Historical Methods in Management and Organizational Research: A Bibliography

In preparation for the development workshops devoted to methods (see Clio Palooza above) we have created a preliminary bibliography of references of papers, chapters, and books devoted to historical methods in management and organizational research. If you’ve got suggested additions to the list please let us know by coming to one of the sessions or by commenting on this post.

Historical Methods in Management and Organizational Research:
A Bibliography
August 2017

Coraiola, D.M., Foster, W.M. and Suddaby, R., 2015. Varieties of history in organization studies. The Routledge companion to management and organizational history, pp.206-221.

Decker, S., 2013. The silence of the archives: Business history, post-colonialism and archival ethnography. Management & Organizational History8(2), pp.155-173.

Decker, S., 2015. Mothership reconnection. The Routledge Companion to Management and Organizational History, p.222.

Durepos, G. and Mills, A.J., 2012. Actor-network theory, ANTi-history and critical organizational historiography. Organization19(6), pp.703-721.

Forbes, Daniel P., and David A. Kirsch. “The study of emerging industries: Recognizing and responding to some central problems.” Journal of Business Venturing 26, no. 5 (2011): 589-602.

Godfrey, P.C., Hassard, J., O’Connor, E.S., Rowlinson, M. and Ruef, M., 2016. What is organizational history? Toward a creative synthesis of history and organization studies. Academy of Management Review41(4), pp.590-608.

Heller, M. (20016). ‘Foucault, Discourse and the Birth of Public Relations’, Enterprise & Society, 17(3): 651-677.

Harvey, C. and Press, J., 1996. Databases in historical research: Theory, methods and applications. London: Macmillan.

Kirsch, D., Moeen, M. and Wadhwani, R.D., 2014. Historicism and industry emergence: industry knowledge from pre-emergence to stylized fact. Organizations in time: History, theory, methods217.

Kipping, M., Wadhwani, R.D. and Bucheli, M., 2014. Analyzing and interpreting historical sources: A basic methodology. Organizations in time: History, theory, methods, pp.305-329.

Lipartito, K., 2014. Historical sources and data. Organizations in time: History, theory, methods, pp.284-304.

Maclean, M., Harvey, C. and Clegg, S.R., 2016. Conceptualizing historical organization studies. Academy of Management Review41(4), pp.609-632.

Maclean, M., Harvey, C. and Clegg, S.R., 2017. Organization Theory in Business and Management History: Present Status and Future Prospects. Business History Review91(4), forthcoming.

Murmann, J. P. (2010). “Constructing Relational Databases to Study Life Histories on Your PC or Mac.” Historical Methods: A Journal of Quantitative and Interdisciplinary History 43(3): 109 – 123.

Pfefferman, T., 2016. Reassembling the archives: business history knowledge production from an actor-network perspective. Management & Organizational History11(4), pp.380-398.

Rowlinson, M., Hassard, J. and Decker, S., 2014. Research strategies for organizational history: A dialogue between historical theory and organization theory. Academy of Management Review39(3), pp.250-274.

Stutz, C. and Sachs, S., 2016. Facing the Normative Challenges: The Potential of Reflexive Historical Research. Business & Society, p.0007650316681989.

Taylor, S., 2015. Critical hermeneutics for critical organizational history. The Routledge Companion to Management and Organizational History, p.143.

Vaara, E. and Lamberg, J.A., 2016. Taking historical embeddedness seriously: Three historical approaches to advance strategy process and practice research. Academy of Management Review41(4), pp.633-657.

Taylor, S., Bell, E. and Cooke, B., 2009. Business history and the historiographical operation. Management & Organizational History4(2), pp.151-166.

Wadhwani, R.D., 2016. Historical Methods for Contextualizing Entrepreneurship Research. In A Research Agenda for Entrepreneurship and Context. Edward Elgar Publishing, Incorporated.

Wadhwani, R.D. and Decker, S. 2017. “Clio’s Toolkit: The Practice of Historical Methods in Organization Studies,” (with Stephanie Decker) In Sanjay Jain and Raza Mir (eds.) Routledge Companion to Qualitative Research in Organization Studies New York: Taylor and Francis, pp. 113-127.

JoAnne Yates, “Understanding Historical Methods in Organization Studies,” in Marcelo Bucheli and R. Daniel Wadhwani, eds., Organizations in Time: History, Theory, Methods (Oxford: Oxford University Press: 2013), pp. 265-283.

JoAnne Yates, “Time, History, and Materiality,” in Materiality and Time: Historical Perspectives on Organizations, Artefacts and Practices, ed. Francois-Xavier de Vaujany, Nathalie Mitev, Pierre Laniray, Emmanuelle Vaast (London: Palgrave McMillan: 2014), pp. 17-33.

 

Clio Palooza at Academy of Management

This year, the Paper Development Workshops sponsored by the Management History Division at the Academy of Management will feature a series of sessions on historical methods. If you are attending the AoM, please consider joining us. And please let others who may be interested know about these sessions. A listing of sessions, presenters, and locations can be found below.

Historical Methods for Management and Organizational Research

Aug 4, 12:15-2:45pm, Hyatt Embassy Hall E

Coordinator: Stephanie DeckerAston Business School

Coordinator: Diego CoraiolaU. of Alberta

Participant: William FosterU. of Alberta

Participant: JoAnne YatesMIT Sloan School of Management

Participant: Matthias KippingSchulich School of Bus, York U.

Participant: Michael RowlinsonU. of Exeter

Presenter: Christina LubinskiCopenhagen Business School

 

Some Words, A Story, Some Methods, and a Weapons Platform

Aug 4, 12:15pm-2:15pm, Hyatt Embassy Hall G

Coordinator: Andrew CardowMassey U.

Participant: Mie AugierNaval Postgraduate School

Participant: Maciej WorkiewiczESSEC Business School

Participant: M J PrietulaEmory U.

 

Frontiers of Digital History: Methods and Tools

Aug 4, 2:00pm – 4:00pm, Hyatt Hanover Hall E

Presenter: Michael RowlinsonU. of Exeter

Organizer: Robin GustafssonAalto U.

Presenter: Charles Edward HarveyNewcastle U.

Presenter: Mirko ErnkvistRatio Institute

Presenter: Mairi MacleanU. of Bath

Presenter: Johann Peter MurmannU. of New South Wales

Organizer: Mirko ErnkvistRatio Institute

Moderator: Robin GustafssonAalto U.

Presenter: David A. KirschU. of Maryland

 

The Linguistic Turn in Management and Organizational History

August 5, 12:30pm-2pm. Hyatt, Embassy Hall A

Participant: Michael HellerBrunel U.

Participant: Michael RowlinsonU. of Exeter

Participant: Ulf ThoeneU. de La Sabana

Participant: Ellen KorsagerCopenhagen Business School

Participant: Anders SorensenCopenhagen Business School

 

Using Accounting Records for Management History

August 5, 2:45-pm-4:15pm Hyatt, Harris

Organizer: James M. WilsonU. of Glasgow

Presenter: Kirsten KininmonthU. of Glasgow

Presenter: Sam McKinstryU. of the West of Scotland

 

 

 

Call for Papers: Corporate Reputation

CALL FOR PAPERS
Journal of Business Ethics
Special Issue theme: “Linking Corporate Reputation and Accountability: Antecedents, Mechanisms, Paradoxes, and Outcomes”

Deadline: January 1, 2018

Guest Editors:
Craig E. Carroll, New York University, craig.carroll@nyu.edu
Rowena Olegario, Saïd Business School, University of Oxford, rowena.olegario@sbs.ox.ac.uk

Accountability is a concept about being answerable to someone for something that matters. It requires the accountor to be capable of being observed, monitored, and evaluated through its willingness to provide material information and provides clear consequences for failure. Scholars have investigated the roles of corporate governance, CSR reporting, auditors, and credit rating agencies, in upholding – or failing to uphold – corporate accountability (Bendell, 2005; Brennan & Solomon, 2008; Coffee, 2002; Gray, et. al., 1997; Newell, 2005; Partnoy, 1999; Utting, 2008; Valor, 2005). Yet even with these recent studies, corporate accountability remains under-researched and under-theorized.

Many studies of corporate reputation, as well as business folk-wisdom, assume that reputation is a mechanism for keeping companies honest, a crucial attribute of accountability. As business magnate Warren Buffet famously observed: “It takes twenty years to build a reputation and five minutes to ruin it. If you think about that, you’ll do things differently.” Implicit in Buffett’s formulation is the notion that the threat of losing a good reputation always constrains corporate opportunism. Yet recent and classic examples illustrate that even prominent public firms, which stand to lose the most from a tarnished reputation, engage in dishonest behavior for the sake of short-term benefits. At the same time, there are multiple cases of companies that have engaged in malfeasance without suffering lasting reputational harm. In 2017, for example, Volkswagen reported healthy sales despite having been subjected to fines and negative media scrutiny of its emissions cheating. Given that there are so many exceptions to the ‘Buffett rule,’ it is imperative to ask what role reputation plays in holding companies to account, provided that all organizations even care about their reputations in the first place.

We believe that this is an optimal moment to explicitly link the constructs of accountability and corporate reputation. In the past, scholars have equated accountability with being responsible (Lorenzo-Molo & Udani, 2013) or viewed accountability as an outcome of disclosing CSR investment (Brown-Liburd, Cohen, Zamora (in press). Only a few studies have specifically investigated how reputation constrains corporate wrongdoing (Lin-Hi and Blumberg, 2016; Wright, 2016; Sampath, Gardberg, Rahman, 2016; He, Pittman, and Rui, 2016; Hardeck and Hertl, 2014; Ma and Parks, 2012; Reuber and Fischer, 2010; Frances-Gomez and del Rio, 2008; Sacconi, 2007). Accountability, CSR, and corporate reputation are linked– many corporations engage in CSR precisely because they hope to burnish their reputations–but there is growing skepticism about the authenticity, effectiveness, and sufficiency of CSR disclosure and engagement for holding organizations accountable.

Our proposal then is to begin theorizing new ways that reputation can be linked with accountability. We welcome theoretical and empirical papers from a wide range of social science and humanities traditions, particularly on the following questions and approaches:

1. What are the links between corporate reputation, accountability, and ethics?

The special issue calls for papers to reflect upon the nature, full extent, and variety of configurations that can exist between reputation and accountability.

  • Which theoretical lenses explain the opportunities, risks, paradoxes, successes, and failures of reputation mechanisms?
  • How do definitions, goals, and criteria for corporate accountability differ for people on Main Street vs. Wall Street, and how do these different understandings affect the practice and efficacy of reputation mechanism?
  • To what extent are favorable perceptions of an organization’s social, financial, and environmental performance an outcome of, a precursor of, a substitute for, or a means to avoid, corporate accountability? Can transparency be used to avoid accountability?
  • What are the ethical issues at play when excellent performance in one sphere (for example, offering a highly popular consumer product) moderates, distracts, or compensates from poor reputations in other spheres (such as a corporation’s contributions to environmental degradation)?

2. What are the unexplored, adverse, unanticipated and paradoxical relationships between corporate reputation, accountability, and ethics? What are the impacts upon performance of these different relationships?

The special issue seeks papers that look ahead at how instituting accountability mechanisms creates new organization-society dynamics.

  • Is there/will there be such a thing as too much accountability? If so, how does this change our understanding of what constitutes ethical practices?
  • What is the relationship between ‘facts,’ reputation, and accountability? How will recent developments in online platforms and social media change those dynamics in the business sphere?
  • How does organizational performance change the relationship between reputation and accountability? How does accountability change the relationship between reputation and organizational performance?
  • What are the consequences for personal, organizational, and societal health?

References
Bendell, J. (2005). In Whose Name? The Accountability of Corporate Social Responsibility. Development in Practice 15 (3-4): 362-374. doi: 10.1080/09614520500075813

Brennan, N.M. and Solomon, J. (2008). Corporate Governance, Accountability and Mechanisms of Accountability: An Overview. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal 21 (7): 885-906. doi:10.1108/09513570810907401

Brown-Liburd, H., Cohen, J., & Zamora, V. L. (in press) CSR Disclosure Items Used as Fairness Heuristics in the Investment Decision. Journal of Business Ethics, 1-15. doi:10.1007/s10551-016-3307-3

Buffett, M. & Clark, D. (2006). The Tao of Warren Buffett: Warren Buffett’s Words of Wisdom.

Coffee, J.C. (2002). Understanding Enron: ‘It’s About the Gatekeepers, Stupid.’ The Business Lawyer 57 (4): 1403-1420. http://www.jstor.org/stable/40688097.

Frances-Gomez, P. & del Rio, A. (2008). Stakeholder’s Preference and Rational Compliance: A Comment on Sacconi’s ‘CSR as a Model for Extended Corporate Governance II: Compliance, Reputation and Reciprocity.’ Journal of Business Ethics 82(1) 59-76. doi:10.1007/s10551-007-9562-6

Gray, R., Day, C., Owen, D., Evans, R., and Zadek, S. (1997). Struggling with the Praxis of Social Accounting. Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal 10 (3): 325-364. doi:10.1108/09513579710178106

Hardeck, I., & Hertl, R. (2014). Consumer Reactions to Corporate Tax Strategies: Effects on Corporate Reputation and Purchasing Behavior. Journal of Business Ethics, 123(2), 309-326. doi:10.1007/s10551-013-1843-7.

He, X., Pittman, J., & Rui, O. (2016). Reputational Implications for Partners After a Major Audit Failure: Evidence from China. Journal of Business Ethics, 138(4), 702-722. doi: 10.1007/s10551-015-2770-6

Lin-Hi, N. & Blumberg, I. (in press). The Link Between (Not) Practicing CSR and Corporate Reputation: Psychological Foundations and Managerial Implications. Journal of Business Ethics. 10.1007/s10551-016-3164-0

Ma, L., & McLean Parks, J. (2012). Your Good Name: The Relationship Between Perceived Reputational Risk and Acceptability of Negotiation Tactics. Journal of Business Ethics, 106(2), 161-175. doi:10.1007/s10551-011-0987-6.

Newell, P. (2005). Citizenship, Accountability and Community: The Limits of the CSR Agenda. International Affairs 81 (3): 541-557. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-2346.2005.00468.x

Partnoy, F. (1999). The Siskel and Ebert of Financial Markets: Two Thumbs Down for the Credit Rating Agencies. Washington University Law Quarterly 77 (3): 619-714.

Reuber, A. R., & Fischer, E. (2010). Organizations Behaving Badly: When Are Discreditable Actions Likely to Damage Organizational Reputation? Journal of Business Ethics, 93(1), 39-50. doi:10.1007/s10551-009-0180-3.

Sacconi, L. (2007). A Social Contract Account for CSR as an Extended Model of Corporate Governance (II): Compliance, Reputation and Reciprocity. Journal of Business Ethics 75 (1): 77-96. Doi: 10.1007/s10551-006-9014-8

Sampath, V. S., Gardberg, N. A., & Rahman, N. (in press). Corporate Reputation’s Invisible Hand: Bribery, Rational Choice, and Market Penalties. Journal of Business Ethics, 1-18. doi:10.1007/s10551-016-3242-3

Utting, P. (2008). The Struggle for Corporate Accountability. Development and Change 39: 959-975. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-7660.2008.00523.x

Valor, C. (2005). Corporate Social Responsibility and Corporate Citizenship: Towards Corporate Accountability. Business and Society Review 110 (2): 191-212. doi: 10.1111/j.0045-3609.2005.00011.x

Wright, C. F. (2016). Leveraging Reputational Risk: Sustainable Sourcing Campaigns for Improving Labour Standards in Production Networks. Journal of Business Ethics, 137(1), 195-210. doi: 10.1007/s10551-015-2552-1

Process for submitting papers
Questions about expectations, requirements, the appropriateness of a topic, etc, should be directed to the guest editors of the special issue: Craig Carroll or Rowena Olegario.

Papers submitted must not have been published, accepted for publication, or presently under consideration for publication elsewhere. Submissions should be approximately 8,000 words in length. Papers should employ standard English and provide authors’ names, affiliations, and e-mail addresses, telephone numbers, and physical addresses on the front page. Manuscripts must follow the journal’s guidelines. Authors are strongly encouraged to refer to the Journal of Business Ethics website and the instructions on submitting a paper. For more information see: http://www.springer.com/social+sciences/applied+ethics/journal/10551.

Submission to the special issue– by January 1, 2018 – is required through Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/busi/. Upon submission, please indicate that your submission is to this Special Issue of JBE, Linking Corporate Reputation + Accountability.

Proposed Schedule
The deadline for the first completed draft is January 1, 2018 followed by a peer-review process until April, 4, 2018. The deadline for the second draft is December 4, 2018. The deadline for the whole volume will be March 1, 2019.

About Journal of Business Ethics
The Journal of Business Ethics publishes only original articles from a wide variety of methodological and disciplinary perspectives concerning ethical issues related to business that bring something new or unique to the discourse in their field. The Journal’s impact factor is 1.837 (2015). This journal is one of the 50 journals used by the Financial Times in compiling the prestigious Business School research rank.

Craig Carroll, Ph.D.
Adjunct Professor
New York University
239 Greene Street, 8th Floor
New York, NY 10003
Office: (917) 410-0627
Mobile: (919) 360-9188
craig.carroll@nyu.edu
W: http://amazon.com/author/craigecarroll
L: http://www.linkedin.com/in/craigecarroll
For appointments, http://calendly.com/craigecarroll

Moshik Temkin’s Assertions about the Limits of Analogical-Historical Reasoning

Reblogged from The Past Speaks:

The Past Speaks

Moshik Temkin is an associate professor of history and public policy at the Harvard Kennedy School. He recently published a piece in the New York Times on the limits of analogical historical reasoning.  He observes that the chaotic Trump presidency has increased the demand for the services of historians.

Donald Trump might be disastrous for most Americans and a danger to the world, but he has been a boon to historians. The more grotesque his presidency appears, the more historians are called on to make sense of it, often in 30-second blasts on cable news or in quick-take quotes in a news article.

Temkin notes that one of the most popular analogies used to understand Trump is the Nixon presidency. Temkin cautions against the use of this historical analogy and all of the other historical analogies currently being used to make sense of Trump. He writes that

We teach our…

View original post 983 more words

Management History Research Group Annual Workshop, 2017

Reblogged from The Past Speaks:

The Past Speaks

July 10-11th 2017, People’s History Museum, Manchester, Left Bank, Spinningfields, M3 3ER

Paper Session 2A: Labour, Management and Democracy

Chair: Peter Hampson, Location: Coal Store

Swapnesh Masrani and Linda Perriton
Getting together, living together, thinking together: Tata Sons’ Staff College in the 1940s
Nicola Bishop
The Middle-Class Clerk as British Cultural ‘Everyman’
Bill Cooke
McCarthyism and Loyalty Oaths 2.0: Signs and Strategies from History
Paper Session 2B: Strategies, Numbers, Codes and Machines

Chair: Chris Corker, Location: Meeting Room

Joseph Lampel, Ali Bayat and Mercedes Bleda
The National Response to Global Educational Metrics: When Do Governments Fall into Line?
Philip Garnett and Simon Mollan
The Business of Cryptography
Kevin Tennent
Le Corbusier, the town planners, and the corporate strategists. Or, the Corporation as a Machine for Working In

Paper session 3: Communities, Crises and Survival.                                   Chair: Des Williamson. Location: Coal Store

John Singleton

Approaches to Safety Management in Early…

View original post 174 more words

Between Past and Present: Sub-Plenary at EGOS 2017

Today’s sub-plenary “Between Past and Present – History in Organization and Organizing” at EGOS 2017 in Copenhagen brought together leading scholars in History and Organization Studies to discuss recent research on time and history.

The three keynote speakers Stephanie Decker, Roy Suddaby and Anders Ravn Sorensen illustrated the plurality in both the conceptualization of organizational time and in how history is researched. The talks triggered a lively debate on how history matters, to whom it matters, and which (often implicit) theories of history shape organizational research.

Chair: Mads Mordhorst

Stephanie Decker – Making sense of the Past: History vs. memory

Roy Suddaby – Institutional Memory as a Dynamic Capability

Anders Ravn Sorensen – Uses of history in action: CBS’ anniversary

IMG_8131IMG_3643

IMG_3639IMG_3641IMG_3644

Reflections on ABH 2017

Reblogged from The Past Speaks:

The Past Speaks

The Association of Business Historians conference 2017 was a brilliant success thanks to the hard work of the organizing committee in Glasgow. In addition to the excellent academic sessions, the conference included many additional social events, including a Ceilidh. I’m sharing some images of both below.

ddljbzfwsaeqfue

Zoi Pittaki  on the word 'entrepreneur' in four languages @zoipittaki on the word ‘entrepreneur’ in four languages and the frequency of the use of the ‘entrepreneur’ #abh2017 #Glasgow Photo by Maelle Duchemin-Pell

Ceilidh Dancingddmnahxxsaqzmfe

@ewangibbs on US manufacturing multinationals in  #Scotland #abh2017 #Glasgow @ewangibbs on US manufacturing multinationals in #Scotland #abh2017 #Glasgow

View original post

New Book: The Emergence of Routines (Raff and Scranton)

Business historians Dan Raff and Phil Scranton have published an interesting new edited collection that explores the intersection of business history, business strategy, and entrepreneurship. Published by OUP, The Emergence of Routines includes a series of historical case studies examining the origins of organizational order in firms. The book includes a conceptual introduction and an intriguingly titled concluding chapter on “learning from history” that should be of interest to readers of this blog.

From the OUP Site’s Description:

This book is a collection of essays about the emergence of routines and, more generally, about getting things organized in firms and in industries in early stages and in transition.

These are subjects of the greatest interest to students of entrepreneurship and organizations, as well as to business historians, but the academic literature is thin. The chronological settings of the book’s eleven substantive chapters are historical, reaching as far back as the late 1800s right up to the 1990s, but the issues they raise are evergreen and the historical perspective is exploited to advantage.

The chapters are organized in three broad groups: examining the emergence of order and routines in initiatives, studying the same subject in ongoing operations, and a third focusing specifically on the phenomena of transition. The topics range from the Book-of-the-Month Club to industrial research at Alcoa, from the evolution of procurement and coordination to project-based industries such as bridge- and dam-building and the governance of defence contracting, and from the development of project performance appraisal at the World Bank to the way the global automobile industry collectively redesigned the internal combustion engine to deal with after the advent of environmental regulation. The chapters are vivid and thought-provoking in themselves and, for pedagogical purposes, offer excellent jumping-off points for discussion of relevant experiences and cognate academic literature.

Call for Papers: Imperial Labour History and the Global Turn

Reblogged from Imperial & Global Forum:

Imperial & Global Forum

Call for Papers: Imperial Labour History and the Global Turn

The Second European Labour History Network Conference

Paris, 2nd to 4th November 2017

Gareth Curless
University of Exeter

Labour historians have been particularly attuned to the global turn. Over the last decade labour historians have become not only more global in their outlook, but they have also begun to pay greater attention to subjects that speak to contemporary concerns associated with globalization. This has given rise to a number of studies considering a diverse array of subjects, including ‘global’ occupations, forms of free and unfree labour migration, and the global dimensions of working-class formation. The benefits of this global approach are immeasurable. Among other things it has highlighted the importance of studying labour in globalized sectors over the longue durée; it has brought into question the teleological assumption that labour movements inevitably develop a national character; and…

View original post 302 more words

“Accounts with Interest:” An Interdisciplinary Research Project at Barclays Group Archives

Reblogged from the Past Speaks – a new doctoral project inspired by the ESRC seminar series that brought corporate archivists, organization scholars and business historians together.

The Past Speaks

bank-ext1-smallest-cropped

My co-author Margaret Procter will be presenting our paper at a conference at the Federal Reserve of Saint Louis (see picture above).  The theme of the conference is Innovative Solutions for Banks and Financial Archives. The title of our paper is “Accounts with Interest:” An Interdisciplinary Research Project at Barclays Group Archives.  The paper falls into the broad category of “the uses of the past” and considers how banks can make use of the historical information in their archives so as to better achieve their objectives. The project is designed to speak to the interest of scholars in strategy and archive science as well as practitioners.  Our co-authors are Maria Sienkiewicz of Barclays and Ian Jones, my excellent PhD student.

The conference in St Louis looks very interesting, as the other speakers include the renowned historian Harold James, leading economic historians such as Michael Bordo, Larry Neal, and Eugene N. White as well…

View original post 50 more words