New OHN Audio Article: Rethinking the role of planning and materiality – the case of London Business School. By Matthew Hollow.

Do you want one of your articles available as an audio version? Send us a message at! The article needs to be OA and formatted as a word document designed to be read out. Get in touch for more information.

This week, we are making another audio version of an Open Access article available as a podcast.

Rethinking the role of planning and materiality in the Americanization of management education: The case of London Business School

By Matthew Hollow.

Published in Business History, currently advance online.


In recent years, much has been written about the so-called ‘Americanization’ of management education in Europe in the post-1945 era. One area that has relatively little attention in this literature, however, is the impact that material and spatial factors had on efforts to import US models of management education overseas. This study begins to redress this issue by focussing in-depth on the challenges involved in the design, planning, and construction of the physical spaces of the London Business School ­— one of the most prominent advocates of the US model of management education in this period. In the process, it contributes to the literature on Americanization, as well as our understanding of the history of business schools, by illustrating how the historical trajectories of such institutions can be influenced and shaped by external actors, material constraints, and other contingent factors related to the planning and building of a business school.

CfP MOH: Histories of Entrepreneurship Education

Histories of entrepreneurship education: Exploring its past, understanding its present, and re-imagining its future

Manuscript deadline: 15 June 2023

Management & Organizational History

Special Issue Editor(s)

Christoph ViebigCopenhagen Business School

Christian StutzJyväskylä School of Business and Economics

Anders Ravn SørensenCopenhagen Business School

Entrepreneurship education is a global phenomenon. Over the last decades, we have seen tremendous growth in political and societal support for entrepreneurship education and a steep increase in entrepreneurship courses and programs at higher education institutions (Kuratko & Morris, 2018). At the same time, we are witnessing a scholarly debate about the current status and future direction of entrepreneurship education scholarship (Landström et al., 2021; Neck & Corbett, 2018; Pittaway & Cope, 2007). Most contributions to this debate paint an image of entrepreneurship education as a contemporary phenomenon linked to zeitgeisty agendas of self-fulfillment, grand societal challenges, and ideas about allegedly unprecedented economic and technological transformations (Dimov & Pistrui, 2022; Hägg & Kurczewska, 2021; Ratten & Jones, 2019). While this framing around newness arguably has helped to drive student interest and attract political support for entrepreneurship education on a global scale, it can also be seen as a liability calling into question the field’s academic legitimacy and limiting the ways in which we understand the present and imagine the future of entrepreneurship education (Cummings & Bridgman, 2016; Wadhwani & Viebig, 2021).

Entrepreneurship education is an underexplored historical phenomenon. Extending the dominant framing of entrepreneurship education as a new phenomenon, a recent study has shown that this form of business education has, in fact, a long tradition going back to the early nineteenth century, hence predating the modern business school and research-based university (Wadhwani & Viebig, 2021). While Katz (2003) has highlighted earlier entrepreneurship education initiatives, the conventional historical narrative of entrepreneurship education suggests that entrepreneurship education emerged at US business schools during the 1970s and grew domestically throughout the 1980s and 1990s (Kuratko, 2005). Since the 1990s, entrepreneurship education has expanded into all areas of higher education and especially internationally (Dana, 1992). During the late 1990s and early 2000s, it has turned into a global phenomenon with still growing numbers of students, courses, and programs around the globe (Kuratko & Morris, 2018). Those historical narratives serve an important purpose because our interpretations of the past are constitutive of our understandings and influence how we think about the future. Hence, revisiting the history of entrepreneurship education holds the potential to shape the current debates about entrepreneurship education and stimulate new ways of thinking about its future.

This special issue seeks to begin a more profound conversation about the history of entrepreneurship education by linking the scholarship of entrepreneurship education with the lively debates about the history of business education. Unlike the history of management education and the history of business school (Amdam & Dávila, 2021; Engwall et al., 2016), historical research about entrepreneurship education has been scarce and largely inexistent in the debates about the history of business education (McLaren et al., 2021). Developing new histories of entrepreneurship education requires identifying educational initiatives for entrepreneurs in temporal and regional contexts where the terminology of entrepreneurship may not (yet) exist and making a strong case to show that those educational initiatives can be accounted for as entrepreneurship education. In doing so, we encourage scholars to go beyond today’s definitions of entrepreneurship education and broaden our understanding of what has been an education for, in, and about different forms of entrepreneurship. We believe that by developing new historical perspectives (Bucheli & Wadhwani, 2014; Stutz & Sachs, 2018), this special issue can make a strong contribution to our contemporary understanding of the teaching and learning of entrepreneurship and link this form of education with debates about the history of business education more broadly.

Therefore, we invite empirical and conceptual submissions on the following topics and questions, amongst others.

Revisiting the dominant histories of entrepreneurship education and their effects:

  • What are the current prevailing historical narratives of entrepreneurship education? Which stories, characters, events, and plots do those histories use? Are there dominant narratives in the past that disappeared again? How and why did they appear, exist, and disappear?
  • How have the existent histories of entrepreneurship education been used? Which purposes, aims, and interests did those narratives serve? How do the prevailing histories influence the self-identity of entrepreneurship education research and practice? What can we learn from these histories-and what not (cf. Cummings et al., 2017).

Challenging prevailing narratives with deeper and broader histories:

  • What are underexplored or overlooked aspects of the currently dominant histories of entrepreneurship education? What is the history of entrepreneurship education outside North America and Western Europe? What can we learn from incorporating those aspects into the prevailing narratives?
  • What educational institutions within and outside higher education offered entrepreneurship education? How was their approach different from contemporary or other past forms of entrepreneurship education?
  • What is the historical relationship between management, commercial and other forms of business education with entrepreneurship education? What are the differences and similarities between those forms of education?
  • What is the relationship between different forms of entrepreneurship education and different contexts? Why did entrepreneurship initiatives appear in some contexts and not in others?
  • How have family entrepreneurs been educated? What characterized family entrepreneurship education, and how is that different from contemporary approaches to entrepreneurship education?

History of entrepreneurship thought and pedagogies; historical consciousness:

  • What is entrepreneurship education’s history of thought? What ideas have been influential in the formation of entrepreneurship education initiatives? What other ideas have existed and been forgotten? What can we learn from recovering those (cf. Prieto et al., 2021)?
  • What pedagogies have been used to educate entrepreneurs historically? What advantages and disadvantages did those pedagogies have, and how did they shape the image and results of entrepreneurship education?
  • What, if any, is the pedagogical role of practicing historical consciousness in educating entrepreneurs (cf. Tennent et al., 2020)?

References :

Augier, M., & March, J. G. (2011). The roots, rituals, and rhetorics of change: North American business schools after the Second World War. Stanford Business Books.

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

Dana, L. P. (1992). Entrepreneurial education in Europe. Journal of Education for Business68(2), 74–78.

Dimov, D., & Pistrui, J. (2022). Entrepreneurship Education as a First-Person Transformation. Journal of Management Inquiry31(1), 49–53.

Engwall, L., Kipping, M., & Üsdiken, B. (2016). Defining management: Business schools, consultants, media. Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group.

Hägg, G., & Kurczewska, A. (2021). Entrepreneurship education: Scholarly progress and future challenges. Routledge.

Katz, J. A. (2003). The chronology and intellectual trajectory of American entrepreneurship education. Journal of Business Venturing18(2), 283–300.

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

Kuratko, D. F. (2005). The emergence of entrepreneurship education: Development, trends, and challenges. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice29(5), 577–598.

Kuratko, D. F., & Morris, M. H. (2018). Examining the future trajectory of entrepreneurship. Journal of Small Business Management56(1), 11–23.

Landström, H., Gabrielsson, J., Politis, D., Sørheim, R., & Djupal, K. (2021). The social structure of entrepreneurial education as a scientific field. Academy of Management Learning & Education.

McLaren, P. G., Bridgman, T., Cummings, S., Lubinski, C., O’Connor, E., Spender, J.-C., & Durepos, G. (2021). From the Editors-New Times, New Histories of the Business School. Academy of Management Learning & Education20(3), 293–299.

Neck, H. M., & Corbett, A. C. (2018). The Scholarship of teaching and learning entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship Education and Pedagogy1(1), 8–41.

Pittaway, L., & Cope, J. (2007). Entrepreneurship education: A systematic review of the evidence. International Small Business Journal25(5), 479–510.

Ratten, V., & Jones, P. (Eds.). (2019). Transformational entrepreneurship. Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group.

Stinchcombe, A. L. (1965). Social structures and organizations. In J. G. March (Ed.), Handbook of Organizations (pp. 142–193). Rand McNally.

Wadhwani, R. D., & Viebig, C. (2021). Social imaginaries of entrepreneurship education: The United States and Germany, 1800–2020. Academy of Management Learning & Education20(3), 342–360.

EGOS 2023 ST51: Organizational History

This is the first in our series of calls for papers from EGOS 2023 that are relevant to the Organizational History Network. It’s a good year again, and the conference will be in Cagliari, Sardinia, which is even better!

Sub-theme 51: Organizational History for Good: Legacy, Collective Memory, and Change –> HYBRID!


Call for Papers

In this sub-theme, we are interested in exploring different ways that past legacies both enable but also restrict opportunities for organizational renewal, social change, and the emergence of new forms of organizing. On the one hand, collective memories can be a source of authentication and strategy restoration (Miller et al., 2020); on the other hand, past legacies could restrict our imagination by enforcing path-dependency. Organizations with a long or significant history often find that their legacy is at odds with the realities of the present or the directions they envision for the future (Hatch & Schultz, 2017; Kroeze & Keulen, 2013), while newly formed organizations are creating their legacy through their actions and as they tell their story internally and in the public forum. In either case, when aspects of the purpose of an organization, understood as its raison d’être, change or the emphasis shifts from one aspect to another, the organizational identity is threatened and legacy becomes an obstacle to overcome in order to effect change. We do not know yet what factors make this tension more difficult to resolve or whether this tension is stronger in some sectors, for instance, in purpose-driven organizations, given members’ emotional attachment to old memories and identities (Foroughi, 2020). We propose that the difference lies with the way the past is remembered. Literature on collective memory and history and on the ways in which organizations connect past, present, and future provides an umbrella for further study on legacies, uses of the past, and the paths towards reconciling the enabling and restricting roles that legacy plays in organizations.
Importantly, some organizations seek ways to leverage their legacy for change, i.e., how they can re-imagine, understand, and enact their organizational identity. For example, Radio City Music Hall built on its radio origins to emphasize radio-related qualities – e.g., public, inexpensive, accessible – while forgoing radio as medium for other channels and outputs such as live performance, TV, and digital streaming (Coman & Casey, 2021). Imagining a different future that does not erase an organization’s identity and legacy but utilizes them as scaffolding for realizing the organization’s new directions – whether an entirely new vision or, more often, a reimagination of its current vision – is an attractive proposition, but there are many limitations. From legal restrictions (e.g., clauses preventing change in charitable donations and bequests) to optics (e.g., the clash between legacy and envisioned future is so significant that connecting the two appears insincere), the challenges at the intersection of legacy and change are as great as the opportunities. Whether a challenge or an opportunity, the relation between an organization’s past and its future is vital for its present (Brunninge, 2009; Bucheli & Wadhwani, 2014; Casey & Coman, 2020; Casey & Olivera, 2011; Coraiola et al., 2015).
Central to understanding the relationship between the legacies and imagined future is the recognition that what we understand as our legacy is socially and politically construed (Foroughi et al., 2020)and is shaped by the agentic work of actors who can be termed, agents of memory, (Schwartz, 1991) or “identity custodians” (Dacin et al,, 2019, p. 344). While this custodianship is important in maintaining and restoring past legacies, at the same time, it often implies silencing certain histories that are deemed incompatible (Anteby & Molnar, 2012). For instance, histories and legacies of alternative organizational forms are often not commemorated and largely forgotten (Rodgers et al., 2016), which can further restrict our imagination about different forms of purpose-driven organizing.
This sub-theme aims to contribute a deeper understanding of legacies and imagined futures as they pertain to organizational identity and change. We hope papers will shed light on how organizations can imagine constructive models for navigating this fundamental tension. We invite submissions that explore this topic in organizations where questions of legacy, memory, and identity are pivotal to the case. We would welcome papers with theoretical and empirical contributions that address, but are not restricted to, the following questions:

  • How do we theorize legacy and change in relation to organizational identity?
  • How does the intersection of legacy and change emerge in different types of organizations such as purpose-driven organizations?
  • How has legacy been successfully leveraged for organizational change that contributed to societal well-being? Under what conditions does legacy promote change/rigidity?
  • What factors influence how the tension between legacy and change is experienced in an organization?
  • Why is the tension between legacy and change stronger in some sectors, such as purpose-driven organizations?
  • How can critical historical work help recover forgotten histories of alternative forms of organization?
  • How can we envision alternative forms of organizing by critically examining past legacies?


  • Anteby, M., & Molnar, V. (2012): “Collective memory meets organizational identity: Remembering to forget in a firm’s rhetorical history.” Academy of Management Journal, 55 (3), 515–540.
  • Brunninge, O. (2009): “Using history in organizations: How managers make purposeful reference to history in strategy processes.” Journal of Organizational Change Management, 22 (1), 8–26.
  • Bucheli, M., & Wadhwani, R.D. (2014): The Future of the Past in Management and Organization Studies. Organizations in Time: History, Theory, Methods. New York: Oxford University Press.
  • Casey, A., & Coman, S. (2020): “The enduring presence of the founder in collection museums: A historical and interdisciplinary perspective.” In: M. Maclean, S.R. Clegg, R. Suddaby, & C. Harvey (eds.): Historical Organization Studies: Theory and Applications, New York: Routledge, 131–148.
  • Casey, A.J., & Olivera, F. (2011): “Reflections on organizational memory and forgetting.” Journal of Management Inquiry, 20 (3), 305–310.
  • Coman, S., & Casey, A. (2021): Metahistories of Microhistories: How organizations narrate their origin story at different points in their history. Paper presented at the 37th EGOS Colloquium, Amsterdam, July 8–10, 2021.
  • Coraiola, D.M., Foster, W.M., & Suddaby, R. (2015): “Varieties of history in organization studies.” In: P.G. McLaren, A.J. Mills, & T.G. Weatherbee (eds.): The Routledge Companion to Management and Organizational History. New York: Routledge, 363–372.
  • Dacin, M.T., Dacin, P.A., & Kent, D. (2019): “Tradition in organizations: A custodianship framework.” Academy of Management Annals, 13 (1), 342–373.
  • Foroughi, H. (2020): “Collective memories as a vehicle of fantasy and identification: founding stories retold.” Organization Studies, 41 (10), 1347–1367.
  • Foroughi, H., Coraiola, D.M., Rintamäki, J., Mena, S., & Foster, W.M. (2020): “Organizational memory studies.” Organization Studies, 41 (12), 1725–1748.
  • Hatch, M.J., & Schultz, M. (2017): “Toward a theory of using history authentically: Historicizing in the Carlsberg Group.” Administrative Science Quarterly, 62 (4), 657–697.
  • Kroeze, R., & Keulen, S. (2013): “Leading a multinational is history in practice: The use of invented traditions and narratives at AkzoNobel, Shell, Philips and ABN AMRO.” Business History, 55 (8), 1265–1287.
  • Miller, K.D., Gomes, E., & Lehman, D.W. (2019): “Strategy restoration.” Long Range Planning, 52 (5).
  • Rodgers, D.M., Petersen, J., & Sanderson, J. (2016): “Commemorating alternative organizations and marginalized spaces: The case of forgotten Finntowns.” Organization, 23 (1), 90–113.
  • Schwartz, B. (1991): “Iconography and collective memory: Lincoln’s image in the American mind.” The Sociological Quarterly, 32 (3), 301–319.

Andrea Casey is Associate Professor of Human and Organizational Learning at George Washington University, USA. From her book chapter on Collective Memory in Organizations (1997) to her recent book, “Organizational Identity and Memory: A Multidisciplinary Approach (2019), published by Routledge, Andrea’s research interests have primarily focused on organizational memory and history, and organizational identity.

Hamid Foroughi is Associate Professor in Business and Society at Essex Business School, University of Essex, UK. His interest revolves around understanding mechanisms and conditions that facilitate organizing social change. Hamid has published in leading journals, such as ‘Organization Studies’ and ‘Journal of World Business’.

Sonia Coman is Director of Digital Engagement at Washington National Cathedral, USA, She headed Marketing and Communications at the Smithsonian’s National Museum of Asian Art, taught at Columbia University, and conducted curatorial work for art collections and museums, including the Louvre. is the co-editor, with Andrea Casey, of a new book series, De Gruyter Studies in Organizational and Management History. Sonia’s publications focus on identity formation in the creative industries and on legacy in long-lived organizations.

The HiMOS webinar returns

The HiMOS series ( returns!

We are delighted to host Associate Professor María Fernández Moya (CUNEF) and Senior Lecturer Andrew Smith (Liverpool) at the next event.

María will provide a ”behind-the-scene” presentation about her recent Journal of International Business Studies article that offers a long-term approach to internationalization scholarship. 

Andrew will introduce the IB-related Special Issue Call for the Journal of Management Studies and discuss a recent working paper, titled “Towards a Model of How Managers Respond to Historic Organizational Misconduct Accusations: Insights from the Campaign for Corporate Reparations for Black Slavery.”

We recommend reading the article, the call for paper, and the working paper before the workshop to get the most out of the event! 

Date: Wednesday, November 23, 2022

Time: 12:15-14:00 (UTC, London) / 13:15-15:00 (UTC+1, Madrid) / 14:15-15:00 (UTC+2, Helsinki)

Register here to get your Zoom link. 

The HiMOS webinar: 

The HiMOS webinar series ( aims to generate hands-on insights for those interested in applying historical methods within management and organization studies. Previous issues included speakers such as Grace Augustine (Bath), Stephanie Decker (Birmingham), Christina Lubinski (CBS), Mairi Maclean (University of Bath) and Eero Vaara (Oxford Saïd Business School). 

On our website, you can watch a selection of previous presentations. 

Best regards,

Christian, Nooa, & Zeerim

Want to listen to academic articles in a podcast format?

We are running this as a trial to see if having academic articles available as podcast (where the text is just being read out by an automatically generated voice) is a helpful format. Maybe when you are stuck in traffic, or on a really crowded train/bus, or training for a marathon, or your eyes just hurt too much to read another academic article – who knows! Maybe you are more audial then visual in your learning style? Whatever the reason, we’d love some feedback from you if this a good format for OHN, and if so, what kind of content we should make available as podcasts. You can post comments below this blog.

Audio version of the Journal of World Business article:

Introducing the eventful temporality of historical research into international business

By Stephanie Decker


Historical research represents an alternative understanding of temporality that can contribute to greater methodological and theoretical plurality in international business (IB) research. Historians focus on the importance of events within their historical context and structure their accounts through periodisation, assume that the temporal distance between the past and present determines the temporal positionality of researchers, and seek to reconstruct past events through historical sources, which require critical interpretation. Historical research provides an alternative methodological approach to temporality, context, and distance with relevance to a range of IB theories.


History – Temporality – Event – Temporal distance – Interpretation


The whole article is available as a podcast. Check out our new podcast channel, also named Organizational History Network, on Anchor, Spotify and Apple Podcast, for some different types of content:

New history article in Human Relations

A fabulous new early modern (!) history article by my colleague Elena Giovannoni has been published in Human Relations – which has become a great place for historical research in management organization studies.

City governance and visual impression management: Visual semiotics and the Biccherna panels of Siena ​

Jane Davison, Elena Giovannoni
First Published August 13, 2022 Research Article 


A major preoccupation in the contemporary organizational landscape is governance and how to cope with conflict and uncertainty. These challenges are particularly evident in the governance of cities, with their complex histories, politics and administrative processes. We argue that visual artefacts can form powerful visual impression management, constituting ‘visual governance’, for dealing with such complexities. We construct a framework from the visual semiotics of Umberto Eco, extended by medieval aesthetics. We analyse the pre-modern case of the Sienese Biccherna panels (painted covers and paintings linked to the city accounts) to show how their calligraphy, heraldry and pictures convey idealized reassuring images of orderly administration, in times of complicated, disordered underlying realities. In demonstrating how art and accounting are intertwined as tools of governance, and that there are contemporary resonances in corporate annual reporting, we add both to research in governance and to visual organizational research, and pave the way for further interdisciplinary work on the relationship between art and organizations.

To find out more about Human Relations, read our latest news and link to free-access articles, please visit our website ‒ 

SI CFP: Microhistory

Microhistory in Management History and Organization Theory

Management & Organizational History

Manuscript deadline: 17 February 2023

Special Issue Editors:

Liv Egholm, Copenhagen Business School

Michael Heller, Brunel Business School

Michael Rowlinson, University of Exeter Business School

There has been a resurgence of interest in microhistory. The classic texts associated with the subject remain immensely popular: The Cheese and the Worms (Ginzburg, 1992[1976]); The Return of Martin Guerre (Zemon Davis, 1983); and The Great Cat Massacre (Darnton, 1984). These provide a reference point, which has provided the basis for increasing reflection on the theoretical significance and methodological distinctiveness of microhistory (Magnússon & Szijártó, 2013), such as the special issue of Past and Present on ‘Global History and Microhistory’ (Ghobrial, 2019). Attention has also been paid to microhistory from management and business history as well as organization studies (Bourguignon & Floquet, 2019; Decker, 2015).

Microhistory offers an opportunity to reconceptualise relationships which lie at the heart of historical research and historiography: the historical nexus between the particular and the general, agency and structure, the micro and the macro. Microhistorians are known for their methodological habit of reading sources forensically in their search for historical clues. It implies reading historical sources ‘against the grain’ (Decker & McKinlay, 2020, pp. 26-27), or as Levi (2019: 41) puts it, ‘beyond the edge of the page’, carefully looking for what Ginzburg refers to as “unintended evidence” (Ginzburg, 2016). The use of microhistory as a magnifying glass can be seen as the equivalent of a detective’s tool. Sherlock Holmes´ working methods are often used as a metaphor for microhistory’s careful readings and detection of clues (Ginzburg, 2013 (1979)), often within “exceptional normal” cases (Grendi, 1977).

For this reason, the trademark of microhistorical methodology is to trace sources and clues throughout and across archives (Ginzburg, 2013). The names of actors, places, concepts, events, or objects are used as concrete entry points to show how previously unrelated spaces, temporalities, and fields are woven together in practice. This mapping demonstrates great potential in revealing unnoticed relations between, for example, family life and entrepreneurship (Popp & Holt, 2013), religious practices and trade (Trivellato, 2019), or philanthropic gift giving and the establishment of the welfare state (Egholm, 2021).

The purpose is not to argue for the universal value of the exceptional; it is to show, rather, how discrete historical events challenge our conceptualisations of the universal, and provide essential clues to what can be considered as normal (Ginzburg, 1979; Peltonen, 2001). Accordingly, the reduction of scale is not the study of the “microness” of a phenomenon (Levi, 2019, p. 38). The reduction of scale, rather, provides the historian with a heuristic tool to craft new theories by distorting or amending metanarratives and reformulating historical concepts and relations. Without explicitly mentioning microhistory, a series of organizational phenomena have been reconceptualized from a close reading of sources, with notable examples being the career (McKinlay, 2002), and entrepreneurship (Popp & Holt, 2013. Thus, microhistory shows how, “history is a discipline of general questions and ‘local’ answers” (Levi, 2019, p. 45).

The historic turn (Rowlinson, Hassard, & Decker, 2014) has pushed for a revised understanding of past context as offering more than simply temporal variables for universal theorising (Van Lent & Durepos, 2019). Historical phenomena often remain, however, reduced to consequences or affectations of particular contexts. In contrast, microhistory calls out for a grounding and explanation of the past through analyses of how actors, places, concepts, events or objects interact and are woven together in contradictory and often different fields and interests. In so doing, microhistory exposes how both individuals and social structures of all kinds are produced simultaneously through relationships and processes.

This special issue’s scope is to explore the methodological, ontological, and empirical strengths of microhistory to advance management history and organization studies. Therefore, we invite both theoretical, and theoretically informed empirical submissions that will further the contribution of microhistory in business history, management, and organizational history, as well as management and organization theory.

Questions and topics of interest for the special issue may include:

  1. How does the use of microhistory question, elaborate, or develop macro theories or broader conceptualisations from within the confines of discrete and particular historical studies
  2. How do microhistorical methodologies of reading “beyond the edges of the paper” contradict and undermine broader historical narratives in business and management and organizational history such as Marxism, functionalism, institutionalism, neo-liberalism, the resource-based view of the firm, and economic path dependency?
  3. What are the advantages and concerns for the use of historical archival research, source criticism, triangulation, and historical interpretivism when innovative microhistorical methodologies work with “dissonant sources” and “unintended evidence”?
  4. What is the impact of microhistory in relation to archival ethnography and the employment of micro historical sources (e.g., letters, diaries, postcards, travel accounts, scrapbooks, and memoirs)?
  5. What is the way in which local knowledge and local environment historically create organizational, business, and entrepreneurial opportunities?
  6. How does a microhistorical approach reconceptualise the relationship between agency and structure in business and management and organizational history?
  7. What is the relationship between the different scales of history? In particular, to what extent do microhistories develop historical accounts that reflect on a granular scale broader organizational and business historical environments and trends?
  8. How can we account for generalisation by using a microhistorical approach? How can local answers reply to general questions by showing complex and often ambiguous connections in historical archives?

New historical article in HR

I am pleased to see another really interesting historical article has been published open access in Human Relations:

Business as service? Human Relations and the British interwar management movement

Mairi Maclean, Gareth Shaw, Charles Harvey 

First Published January 19, 2022 Research Article


To what extent should business have an implication of service when its fundamental purpose is profit-seeking? We explore this issue through a contextually informed reappraisal of British interwar management thinking (1918–1939), drawing on rich archival material concerning the Rowntree business lectures and management research groups. Whereas existing literature is framed around scientific management versus human relations schools, we find a third pronounced, related theme: business as service. Our main contribution is to identify the origins in Britain of the discourse of corporate social responsibility in the guise of business as service. We show that this emerged earlier than commonly assumed and was imbued with an instrumental intent from its inception as a form of management control. This was a discourse emanating not from management theorists but from management practitioners, striving to put the corporate system on a sustainable footing while safeguarding the power, authority, and legitimacy of incumbent managerial elites.

HiMOS webinar April 27th

Great news everyone!

The HiMOS series ( returns!

We are delighted to host Grace Augustine (Bayes Business School) and Sandeep Pillai (Bocconi University) at the next event.

Grace will provide a “behind-the-scene” presentation about her recent Organization Science article ( on abortion provision in the US. She will share her insights to publish historical research in a top management journal. We recommend reading the article before the workshop to get the most out of the presentation. 

Sandeep will present his working paper that aims to enhance our methodological knowledge of doing history in the strategic management context. We will circulate his working paper one week before the event.

Date: Wednesday, Apr 27th, 2022

Time: 14:00–16:00 (Eastern European Summer Time, UTC+3, Finland); 13:00–15:00 (Italy); 12:00–14:00 (UK)

Register here to get your Zoom link:


Senior Lecturer Grace Augustine (Bayes Business School, City, University of London): Capturing Voices, Experiences, and Identities Through Archival Data

Assistant Professor Sandeep Pillai (Bocconi University): The Role of Historical Methods in Strategy Research: Bridging the Gap between Loveliness and Likeliness

Best regards,

Christian and Zeerim

Dr Grace Augustine (Bayes) and Dr Sandeep Pillai (Bocconi) will speak at the next HiMOS event.

Article of the Month in Human Relations

It’s typical of me that only today did I become aware that our article on “Rethinking History and Memory in Organization Studies” (with John Hassard & Mick Rowlinson) has been the Article of the Month in Human Relations for March. Still, very pleased that the journal has highlighted our piece, especially since Human Relations has a great track record for publishing innovative pieces at the intersection of organization research and history.

March’s Article of the Month in Human Relations