Process PDW in Greece: About Time – Temporality and History in Organization Studies

We are inviting you to submit your extended abstract to the 10th International Process Symposium Theme: About Time: Temporality and History in Organization Studies

20-23 June 2018, Porto Carras Grand Resort, Halkidiki, Greece

Professional Development Workshop: 20/6/2018

General process-oriented and theme-focused papers are invited

Abstract Submission is now open at:

http://www.process-symposium.com/abstractsubmitform/abstractsubmitform.html

Deadline: 31 January 2018

The conference will take place between 20-23 June 2018, Porto Carras Grand Resort, Halkidiki, Greece (http://www.portocarras.com/)

 Conveners:

Juliane Reinecke, King’s Business School, King’s College London, UK

Roy Suddaby, University of Victoria, Canada & Newcastle University, UK

Ann Langley, HEC Montreal, Canada

Haridimos Tsoukas, University of Cyprus, Cyprus & University of Warwick, UK

Keynote Speakers:

William Blattner, Professor of Philosophy, Georgetown University, USA, author of Heidegger’s “Being and Time”

Tor Hernes, Professor of Organization Theory, Copenhagen Business School, Denmark, author of A Process Theory of Organization

Eviatar Zerubavel, Board of Governors and Distinguished Professor of Sociology, Rutgers University, USA, author of Time Maps: Collective memory and the Social Shape of the Past

 Pre-Symposium Workshop Panels (20/6/2018)

 Pre-Symposium Workshop Panels (20/6/2018)

Taking time seriously in organizational research: Theoretical and methodological challenges

Tima Bansal, Ivey Business School, Canada

Paula Jarzabkowski, Cass Business School, UK

Majken Schultz, Copenhagen Business School, Denmark

History matters: The value and challenges of historical approaches to organizational and management research

Matthias Kipping, Schulich School of Business, Canada

Michael Rowlinson, University of Exeter Business School, UK

Dan Wadhwani, University of the Pacific, USA

 

Call for Papers

 Tenth International Symposium on

Process Organization Studies

 www.process-symposium.com

 

Theme:    

About Time: Temporality and History in Organization Studies

 General process-oriented and theme-focused papers are invited

20-23 June 2018

Professional Development Workshop: 20/6/2018

 Conveners:

Juliane Reinecke, Warwick Business School, UK (Juliane.Reinecke@wbs.ac.uk)

Roy Suddaby, University of Victoria, Canada & Newcastle University, UK  (rsuddaby@uvic.ca)

Ann Langley, HEC Montreal, Canada (ann.langley@hec.ca)

Haridimos Tsoukas, University of Cyprus, Cyprus & University of Warwick, UK (process.symposium@gmail.com)

 

Keynote Speakers:

William Blattner, Professor of Philosophy, Georgetown University, USA, author of Heidegger’s “Being and Time”

Tor Hernes, Professor of Organization Theory, Copenhagen Business School, Denmark, author of A Process Theory of Organization

Eviatar Zerubavel, Board of Governors and Distinguished Professor of Sociology, Rutgers University, USA, author of Time Maps: Collective memory and the Social Shape of the Past

 Rationale: What is Process Organization Studies?

Process Organization Studies (PROS) is a way of studying organizations that is grounded on process metaphysics – the worldview that sees processes, rather than substances, as the basic forms of the universe. A process view: rests on a relational ontology, a performative epistemology, and a dynamic praxeology; focuses on becoming, change, and flux, and pays particular attention to forms of agency; prioritizes process over outcome, activity over product, change over persistence, novelty over stasis, open-endedness over determination; invites us to acknowledge, rather than reduce, the complexity of the world and, in that sense, it is animated by what philosopher Stephen Toulmin called an “ecological style” of thinking.

Purpose, Venue, and Organization

The aim of the Symposium is to consolidate, integrate, and further develop ongoing efforts to advance a sophisticated process perspective in organization and management studies.

PROS is an annual event, organized in conjunction with the publication of the annual series Perspectives on Process Organization Studies (published by Oxford University Press), and it takes place in a Greek island or resort, in June every year. Details of all hitherto Symposia, including topics, conveners and keynote speakers, can be seen at www.process-symposium.com.

Around 100 papers are usually accepted, following a review of submitted abstracts by the conveners.  PROS is renowned for offering participants the opportunity to interact in depth, exchange constructive comments, and share insights in a stimulating, relaxing, and scenic environment.

The Tenth Symposium will take place on 20-23 June 2018, at the Porto Carras Grand Resort, Halkidiki, Greece (http://www.portocarras.com/). The first day of the Symposium (20 June) will consist of the Professional Development Workshop. The Symposium venue, comfortable, relaxing, and situated in one of the most beautiful beachfront locations in rural Greece, in the feet of a mountain of pine trees, accessible by bus or taxi by Thessaloniki Airport, will provide an ideal setting for participants to relax and engage in creative dialogues.

As is customary by now, the Symposium is organized in two tracks – a General Track and a Thematic Track. Each track is described below.

  1. The General Track includes papers that explore a variety of organizational phenomena from a process perspective.

More specifically, although not necessarily consolidated under a process metaphysical label, several strands in organization and management studies have adopted a more or less process-oriented perspective over the years. Karl Weick’s persistent emphasis on organizing and the important role of sensemaking in it is, perhaps, the best-known process approach in the field. Early management and organizational research by Henry Mintzberg, Andrew Pettigrew and Andrew Van de Ven was also conducted from an explicitly process perspective. More recently, scholars such as Martha Feldman, Wanda Orlikowski, Robert Chia, Tor Hernes, and several others, have shown a sophisticated awareness of the importance of process-related issues in their research. Current studies that take an explicitly performative (or enactivist/relational/practice-based) view of organizations have similarly adopted, in varying degrees, a process vocabulary and have further refined a process sensibility. Indeed, the growing use of the gerund (-ing) indicates the desire to move towards dynamic ways of understanding organizational phenomena, especially in a fast-moving, inter-connected, globalized world.

Since a process worldview is not a doctrine but an orientation, it can be developed in several different directions, exploring a variety of topics in organizational research. For example, traditional topics such as organizational design, routines, leadership, trust, coordination, change, innovation, learning and knowledge, accountability, communication, authority, materiality and technology, etc., which have often been studied as “substances”, from a process perspective can be approached as performative accomplishments – as situated sequences of activities and complexes of processes unfolding in time. A process view treats organizational phenomena not as faits accomplish, but as (re)created through interacting embodied agents embedded in sociomaterial practices, whose actions are mediated by institutional, linguistic and material artifacts.

Papers exploring any organizational research topic with a process orientation are invited for submission to the General Track.

  1. The Thematic Track includes papers addressing the particular theme of the Symposium every year.

For 2018 the theme is:

About Time: Temporality and History in Organization Studies

A description of this theme and its importance follows.

Process studies of organizations focus attention on how and why organizational actions and structures emerge, develop, grow or terminate over time (Langley, Smallman, Tsoukas & Van de Ven, 2013). Time, timing, and temporality, therefore, are inherently important to organizational process studies as “[no] concept of motion is possible without the category of time” (Sorokin & Merton, 1937: 615). Yet time remains an under-theorized construct in organization studies that has struggled to move much beyond chronological conceptions of “clock” time (Ancona, Goodman, Lawrence & Tushman, 2001; Clark, 1990).

Missing from this linear view of time are ongoing debates about objectivity versus subjectivity in the experience of time (Butler, 1995), linear versus alternative structures of time (Dawson & Sikes, 2016) or an appreciation of collective or culturally determined inferences of temporality (Zerubavel, 1981; Cunliffe, Luhman & Boje, 2004). This is critical because our understanding of time and temporality can shape how we view and relate to organizational phenomena – as unfolding processes or stable objects (Reinecke & Ansari, 2017). But we are only beginning to appreciate the role of temporality in organizational processes – i.e. how the materials of the present are used to impose meaning and understanding on both past experience and possible futures (Schultz & Hernes, 2013; Hernes, 2008; Reinecke & Ansari, 2015). As the noted German sociologist Norbert Elias (1993) observed, echoing St. Augustine, while we all experience time and have an intuitive sense of its passing, the concept of time so eludes precise articulation that it has attained the status of the “ultimate puzzle” in social theory.

History is an equally important but under-theorized concept in organization studies. While we have an intuitive sense of history as a process, organizational theorists have struggled to move beyond two limited conceptualizations of historical processes. One approach is to see history as a constraint on organization’s capacity for change. History, thus, limits agency through “path dependence” (North, 1990), “structural inertia” (Hannan & Freeman, 1984) or institutional “entropy” (Oliver, 1992). An alternative view is to see history as a unique source of competitive advantage, either through the conferral of unique resources (Porter, 1998; Barney, 1986), or through the historical conversion of routines into dynamic capabilities (Teece, Pisano & Shuen, 1997; Feldman, 2000). Both approaches suffer from the restrictive view of history as an objective set of “brute facts” that are somehow exterior to the individuals, organizations and collectives that experience them.

Emerging streams of process-oriented research have begun to move beyond viewing the past as a historically fixed object, instead conceptualized the past as being “as hypothetical as the future” (Mead, 1932: 31), or “up for grabs” (Kaplan & Orlikowski, 2013). Studies have addressed how actors continually reconstruct their view of the past in light of the emerging present (Bakken, Holt, & Zundel, 2013; Schultz & Hernes, 2013). But much work remains to be done. For instance, there is a distinct absence of understanding the socially constructive link between history and memory (Bluedorn & Denhart, 1988), history and organizational identity (Delahaye, Booth, Clark, Procter & Rowlinson, 2009) and, perhaps more significantly, an oversight of the common generic underpinnings of collective memories (Halbwachs, 1992) and how they constitute “mnemonic communities”  (Zerubavel, 2003).

Despite these conceptual tensions, there is clearly a growing interest in time, temporality and history in organizational studies. The turn to process has contributed to this interest (Chia, 2002; Thelen, 2000; Pettigrew, Woodward & Cameron, 2000; Roe, Waller & Clegg, 2009). The historical turn in management has similarly triggered an effort to re-theorize history in organizations in a more nuanced manner (Bucheli & Wadhwani, 2013; Rowlinson, Hassard & Decker, 2013; Kipping & Usdiken, 2014; Mills, Suddaby, Foster & Durepos, 2016; Suddaby & Foster, 2017). Increasingly, management theory is acquiring a “historical consciousness” – an awareness of time, history and memory as critical elements in processes of organizing (Suddaby, 2016).

The aim of this symposium is to draw together these various emerging strands of interest in adopting a more nuanced orientation toward time, temporality and history to better understand the temporal aspects of organizational processes. In this year’s Thematic Track we seek to encourage and enrich our understanding of different ways in which, by adopting a process-oriented view of time, temporality and history, we can reinvigorate established subjects in organization studies.

In particular, we encourage conceptual, empirical and methodological papers that use a process-oriented view of time, temporality and history to enrich our knowledge of topics that include, but need not be limited to:

Organizational identity: What is the role of time, temporality and history in shaping organizational identity? For instance, how do organizational members revise and re-imagine their collective past to re-construct its emergent present identity? (see Anteby & Molnar, 2012; Suddaby & Foster, 2016; Gioia, Schultz & Corley, 2000; Howard-Grenville, Metzger & Meyer, 2013; Lamertz, Foster, Coraiola & Kroezen, 2016; Schultz & Hernes, 2013; Ybema, 2010; Delahaye et al, 2009).

Organizational memory: How are different understandings of time, temporality and history involved in the emergence of organizational memory? How do collective memories emerge and come to constitute history? (see Rowlinson, Booth, Clarke, Delahaye & Proctor, 2010; Walsh & Ungson, 1991).

Strategic Management: What is the role of time, temporality and history in strategic management? How do actors construct collective organizational futures? How do they resolve the intertemporal paradox between present-day exploitation and future-oriented exploration? (see Brunninge, 2009; Foster, Suddaby, Minkus & Weibe, 2011; Hatch & Schultz, 2017; Kaplan & Orlikowski, 2013; Suddaby, Foster & Quinn-Trank, 2010).

Organizational Change: How do different, often implicit assumptions about time, temporality and history shape our models and conceptualization of organizational stability and change? How may (re-)constructions of the past, present or future affect actors’ ability to initiative, accelerate or prevent continuity or change? How does change become ‘inevitable’ or ‘irreversible’ over time? (see Dawson, 2014; Dawson & Sikes, 2016; Huy, 2001; Suddaby & Foster, 2017; Tsoukas & Chia, 2002).

Institutional Theory: How do institutions become ‘enduring’? What are the temporal qualities of institutions? What temporal patterns underpin processes of creation, maintenance and disruption of institutions? What is the pace and rhythms of institutionalization and institutional change? How may temporal norms and patterns themselves be socially constructed so as to enable or constrain certain institutional processes? (see Lawrence, Winns, & Jennings, 2001; Suddaby & Foster, 2013, Granqvist & Gustafsson, 2016; Rowell, Gustafsson & Clemente, 2016.

Creativity, Innovation & Entrepreneurship: How do actors imaginatively generate possible future trajectories of action that underpin entrepreneurial ventures? How is the past and future re-negotiated and re-invented in the present so as to create opportunities for creativity and innovation? How does history and tradition become a resource so as to allow actors to innovate from the past? (see Popp & Holt, 2013; Bátiz-Lazo, Haigh & Stearns, 2015).

Sensemaking: How do conceptions of time enter sensemaking processes? What is the role of temporal sensemaking in engaging with anticipations of the future and memories of the past to reconfigure present relations and structures? How do actors project sense into an uncertain future? (see Gioia, Corley & Fabbri, 2002; Wiebe, 2010).

Sustainability: How do actors reconcile multiple temporal orientations and timescapes, such as balancing the demands of the present with needs in the future, a tension that is at the heart of business sustainability? (see Reinecke & Ansari, 2015; Slawinski & Bansal, 2015).

Routines: How is the performance of routines played out in time? How does history shape the enactment of particular routines? How do particular temporalities implicated in different routines interact, with what results? How does timing affect the unfolding of routinized performances? (see Mutch 2016; Feldman, 2016).

Methodology: What research designs are best to capture time? How can methodologies move beyond chronological conceptions of time to include more experiential types of time? How might process researchers move beyond producing what Weick (1999: 135) labels “artifacts of retrospect” that look backward in time towards “narratives of prospect” that capture the experience of living forward? (see also Fachin and Langley, 2017; Shotter, 2006).

References:

Ancona, D. G., Okhuysen, G. A., & Perlow, L. A. (2001). Taking time to integrate temporal research. Academy of Management Review26(4), 512–529

Anteby, M., & Molnár, V. (2012). Collective memory meets organizational identity: remembering to forget in a firm’s rhetorical history. Academy of Management Journal, 55(3), 515-540.

Bakken, T., Holt, R., & Zundel, M. (2013). Time and Play in Management Practice: An Investigation Through the Philosophies of MctTaggart and Heidegger. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 29, 13–22.

Barney, J. 1991. Firm Resources and Sustained Competitive Advantage. Journal of Management, 17(1): 99-120.

Bátiz-Lazo, B., Haigh, T., & Stearns, D. L. 2015. How the Future Shaped the Past: The Case of the Cashless Society. Enterprise & Society, 15(1): 103-131.

Bluedorn, A. C., & Denhardt, R. B. 1988. Time and Organizations. Journal of Management, 14(2): 299-320.

Brunninge, O. 2009. Using history in organizations: How managers make purposeful reference to history in strategy processes. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 22 (1): 8-26.

Bucheli, M., & Wadhwani, R. D. (Eds.). (2013). Organizations in Time: History, Theory, Methods. Oxford University Press.

Butler, R. 1995. Time in Organizations: Its experience, explanation and effects. Organization Studies 16(6): 925-950.

Clark, P. 1990. Chronological codes and organizational analysis, Pp. 137-166 in Hassard, J. & Pym, D (Eds.), The Theory and Philosophy of Organizations: Critical issues and new perspectives. London: Routledge.

Cunliffe, A., Luhman, J.T. & Boje, D. 2004. Narrative Temporality: Implications for organizational research. Organization Studies 25(2): 261-286.

Dawson, P. 2014. Reflections: On time, temporality and change in organizations. Organizational Change Management 14(3): 285-308.

Dawson, P. & Sikes, C. 2016. Organizational Change and Temporality: Bending the Arrow of Time. New York: Routledge.

Delahaye, A., Booth, C. Clark, P., Proctor, S. & Rowlinson, M. 2009. The genre of corporate history. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 22(1): 27-48.

Elias, N. (1993). Time: An essay. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.

Fachin, F. & Langley, A. 2017. (forthcoming). Researching organizational concepts processually: The case of identity, In C. Cassell, A. Cunliffe & G. Grandy (Eds.) SAGE Handbook of Qualitative Management Research Methods, London, UK: Sage Publications.

Feldman, M. (2000). Organizational routines as a source of continuous change. Organization Science, 11(6), 611–629.

Feldman, M. S. (2016). Routines as Process: Past, Present, and Future. In J. Howard-Grenville, C. Rerup, A. Langley, & H. Tsoukas (Eds.), Organizational Routines: How They Are Created, Maintained, and Changed (Vol. 5, pp. 23-46).

Foster, W. M., Suddaby, R., Minkus, A., & Wiebe, E. 2011. History as social memory assets: The example of Tim Hortons. Management & Organizational History, 6(1), 101-120.

Gioia, D. A., Corley, K. G., and Fabbri, T. (2002). Revising the Past (while Thinking in the Future Perfect Tense). Journal of Organizational Change Management, 15(6): 622– 34.

Gioia, D. A., Schultz, M., & Corley, K. G. (2000). Organizational identity, image, and adaptive instability. Academy of Management Review, 25(1), 63-81.

Goodman, P. S., Lawrence, B. S., Ancona, D. G., & Tushman, M. L. (2001). Introduction: Special topic forum on time and organizational research. Academy of Management Review26(4), 507–511.

Granqvist, N., & Gustafsson, R. (2016). Temporal institutional work. Academy of Management Journal, 59, 1009–1035.

Hannan, M. T., & Freeman, J. (1984). Structural inertia and organizational change. American Sociological Review, 149-164.

Hatch, M.J. & Schultz, M. 2017. Toward a Theory of Using History Authentically: Historicizing in the Carlsberg Group, Administrative Science Quarterly, 31 (1) (DOI: 10.1177/0001839217692535)

Halbwachs, M. (1992/ 1950). On Collective Memory. Translated by L. A. Coser. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Hernes, T. (2008). Understanding organizations as process: Theory for a tangled world. Abington: Routledge.

Howard- Grenville, J., Metzger, M. L., and Meyer, A. D. (2013). “Rekindling the Old Flame: Processes of Identity Resurrection.” Academy of Management Journal, 56(1): 113– 36.

Huy, Q. N. (2001). Time, temporal capability, and planned change. Academy of Management Review26(4), 601–623.

Kaplan, S., & Orlikowski, W. J. 2013. Temporal Work in Strategy Making. Organization Science, 24(4): 965-995.

Kipping, M., & Üsdiken, B. (2014). History in Organization and Management Theory: More Than Meets the Eye. Academy of Management Annals, 8(1), 535-588.

Lamertz, K., Foster, W. M., Coraiola, D. M., & Kroezen, J. 2016. New identities from remnants of the past: An examination of the history of beer brewing in Ontario and the recent emergence of craft breweries. Business History, 58(5): 796-828.

Langley, A., Smallman, C., Tsoukas, H., & Van de Ven, A. H. (2013). Process studies of change in organization and management: Unveiling temporality, activity and flow. Academy of Management Journal56(1), 1–13.

Lawrence, T. B., Winn, M. I., & Jennings, P. D. (2001). The Temporal Dynamics of Institutionalization. The Academy of Management Review, 26, 624–644.

Mead, G. H. (1932). The Philosophy of the Present. LaSalle, Illinois: Open Court.

Mutch, A. (2016). Bringing history into the study of routines: contextualizing performance. Organization Studies, 37(8), 1171-1188.

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

Popp, A., & Holt, R. (2013). The Presence of Entrepreneurial Opportunity. Business History, 55(1), 9-28.

Reinecke, J. & Ansari, S. 2015. When times collide: Temporal brokerage at the intersection of markets and developments. Academy of Management Journal, 58(20: 618-648.

Reinecke, J., & Ansari, S. (2017). Time, Temporality and Process Studies. In A. Langley & H. Tsoukas (Eds.), Sage Handbook of Process Organization Studies. Sage.

Roe, R.A., Waller, M.J. & Clegg, S.R. (Eds.), Time in organizational research (pp. 204–219). Abingdon: Routledge.

Rowell, C., Gustafsson, R., & Clemente, M. (2016). How Institutions Matter “in Time”: The Temporal Structures of Practices and their Effects on Practice Reproduction. Research in the Sociology of Organizations, 49A.

Rowlinson, M., Booth, C., Clark, P., Delahaye, A., & Procter, S. (2010). Social remembering and organizational memory. Organization Studies, 31(1), 69-87.

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.

Schultz, M., & Hernes, T. (2013). A temporal perspective on organizational identity. Organization Science, 24(1), 1-21.

Shotter, J. 2006. Understanding process from within: An argument for ‘withness’-thinking. Organization Studies, 27(4): 585-604.

Slawinski, N., & Bansal, P. (2015). Short on Time: Intertemporal Tensions in Business Sustainability. Organization Science, 26, 531–549.

Sorokin, P., & Merton, R. (1937). Social Time: A Methodological and Functional Analysis. The American Journal of Sociology, 42, 615–629.

Suddaby, R. 2016. Toward a Historical Consciousness: Following the Historic Turn in Management Thought. M@n@gement: Revue officielle de l’Association Internationale de Management Stratégique, 19(1): 46-60.

Suddaby, R., Foster, W. M., and Quinn- Trank, C. (2010). “Rhetorical History as a Source of Competitive Advantage.” In Advances in Strategic Management:The Globalization of Strategy Research, vol. 27, edited by J. Baum and J. Lampel, 147– 73. Bingley, UK: Emerald Group Publishing Limited.

Suddaby, R. & Foster, W.M. 2016. Organizational Re-Membering: The use of rhetorical history to create identification”, in Oxford Handbook of Organizational Identity, edited by Michael Pratt, Majken Schultz, Blake Ashforth & Davide Ravasi, Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Suddaby, R. & Foster, W.M. (2017). History and Organizational Change. Journal of Management, 43(1): 19-38.

Suddaby, R., Foster, W. M. and Mills, A. J. (2014). “History and Institutions.” In Organization Studies: Historical Perspectives, edited by M. Bucheli and D. Wadhwani, 100– 23. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Teece, D. J., Pisano, G., & Shuen, A. 1997. Dynamic Capabilities and Strategic Management. Strategic Management Journal, 18(7): 509-533.

Tsoukas, H., & Chia, R. (2002). On organizational becoming: Rethinking organizational change. Organization Science, 13(5), 567–582.

Walsh, J. P., & Ungson, G. R. 1991. Organizational Memory. The Academy of Management Review, 16(1): 57-91.

Weick, K. E. 1999. That’s moving: Theories that matter. Journal of Management Inquiry, 8(2): 134-142.

Wiebe, E. (2010). Temporal sensemaking: Managers’ use of time to frame organizational change. In T. Hernes & S. Maitlis (Eds.), Process, sensemaking and organizing (pp. 213–241). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Ybema, S. 2010. Talk of change: Temporal contrasts and collective identities. Organization Studies, 31(4): 481-503.

Zerubavel, E. 1981. Hidden Rhythms: Schedules and Calendars in Social Life. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Zerubavel, E. 2003. Time maps: collective memory and the social shape of the past. Chicago, Ill.: University of Chicago Press.

 

 

Professional Development Workshop (20/6/2018)

Aim

The aim of the PDW is to provide a stimulating and interactive context for researchers to further develop their ideas and projects. More specifically, the PDW is designed to enable participants to: (a) refine their understanding of process thought; (b) share with others some of the methodological and theoretical challenges they have encountered in conducting, theorizing, and teaching process research, or putting process insights to practice in organizations; and (c) elicit/offer suggestions about how researching, theorizing, and teaching process may be further advanced.

 

The PDW will consist of (a) Workshop papers, (b) Panel Discussions, and (c) Plenary Panels.

 

 

Workshop Papers

We invite submissions of extended abstracts from researchers who have papers at an early stage of writing and would like helpful feedback as to how their papers may be further developed and published. Such submissions will be presented and extensively discussed in a roundtable format.

 

Panel Discussions

We invite submission proposals for panel discussions related to any process-related topic. An ideal submission will aim to: discuss a topic of broad relevance to process research and the challenges it presents; consolidate, update and further advance our knowledge of it; or introduce new topics that process-oriented researchers need to know about.

 

Panel discussions can focus either on theoretical or methodological topics. Up to four panel discussions will be accepted. Topics related to the conference theme are particularly welcome. Proposals will be evaluated in terms of clarity; novelty, relevance for and attractiveness to the process studies community; and developmental possibilities for its participants. A panel discussion will last for 90 minutes.

 

Plenary Panels

The following plenary panels will take place:

  • Taking time seriously in organizational research: Theoretical and methodological challenges

Tima Bansal, Ivey Business School, Canada

Paula Jarzabkowski, Cass Business School, UK

Majken Schultz, Copenhagen Business School, Denmark

  • History matters: The value and challenges of historical approaches to organizational and management research

Matthias Kipping, Schulich School of Business, Canada

Michael Rowlinson, University of Exeter Business School, UK

Dan Wadhwani, University of the Pacific, USA

Submissions

General process-oriented papers, theme-focused papers, as well as PDW workshop papers and panel discussion proposals are invited. Interested participants must submit  an extended abstract of about 1000 words for their proposed contribution by January 31st, 2018 through the following link:

 

http://www.process-symposium.com/abstractsubmitform/abstractsubmitform.html

 

The submission should contain authors’ names, institutional affiliations, email and postal addresses, and indicate the Track for which the submission is made (General or Thematic), or whether the submission is intended for the PDW. Authors will be notified of acceptance or otherwise by March 7th, 2018.  Full papers will be submitted by June 4th, 2018.

Advertisements

CfP: Social Aims of Finance

Social aims of finance
eabh conference

eabh in cooperation with Fondazione 1563 per l’Arte e la Cultura della Compagnia di San Paolo
15 June 2018, Torino, Italy

‘The City is too big and socially useless’ said Lord Adair Turner, former chairman of the UK Financial Services Authority in 2009. That legitimacy question has not gone away since, indeed, if anything it appears to grow stronger.  This conference explores how financial institutions have tackled it by developing alternative goals
and business forms for durable financial services. Joint-stock banks are traditionally seen as the hallmarks of capitalism, relentlessly pursuing profits. There is an alternative story, however. Some banks have a long history of devoting themselves to wider social goals rather than profit, others chose business forms which freed them from that relentless pursuit. The growing importance of durability raises the need for financial services to think beyond the bottom line, yet that raises new issues: how much profit does a business need to sustain both continuity and alternative goals, and how can alternative business forms compete in a capitalist world without losing their unique identity?

Many banks in Italy, the Netherlands, Germany and assumedly other countries had social business models in the 19th century which they gave up in the 20th century and now they seem to make a reappearance. Why is that? Can it be connected to the Great Financial Crisis and its aftermath? Businesswise there is two ways for banks setting up or acting in a social context: either as foundations with charitable aims; or otherwise, create institutions with specific organisation forms (coops, for instance) or business goas going beyond just making profits for shareholders. In Europe, several institutions were created with specific organisation forms (coops, for instance) or business goals going beyond just making profits for shareholders. In Italy for example, several contemporary banks were initiated as secular or religious institutions characterized by charitable purposes, some of them of medieval origins, others born in the 16th century to help the poor and sick, to provide fair money lending or to protect or to educate girls and women; in many cases those charities, as shareholders, contributed to maintain the social orientation of the banking activity over time. Even until today these credit institutions maintain a non-profit role through their corporate foundations (Compagnia di San Paolo, Banco di Napoli, etc.) or local mutual banks. In the NL they have, apart from the coop Rabo, two such, Triodos and ASN, which both devote their business to pursuing wider, durable social aims beyond profits; so, do some German cooperative and savings banks or at least did in the past when they were an essential contributor to small communities’ life and business. Furthermore, the microfinance movement is worth mentioning under this heading and so are the mutual insurance companies whose history deserves a closer investigation for long. Last but not least there is very recent movement of social currencies that aim at strengthening local communities within the context of globalisation, like for instance the Brixton Pound that was created when gentrification started to hit South-London communities.

In short, we look for submissions of genuine research about the history dimension of:

• non-profit banking and finance models with social or environmental goals in their statutes
• non-profit and (financial) crises
• banking foundations
• microfinance, Grameen bank
• mutual insurance
• cooperative finance, Raiffeisen banks (rural credit banks)
• saving banks
• building societies
• local currencies
• institutional investors as social financiers

The committee responsible for this content is formed by: Anna Cantaluppi (Fondazione 1563), Lilia Costabile (Naples University), Carmen Hofmann (eabh) and Joost Jonker (Amsterdam/ Utrecht University).

Selected participants will be asked to:
• submit an abstract and a short linear CV no later than 31 January 2018
• deliver a full paper 1 month prior to the conference
• give a 10 – 15 Minutes presentation in Torino in June 2018
• for submissions and questions please mailto:c.hofmann@bankinghistory.org

Academic paper givers will have the opportunity for their papers to be considered for peer reviewed publication in the Financial History Review.

PDW: Organizational and institutional change

FIFTH ANNUAL UNIVERSITY OF EDINBURGH BUSINESS SCHOOL

PAPER DEVELOPMENT WORKSHOP 

ORGANISATIONAL AND INSTITUTIONAL CHANGE

Sponsored by the Society for the Advancement of Management Studies

Additional support from the Organization Development & Change and Organization & Management Theory Divisions of the Academy of Management, and the Centre for Strategic Leadership at the University of Edinburgh Business School

To be held at University of Edinburgh Business School,

March 5, 2018

Following previous successful events held in 2014, 2015, 2016 and 2017, we are very pleased to be able to announce that the fifth annual paper development workshop on organisational and institutional change will take place on March 5, 2018. This workshop has been generously sponsored by the Society for the Advancement of Management Studies. As previously, this workshop offers an opportunity for scholars to develop their ongoing work related to organisational and/or institutional change. The workshop will be developmental with each paper having as a discussant a senior scholar with a track record of multiple publications in, and editorial/editorial board experience with, our leading journals.

Confirmed discussants include Shaz Ansari (University of Cambridge), Royston Greenwood (University of Alberta and University of Edinburgh), Jennifer Howard-Grenville (University of Cambridge), Candace Jones (University of Edinburgh), Tom Lawrence (University of Oxford), Nelson Phillips (Imperial College), Juliane Reinecke (King’s College London) and John Amis (University of Edinburgh).

Authors will also receive feedback from peers with similar research interests. It should be of special interest for colleagues recently graduated with a Ph.D., and doctoral students with quite well developed manuscripts; scholars more advanced in their careers are also welcome to attend. Selection of papers will be based on an abstract of 500 words.  The deadline for submission of abstracts is January 11, 2018. Full papers will be required by February 23, 2018.

Scholarships

The generous support of the ODC Division of the Academy of Management will allow us to provide a small number of $500 scholarships to help defray expenses for some doctoral students. Successful applicants to the workshop will automatically be considered for a scholarship: no separate application is required.

Logistics and Support to Participants

The Centre for Strategic Leadership at the University of Edinburgh Business School is pleased to host and jointly organize this workshop. The conference will consist of around 50 young faculty, student participants and senior colleagues who will discuss papers and offer developmental advice.

The atmosphere is expected to be collegial and informal, but centred on progressing working papers with the objective of getting them published in leading journals. There will also be a panel at which our discussants will provide insight into the publication process drawing on their experience as authors, editorial board members, and editors.

There is no conference fee, and no charge for lunch, coffee breaks and closing reception. Participants must make their own travel arrangements and pay for accommodation – we will provide recommendations of where to stay and hotels with a negotiated preferential rate. Participants are expected to attend for the whole day. If participants wish to extend their trip to enjoy Edinburgh and the surrounding area, we can help with advice and arrangements.

Key Dates

Submission of abstract: January 11, 2018

Notification of acceptance: January 15, 2018

Full paper due: February 23, 2018

Workshop: March 5, 2018

CfP: CHORD Retailing, Architecture and Material Culture

 

CALL FOR PAPERS

CHORD workshop: ‘Retailing, Architecture and Material Culture: Historical Perspectives’

Tuesday 22 May 2018

University of Wolverhampton, UK

The Centre for the History of Retailing and Distribution (CHORD) invites submissions for a workshop that explores the architecture, material environmement, objetcs and material culture of retailing and distribution.

Papers focusing on any historical period or geographical area are welcome, as are reflections on methodology and / or theory. We invite both experienced and new speakers, including speakers without an institutional affiliation. Potential speakers are welcome to discuss their ideas with the organiser before submission (please see details below). Some of the themes that  might be considered include (but are not limited to):

  • The architecture of shops, markets and retail premises
  • Retailing and distribution ephemera
  • Retail exteriors, displays and interiors
  • The material culture of distribution
  • Fixtures, fittings and packaging
  • The restoration and recreation of historical shops
  • Retailing and town planning
  • Retail premises in the wider environment

Individual papers are usually 20 minutes in length, followed by 10 minutes for questions and discussion. We also welcome shorter, 10 minute ‘work in progress’ presentations, also followed by 10 minutes for discussion.

To submit a proposal, please send title and abstract of c.300 to 400 words, specifying whether you are proposing a 10 or a 20 minute presentation to Laura Ugolini, at l.ugolini@wlv.ac.uk by 2 March 2018.

If you are unsure whether to submit a proposal or would like to discuss your ideas before submission, please e-mail Laura Ugolini at l.ugolini@wlv.ac.uk

The workshop will be held in the Mary Seacole (‘MH’) Building, Wolverhampton University City Campus Molineux, a short walk from Wolverhampton’s bus and train stations. Maps and directions are available here:
https://www.wlv.ac.uk/about-us/contacts-and-maps/all-maps-and-directions/map-and-directions-for-city-campus-wolverhampton/

The call for papers is available here:
https://retailhistory.wordpress.com/2017/10/27/workshop-and-call-for-papers-retailing-architecture-and-material-culture-historical-perspectives/

Find out more about this and other CHORD events at https://retailhistory.wordpress.com

For further information, please e-mail Laura Ugolini at: l.ugolini@wlv.ac.uk

CfP: OS summer workshop 2018

Only a day09 left to submit to the

2018 Organization Studies Summer Workshop

Call for Papers

 Responding to Displacement, Disruption, and Division:

Organizing for Social and Institutional Change 

24-26 May 2018

Doryssa Seaside Resort, Samos, Greece

(http://www.doryssa.gr/en/home-page)

 

 Conveners

 W.E. Douglas Creed | University of Rhode Island, USA & University of Melbourne, Australia

Barbara Gray | Pennsylvania State University, USA

Charlotte M. Karam | American University of Beirut, Lebanon

Markus A. Höllerer | WU Vienna, Austria & UNSW Sydney, Australia

Trish Reay | University of Alberta, Canada

Contact: douglascreed@uri.edu

 

The world today is experiencing jarring manifestations of displacement, disruption, and division, making for a troika of societal and institutional upheaval. Clearly we are facing growing social inequality across the globe (Anand & Segal, 2015); Oxfam reports that the richest 1% has accumulated more wealth than the rest of the world’s population combined (BBC News, 2016). The rise in religious and national identity conflicts has spurred a substantial increase in global migration. According to the UN High Commission for Refugees, there is an estimated 65.3 million forcibly displaced persons in the world, with 21.3 million numbering as refugees. Forces such as populism, nationalism, increasing economic inequity, sectarianism, and extreme political polarization look to be undermining the ‘habits of the heart’ that are fundamental to democracy (Putnam, 2000). Some even argue that the very heart of democracy is in need of healing and we must work for a politics commensurate with human dignity (Palmer, 2011). Separately and together, patterns of displacement, disruption, and division will likely rock global society for the foreseeable future – and call for robust organizational and/or institutional responses.

For this 2018 Organization Studies Summer Workshop, we encourage organizational scholars to address these and related grand challenges through the development of research that attempts to further investigate and better understand such displacement, disruption, and division from varied perspectives and levels of analysis. We see that organizational scholars have much to contribute in these domains and we believe that our workshop can be a space for reflection, investigation, and sowing the seeds for future robust action. Although we see strong potential for research from an institutional perspective, we equally welcome submissions grounded in other research traditions. Our key goal is to bring together interested scholars who may be able to shed new light on organizing for social and institutional change in response to these forms of upheaval.

We see strong potential for researchers to build on the growing interest in understanding both how organizational and institutional paradoxes (Tracey & Creed, 2017) are implicated in such grand challenges and how organizations of various sorts can respond. Complex or ‘wicked’ problems (Rittel & Webber, 1973) are likely to require complex solutions involving many different stakeholders (Gray & Purdy, 2018). A variety of tensions may be involved, such as: democracy versus authoritarianism; civil discourse versus demagoguery and intolerance; global versus local; nationalism versus internationalism/globalism; the North versus the ‘Global South’; wealth versus poverty; urban versus rural; and multiculturalism versus ethnocentrism and/or xenophobia. Research focused on the organizational and institutional implications of such tensions could reveal valuable insights.

In framing this call for papers, we see particular value in Ferraro et al.’s (2015) pragmatist perspective that outlines ways of responding to grand challenges based on the concept of robust action.  They draw attention to three strategies which we, as scholars, can also apply in building our knowledge base: creating new participatory architectures that enable prolonged, productive engagement among diverse stakeholders; promoting and sustaining cooperation and coordination through activities that sustain multiple voices, diverse interpretations, and interrelated goals; and experimenting in ways that promote small wins, evolutionary learning, and increased engagement.

We suggest that exploring the organizational and institutional implications of displacement, disruption, and division may require a deeper understanding of the causes and consequences of entrenched oppression and latent power dynamics (Gray & Kish-Gephardt, 2013; Karam & Jamali, 2015; Marti & Mair, 2009; Mair et al., 2016; Creed et al., 2010). We encourage scholars to investigate cases where individuals, groups, or organizations have mobilized in attempts to overcome such deep-rooted problems. Further, we see that addressing the multifarious divisions that run through these problems requires engaging in emotionally fraught encounters and change processes that involve mechanisms spanning the micro, meso, and macro levels of analysis (Hochschild, 2016; Creed & Scully, 2000; Creed et al., 2014; Lok et al., forthcoming). More attention to these processes is important and encouraged.

With this call for papers, we hope to foster academic attention to this broad topical area by creating a workshop environment that is generative and developmental. Consistent with the mandate of Organization Studies, we aim to promote the understanding of organizations, organizing, and the organized, and the social relevance of that understanding in relation to the challenges identified here.

Below we offer our initial thoughts on possible questions and opportunities. However, we stress that this list is not meant to narrow our collective vision. In the spirit of robust academic engagement that is participatory and multi-vocal, and that builds on and contributes to engaged organizational scholarship, we encourage innovative, thoughtful, and provocative submissions from scholars at all stages of their academic careers.

Opportunities for Theorizing and Praxis

  •  What mechanisms explain social and institutional change processes in the context of displacement, disruption, and division?
  • What are tools and mechanisms for organizing around these challenges?
  • What are the implications of displacement and disruption for institutional stability and embeddedness, as well as for the persistence of, or change in distinct inequality regimes?
  • How can we buttress civil society and civility in the face of such challenges?
  • Can conflict be beneficial in promoting voice and resistance to power in this current era of displacement, disruption, and division – and if so, how?
  • What are the multilayered and multi-leveled processes for dealing with resistance and conflict in the face of grand challenges and wicked problems?
  • How can institutions, organizations, and individuals, including scholars, respond more effectively to refugeeism, disenfranchisement, and economic dislocation?

 

Levels of Analysis

  • What are the bottom-up and top-down processes behind mobilizing for change at and across different levels of organizing, and how are they shaping organizational, institutional, and societal responses to these types of upheaval?
  • How can the examination of organizing around displacement, disruption, and division assist in better understanding the microfoundations of institutional change?
  • What practices, unfolding at the micro and meso levels, foster civility and contribute to the healing of polarizing societal rifts?
  • In what ways can civil society innovations be facilitated in the face of multiple and multifaceted global threats?

 

Global and Local Forms of Organizing

  • How do geographical and place-based dynamics affect action and possibilities for change?
  • What are examples of novel forms of organizations and organizing around these wicked problems and what can be learned from them?
  • What are the key forces, patterns, and players involved in building local collaborations against a backdrop of global disruption and global agendas?
  • In what ways can local collaborative partnerships be scaled up and replicated?
  • What is the role of local organizations (e.g., SMEs, cooperatives, non-profits, public sector organizations, and civil society) in responding to displacement and disruption? What are innovative local patterns of organizing for responding to and mitigating the difficulties of disruptive global shifts (Höllerer et al., 2017)?

 

Institutional and Collective Identity Building Efforts

  • What are the possibilities for cross-sectoral collaboration in the face of power differences?
  • What are the possible roles for conflict management and peacemaking?
  • How do we cultivate civility, engagement, and listening in the face of the polarization, hostility, and social demonization that arise as a consequence of displacement, disruption, and division? How do we reach across the ‘empathy wall’ (Hochschild, 2016), and what are the practical next steps?
  • What are the identity dynamics (e.g., gender, race, class, religious) involved and what are the implications for various forms of tensions and responses, ranging from exclusionary backlash to inclusion? What can be learned through applying an identity lens to (re)analyzing disruption and displacement?
  • What are the difficulties in working across differences in privilege and power and how can they be addressed?
  • How are ‘deep stories’ and identities implicated in how persons and local populations respond to disruption, displacement, and division?

 

Submissions

The 13th Organization Studies Workshop will take place on 24-26 May 2017, in Samos, Greece. Interested participants must submit an abstract by December 5th , 2017, through the conference’s website: www.os-workshop.com . Abstracts should be of no more than 1,000 words.

Authors will be notified of acceptance or otherwise by January 15th, 2018. Full papers must be submitted by April 30th, 2018.

The venue of the workshop is Doryssa Seaside Resort (www.doryssa.gr ), in the south east part of Samos island, close to the historic site of Pythagorion. Samos is connected with frequent air services with Athens, the biggest Greek cities and during the tourist season with all Europe. The workshop venue, comfortable, beautiful, and situated by the sea, will provide an ideal setting for participants to relax and engage in authentic and creative dialogues. Further details on the logistics of the workshop will be published through the OS Workshop website (www.os-workshop.com).

Following the workshop, a Special Issue will be announced in Organization Studies. To be considered for publication, papers must be submitted via the OS website at http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/orgstudies by October 31, 2018. There you can also find guidelines for submission and information on the review procedures. Please note that participation in the workshop is highly recommended (but not a prerequisite) if you intend to submit a paper to the Special Issue.

 

References

Anand, S. & P. Segal. 2015. The Global Distribution of Income. In: A. B. Atkinson and F. Bourguignon (Eds.), Handbook of Income Distribution. Volume 2A, Amsterdam: Elsevier, 937-979.

 BBC News. 2016. Oxfam Says Wealth of Richest 1% Equal to Other 99%. January 2018.

http://www.bbc.com/news/business-35339475

Creed, W.E.D., R. DeJordy, & J. Lok. 2010. Being the Change: Resolving Institutional Contradiction through Identity Work. Academy of Management Journal 53(6), 1336-1364.

 Creed, W.E.D., B.A. Hudson, G. Okhuysen, & K. Smith-Crowe. 2014. Swimming in a Sea of Shame: Emotion in Institutional Maintenance and Disruption. Academy of Management Review, 39(3) 275-301.

 Creed, W.E.D. & M. Scully. 2000. Songs of Ourselves: Employees’ Deployment of Social Identity in Work Place Encounters. Journal of Management Inquiry 9(4), 391-412.

Ferraro, F., D. Etzion & J. Gehman. 2015. Tackling Grand Challenges Pragmatically: Robust Action Revisited. Organization Studies 36(3), 363–390.

Gray, B. & J. Kish-Gephart. 2013. Encountering Social Class Differences at Work: How “Class Work” Perpetuates Inequality. Academy of Management Review 38(5), 670-699.

Gray, B. & J.M. Purdy. 2018. Collaborating for Our Future: Confronting Complex Problems through Multi-Stakeholder Partnerships. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

Hochschild, A.R. 2016. Strangers in their Own Land: Anger and Mourning on the American Right. New York: The New Press.

Höllerer, M.A, P. Walgenbach, & G.S. Drori. 2017. The Consequences of Globalization for Institutions and Organizations. In R. Greenwood, R. Meyer, C. Oliver & T. Lawrence (ds.) Handbook of Organizational Institutionalism, 2nd Edition. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Karam, C.M. & D. Jamali. 2015. A Cross-Cultural and Feminist Perspective on CSR in Developing Countries: Uncovering Latent Power Dynamics. Journal of Business Ethics. doi:10.1007/s10551-015-2737-7

 Lok, J., W.E.D. Creed, R. DeJordy, & M. Voronov. 2017. Living Institutions: Bringing Emotions into Organizational Institutionalism. In R. Greenwood, R. Meyer, C. Oliver & T. Lawrence (Eds.) Handbook of Organizational Institutionalism, 2nd Edition. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

 Mair, J., M. Wolf & C. Seelos. 2016. Scaffolding: A Process of Transforming Patterns of Inequality in Small-Scale Societies. Academy of Management Journal 59(6), 2012-2044.

Marti, I. & P. Fernández. 2013. The Institutional Work of Oppression and Resistance: Learning from the Holocaust. Organization Studies 34(8), 1195-1223.

Palmer, P. J. 2011. Healing the Heart of Democracy; The Courage to Create a Politics Worthy of the Human Spirit. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Rittel, H.W. & M.M. Webber. (1973). Dilemmas in a General Theory of Planning. Policy Sciences 4, 155-169.

Tracy, P. & W.E.D Creed. 2017. Beyond Managerial Dilemmas: The Study of Paradoxes in Organizational Theory. In: W.K. Smith, M.W. Lewis, P. Jarzabkowski, & A. Langley (Eds.). The Oxford Handbook of Organizational Paradox. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

E&S: SI on Histories of Business and Inequality

Introduction

Enterprise and Society: The International Journal of Business History is seeking expressions of interest from teams wishing to act as Guest Editors of a Special Issue of the journal on ‘Histories of Business and Inequality.’ This issue will be the first in a new initiative recently announced by Enterprise and Society and Cambridge University Press. This initiative adds a fifth issue to the four published annually by the journal since it was founded in 2000. The new fifth issue, which will be published online, is designed to significantly enhance the reach and impact of business history by creating a space in which to explore inter-disciplinary dialogue and address very large scale problems in ways that are beyond the scope of conventional original research articles and typical thematically focused special issues.
In a significant departure from conventional practice the agenda for this new initiative will be set by the editorial team at Enterprise and Society. We will then seek bids from editorial teams able to show that they can take that agenda and shape it in creative ways that will enhance interdisciplinary dialogue within and beyond the fields of business history and history, leading to important and impactful new insights. The initiative aims to generate not only highly original new research but also, more importantly, bold and ambitious synthetic articles exploring the issue at hand in provocative ways. Successful editorial teams will be given an opportunity to organize a supporting workshop to be held in conjunction with the Annual Meeting of the Business History Conference, on whose behalf Enterprise and Society is published. It is anticipated that the first issue of this initiative will be published in 2020. Please see below for further details of the proposed timeline.

Histories of Business and Inequality

Inequality – economic, social, and cultural – has been a feature of human societies for
millennia. Today, inequality, both within and between societies, is viewed as problematic. Governments and supranational institutions seek to develop policies aimed at the elimination or amelioration of inequality. Has inequality always been viewed as problematic and why is it viewed as problematic today? Critically, how has the relationship between inequality and business enterprises and activities been viewed over time and across societies? Has business been viewed as being responsible for causing inequality? Has it been viewed as having a responsibility to reduce inequality? Can we write histories of business and inequality? What conceptual and methodological challenges would such histories of business and inequality involve? By business we include private organizations of many types—corporations, families, partnerships, business groups, financial, industrial, trading and merchant enterprises, as well as
state owned enterprise and business in non-capitalist societies.

Applying

We seek expressions of interest from outstanding editorial teams. Bids will be assessed on their ability to fulfill the remit of the Special Issue. That ability will be assessed according to both the composition of the editorial team and how they propose to shape and address the chosen theme. Both should be aimed at ensuring interdisciplinary dialogue and scholarship and bold thinking.
Editorial teams must be comprised of a minimum of two individuals and must be
interdisciplinary. Interdisciplinarity is defined as least one member from beyond the field of business history, broadly defined. Team members may be drawn from the wider field of history or other cognate fields of study. International teams will be viewed favorably, as will teams combining established and emerging scholars. Alongside a description of the proposed editorial team, proposals should include a short
document (maximum of two pages, single spaced) outlining how the team proposes to shape and address the theme. The section above in this document outlining the theme of ‘Histories of Business and Inequality’ contains questions that are intended to be indicative only. Proposals should show creativity and initiative in the shaping and addressing the theme of Histories of Business and Inequality. In this respect, the main criteria will be the potential for generating interdisciplinary dialogue and fresh perspectives. This document will form the basis of the successful team’s subsequent Call for Papers. Proposals suggesting a variety of article formats will be welcomed.
It is important to stress that though published online all articles accepted for publication in the Special Issue will be subject to the same peer review and editorial processes as articles appearing in the regular print issues. They will also be produced and formatted to identical standards as those in regular print issues. Articles appearing in the Special Issue will be Enterprise and Society articles in every sense. Proposals, consisting of a description of the proposed editorial team, a document outlining how the theme will be shaped and addressed, and Curriculum Vitae for all team members, should be sent to Editor-in-Chief Andrew Popp by January 31st 2018 at andrew.popp@liverpool.ac.uk.
Enquiries from prospective teams are welcome and can be sent to the same email address.

Timeline

  • Call for Guess Editors issued November 2017
  • Deadline for submission of proposals, January 31st 2018
  • Successful proposal, and its Call for Papers, announced at the Annual Meeting of the Business History Meeting, held in Baltimore, April 5th-7th 2018
  • Supporting developmental workshop held at the Annual Meeting of the Business
    History Conference, Cartegna (Columbia), March 14th-16th 2019, the preceding 11
    months allowing for initial submission, selection and review*
  • Issue published in Spring 2020, the preceding 12 months, approximately, allowing for subsequent review, selection, and production processes. The issue will be numbered and paginated as Vol. 20 No. 5 (2019)

* Attendance at the workshop by authors under consideration is strongly encouraged but not obligatory. Guest Editors will be given significant logistical support in organizing the workshop.

CfP: SI in Management Learning

Call for Papers: Anniversary Special Issue of Management Learning

Celebrating 50 years of Management Learning: Historical reflections at the intersection of the past and future

Deadline for submissions: June 01, 2018

Guest Editors:
Gabrielle Durepos, Mount Saint Vincent University, Canada
Rafael Alcadipani, FGV – EAESP, Brazil
Mairi Maclean, University of Bath, UK
Stephen Cummings, Victoria University of Wellington, New Zealand

Management Learning marks its 50th anniversary in 2020. Management Learning has a long history of publishing critical, reflexive scholarship on organizational knowledge and learning. This special issue provides a forum to celebrate and build on this history through critical and reflective engagement with the past, present and future of management learning, knowledge and education. Taking a historical approach is all the more pressing given recent and impending crises – geo-political, technological, environmental and humanitarian – since some crises only make sense when seen in the fullness of time (Casson and Casson, 2013). We therefore encourage scholarship that challenges the disciplinary past of management knowledge, learning and education and enables more diverse, innovative futures to be imagined.

For more:
http://journals.sagepub.com/pb-assets/cmscontent/MLQ/ML%2050%20anniversary%20SI.pdf

ABH CfP 2018

Association of Business Historians Annual Conference

‘Pluralistic perspectives of business history: gender, class, ethnicity, religion’

The Open University Business School, 29-30 June 2018

Call for papers

The 2018 Association of Business Historians Annual Conference will be held on 29-30 June 2018 at the Open University Business School in Milton Keynes. The conference theme is ‘Pluralistic perspectives of business history: gender, class, ethnicity, religion’. The role of different social groups and identities in business is an important, though under researched, topic in business history. However, there is, increasing recognition that, for example, women were not simply ‘angels in the home’, keeping their distance, when compared with men, from the grime of the industrial revolution and the financial transactions which that involved. Social class had an impact in the City, and Quakers, for example, were important in the banking sector. There is now evidence of women occupying roles, not just as workers but also as lenders, business owners, managers, and investors in significant numbers. To what extent did culture or religions influenced occupation of these roles? There is evidence also that lower social classes did invest to some extent in newly launched companies, as did members of the clergy, as in ‘Widows, clergymen and the reckless’.

This conference aims to explore the impact of gender, social class, ethnicity, and religion on business success, fraud, funding, financial markets, corporate governance, and corporate social responsibility. Proposals for individual papers, or for full sessions, panel discussions or other session formats are invited on this topic, broadly conceived. Specific topics may include, but are not restricted to:

  • Ethnic, religious, class groups and women as entrepreneurs, lenders, investors, managers and/or workers.
  • Archival sources and methodologies to document and analyse different social groups’ participation in business.
  • Comparative studies of different social groups in business.
  • Social groups and business failure.
  • Social roles and relations in the workplace.
  • Cross-cultural issues in business and management.
  • Business and social movements.
  • Cultural, religious, gendered, class-related business networks.
  • Social groups and fraud, business failure, or market bubbles.
  • The influence of the law on different social groups or classes’ financial and business decision making.
  • Social groups or identities and corporate social governance.
  • Social groups, business and philanthropy.
  • Social groups or identities and the family firm.
  • The impact of social groups on business and corporate finance.
  • Social groups or identities, business, legislation and taxation.
  • Gendered, cultural, religious and class preferences for business characteristics.
  • Social groups as colonial and foreign investors.

As always, the ABH also welcomes proposals that are not directly related to the conference theme.

How to submit a paper or session proposal

The program committee will consider both individual papers and entire panels. Individual paper proposals should include a one-page (up to 300 word) abstract and one-page curriculum vitae (CV).

Panel proposals should include a cover letter stating the rationale for the panel and the name of its contact person; one-page (300 word) abstract and author’s CV for each paper; and a list of preferred panel chairs and commentators with contact information.

The deadline for submissions is 15 January 2018.

If you have any questions, please contact the local organisers: dimitris.sotiropoulos@open.ac.uk or Janette.Rutterford@open.ac.uk

Your application for the conference should come through our online submission platform: http://unternehmensgeschichte.de/public/C4

First you make a choice for uploading a single paper or a full-session. After pressing each button you will find a mask guiding you through the upload process. Please have available your CV and your Abstract.

Any other idea regarding the conference – workshops, poster sessions, or panel discussions – must be suggested directly to the Programme Committee.

Submit your Papers and Sessions: http://unternehmensgeschichte.de/public/C4

Call for Tony Slaven Doctoral Workshop in Business History, 28th June 2018

The ABH will hold its seventh annual Tony Slaven Doctoral Workshop on 28 June 2018. This event immediately precedes the 2018 ABH Annual Conference held in Milton Keynes. Participants in the Workshop are encouraged to attend the main ABH Annual Conference following the Workshop. The Workshop is an excellent opportunity for doctoral students to discuss their work with other research students and practicing academics in business history in an informal and supportive environment. Students at any stage of their doctoral career, whether in their first year or very close to submitting, are urged to apply. In addition to providing new researchers with an opportunity to discuss their work with experienced researchers in the discipline, the Workshop will also include at least one skills-related session. The Workshop interprets the term ‘business history’ broadly, and it is intended that students in areas such as (but not confined to) the history of international trade and investment, financial or economic history, agricultural history, not-for-profit organisations, government-industry relations, accounting history, social studies of technology, and historians or management or labour will find it useful. Students undertaking topics with a significant business history element but in disciplines other than economic or business history are also welcome. We welcome students researching any era or region of history. Skills sessions are typically led by regular ABH members; in the past these have included ‘getting published’ and ‘using sources’ sessions. There will be ample time for discussion of each student’s work and the opportunity to gain feedback from active researchers in the field.

How to Apply for the Tony Slaven Workshop

An application should be no more than 4 pages sent together in a single computer file:

1) a one page CV;

2) one page stating the names of the student’s supervisors, the title of the theses (a proposed title is fine), the university and department where the student is registered and the date of commencement of thesis registration;

3) an abstract of the work to be presented. You may apply via email to Dr Mitch Larson at mjlarson@uclan.ac.uk.

Please use the subject line “Tony Slaven Workshop” by the 15 January 2018.

Call for Coleman Prize for Best PhD Dissertation

Named in honour of the British business historian Donald Coleman (1920-1995), this prize is awarded annually by the Association of Business Historians to recognise excellence in new research in Britain. It is open to PhD dissertations in Business History (broadly defined) either having a British subject or completed at a British university. All dissertations completed in the previous calendar year to that of the Prize are eligible. In keeping with the ABH’s broad understanding of business history, applications are strongly encouraged from candidates in economic history, social history, labour history, intellectual history, cultural history, environmental history, the history of science and technology, the history of medicine, or any other subfield. The value of the prize is £500, sponsored by the Taylor & Francis Group, a scholarly publisher. To be eligible for the Prize, finalists must present their findings in person at the Association’s annual conference, held on 29-30 June 2018.

A complete list of previous winners may be found at: http://www.gla.ac.uk/external/ABH/coleman.html

How to Apply for the Coleman Prize

Supervisors are encouraged to nominate recent PhDs, and self-nominations are also strongly welcomed. Please send a PDF including the title of your PhD dissertation and a brief abstract (up to 2 double-spaced pages) to christine.leslie@glasgow.ac.uk by 15 January 2018. Shortlisted candidates will be requested to submit electronic copies of their theses by 15 February 2018. Finalists will be notified by 15 March 2018.

Deadline for All Submissions

The deadline for receipt of all proposals (papers, sessions and panels, Coleman Prize, and Tony Slaven Workshop) is 15 January 2018. Acceptance letters will be sent by 15th March 2018. Everyone appearing on the program must register for the meeting. PhD students whose papers are accepted for the meeting may apply for funds to partially defray their travel costs by applying to the Francesca Carnevali Travel Grant for PhD Students. A limited number of scholarships are available from the Francesca Carnevali fund of the ABH to contribute towards the travel, accommodation, and registration costs of students doing a PhD in the United Kingdom, who are presenting in the Slaven Workshop or the ABH conference. These will be awarded competitively prior to the Workshop. Please indicate in your application whether you would like to be considered for one of these travel grants.

To apply for this grant please email Christine.Leslie@glasgow.ac.uk by 31 March 2018. Further information about the Carnevali Grant will be placed on the ABH website early in the New Year at: http://www.gla.ac.uk/external/ABH Submit your Papers and Sessions: http://unternehmensgeschichte.de/public/C4

BHC Doctoral Colloquium in Business History

The BHC Doctoral Colloquium in Business History will be held once again in conjunction with the 2018 BHC annual meeting. This prestigious workshop, funded by Cambridge University Press, will take place in Baltimore on Wednesday April 4th and Thursday April 5th. Typically limited to ten students, the colloquium is open to doctoral candidates who are pursuing dissertation research within the broad field of business history, from any relevant discipline (e.g., from economic sociology, political science, cultural anthropology, or management, as well as history). Most participants are in year 3 or 4 or their degree program, though in some instances applicants at a later stage make a compelling case that their thesis research has evolved in ways that have led them to see the value of an intensive engagement with business history.

Topics (see link for past examples) may range from the early modern era to the present, and explore societies across the globe. Participants work intensively with a distinguished group of BHC-affiliated scholars (including the incoming BHC president), discussing dissertation proposals, relevant literatures and research strategies, and career trajectories.

Applications are due by 15 November 2017 via email to BHC@Hagley.org and should include: a statement of interest; CV; preliminary or final dissertation prospectus (10-15 pages); and a letter of support from your dissertation supervisor (or prospective supervisor). All participants receive a stipend that partially defrays travel costs to the annual meeting. Applicants will receive notification of the selection committee’s decisions by 20 December 2017.

Questions about the colloquium should be sent to its director, Duke Professor of History Edward Balleisen, eballeis@duke.edu, and/or this year’s graduate student liaison, Alexi Garrett, asg4c@virginia.edu (who participated last year).

CfP: Time in Organizations

Call for Papers
Time in Organizations

23rd Colloquium in the History of Management and Organizations
Paris, Cité Internationale Universitaire

May 22th-23rd 2018

Organizations, such as firms, professions, institutions, etc. are exposed to management
constraints (e.g. accounting terms) and political horizons (e.g. election of professional
association’s chairman, terms of office) that are engaged in a short-time frame.
Yet, the definition of organizations’ strategy is placed on a future strongly dependent on
abilities to imagine forthcoming events. In this sense, organizations’ dynamism is often
linked with the ability to plan for the future.
A third temporality crosses through organizations and refers to a very short period of
time, associated with everyday life. As when one plans for the future, this temporality is
uncertain and unpredictable and often implies to make decisions in emergency
situations.
A fourth temporality consists of looking at the past. Probably “less conscious” than other
temporalities, it still gives a chance to take action and appears to be central to
organizations. It is in this temporality that organization gets enough experience to face
actual situations, to deal with medium-term perspectives and to plan for the future. Put
differently, this fourth temporality shapes the organizational future. In turn, it can also
be shaped by the organization itself that writes/ rewrites its own history and use it to
legitimate specific decisions and broader strategies. Still, this fourth type of temporality
is the one, which probably attracts the least interest in organizations. This lack of
interest is worth scrutinizing.
This conference aims at questioning different types of temporalities within
organizations. In particular, its objectives are to combine different temporalities and to
discuss further the relevance of the past, especially to deal with present and to better
plan for the future. We invite diverse contributions to stress the importance of the past,
to assess the relevance of history for organizations and to seek evaluating its imprint on
current decisions.
The use of history by organizations will be discussed and better specified: to what extent
are organizations interested by their past? Which records are available and which tracks
are used to this effect? Which archives are accessible to write organizational history?
What is the role of archives, the relevance of oral and written evidence as well as the
place of family dynasties in the understanding of organizations?

Three main sub-themes could be discussed in a critical perspective:

  • The use of the past: What is history used for and who could use it? This question has to be placed within specific political, economic, social and family contexts (these could be wars, periods of social conflicts, contexts of filing for bankruptcy, etc.). Historical manipulations, propaganda or advertising analysis, critical outlooks on narratives at the company’s (or its founder) glory written for anniversaries are many potential topics to explore.
  • The sources of the past: Which archival material is accessible to write organizational histories in the case of small or big companies, stable or past businesses? The objective here is to challenge archives and archivists, question the missions of business historians, assess the opportunity to conduct transdisciplinary research and relevant methods to combine different temporalities.
  • The limits of organizational history: In a period of globalization and financialization, what is the point of conducting business history for organizations that are often developed at the national level? To what extent can past events help these organizations to better plan for their future? Why are organizations often that little interested by their past?

All communications that address a critical perspective on temporalities are welcome.
Topics related with the domains of accounting, management as well as strategy, public
management, marketing, and (financial) communication are particularly expected.
More generally and like in previous years, all projects of communications involved with
a historical dimension are welcome.
References:
Brunninge, O., 2009. Using history in organizations: How managers make purposeful reference to history in strategy processes, Journal of organizational Change Management, 22 (1) 8-26.
Bucheli, M., Wadhwani, R.D., 2014. Organizations in Time: History, Theory, Methods, Oxford, Oxford University Press.
Cailluet, L., Lemarchand, Y., 2013. Introduction. L’école d’Orvault ? in L. Cailluet, Y. Lemarchand & M.-E. Chessel (Eds.), Histoire et sciences de gestion. Paris, FNEGE, Vuibert.
Cerutti, M., Fayet, J.-F., Porret, M. (Eds.), 2006. Penser l’archive. Histoires d’archives – archives d’histoire, Lausanne, Editions Antipodes.
Clark, P., Rowlinson, M., 2004. The Treatment of History in Organisation Studies: Towards an “Historic Turn”? Business History. 46, 331–352.
Lipartito, K., 2014. Historical sources and data. in M. Bucheli & R. D. Wadhwani (Eds.),
Organizations in time. History, theory, methods, Oxford, Oxford University Press.
Potin, Y., 2013. L’historien en «ses» archives. in C. Granger (Ed.), A quoi pensent les historiens ? Faire de l’histoire au XXIe siècle, Paris, Editions Autrement.
Prost, A., 2010. Douze leçons sur l’histoire, Paris, Editions du Seuil.
Schultz, M., Hernes, T., 2013. A Temporal Perspective on Organizational Identity. Organization. Science. 24, 1–21.
Suddaby, 2016. “Carte blanche” – Toward a Historical Consciousness: Following the Historic Turn in Management Though. M@n@gement 19, 46–60.
6
Suddaby, R., Foster, W.M., Quinn Trank, C., 2010. Rhetorical history as a source of competitive advantage, in Joel A.C., B., Lampel, J. (Eds.), The Globalization of Strategy Research. Emerald Group Publishing Limited, p. 147–173.
Whetten, D., Foreman, P., Dyer, W.G., 2014. Organizational identity and family business.
Sage handbook in family business, 480–497
Deadlines
Submission and Review of Papers: Short papers (3.000 signs) written either in English or
French should be submitted no later than January 29th, 2018. Full texts will be accepted.
Notification of Acceptance: Notification of papers accepted for inclusion in the conference program will be made by March 19th, 2018.
All papers will be subject to a double-blind refereeing process and will be published on the Conference Web site, unless otherwise advised.
Definitive version of Papers (30.000 in 50.000 signs): April 9th, 2018. Definitive papers should be written either in English or French with summaries in French and English.
Proposals should be sent to: jhmo2018@univ-lr.fr

Scientific Committee
David Alexander, University of Birmingham
Lise Arena, Université Côte d’Azur
Régis Boulat, Université de Haute-Alsace
Eugénie Briot, Université de Marne-la-Vallée
Ludovic Cailluet, EDHEC Business School
Garry Carnegie, RMIT University. Editor for Accounting History
Mathieu Floquet, Université de Lorraine
Patrick Fridenson, EHESS, Chief Editor for Entreprises et Histoire
Éric Godelier, Ecole Polytechnique
Hélène Gorge, Université de Lille-Skema Business School
André Grelon, Ecole des Hautes Etudes en Sciences Sociales
Pierre Labardin, Université de Paris-Dauphine
Eve Lamendour, Université de la Rochelle
Yannick Lemarchand, Université de Nantes
Cheryl Mc Watters, University of Alberta. Editor for Accounting History Review (to be confirmed)
Laurence Morgana, CNAM
Marc Nikitin, Université d’Orléans
Éric Pezet, Université Paris X – Nanterre
Andrew Popp, University of Liverpool. Chief Editor for Enterprise and Society
Nicolas Praquin, Université Paris-Sud
Paulette Robic, Université de Nantes
Jean-Luc Rossignol, Université de Franche-Comté
Béatrice Touchelay, Université de Lille
Organizing Committee
Lise Arena, Université Côte d’Azur
Régis Boulat, Université de Haute-Alsace
Mathieu Floquet, Université de Lorraine
Hélène Gorge, Université de Lille
Pierre Labardin, Université de Paris-Dauphine
Eve Lamendour, Université de la Rochelle
Eric Pezet, Université Paris X – Nanterre
Paulette Robic, Université de Nantes
Béatrice Touchelay, Université de Lille