Video: Business & Management in the Age of Nationalism

And at long last, here is the video from the All Academy session on business & management in the Age of Nationalism:–Global-Events-and-Management-Scholarship/Business-and-Management-in-the-Age-of-Nationalism.aspx

(And as usual, they could not have found a still from the video in which I do not look terrible. I know people say this a lot but this really is a bad one…)


AOM PDW on Historic CSR

AOM accepted a great PDW for this year’s conference on the role of history and corporate social responsibility – come along if you are attending this year!

Call for Papers

Historic Corporate Responsibility: Its Extent, Limits, and Consequences

The guest editors of the Journal of Business Ethics Special Issue on Historic Corporate Social Responsibility will arrange a paper development workshop at the Academy of Management Conference in Chicago.

There is a growing awareness of the critical but understudied role of time and history in the challenges we face in the present and the future. Businesses, universities, governments, and organizations in myriad industries and of all sizes are increasingly held to account for the actions of prior generations of leaders. The lingering effects of Monsanto’s Agent Orange, Yale University’s decision to change the name of Calhoun College, and controversies around the world concerning commemorations of leaders with complicated pasts (e.g., indigenous peoples, slavery) barely scratch the surface of this global phenomenon.

Scholars in management theory have become aware of an important  “historical turn” in organizational theory (Bucheli & Wadhwani, 2014; Maclean, Harvey, & Clegg, 2016; Mills, Suddaby, Foster & Durepos, 2016; Rowlinson, Hassard, & Decker, 2014). A recent issue of Academy of Management Review (Godfrey, Hassard, O’Connor, Rowlinson, & Ruef, 2016) included two articles addressing corporate (ir-)responsibility for long ago actions (Mena, Rintamäki, Fleming, & Spicer, 2016; Schrempf-Stirling, Palazzo, & Phillips, 2016). Though this work focuses largely on legacies of bad behavior, it may also be interesting to consider organizations with a history of being first movers on historically controversial issues. Similarly, recent work on the role of time and temporality in encouraging sustainable management practices (i.e. Slawinski & Bansal, 2015) and the observation that our implicit models of history affect our capacity to effect social change (Suddaby & Foster, 2017) reaffirms the importance of adopting a historical consciousness (Suddaby, 2016) when analyzing sustainability and corporate social responsibility (Stutz & Sachs, 2018). These contributions represent the beginning of a deeper and broader conversation about historic corporate responsibility.

PDW Overview

Each selected participant will present a brief summary of their work and include research appetizers (questions) for five minutes.

After the research appetizers have been presented, there will be roundtable discussions. The roundtables will provide the opportunity for further elaboration and in-depth discussion of the presented research topics. The discussions will be facilitated by mentors who read the submitted papers in advance. Confirmed discussants include Stephanie Decker (Aston Business School), Gabrielle Durepos (Mount Saint Vincent University), Paul C. Godfrey (Brigham Young University), Stefan Hielscher (University of Bath), Michael Rowlinson (University of Exeter), Sébastien Mena (Cass Business School), and Roy R. Suddaby (University of Victoria and Newcastle University).

The roundtable discussions will last about 20 minutes. After the discussion, the workshop participants will reconvene into a larger group to report their findings.

Submission Information and Deadlines

Scholars interested in presenting their work are asked to submit an abstract (no more than 2’000 words or 8 pages all in) to the PDW organizers at by April 15, 2018 (please use AOM PDW in the subject line).

Accepted authors will be asked to submit a full paper (8,000-10,000 words) by July 1, 2018.

We welcome submissions on the following topics and questions amongst others:

  1. Contours and Extent of Historic Corporate Responsibility
  • What, if anything, can current leaders do to recognize or mitigate responsibility today for past actions?
  • What is the role of forgetting and selective remembering?
  • Can the past be a strategic advantage for the organization? Is this an ethical aim given our limits on knowing the truth about the past?
  1. Boundaries and Limits of Historic Corporate Responsibility
  • How do different legal, political, economic, social, or cultural contexts of the past pose problems to current organizations that face historic corporate responsibility?
  • How does the changing nature of the corporation influence our working understanding of historic corporate responsibility?
  • When has a corporation done enough in regards to its historic responsibilities?
  1. Consequences of Historic Corporate Responsibility
  • Can an organization apologize and who can accept it? Could an apology benefit current and future societies?
  • Should stigma attach to individuals who were participants in past transgressions? How do we define participants and to what extent did they have choices in their past actions?
  • If there is no “single truth” about the past, then why should organizations engage in historic corporate responsibility?
  1. Historical inquiry into the “history” of CSR, the transformation of business-society relationships and the evolution CSR practices
  • How have CSR practices changed over time? How are they shaped by their particular historical contexts?
  • Does the examination of socially responsible business practices in particular historical settings shed new light on contemporary CSR scholarship?
  • What can we learn from historical contextualization of past academic insights?


Bucheli, M., & Wadhwani, R. D. (Eds.). (2014). Organizations in time: History, theory, methods. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

Godfrey, P. C., Hassard, J., O’Connor, E. S. O., Rowlinson, M., & Ruef, M. (2016). What is organizational history? Toward a creative synthesis of history and organization studies. Academy of Management Review, 41(4), 590–608.

Maclean, M., Harvey, C., & Clegg, S. R. (2016). Conceptualizing historical organization studies. Academy of Management Review, 41(4), 609–632.

Mena, S., Rintamäki, J., Fleming, P., & Spicer, A. (2016). On the forgetting of corporate irresponsibility. Academy of Management Review, 41(4), 720–738.

Mills, A. J., Suddaby, R., Foster, W. M., & Durepos, G. (2016). Re-visiting the historic turn 10 years later: Current debates in management and organizational history – an introduction. Management & Organizational History, 11(2), 67–76.

Rowlinson, M., Hassard, J., & Decker, S. (2014). Research strategies for organizational history: A dialogue between historical theory and organization theory. Academy of Management Review, 39(3), 250–274.

Schrempf-Stirling, J., Palazzo, G., & Phillips, R. A. (2016). Historic corporate social responsibility. Academy of Management Review, 41(4), 700–719.

Slawinski, N., & Bansal, P. (2015). Short on Time: Intertemporal Tensions in Business Sustainability. Organization Science, 26(2), 531–549.

Stutz, C., & Sachs, S. (2018). Facing the normative challenges: The potential of reflexive historical research. Business & Society, 57(1), 98–130.

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

Suddaby, R. (2016). Toward a historical consciousness: Following the historic turn in management thought. M@n@gement, 19(1), 46–60.


VIU Summer School in responsible capitalism 2018

Responsible Capitalism: Micro and Macro-institutional Conditions of Transformation

III Edition
June 25 – 28, 2018

The summer school on Responsible Capitalism is an initiative of VIU in cooperation with the two member universities Ca’ Foscari University of Venice and University of Lausanne.

It aims at the development of ideas that promote a more sustainable future by bringing together young scholars from all over the world to discuss their ideas on the future of Capitalism from the microlevel of individual decision-making to the organizational and the societal level.

It gives participants the opportunity to discuss with eminent scholars in management theory and to test their ideas and present their work.

Participants will be made familiar with recent research from a broad set of disciplines. They will work on their ability to engage in the transdisciplinary discourse which is required for the development of innovative answers to grand sustainability challenges.

Who is it for?
Applications are welcome from current PhD students, post-doc researchers in Management, Strategy, Organization Theory, Finance, Economic Sociology, and related disciplines from universities worldwide.

Deadline for submissions
February 28, 2018; admitted candidates will be notified by March 7, 2018.

Program theme
Capitalism is facing a historically unprecedented legitimacy crisis. Accumulating social and environmental side effects, disconnected financial markets, and a growing gap between the rich and the poor create grand challenges which require fundamental changes in how we produce and consume. While the importance and urgency of sustainability is rarely challenged, deep processes of transformation usually face numerous institutional and psychological barriers that have to be overcome. As Jared Diamond described in his book “Collapse”, civilizations often react to a crisis of which they do not understand the causalities by reinforcing the routines that might have created the crisis in the first place. Understanding the institutional and psychological forces that block and/or enable deep transformations is a key aspect of responsible capitalism. The Venice Summer School 2018 will investigate those forces on the individual, organizational and societal level.

Francesco Zirpoli, Università Ca’ Foscari Venezia (Coordinator)
Marie-Laure Djelic, Sciences Po
Giovanni Favero, Università Ca’ Foscari Venezia
Johanna Mair, Hertie School of Governance/ Stanford University
Guido Palazzo, University of Lausanne
Juliane Reinecke, King’s Business School

A Certificate of attendance will be issued at the end of the course.
Number of ECTS credits allocated: 2

Application via VIU website now available (see box in this page)

The Program will admit 15 student participants.

Students of VIU member universities: € 200 incl. VAT.
Students of other universities: € 300 incl. VAT.

The fees will cover tuition, course materials, accommodation in multiple rooms at the VIU campus, lunches in the VIU cafeteria and Social events.
Student participants will be responsible for covering their own travel expenses to and from Venice and local transportation.


For further information:


Global Neoliberalism conference

Global Neoliberalisms: Lost and Found in Translation

This conference aims to provide a truly global account of the rise and entrenchment of the modern neoliberal order. Contributors will consider how neoliberal ideas travelled (or did not travel) across regions and polities; and analyse how these ideas were translated between groups and regions as embodied behaviours and business practices as well as through the global media and international organisations. As the fate of neoliberalism appears in question across many regions, it is an opportune moment to make sense of its ascendancy on a global scale.

Professor James Mark, University of Exeter
Professor Richard Toye, University of Exeter
Dr Ljubica Spaskovska, University of Exeter
Dr Tobias Rupprecht, University of Exeter

Speakers include:
Professor Jennifer Bair, University of Virginia
Professor Susan Bayly, University of Cambridge
Professor Johanna Bockman, George Mason University
Professor Stephanie Decker, Aston Business School
Mr Julian Gewirtz, University of Oxford
Professor Vanessa Ogle, UC Berkeley
Professor Daisuke Ikemoto, Meijigakuin University
Professor Artemy Kalinovsky, University of Amsterdam
Dr Alexander Kentikelenis, University of Oxford
Professor Pun Ngai, Hong Kong University
Professor Pal Nyiri, University of Amsterdam
Professor David Priestland, University of Oxford
Professor Bernhard Rieger, University of Leiden
Professor Quinn Slobodian, Wellesley College and Harvard University
Dr Jorg Wiegratz, University of Leeds

A registration fee is payable at the time of booking. For further information and details of how to book please click on ‘Book event’.

Standard Admission: £95 for both days; £50 for one day
Early Bird booking (before 31 January 2018): £75 for both days; £40 for one day
Concessions: £36 for both days; £20 for one day



BAM event: Management History and Strategy in Conversation

Book Your Place NowJoint SIG Event: Management History and Strategy In Conversation – Can Movements Inform Responsibility?

The BAM Management and Business History and the BAM Strategy SIG are delighted to announce that joint SIG event, Management History and Strategy In Conversation – Can Movements Inform Responsibility? is taking place on Thursday 1st March 2018, at Newcastle Business School, Northumbria University from 13.00 – 16.30.

There is continued and increasing academic interest in corporate responsibility and how this interacts and informs strategic management. On the one hand, contemporary movements such as the UN Global Compact sustainable development goals, as well as initiatives such as B-corporation accreditation have gained increasing attention, and yet what strategizing managers can learn from historical movements has received less attention. This seminar seeks to redress this balance. We bring together academics with expertise in the management history of movements such as the cooperative movement, credit unions, the mutuality movement, how Quakers as a religious movement left their mark, and we explore a case study of how Taylor’s scientific management was enacted in a ‘responsible’ business context.

The aim is to bring together researchers and doctoral students from academic and management contexts. We will outline the latest research being conducted in historical movements and discuss what lessons can be learned by contemporary organisations.

The benefits of such an event include increasing awareness of the types and foci of research in this community, to look for synergies in research streams such as strategy, responsible business, management history, and law, etc, and to find ways of collaborating that build bridges between different disciplines. We hope that participants will influence this discussion and the directions in which research could travel.

Who Should Attend

This event is aimed at researchers and doctoral students who are interested in how academic research interests can be aligned and who wish to collaborate across different fields.


  • Prof John Wilson – Northumbria University
  • Sallyanne Decker – Greenwich University
  • Mark Billings – Exeter University
  • John Quail – York University
  • Nicholas Burton – Northumbria University

Event Fee 

  • BAM Student members: FREE
  • BAM members: FREE
  • Non-BAM members: £20

Date: Thursday 1st March
Time: 13.00 – 16.30
Location: City Campus East Lecture Theatre 002, Newcastle Business School, Northumbria University, Newcastle, NE1 8ST


For specific information about this event please contact the workshop facilitator(s):

Dr Nicholas Burton – 

For general enquiries please contact the BAM Office on +44(0)2073837770, or at


Conference on Historicism as a polemical concept

Historicism as a Polemical Concept in the Humanities and Social Sciences, 1890-1980

Although “historicism” is a many-headed monster, notorious for being defined in different ways by different groups of scholars, there seems to be consensus at least on Historismus being a nineteenth-century phenomenon. Whether historicism is defined as the scholarly paradigm represented by Leopold von Ranke, as a worldview propagated by counter-Enlightenment intellectuals such as Johann Gottfried von Herder, as “neo-styles” in art and architecture, or as a perspectival theory of knowledge, its key representatives all belonged to “the long nineteenth century” (1789-1914). Judging by the secondary literature, then, “historicism” is a label for nineteenth-century modes of thought, which in the early decades of the twentieth century made way for a variety of “modernist” approaches in history, philosophy, art, and architecture.

How convincing is this consensus? If we treat historicism not as a descriptive label, but as an actors’ category used by historical agents themselves, it quickly turns out that “historicism” is a term of late nineteenth-century origin, that it was used most frequently in the early and mid-twentieth centuries, and, most importantly, that “historicism” was more a polemical term than a descriptive label. When twentieth-century scholars, artists, or intellectuals warned against “historicism,” they didn’t criticize a nineteenth-century school, but drew attention to what they perceived as dangerous implications of a then-current way of thinking, feeling, or behaving vis-à-vis history. For them, “historicism” typically was a word of warning, sometimes even a term of abuse, the rhetorical, emotional, and political aspects of which were as important as their referential function.

Examples not only include Karl Popper, whose famous diatribe against “historicism” tried to exorcise the spirit of Hegel and Marx, but also a range of well and lesser known sociologists, economists, political theorists, historians, theologians, and philosophers, who feared that something essential was undervalued or ignored by the method, paradigm, or worldview they called “historicism.” Often the phrase did not refer to the past per se, but to a bleak future perceived to be looming when historically informed performances of Baroque music, contextual treatments of philosophical disputes, or historical critical readings of sacred scriptures were to gain dominance.

What happens when “historicism” is studied as an emotionally charged Kampfbegriff, employed by a variety of authors in and outside the humanities and social sciences from roughly the 1890s until late into the twentieth century? Apart from challenging the conventional wisdom that historicism was a nineteenth-century phenomenon, this approach seems to have four potential advantages, which are briefly alluded to in our subtitle:


  1. Perceptions: In the best tradition of the history of concepts (Begriffsgeschichte), it stimulates historians to be attentive to distinct and changing usages of the term. What did “historicism” mean to specific authors in specific temporal, geographical, and disciplinary contexts?
  2. Beliefs: It encourages historians to interpret the perceived dangers of “historicism” as indices of preciously held beliefs about history, the past, or past-present relations. What “relations to the past” or regimes of historicity did critics of “historicism” try to defend?
  3. Emotions: Drawing on an emotional turn in cultural and intellectual history, it invites historians to examine the anxiety, anger, and worry behind criticism of “historicism.” Why was the tone of the polemics often accusing or complaining and what does this convey about the critics’ concerns?
  4. Transfers: It challenges historians not to study isolated case studies, but to examine the spread and transfer of language of “historicism” across linguistic and disciplinary boundaries. Is it true that musicologists borrowed the phrase from art historians, to what extend did architectural concerns resemble the worries of theologians and philosophers, and if “historicism” wasn’t as prominent a term in France as it was in Germany and England, was there an equivalent concept in French?


These are central questions for a two-day workshop scheduled to take place on August 30-31, 2018, in the seventeenth-century Trippen House in Amsterdam that serves as the seat of the Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences (KNAW).

In addition to keynote lectures by Garry Dorrien (Columbia University / Union Theological Seminary), David N. Myers (Center for Jewish History, New York / University of California Los Angeles), and George Steinmetz (University of Michigan), the organizers are soliciting proposals for 20-minute papers addressing one or more of the questions listed above. Abstracts of 200-300 words are due by February 15 (this is an extended deadline!), 2018, and can be send to Adriaan van Veldhuizen at

The workshop is organized by Herman Paul and Adriaan van Veldhuizen (Leiden University) in the context of a project entitled “The Demands of Our Time,” funding for which is provided by the Thorbecke Fund (KNAW). For more information, please contact Adriaan van Veldhuizen at


Independent Social Research Foundation workshop

Relating Pasts and Presents: History of Science and Social Science

26-28 September 2018
Harnack-Haus, Berlin

The 2018 ISRF Workshop pursues the line of thought emerging from last year’s ‘Today’s Futures’, that to plan intelligently for the future we need to pay attention to the past. But what happens when social scientists and historians meet and talk? Particularly, when the ISRF’s fellows meet historians of knowledge at the Max Planck Institute for the History of Science in Berlin.

The ISRF’s commitment is to support research which is interdisciplinary and reflexively critical, and seeks new theories and methods for understanding the conditions of life as it is lived by human beings now. In the 2018 Workshop we plan a wide-ranging exploration of how a sensibility to the history of knowledge might inspire thinking in social science. With a format of short research presentations, thematic discussions, dialogues across disciplines, and participants’ creative responses, the ISRF will engage with scholars at the Max Planck Institute over what history of science and social science might make of one another.

Register here


CfP 8th OAP workshop

We would like to draw your attention to the Call for abstracts for the 8th Organizations, Artifacts & Practices (OAP) workshop that will take place between the 21st-22nd June 2018, Amsterdam (OAP website)

Conference Theme: New Ways of Working (NWW): Rematerializing
Organizations in the Digital Age

CFP 8th OAP workshop

Abstract submission (1000 words): January, 29th, 2018
Notification of acceptance: February, 16th, 2018

Please note:
Abstracts should be submitted via easychair:

The abstracts should include the name, affiliation and email address of the author(s).


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:

Deadline: 31 January 2018

The conference will take place between 20-23 June 2018, Porto Carras Grand Resort, Halkidiki, Greece (


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



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


Juliane Reinecke, Warwick Business School, 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

 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

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 ( 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).


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)


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


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:


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.


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

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