acceptance.

 

Please direct questions about the submission process, or any administrative matter, to the Editorial Office: [email address].

 

The guest editors of this special issue would be happy to be contacted directly with queries relating to potential submissions:

 

Hannah Dean hd48@st-andrews.ac.uk

Linda Perriton linda.perriton@stir.ac.uk

Scott Taylor s.taylor@bham.ac.uk

Mary Yeager yeager@ucla.edu