CfP: MOH SI – Making Managers

Management & Organizational History
Special Issue: Making Managers

Guest Editors
Rolv Petter Amdam, BI Norwegian Business School, Oslo, Norway
Matthias Kipping, Schulich School of Business, Toronto, Canada
Jacqueline McGlade, College of Economics and Political Science, Sultan Qaboos
University, Muscat, Oman (

Call for papers
This special issue explores the dynamics, processes, and actors involved in making
managers over time in a variety of contexts. The issue intends to fill an important
gap in the current literature on the history of management education, which has
largely been centered on organizational development narratives, i.e. the rise of
business schools, the global spread of the American model, business-based
academic disciplines, etc. (see, for examples, the Selected References below).
We therefore invite papers that to chronicle the actual preparation of managers in
all types, venues and forms; address questions and perspectives that have not been
addressed; and cover geographical areas or industries and activities that are not in
focus in the extant literature. We seek contributions that consider a variety of
dimensions and aspects involved with making managers, both in imagined and real
terms. We welcome in particular contributions that address one or several of the
following broad domains: (i) organizational settings, such as universities,
companies, business associations, governments, public administrations and the
military etc.; (ii) programs and their scope, including undergraduate and graduate
degrees, executive education, managerial leadership programs, corporate training,
online and self-help courses etc.; (iii) cultural and social processes, contributing,
among others, to organizational integration, habitus building and elite formation;
(iv) global differences, with a particular focus on non-Western contexts.

Possible (though not exclusive) topics
• The role of management education and training in imparting and inculcating
shared terminology and language, norms and behavior;
• The shifting weights of various academic disciplines in the preparation of
managers as well as the changing importance of experiential learning;
• The development of non-traditional manager preparation programs, including
alternative contents and new ways of delivery;
• The efforts by other actors to complement or substitute for extant universitybased
management degree programs;
• The attempts by the various management education or training providers to
bridge perceived gaps between business knowledge mastery, i.e. “know
about” and impactful managerial leadership, i.e. “know-how.”
• The influence of different national, cultural and institutional contexts on the
formal or informal making of managers;
• The emergence of a cadre of global managers, tied (or not) to multinational
enterprises and related phenomena, including offshoring;
• The homogenizing effects due to dominant models, accreditation or rankings,
and how these have been resisted, subverted or adapted;
• The ways in which education and training contributed (or not) to the
expansion and professionalization of management.

Selected References
Amdam, R.P. (2008). “Business Education,” in G. Jones and J. Zeitlin, eds., The Oxford
Handbook in Business History. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Engwall, L., M. Kipping, and B. Üsdiken (2016). Defining Management: Business Schools,
Consultants, Media. New York: Routledge.
Gourvish, T. R. and Tiratsoo, N., eds. (1998). Missionaries and Managers: American
Influences on European Management Education, 1945-60. Manchester: Manchester
University Press.
McGlade, J. (1998). “The big push: the export of American business education to
Western Europe after World War II,” in V. Zamagni and L. Engwall, eds.,
Management education in a historical perspective. Manchester: Manchester
University Press.
Mintzberg, H. (2004). Managers Not MBAs: A Hard Look at the Soft Practice of
Managing and Management Development. San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler

Submission Process and Deadline
Authors wanting to discuss their ideas or draft papers are encouraged to contact
the special issue editors. When writing the manuscript, please make sure to follow
the journal’s style guidelines:

Completed manuscripts should be submitted online at:, mentioning the special issue.

The deadline for submissions is 31 March 2018.

Each submission will initially be reviewed by the guest editors to determine its
suitability for the special issue. We might hold a paper development workshop for
authors whose manuscripts pass this original screening. Before final acceptance
papers will also be double-blind reviewed. Publication of the special issue is planned
for the second half of 2019.

About the Editors
Rolv Petter Amdam is Professor of Business History at BI Norwegian Business School
in Oslo, Norway. He has published widely on the international development of
management education, and edited Management Education and Competitiveness:
Europe, the US and Japan (1996), and co-edited with R. Kvålshaugen and E. Larsen,
Inside the Business School: The Content of European Business Education (2003)

Matthias Kipping is Professor of Policy and Richard E. Waugh Chair in Business
History at the Schulich School of Business, York University in Toronto, Canada. He
has published extensively on the international dissemination of management
knowledge, and in particular the role of consultants and business schools. He has
co-edited, with T. Clark, the Oxford Handbook of Management Consulting (2012)
and co-authored, with L. Engwall and B. Üsdiken, Defining Management (2016).

Jacqueline McGlade is Associate Professor at the College of Economics and Political
Science, Sultan Qaboos University in Muscat, Oman. She has pioneered some of the
early research on the US efforts to spread their models of management education
globally – a topic she is continuing to explore, and is currently working on issues of
international political economy and trade development, including, most recently,
research on the role of SMEs in the Gulf region.



CfP: Special issue on War & Peace in Organizational Memory

Management and Organizational History

Call for papers

 Special Issue: War and Peace in Organizational Memory



Organizations are known for marking their own centennial, bicentennial and other anniversaries. These celebrations are good opportunities for organizations to reflect on their past. The commissioned corporate history that often stems from these events helps the organization to understand its past. This work can then be used externally to form part of its marketing strategy or internally as a way to firm up its identity (Suddaby, Foster and Quinn Trank 2016). The past and longevity also confers legitimacy upon the organization (Roowaan 2009). Other commemorative dates and remembrance ceremonies are of similar importance. While not the traditional focus of business historians, these dates are nevertheless observed by organizations as they participate in the social process of remembering events. This is especially apparent in the experience of war and, as we have seen more recently, terrorist attacks.

A special Issue of Management and Organizational History will be timed to coincide with 11th November 2018 as the 100th year anniversary of Armistice Day. It will be devoted to the examining the impact that war, as a social and political event, had upon organizational identity. How did organizations understand and rationalize their national, regional, religious or racial identity and behavior in times of conflict? What objects, rituals and ceremonies organizations initiate to remember and commemorate the lives lost in war – if at all? To what extent were memorials or commemorations specific to organisations themselves, albeit embedded within wider systems of meaning? How does the end of conflict and peace time change these gestures or attitudes towards other nations or groups? We welcome empirical and theoretical papers that consider case studies or adopt long run historical analysis as well as encouraging the submission of work that utilizes new approaches to concepts of memory. Papers that examine the influence of World War I would be pertinent contributions to the issue but it is not confined to focusing on this war alone. Submissions that consider other wars or conflicts, such as the Hundred Years War, Wars of Independence, Civil Wars, Napoleonic War, World War II, the Cold War, would be relevant and we invite papers from all periods and geographical zones.

Since the ‘historic turn’, a shift has begun to take place in the study of organizational change whereby business historians and historical analysis more generally has taken a greater role. Using history in forming organizational identity often involves sense-making by companies (Ravasi and Schultz, 2006). Recent research has included analysis of ceremonies, rituals and objects. Rituals, as historic events, contain rich levels of symbolism and follow a set of established conventions (Dacin et al., 2010). Objects, such as ornaments, portraits, other paraphernalia and even architecture or museums, exist as a manifestation of a collective memory, a historical record of the organization’s past (Decker 2014; Suddaby, Foster and Quinn Trank 2016, Barnes and Newton, 2017). They serve as ‘talking points’ or a ‘show and tell’ to explain organizational culture, an event or the meaning of an act which has taken place (Ames, 1980; Rafaeli and Pratt, 1993). Textual and oral memory forms can be used as memory cues, which enable those in the present to construct organizational identity that complies with current and future requirements (Schultz and Hernes 2013, 4). While the past can be used and manipulated, it is not always controlled by those with power at the top of the hierarchy (Rowlinson and Hassard 1993; Maclean et al. 2014).

There is a wealth of literature on the memorialization of war at the individual, national, European and international level.  Mosse examines the commemoration of soldiers after war, and the role this has in turning war into a sacred event (1990).  The role that remembering of war has in creating both national and European identities is considered by Niznik (2013) and its role in influencing post-war European politics is analyzed by Muller (2002). Others consider an international perspective (Sumartojo and Wellings, 2014), whilst the role of museums in remembering war is considered by Williams (2007) and Kjeldbaek (2009). Yet less has been written about how organizations remember war and how such remembering (or forgetting) influences their identify.

This call for papers invites potential contributions from those that employ innovative methodologies to examine individuals, groups or organizations and their experience of war.

Potential topics might include:

  • Corporate acts, events, rituals or memorials that remember the war and lives lost
  • Decisions not to mark or otherwise commemorate war and/or conflict
  • War reparations and other related acts
  • The organization’s narrative of its involvement in the war
  • The disruptive atmosphere of war and crisis management on staff
  • The impact of war or peace on the organization’s national, regional, religious or racial identity
  • Approach of multinational firms to this issue and uniformity or difference in subsidiary organisations
  • Remembering as a means of connecting with local stakeholders, such as customers and the general public
  • Debates about retaining war memorials and the issues with existing stakeholders

Process and timeline

Those interested in potentially contributing should contact the two guest editors at the earliest opportunity:

Victoria Barnes:

Lucy Newton:

A paper development workshop will be held in Henley Business School, University of Reading in December 2017.

Manuscripts are to be submitted to Management and Organization History in the normal way. Authors should make it clear that the paper is intended to be part of the Special Issue.

The deadline for submission of papers for the Special Issue is February 28th 2018 with an aim to get final versions accepted by September 2018 for publication.

The Special Issue is timed to coincide with Armistice Day and will appear in November 2018 (Vol. 13, No. 4).


Ames, K.L., 1980. Material Culture as NonVerbal Communication: A Historical Case Study. J. Am. Cult. 3, 619–641. doi:10.1111/j.1542-734X.1980.0304_619.x

Dacin, M.T., Munir, K., Tracey, P., 2010. Formal Dining at Cambridge Colleges: Linking Ritual Performance and Institutional Maintenance. Acad. Manage. J. 53, 1393–1418. doi:10.5465/AMJ.2010.57318388

Decker, Stephanie. 2014. ‘Solid Intentions: An Archival Ethnography of Corporate Architecture and Organizational Remembering’. Organization 21 (4): 514–42. doi:10.1177/1350508414527252.

Kjeldbæk, Esben (ed.). 2009. The power of the object : museums and World War I.  Edinburgh : Museums Etc.

Maclean, M., Harvey, C., Sillince, J.A.A., Golant, B.D., 2014. Living up to the past? Ideological sensemaking in organizational transition. Organization 21, 543–567. doi:10.1177/1350508414527247

Mosse, George L. 1990. Fallen soldiers: reshaping the memory of the world wars.  New York and Oxford : Oxford University Press.

Müller, Jan-Werner (ed.). 2002.  Memory and power in post-war Europe: studies in the presence of the past.  Cambridge, UK; Cambridge University Pres..

Niżnik, Józef (ed.). 2013.  Twentieth century wars in European memory.  Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.

Rafaeli, A., Pratt, M.G., 1993. Tailored Meanings: On the Meaning and Impact of Organizational Dress. Acad. Manage. Rev. 18, 32–55. doi:10.5465/AMR.1993.399750

Ravasi, D. M. and Schultz, Majken. 2006. ‘Responding to Organizational Identity Threats: Exploring the Role of Organizational Culture’. Academy of Management Journal 49 (3): 433-458

Roowaan, Reis. 2009. A Business Case for Business History: How Companies Can Profit from their Past. Amsterdam: Uitgeverij Boom.

Rowlinson, Michael and Hassard, John. 1993. ‘The Invention of Corporate Culture: A History of the Histories of Cadbury’. Human Relations 46: 299-326.

Suddaby, Roy, William M. Foster, and Chris Quinn Trank. 2016. ‘Re-Membering: rhetorical history as identity work’. In The Oxford Handbook of Organizational Theory and Behaviour, edited by Michael G. Pratt, Majken Schultz, Blake E. Ashforth and David Ravasi. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Sumartojo, Shanti and Ben Wellings, (eds.). 2014. Nation, memory and Great War commemoration: mobilizing the past in Europe, Australia and New Zealand.  Bern, Switzerland : Peter Lang.

Williams, Paul Harvey. 2007. Memorial museums: the global rush to commemorate atrocities. Oxford : Berg.


LAEMOS 2018 – Organizational History & Memory

 LAEMOS 2018

 Sub-Theme Proposal –  Organizational History and Memory

Diego M. Coraiola – Universidade Positivo, Brazil (

Roy Suddaby – University of Victoria, Canada (

Maria Jose Murcia – University of British Columbia, Canada and IAE Universidad Austral, Argentina (

Mar Pérezts – EMLYON Business School, France (

Bill Cooke – York University, UK (

The notion of organizational resilience implies an implicit theory of organizations in time. Organizational survival lies in the ability of adapting to present and future demands from the environment as well as remaining true to an organization’s essence. Simply put, resilience is about being able to change and yet to remain the same. Reaching a proper balance between the old and the new or the past and the future is an ambidexterous act of exploration and exploitation or a paradox of similarity-distinctiveness. It involves establishing links between the legacies of organizational identities established in the past to aspirational strategies of an imagined future organization. However, there is still little knowledge of how the connections between the present and past of organizational action are created and sustained over time.

There is mixed evidence about the role of the past and history in organization survival. The past, it seems, can both enable and constrain adaptation and change. While for some scholars history defines the boundaries of organizational action and the possibilities of organizational resilience (David, 1985; Hannan & Freeman, 1989; Marquis, 2003; Porter, 1998; Teece, Pisano, & Shuen, 1997), for others the meaning of past actions and events is open for reinterpretation and reshaping through present actions and capabilities. (Coraiola, Foster, & Suddaby, 2015; Mena, Rintamäki, Fleming, & Spicer, 2016; Suddaby & Foster, 2016; Suddaby, Foster, & Trank, 2010; Zundel, Holt, & Popp, 2016). Empirical research on the mnemonics of organizational life might provide a better understanding of the organizational capabilities in generating alternative paths and adapting to changing environmental conditions and at the same time remaining true to themselves.

Our goal for this sub-theme, therefore, is to encourage theory on the mnemonic processes managers and organizations engage with in order to generate continuity and change with the past in ways that assure organizational survival and advantage them in the present and future. This calls for great variety of theoretical perspectives and empirical settings in order to start generating the cumulative evidence about the influences of historical legacies and the organizational ability for managing the past. Submissions focusing on the mnemonics of organizational resilience could look at:

  1.  What are the implications of past managerial action for organizational success and survival (Greve & Rao, 2014; Marquis, 2003; Schrempf-Stirling, Palazzo, & Phillips, 2016; Sydow & Schreyögg, 2013)?
  2.  What are the practices and routines organizations engage with in order to balance the reproduction and renovation of the past (Coraiola, Suddaby, Foster, 2017; Suddaby, Foster, Quinn-Trank, 2010)?
  3.  How managers use history to manage processes of organizational change (Brunninge, 2009; Maclean, Harvey, Sillince, & Golant, 2014; Ybema, 2010)?
  4.  How organizational identity is created and reproduced over time through various processes of remembering and forgetting (Anteby & Molnár, 2012; Ravasi & Schultz, 2006; Schultz & Hernes, 2013; Suddaby, Foster, & Trank, 2016)?
  5.  How organizations develop mnemonic practices to manage legitimacy threats and corporate scandals (Janssen, 2012; Mena, Rintamäki, Fleming, & Spicer, 2016)?
  6.  What are the boundary conditions around the uses of organizational mnemonics to foster organizational resilience (Foster, Coraiola, Suddaby, Kroezen, & Chandler, Forthcoming; Zundel et al, 2016)?
  7.  How management and organization scholars contribute to the understanding and the engagement of managers and organizations with the past (Lasewicz, 2015; Suddaby, 2016; Taylor, Bell, & Cooke, 2009).

The focus of this sub-theme is thus to provide new and more encompassing evidence about the enabling and constraining effects of the past for organizational resilience and survival. Researchers are encouraged to submit papers for this sub-theme with theoretical, methodological, and empirical contributions. Our goal is to foster discussions around the influence of the past, present, and future of managerial action on organizational continuity and change.


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.

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.

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 & Organizational History (pp. 206-221). New York: Routledge.

David, P. A. (1985). Clio and the Economics of QWERTY. The American Economic Review, 75(2), 332-337.

Foster, W. M., Coraiola, D. M., Suddaby, R., Kroezen, J., & Chandler, D. (Forthcoming). The strategic use of historical narratives: A theoretical framework. Business History.

Greve, H. R., & Rao, H. (2014). History and the present: Institutional legacies in communities of organizations. Research in organizational behavior, 34, 27-41.

Hannan, M. T., & Freeman, J. (1989). Organizational Ecology. New York: Oxford University Press.

Janssen, C. I. (2012). Addressing Corporate Ties to Slavery: Corporate Apologia in a Discourse of Reconciliation. Communication Studies, 63(1), 18-35.

Lasewicz, P. C. (2015). Forget the Past? Or History Matters? Selected Academic Perspectives on the Strategic Value of Organizational Pasts. The American Archivist, 78(1), 59-83.

Maclean, M., Harvey, C., Sillince, J. A. A., & Golant, B. D. (2014). Living up to the past? Ideological sensemaking in organizational transition. Organization, 21(4), 543-567.

Marquis, C. (2003). The Pressure of the Past: Network Imprinting in Intercorporate Communities. Administrative Science Quarterly, 48(4), 655-689.

Mena, S., Rintamäki, J., Fleming, P., & Spicer, A. (2016). On the Forgetting of Corporate Irresponsibility. Academy of Management Review, 41(4), 720-738.

Porter, M. E. (1998). Cluster and the new economics of competition. Harvard Business Review, 76(6), 77-90.

Ravasi, D., & Schultz, M. (2006). Responding to organizational identity threats: Exploring the role of organizational culture. Academy of Management Journal, 49(3), 433-458.

Schrempf-Stirling, J., Palazzo, G., & Phillips, R. (2016). Historic Corporate Social Responsibility. Academy of Management Review, 41(4), 700-719.

Schultz, M., & Hernes, T. (2013). A Temporal Perspective on Organizational Identity. Organization Science, 24(1), 1-21.

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. (2016). History and Organizational Change. Journal of Management, 43(1), 19-38.

Suddaby, R., Foster, W. M., & Trank, C. Q. (2010). Rhetorical history as a source of competitive advantage. In J. A. C. Baum & J. Lampel (Eds.), Advances in Strategic Management: The Globalization of Strategy Research (pp. 147-173). Bingley: Emerald.

Suddaby, R., Foster, W. M., & Trank, C. Q. (2016). Re-membering: Rhetorical History as Identity-Work. In M. G. Pratt , M. Schultz, B. E. Ashforth & D. Ravasi (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Organizational Identity (pp. 297-316). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Sydow, J., & Schreyögg, G. (2013). Self-reinforcing processes in and among organizations. Hampshire: Palgrave.

Taylor, S., Bell, E., & Cooke, B. (2009). Business history and the historiographical operation. Management & Organizational History, 4(2), 151-166.

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

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

Zundel, M., Holt, R., & Popp, A. (2016). Using history in the creation of organizational identity. Management & Organizational History, 1-25.


Note: We thank Maria Del Pilar Acosta Collazos, Sébastien Mena, and William M. Foster for their contribution in developing the proposal for this sub-theme.

New article in Organizational History

On the back of recent and significant new debates on the use of history within business and management studies, we consider the perception of historians as being anti-theory and of having methodological shortcomings; and business and management scholars displaying insufficient attention to historical context and privileging of certain social science methods over others. These are explored through an examination of three subjects: strategy, international business and entrepreneurship. We propose a framework for advancing the use of history within business and management studies more generally through greater understanding of historical perspectives and methodologies.

New article on MOH

History Research in Management and Organization Studies

Editors’ Picks: History Research in Management and Organization Studies

Edited by Gabrielle Durepos and Albert J Mills


This Editors’ Picks provides an occasion to celebrate the momentum that doing history research in management and organization studies (MOS) has gained since the calls for more history in the early 1990s (Zald, 1993, 1996; Kieser, 1994; Üsdiken and Kieser, 2004). Organization is an especially appropriate venue to do so given the dedication of the journal to disseminating critically oriented scholarship. The initial calls for more history work in MOS suggested, in varying ways (empirical, epistemological) and degrees, that doing history could act as a vehicle for critique. Indeed the articles selected for this Editors’ Picks are not only evidence of the growing momentum for more history in MOS but each in its own vein engenders history as a vehicle for critique. The theme is exemplified well by Cooke (1999) who provides a critical reconstruction of the Management of Change literature with a focus on redressing the silences surrounding the role of the ideological left in the disciplines’ own accounts of its past. In his assertion that all management and organization theory is shaped by past processes and are nonetheless viewed through a political lens formed by contemporary concerns, Cooke calls for greater awareness in the historical construction of representations of management and organization theory. Though Cooke (1999) does not use the terms ‘critical history,’ his article teaches us that a ‘critical history’ (as envisioned today) might imply acknowledging the historicity of management theory as a precondition for taking responsibility to change its (self- )representations that are uncontested, naturalized and un-reflexive.

To read the full introduction, please click here.

PhD Scholarships in “Time and Societal Challenges in a Changing Global Economy”

PhD Scholarships in “Time and Societal Challenges in a Changing Global Economy”

PhD Scholarships in “Time and Societal Challenges in a Changing Global Economy”

Copenhagen Business School invites applications for 6 vacant PhD scholarships within the field of “Time and Societal Challenges in a Changing Global Economy”. The successful applicants will be organized as a cross-departmental cohort with a number of common PhD courses and other activities such as workshops. The positions will be based in the four Departments associated with the OMS Doctoral School: Department of Business and Politics (DBP), Department of Organisation (IOA), Department of Management, Politics and Philosophy (MPP) and Department of Management, Society and Communication (MSC).

Theme of the Cohort

The notions of time and temporality have increasingly become the object of study across the social sciences. Temporality refers to the linear progression of time, historicity, the perception of time, processes of sequencing and order and rates of change as well as the social organization of time. In sociology, for instance, it is becoming increasingly recognized that existing theoretical frameworks, largely rooted in traditional approaches, do not adequately explain the active role of time in a globalizing economy. In the political sciences, the historicity of practices, norms and political ideas and the concept of “political time” have received increased attention particularly in association with questions about the character of continuity and change. Furthermore, analyses of the ways in which political, institutional and ideational processes unfold over time are central to the study of political economy and the shaping of policy processes. Also, in the area of Business Studies, there is an increasing turn of attention to the strategic use of historical narratives in corporate action.

The work of the cohort will challenge prevailing chronological, linear and sequential theories of time in politics and the study of organizations to embrace an active and dynamic view of time. Using innovative theories and methods, it will seek to explain how and why temporal dynamics shape and impact contemporary challenges. These challenges include, for example, globalizing and de-globalizing processes, state capacities in an era of limited economic growth, and the changing relationships between actors, organizations and the institutional frameworks. A particular focus will be put on how temporal structures and processes of sequencing constrain, but at times also empower individual and collective actors (e.g. business, workers, policy makers, civil society representatives), and the ways in which, within that context, those actors seek to reconfigure past, present and future. The work of the cohort will furthermore explore how processes of temporal construction affect the interactions between different actors and institutions in the context of these challenges.

The proposed PhD cohort will draw upon central ideas in philosophy, sociology, political science, history, cultural studies and organization theory. Although students may choose to write a PhD within a particular disciplinary perspective they will be encouraged to draw upon some of the other disciplines that will be utilized and explored within the cohort. We see this interdisciplinary and multi-disciplinary cohort which is expected to use a range of innovative theoretical frameworks and sound research designs (including qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods alongside experimental approaches) as the only viable way forward in new research endeavors. There will be a shared understanding that differences in temporalities constituted by factors such as past and future time horizons, mechanisms of connecting past and future in the present, pace and acceleration of change, lead to increased temporal complexity.

Pool of possible topics within the overall theme

Department of Business and Politics (DBP)

• The politics and history of social challenges in a comparative perspective (such as sustainability, inequality, 4th industrial revolution)

• The political economy of European crises: politics, polity and policy
Department of Organization (IOA)

• The role of time in organizing for societal challenges

• Organizational time, learning and innovation

• Organizing time, routines and change
Department of Management, Politics and Philosophy (MPP)

• Time, history and entrepreneurship in a globalized world

• Time and transformations in private-public relations

• The philosophy of time and chronology
Department of Management, Society and Communication (MSC)

• Temporality and talk-action dynamics in CSR

• Varieties of time perceptions attached to multi-stakeholder initiatives

• Colliding temporal orders and new forms of organizing


The PhD programme

The PhD programme at CBS is highly international. It allows you to conduct research under the supervision of CBS professors, supported by research training courses (30 ECTS points). You are expected to participate in international research conferences and spend time abroad as a visiting PhD student. For further information on the CBS PhD programme please consult this page:
It is also required that the applicant shows an interest in joining the respective Department’s research environment. You find information on the departments here:
CBS PhD graduates are held in high esteem not only in academia and research institutions but also in government and business where their research qualifications are increasingly demanded. One third of CBS PhD graduates go on to employment outside universities and public research institutions.

Copenhagen Business School has a broad commitment to the excellence, distinctiveness and relevance of its teaching and research programmes. Candidates who wish to join us should demonstrate enthusiasm for working in organization of this type (highlighting, for example, relevant business, educational and dissemination activities).

For further information please contact the head of department of the respective department:

• DBP: Prof MSO Caroline de la Porte +4538153550

• IOA: Prof MSO Signe Vikkelsø +4538152827

• MPP: Prof Lotte Jensen +4538153637

• MSC: Associate Prof Dorte Salskov-Iversen +4538153181
For administrative information please contact Henrik Hermansen +45 3815 3656,
General information

A PhD scholarship runs for a period of 3 years, and includes teaching obligations equivalent of 1⁄2 year’s work (840 work hours). The scholarships are fully salaried positions, according to the national Danish collective agreement. The scholarship includes the tuition fees, office space, travel grants plus a salary, currently starting with per month app. DKK 23.770 (app. 3,160 euro) up to DKK 28.964 (app. 3,860 euro) depending on seniority, plus a pension contribution totaling 17,1 % of 85 per cent of the base salary.
The salary level and appointment is determined by the Ministry of Finance’s collective agreement with the Central Academic Organization.
The PhD student will be enrolled at the PhD School in Organization and Management Studies (OMS). To be considered, the candidate should have a degree at the Masters level (similar to the 3 + 2 Bologna process). An educational background in philosophy, sociology, political science, history, cultural studies and organization theory or related fields is necessary. The applicant must have successfully completed the Master’s degree before commencing a PhD at CBS. The applicants must be fluent in English.
The application must include a 5 page research proposal following the guidelines available here:
In addition to the research proposal, the application must include copies of a Master’s degree certificate or other certificates of a corresponding level, brief curriculum vitae (CV), a list of papers and publications, and one copy of a selected written work (e.g. Master’s thesis). Applicants must enclose documentation for English language skills if not mother tongue.
Recruitment procedure

The Recruitment Committee will shortlist applicants. The shortlisted applicants will be assessed by the Assessment Committee. All applicants will be notified of their status in the recruitment process shortly after the application deadline.

The applicants selected for assessment will be notified about the composition of the Assessment Committee and later in the process about the result of the assessment.

Once the recruitment process is completed each applicant will be notified of the outcome of their application.

The successful applicants are expected to start their position on September 1 2017.


Closing date: June 1, 2017

Copenhagen Business School must receive all application material, including all appendices (see items above), by the application deadline.

Details about Copenhagen Business School and the departments are available at


Application Deadline
June 1, 2017
Apply online

SI of the “Workplace Review” now out

April 2017 Special Issue 

“Thinking on the Edges of Management and Organizational History”


Thinking on the Edges of Management and Organizational History

Management Education Feature

Case Study

Click here for the Full Issue

Reminder: Final ESRC seminar

Seminar 6:

Organizations as heritage and history as a useful resource
Wednesday 5th April 2017

ESRC Seminar Series
Organizations and Society:
Historicising the theory and practice of organization analysis

University of Exeter Business School
Building One: Constantine Leventis Teaching Room
Reception: Xfi Building

10:15-10.30 Refreshments and welcome by seminar series organizers Michael Rowlinson, Stephanie Decker and John Hassard

10.30-11.30 Albert J. Mills (Saint Mary University and University of Eastern Finland), “Insights and Research on the study of Gender and Intersectionality in International Airline Cultures Over Time.”

11:30-11:45 Coffee and biscuits 11:45-12:30 Gabrielle Durepos (Mount Saint Vincent University) “Mobilizing Critical Management History: the example of ANTi-History”

12:30-13:15 Michael Rowlinson & David Boughey (University of Exeter) “Suncor’s Corporate History: Strategic Rhetoric or Cultural Imperative?”

13.15-14:00 Buffet lunch

14:00-14.45 Sara Kinsey (Head of Historical Archives, Nationwide Building Society) “Lights, camera, action: reflections on organizational remembering in practice.”

14:45-15.30 Michael Weatherburn (Imperial College London) “The emerging corporate knowledge gap: why we need our dark archives and ghost data more than we realize.”

15:30-15:45 Tea and biscuits 15:45-16:30 Alan Booth and Morgen Witzel (University of Exeter) “The Rowntree business ‘archives’: uncovering British management in the inter -war period”

16:30-17:15 Roundtable
Speakers: Charles Booth (University of the West of England) Peter Miskell (University of Reading) Anna Soulsby (University of Nottingham)

17:15-19:00 Reception

Please contact Kate Henderson if you plan on attending.

Registration: A limited number of ESRC sponsored free places (including refreshments, buffet lunch and evening reception) will be allocated on a “first come first served” basis to those who contact Kate Henderson asking to attend. A fee of £35.00 will be charged on additional places.

Travel & accommodation: Exeter St. Davids is the nearest train station and is a 5min drive from the university. If needed, Kate Henderson can help with your travel and accommodation arrangements, but cost will need to be covered by participants.

For further enquiries please contact: Professor Mick Rowlinson (University of Exeter Business School) or Kate Henderson.

Resource on management history

I have just come across this new YouTube channel (thanks to Scott Taylor) about the History of Management.

New History of Management channel is a repository for videos that look at the history of management in new and interesting ways in order to encourage thinking differently about management and management education today. It is named after the book A New History of Management, written by Stephen Cummings, Todd Bridgman, John Hassard & Michael Rowlinson, which will be published by Cambridge University Press later in 2017.


CfP: Use of Methodology in MH

Special issue call for papers from Journal of Management History


Guest Editors:
Wim van Lent, Montpellier Business School
Gabrielle Durepos, Mount Saint Vincent University

Submission deadline: 1 February 2018


Ever since the “historical turn” in organisation studies (Clark and Rowlinson 2004), the importance of history to understanding organisations and institutions has been increasingly recognized (e.g. Sydow, Schreyogg and Koch 2009, Ocasio, Mauskapf and Steele 2015, Suddaby 2016, Durepos and Mills 2012). Since history provides an alternative to the dominant science paradigms in organisation studies (Zald 1993), studies using a historical approach are contributing to and even shaping a growing number of scholarly debates (Decker, Kipping and Wadhwani 2015). The growing appreciation of historical approaches to building and testing organisation theory has spawned a body of work on how to engage in historical analysis with the specific aim of bridging the gap between the historical and organisational scientific communities (e.g. Rowlinson, Hassard and Decker 2014, De Jong, Higgins and Van Driel 2015, Whittle and Wilson 2015, Suddaby 2016, Durepos 2015). The fundamental insight that emerges from it is that history is no less fragmented than organisational theory (Rowlinson et al. 2014: 269). According to Bowden (2016), management scholars are essentially divided along a continuum with on the one extreme De Jong et al.’s (2015) position that history should be empirical and theory-oriented, and on the other extreme Whittle and Wilson’s (2015) “ethnomethodological” perspective, which is rooted in postmodernism and takes a more critical perspective on history-writing. Scholars find themselves either on the continuum with genealogy (Decker et al. 2015) and rhetorical history (Suddaby, Foster and Quinn Trank 2010) and even beyond with ANTi-History (Durepos and Mills 2012, 2017).
Although methodological diversity could impede moving the field forward, the variety that they encompass comes with potential, for example in terms of diversity of research questions and richness of historical knowledge (Decker et al. 2015). Fortunately, the conditions for the further development of management history (also in relation to other fields) seem to be in place: despite history’s growing permeation of organisation studies, there is still a lot of evidence enclosed in corporate archives with which management historians can formulate novel insights into the working of organisations and institutions (Rowlinson et al. 2014, Mills and Helms Mills 2017). However, in order to fully realize this potential, management history will have to go beyond “merely” continuing the proliferation of research using alternative types of historical data and analysis. Most importantly, research should be multidisciplinary (Bucheli and Wadhwani 2014), connecting an understanding of organisational theory and methods with historical contexts and source material (Rowlinson et al. 2014), or involving multiple sources and methods for data analysis (Bowden 2016). In addition, since histories are not uncontested records, management history is greatly helped by methodological reflexivity (Rowlinson et al. 2014). That is, when researchers are aware of their role in selecting certain traces over others, what their sources cover, and how and why they were put together, as well as the shaping influence of the historical context within which they construct theoretical arguments, they may improve the plausibility of their analyses and better identify scope conditions (Bowden 2016).

Aims and Scope
This special issue has two broad purposes: 1) to move forward the methodological debates in management history and 2) to demonstrate the use of / refine historical methods in organisational research through empirical analysis. We therefore welcome both theoretical and empirical papers. Below we suggest a non-exhaustive list of specific topics that contribute to the above two goals. Papers focusing on topics that are not included but sufficiently related to the goals highlighted above would also be welcome as submissions to the special issue.
•    Epistemology and management history
•    Typification of research methodologies
•    Novel research methods in management history
•    Ways in which different methods can be combined for richer empirical insights
•    Empirical demonstrations of the use of one or several methodologies
•    Methodological refinement through empirical analysis
•    Benefits / drawbacks of research methods for a management history audience

Submission Process
Submitted papers must conform to the submission guidelines of the Journal of Management History. Manuscripts are due by 1 February 2018 and must be submitted using the JMH submission system at Authors should indicate that they would like their document to be considered for the special issue “Uses of Methodology in Management History”. Authors of papers invited to be revised and resubmitted will be expected to work within a tight timeframe for revisions.

Further information

Questions pertaining to this special issue may be directed to:
•    Wim van Lent (
•    Gabrielle Durepos (
•    Bradley Bowden (

For questions about submitting to the special issue contact the JMH Publisher, Patti Davis (


Bowden, B (2016) Editorial and note on the writing of management history. Journal of Management History, Vol. 22, No. 2, pp. 118-129.
Bucheli M and Wadhwani D (2014) Organizations in time: history, theory, methods. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Clark P and Rowlinson M (2004) The treatment of history in organisation studies: toward an “historic turn”? Business History, Vol. 46, No. 3, pp. 331-352.
De Jong A, Higgins DM and Van Driel H (2015) Towards a new business history? Business History, Vol. 57, No. 1, pp. 5-29.
Decker S, Kipping M and Wadhwani D (2015) New business histories! Plurality in business history research methods. Business History, Vol. 57, No.1, pp. 30-40.
Durepos G (2015) ANTi-history: Toward amodern histories, in P Genoe McLaren, AJ Mills and T Weatherbee (Eds.), The Routledge companion to management and organisational history (pp. 153-180). New York: Routledge.
Durepos G and Mills A (2012) ANTi-history: Theorizing the past, history, and
historiography in management and organizational studies. Charlotte, NC:
Information Age Publishing.
Durepos G and Mills A (In press, 2017) ANTi-history: An alternative approach to historiography, in C Cassell, A Cunliffe and G Grandy (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of qualitative business and management research methods. London: Sage.
Mills A and Helms Mills J (In press, 2017) Archival research, in C Cassell, A Cunliffe and G Grandy (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of qualitative business and management research methods. London: SAGE.
Ocasio W, Mauskapf M and Steele CWJ (2016) History, society, and institutions: the role of collective memory in the emergence and evolution of societal logics, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 41, No. 4, pp. 676-699.
Rowlinson M, Hassard J and Decker S (2014) Research strategies for organisational history: a dialogue between historical theory and organization theory, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 39, No. 3, pp. 250-274.
Suddaby R (2016) Toward a historical consciousness: following the historic turn in management thought, M@n@gement, Vol. 19, No. 1, pp. 46-60.
Suddaby R, Foster W and Quinn Trank C (2010) Rhetorical history as a source of competitive advantage, Advances in Strategic Management, Vol. 27, pp. 147-173.
Sydow J, Schreyögg G and Koch J (2009) Organisational path dependence: opening the black box, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 34, No. 4, pp. 689-709.
Whittle A and Wilson J (2015) Ethnomethodology and the production of history: studying ‘history-in-action’, Business History, Vol. 57, No. 1, pp. 41-63.
Zald M (1993) Organisation studies as a scientific and humanistic enterprise: towards a reconceptualization of the foundations of the field, Organisation Science, Vol. 4, No. 4, pp. 513-528.