AOM MH community blog

AOM submission dates move ever closer (14 January 2021 5pm EST). In case you were not aware that the Management History track at AOM now runs a blog with news and updates, you should visit this website and subscribe!

The PDW call for submissions can be found here: https://aom.org/events/annual-meeting/submitting/calls-for-submissions/call-for-submissions-mh-pdw

The call for the scholarly programme is here: https://aom.org/events/annual-meeting/submitting/calls-for-submissions/call-for-submissions-mh-scholarly

CfP: SI Management & Political Philosophy

Call for Papers: Special Issue on Management and Political Philosophy (Philosophy of Management)

Deadline: 31 March 2021

Guest Editors: Marian Eabrasu and David Wilson

Political philosophy explores general questions about how to organize ourselves, and how to make legitimate decisions about how to organize ourselves, for the purpose of meeting our most fundamental needs of security and welfare.  Management philosophy, for its part, explores general questions about existing organizations and how they can best advance their goals. There is, thus, much overlap of subject area.  Political states themselves must engage in the management of public resources and public institutions; thus, historians of management typically start with a discussion of ancient thought about how to rule (see Witzel, 2016; Wren, 2020).  With the rise of industrialization, organizations that were independent of but hosted by the state began to proliferate, and management thought became focused on them instead.  However, not only does management continue to occur in both, but political behavior and organizational behavior strongly influence one another. Thus, inquiry in each area can be pertinent to the other. This idea joins the observation that in the past decades CSR took a political turn (Kourula et al., 2019). However, while welcoming papers discussing political CSR (Scherer et al., 2016), this call for paper opens a wider theoretical angle by inviting contributions to take a step back from the current conversations on the political roles of corporations and think more broadly on topics such as:

  • States are not exactly like corporations: some argue that it is a difference in degree, others that it is a difference in kind (Schrempf-Stirling, 2018). Among other things, this question bears on the extent to which the vast literature about ruling the state can be applied to managing the firm (Philips and Margolis, 1999; Moriarty, 2005; Taylor, 2017).
  • There are lively debates about the extent to which it is appropriate and desirable for the state to treat corporations as persons. What rights, and what responsibilities, are best accorded them? Are they more properly treated by the state (contrary to the first question) not as a different sort of state but as a different sort of citizen  (French, 1979; Ripken, 2019)?
  • Corporate management, along with state government, is an important variety of social authority. Many have argued that there is a strong case to be made for democracy in corporate management (Dahl, 1985; McMahon, 2017; Anderson, 2019). What would such democracy look like?
  • Political thought has been directed to supporting a robust notion of corporate social responsibility-owing, for example, to the deployment of the same arguments that are used to justify capitalism (Heath, 2020) or to the argument that they serve important political purposes (Singer, 2019). How can political thought support the notion of corporate social responsibility?
  • It is argued that it is appropriate and even desirable for the state to regulate managerial behavior with respect to, for example, safety, discrimination in hiring and pay, and whistleblowing. This, in other words, is the area of state-enforced worker’s rights (Werhane, 1985; Werhane, Radin, and Bowie, 2004). Should the state regulate managerial behavior – and if so, how?   
  • The increasing permeability of the boundary between public and private spheres raises the question of where the power should reside: business or politics? The struggles of influence between business and politics, often epitomized by formulas such as “big corporations” or “omnipotent government,” leaves open fundamental philosophical questions on how their relations should eventually be organized (Chomsky, 2013; Bakan, 2003; Reich, 2007; Blok, 2019).
  • Political philosophers generally make a space for civil disobedience in the case of illegitimate governments or laws (Simmons, 1979). At the same time, corporate social responsibility and business ethics literature typically assumes that businesses should obey the law.  Is there a space for civil disobedience by firms that are faced with corrupt political regimes or immoral laws? 

Details

Submissions are sought for review and publication in Philosophy of Managementwww.springer.com/journal/40926

Articles can be submitted at https://www.editorialmanager.com/phom/ by 31 March 2021.

Expected publication date: January 2022.

Word length: 6,000-10,000 words, excluding References.

Guest Editors:

David Carl Wilson, Professor of Philosophy, Webster University: wilson@webster.edu

Marian Eabrasu, Associate Professor, European Business School Paris, EM Normandie: eabrasu@yahoo.com

References

Anderson, E. (2019) Private Government (Princeton: Princeton University Press)

Bakan, J. (2005) The Corporation (New York: The Free Press)

Blok, V. (2020) ‘Politics versus Economics. Philosophical Reflections on the Nature of Corporate Governance’ Philosophy of Management 19, pp. 69–87

Chomsky, N. (2013) Making the Future (San Francisco: City Lights Open Media)

Dahl, R. A. (1985) A Preface to Economic Democracy (Berkeley: University of California Press)

French, P. (1979) ‘The Corporation as a Moral Person’ American Philosophical Quarterly 16(3), pp. 207-15

Heath, J. (2020) The Machinery of Government (New York: Oxford University Press)

Kourula, A., Moon, J., Salles-Djelic, M.-L. & Wickert, C. (2019). ‘New Roles of Government in the Governance of Business Conduct: Implications for Management and Organizational Research’ Organization Studies 40, pp. 1101-23

MacIntyre, A. (1981) After Virtue (South Bend:  University of Notre Dame Press)

McMahon, C. (2017) Authority and Democracy: A General Theory of Government and Management (Princeton: Princeton University Press)

Moriarty, J. (2005) ‘On the Relevance of Political Philosophy to Business Ethics’ Business Ethics Quarterly 15(3), pp. 455-73

Phillips, R.A. & Margolis, J. D.  (1999) ‘Towards an Ethics of Organizations’ Business Ethics Quarterly 9(3), pp. 619-38

Reich, R. (2007) Supercapitalism (New York: Vintage)

Ripken, S. K. (2019) Corporate Personhood (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press)

Scherer, A. G., Rasche, A., Palazzo, G. & Spicer, A. (2016). ‘Managing for Political Corporate Social Responsibility: New Challenges and Directions for PCSR 2.0’ Journal of Management Studies 53, pp. 273-98

Schrempf-Stirling, J. (2018) ‘State Power: Rethinking the Role of the State in Political Corporate Social Responsibility’ Journal of Business Ethics 150, pp. 1-14

Simmons, J. (1979) Moral Principles and Political Obligations (Princeton:  Princeton University Press)

Singer, A. A. (2019) The Form of the Firm:  A Normative Political Theory of the Corporation (Oxford: Oxford University Press)

Taylor, R. S. (2017) Exit Left: Markets and Mobility in Republican Thought (Oxford: Oxford University Press)

Werhane, P. H. (1985) Persons, Rights, and Corporations (Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall)

Werhane, P., Radin, T., & Bowie, N. (2004) Employment and Employee Rights (London: Blackwell)

Witzel, R. (2016) A History of Management Thought, 2nd ed.  (London: Routledge)

Wren, D. & Bedeian, A. (2020) The Evolution of Management Thought, 8th ed. (New York: Wiley)

Digital evaluation copies for Wren & Bedeian

The Evolution of Management Thought

By David A Wren & Arthur G Bedeian

It is our pleasure to announce that the eighth edition of The Evolution of Management Thought has been released and that digital evaluation copies are now available. Over the nearly half-century since the publication of EMT’s first edition, we have come to more fully appreciate that everything about management as an academic discipline—its language, its theories, its models, and its methodologies, not to mention its implicit values, its professional institutions, and its scholarly ways—comes from its inherited traditions. In the belief that contemporary scholarship within the management discipline suffers to the extent that it lacks an appreciation of the past’s impact on current thinking, our new edition traces the evolution of management thought from its earliest days to the present, examining the backgrounds, ideas, and influences of its major contributors. 


In preparing this new edition, our intent was to place various theories of management in their historical context, showing how they have changed over time. As with previous editions, we exhort readers to eschew what might be called “straight-line thinking” in associating individual factors with specific events. Throughout 22 chapters, we move back and forth through time highlighting unsuspected connections, demonstrating that history is more than simply a sequence of disparate events and personalities that careen through time and space. As a special feature, this edition includes a PowerPoint package (prepared by Regina Scannell Greenwood and the late Julia Kurtz Teahen) featuring 650 photographs, charts, and other visual materials. 


Request a digital evaluation copy by pasting the following URL into your browser: https://www.wiley.com/en-us/The+Evolution+of+Management+Thought%2C+8th+Edition-p-9781119692904
We remain grateful for the suggestions and encouragement of the many people who have used previous editions of The Evolution of Management Thought in the classroom and in their own research. For more information, or if you have any questions, please feel free to contact us.


Sincerely, 

Daniel A. Wren
David Ross Boyd Professor Emeritus
The University of Oklahoma
dwren@ou.edu

and

Arthur G. Bedeian
Boyd Professor Emeritus
Louisiana State University
abede@lsu.edu
https://faculty.lsu.edu/bedeian/

MHRG Annual Workshop meeting report

For those of us who missed it, Chris Corker has kindly provided us with a short report on the Management History Research Group event, which has, like many others, gone virtual this autumn:

The 2020 edition of the Management History Research Group (MHRG) Annual Workshop took place, via Zoom, on Thursday, 1st October with two panels comprising a total of five papers presented, with participants as far away as Japan and Washington DC.

Original plans for the workshop, in the pipeline since our successful 2019 workshop in Preston, had been to head to Newcastle and continue the tradition of the MHRG to host a predominantly single-track workshop with a range of papers, either developmental or fully formed, for constructive and critical feedback.

Keen to not loose this approach, the Zoom version of MHRG followed the same focus. With a total of 20 participants, the first paper from Ayumu Sugawara (Tohoku University, Japan) explored BOLSA’s encounter with Japan in the 1960s Eurodollar market, followed by Leo McCann and Simon Mollan (University of York) on Placing Camelot: Cultivating Leadership and Learning in the Kennedy Presidency, the first panel concluding with James Fowler (University of Essex) discussing The Management, Politics and Strategic Narratives of Decline and Turnaround at London Transport 1970-87.

Following a brief recess, the second panel featured Simon Mollan (University of York), Beverly Geesin (University of Dundee), and Joel Tannenbaum (Community College of Philadelphia) work titled ‘American Caesar? Authoritarian leadership and the American Right’, and concluded with Leo McCann (University of York) and John Heath (American University, Washington DC, USA) discussing ‘A Parable about Power’: Management and Leadership in Robert McNamara’s Presidency of the World Bank.

Overall, the contributions were informative and interesting for all participants, with much discussion, debate and feedback was generated for the presenters.

Like many events across academia, the MHRG Workshop had to adapt and the Zoom approach worked for everyone involved. Still small, supportive, and constructive as prior MHRG workshops have been, the change in format worked for this year.

What was missing, as it is for every postponed or adapted conference, was the sense of community among colleagues and friends who traditionally work in a multitude of places and come together in person infrequently to catch up, talk about new projects and potential collaborations, and bring into the community new members, emerging scholars, and encourage doctoral students.

The chat in a local licensed premise, the discussions over a meal, the conversation in coffee breaks and the chance to bounce an idea among participants without the formal structure of a presentation, are what is missing.

Virtual conferences and workshops may be keeping our research alive and our discipline-specific communities together, but the informal chat, the catching up with friends and talking about family, hobbies, and all the non-research stuff, the chance to see a new town or city and the opportunity to travel are understandably absent and hard to replicate with the video conferencing format.

The world of academic conferences and workshops is likely to continue in this at distance approach for the foreseeable future in light of the devastating effect the pandemic is having on the world, but in time our communities will reform in person, drinks will be consumed, ideas exchanged, enthusiasm for research reignited, and the shared love for research experienced.

It is the hope of the MHRG committee to run a face to face workshop in September 2021. We embrace management history in all its forms, and contributions from associated sub-disciplines of history. If you would like to join our mailing list for next year, or just find out some more, please get in touch with me.

Chris Corker, MHRG Chair

Chris.Corker@York.ac.uk

AOM2020 Management History Calls for submission

The Management History (MH) Division invites PDW, symposium, and paper submissions for the 80th Annual Meeting of the Academy of Management to be held in Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada from 7 – 11 August 2020. You may send us your submissions through the AOM Submission Center until it closes on Tuesday, 14 January 2020 at 5:00 PM ET (NY Time). The Submission Center opens in early December 2019.

Conference Theme: This year’s conference theme is “20/20: Broadening our Sight” and encourages us to widen our view when examining our domain, practice and organizational phenomena. We encourage you to make connections to the theme wherever possible in preparing your submission.

Our Domain: The Management History (MH) Division is a wide-ranging network of scholars interested in the antecedents of modern business practice and thought. We invite submissions of empirical and conceptual papers, as well as proposals for symposia (including panel discussions, debates, and roundtables), for consideration for inclusion in the division’s scholarly program. We encourage submissions from all members of the academy interested in devoting or sharing their work in management history broadly defined.

As there is an element of history within every division in the Academy, the division is open to a variety of methodological approaches and themes ranging from historical events in management practice (empirical focus) to studies that engage with historiography, philosophies of history, and the history of ideas and management thought (theoretical orientation). In this spirit, the MH Division welcomes scholarly contributions that generate meaningful and original contributions in history from across all AOM divisions’ interest groups. Submissions for sessions sponsored jointly with other Academy divisions are regarded as particularly attractive, and highly encouraged. The MH Division encourages submissions from doctoral students. Papers with a PhD student as the first or sole author should be clearly identified when submitted to allow identification of possible winners of the Best Graduate Student Paper.

See our call for PDWs: https://eur02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Faom.org%2Fannualmeeting%2Fsubmission%2Fcall%2Fmh%2Fpdw%2F&data=02%7C01%7Cs.decker%40aston.ac.uk%7C37d1deba710c4c7d5b2108d7736c83c2%7Ca085950c4c2544d5945ab852fa44a221%7C0%7C0%7C637104782223824129&sdata=2HRobwAYRgVxdUDAUHumsrId9Ce4IosuZeS6rSQbs8Y%3D&reserved=0

And our call for the scholarly program: https://eur02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Faom.org%2Fannualmeeting%2Fsubmission%2Fcall%2Fmh%2F&data=02%7C01%7Cs.decker%40aston.ac.uk%7C37d1deba710c4c7d5b2108d7736c83c2%7Ca085950c4c2544d5945ab852fa44a221%7C0%7C0%7C637104782223824129&sdata=x%2FYFjHP%2BN%2BV6ysqk9y7IdqEiJBgBebWVDuyur3DipIs%3D&reserved=0

We’re looking forward to seeing you in Vancouver,

Roy Suddaby, Program Chair (rsuddaby@uvic.ca) and Trish McLaren, PDW Chair (pmclaren@wlu.ca)

AOM MH division election results

The election results from the Academy of Management, Management History Division are in. It’s with great pleasure that I read that the following three colleagues were elected. Congratulations!!

Patricia McLaren, Wilfrid Laurier University—PDW Chair

Andrew Smith, University of Liverpool—Division Representative-at-Large

Nicholous (Nick) Deal, Saint Mary’s University—Division Graduate Student/Junior Faculty Representative-at-Large

Thank you to all who ran on the ballot this year. I greatly appreciate your willingness to serve. I hope to see everyone in Boston!

Stephanie Pane Haden

Texas A&M University-Commerce

Past Division Chair

The problem with Harvard Business School case studies

Reblogged from The Past Speaks:

The discipline of business history has long been linked to the case-study method of teaching. It will therefore interest many readers of this blog to learn of a new article in the business press that talks about the historical origins of the case study method, which began at Harvard Business School and which was later adopted in management schools around the world. The article in Quartz disseminates some of the key findings presented in A New History of Management, an important new book by John Hassard, Michael Rowlinson, Stephen Cummings, and Todd Bridgman. Regardless of whether you are a friend or a foe of the use of case studies, I would encourage you to check out the piece in Quartz and the underlying scholarly works.

Personally, I’m glad to see that the life and ideas of HBS Dean Wallace Donham (1877-1954) is being investigated. In the 1920s, Donham was one of the most influential critics of shareholder primacy and the related idea that the maximization of shareholder value is the best criterion for judging the performance of managers. At a time when the idea of shareholder primacy is being scrutinized once again, it is encouraging to know that people are paying attention to Donham.

Reconstructing the B-School

Reblogged from NEP-HIS:

Mitch Larson very kindly reviewed our article in Business History: “Clio in the Business School: Historical Approaches in Strategy, International Business and Entrepreneurship”, which the publishers have made available for free for a time: Business History, 59(6): 904-27

Review by Mitchell J. Larson (University of Central Lancashire)

Recently Martin Parker (Bristol) has taken to the airwaves promoting the idea of bulldozing the business school. In sharp contrast, Andrew Perchard, Niall MacKenzie, Stephanie Decker, and Giovanni Favero make a compelling case for certain disciplines in the management sciences to open themselves to alternative methodological and epistemological approaches. They argue that the fields of strategy, international business, and entrepreneurship have not embraced historically-oriented research to the same extent as other fields within business and management studies. The authors also admit that many scholars conducting historical business research have not made a sufficiently solid case about the robustness of their historical methodology(s) or data to convince other social scientists about the validity of their claims. Drawing upon an impressive range of previous works to develop their discussion, the paper attempts to reconcile these discrepancies to highlight how a more explicit articulation of the historian’s process could overcome the concerns of ‘mainstream’ management scholars regarding theorization and methodology in these three fields specifically and in management studies generally.

To continue reading, click here: https://nephist.wordpress.com/2018/07/24/reconstructing-the-b-school/

 

Video: A new history of management

Have a look at this video summary of the new book A new history of management, by Stephen Cummings, Victoria University of Wellington; Todd Bridgman, Victoria University of Wellington; John Hassard, University of Manchester; Michael Rowlinson, University of Exeter.

Read more at http://www.cambridge.org/us/academic/subjects/management/organisation-studies/new-history-management#AR8fSzRrR3hWUYRv.99

Or: www.cambridge.org/historyofmanagement

 

 

 

 

 

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.

Speakers

  • 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

Contact

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

Dr Nicholas Burton – n.burton@northumbria.ac.uk 

For general enquiries please contact the BAM Office on +44(0)2073837770, or at bam@bam.ac.uk