Tag: Management & Organizational History

University of Bristol Webinar: Taylorism, generations & historical reflexivity in management scholarship

Featured Steph
If you would like to join us for the University of Bristol School of Management Research Seminar hosted by the Strategy, International Management & Business, and Entrepreneurship (SIMBE) Academic Group, please email me (stephanie.decker[at]bristol.ac.uk) for the link.
Michael Weatherburn
(Imperial College London) 

Taylorism, generations and historical reflexivity in management scholarship
1st December, 12:30-13:30, Online Webinar (UK time)

Abstract
  

Building on increasingly confident scholarly studies (e.g. Decker, Hassard & Rowlinson, 2020; Maclean, Clegg, Suddaby, & Harvey, 2020), this project braids together history and organisation studies, and explores the historical origins and trajectory of ‘Taylorism’. As will be discussed, ‘Taylorism’ had two original meanings but mutated and expanded as part of growing scholarship on the labour process, organisation studies and political activism from the 1960s onwards. This entangled situation is still with us and indeed scholars suggest that ‘Taylorism’ presents us with a generational problem to solve (see Roper, 1999; Nyland, Bruce and Burns, 2014; Bruce et al, 2020). Addressing these points, the goal of this presentation is to both refine analysis of the historical impact of management on labour and to further demonstrate the value of historical reflexivity in management scholarship. 

Key words: Taylorism, history, organization studies, Gramsci, labour, reflexivity.

Biography 

Dr Michael Weatherburn is Field Leader of Humanities and Social Sciences and Data Science Institute Academic Fellow at Imperial College London, where he teaches history, digital studies and business ethics. He has a PhD in the history of science and technology, is Honorary Associate Professor at Hong Kong University, and History & Policy convenor at the UK Government Office for Science. He works with public and private sector clients through his consultancy, Project Hindsight (https://projecthindsight.co.uk/).  

ToCs for MOH 14, 2 March 2019

Steph

Articles

Members only: the Victorian gentlemen’s club as a space for doing business 1843–1900
Marrisa Joseph
Pages: 123-147 | DOI: 10.1080/17449359.2019.1580589

The problem with women: a feminist interrogation of management textbooks
Kristin S. Williams & Albert J. Mills
Pages: 148-166 | DOI: 10.1080/17449359.2019.1598436

From royal family-based ownership to state business management: Mangkunegara’s sugar industry in Java from the middle of the 19th to early 20th century
Wasino, Endah Sri Hartatik & Nawiyanto
Pages: 167-183 | DOI: 10.1080/17449359.2019.1614462

Strategy of a top agriculture co-operative in the central planned economy. The differentiation of the organization in perspective social system theory
Eva Šerá
Pages: 184-211 | DOI: 10.1080/17449359.2019.1660682

ToC MOH 13,4 (2018)

Steph

Management & Organizational History, Volume 13, Issue 4, November 2018 is now available online on Taylor & Francis Online.

Special issue on War and Peace in Organizational Memory.

Guest Editors: Victoria Barnes and Lucy Newton

Introduction

War and peace in organizational memory
Victoria Barnes & Lucy Newton
Pages: 303-308 | DOI: 10.1080/17449359.2018.1549798
Articles

War memorials in organizational memory: a case study of the Bank of England |
Victoria Barnes & Lucy Newton
Pages: 309-333 | DOI: 10.1080/17449359.2018.1534596

 

Good war/bad war: a war to remember, a war to forget?
Howard Cox
Pages: 334-351 | DOI: 10.1080/17449359.2018.1525407

 

Social memory assets as a defense mechanism: the Onondaga Pottery in World War II
Stephanie Vincent
Pages: 352-372 | DOI: 10.1080/17449359.2018.1525405

 

Amodern and modern warfare in the making of a commercial airline
Nicholous M. Deal, Albert J. Mills & Jean Helms Mills
Pages: 373-396 | DOI: 10.1080/17449359.2018.1547647

 

Conflicting commemorations: past and present in confederate memorialization
Barbara Hahn
Pages: 397-403 | DOI: 10.1080/17449359.2018.1525406

 

British and German SMEs and the memory of war: a comparative approach
David W. Paulson
Pages: 404-429 | DOI: 10.1080/17449359.2018.1550425

ToC MOH 13,3 (2018)

Steph

Management & Organizational History, Volume 13, Issue 3, August 2018 is now available online on Taylor & Francis Online.

Editorial

Reflections on the integration of history and organization studies
Peter Miskell
Pages: 213-219 | DOI: 10.1080/17449359.2018.1550286
Articles

The contingencies of corporate failure: the case of Lucas industries
Paul Kerr Edwards
Pages: 220-235 | DOI: 10.1080/17449359.2018.1534597

 

Varieties of capitalism and the corporate use of history: the Japanese experience
Pierre-Yves Donzé & Andrew Smith
Pages: 236-257 | DOI: 10.1080/17449359.2018.1547648

 

Public management and organizational reform in a historical perspective: the case of Chile’s State reform and public management modernization of 1920s
Mauricio Olavarría-Gambi
Pages: 258-282 | DOI: 10.1080/17449359.2018.1547646

 

Creating cultural heritage: three vignettes on Carl Jacobsen, his museum and foundation
Ida Lunde Jørgensen
Pages: 283-301 | DOI: 10.1080/17449359.2018.1547645

Aston Inaugural: A History of Business in 9 Archives

Steph

After many years as a Prof at Aston, I am having my inaugural this October. Please join me if you can, free drinks and nibbles after!

A history of business in nine archives

Professor Stephanie Decker

 

Date
Tuesday 30 October 2018

Time
18:30 to 20:00

Location
G11, Aston University

Remarkable stories and insights linger in archives like half-written novels. Many well-known companies maintain extensive collections of their international ventures that contain rich materials about business and society. In nine archives across three continents, we’ll discover the history of international firms investing in West Africa and elsewhere, from precursors of today’s microfinance to how firms make use of their history to inspire confidence after a crisis.

18:00 – Tea and coffee in G8, Main Building
18:30 – Lecture in G11, Main Building
19:30 – Drinks, nibbles and networking in G8

Please email events@aston.ac.uk with any questions or queries.

Book your free space here.

CfP: MOH SI – Making Managers

Steph

Management & Organizational History
Special Issue: Making Managers

Guest Editors
Rolv Petter Amdam, BI Norwegian Business School, Oslo, Norway
(rolv.p.amdam@bi.no)
Matthias Kipping, Schulich School of Business, Toronto, Canada
(mkipping@schulich.york.ca)
Jacqueline McGlade, College of Economics and Political Science, Sultan Qaboos
University, Muscat, Oman (jmcglade@squ.edu.om)

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
Publishers.

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:

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/authorSubmission?journalCode=rmor20&page
=instructions#.U2-Oqi_6Tp0.

Completed manuscripts should be submitted online at:
http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/moh, 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

Steph

Management and Organizational History

Call for papers

 Special Issue: War and Peace in Organizational Memory

 

Theme

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: Barnes@rg.mpg.de

Lucy Newton: L.A.Newton@henley.ac.uk

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).

References

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

Steph

 LAEMOS 2018

 Sub-Theme Proposal –  Organizational History and Memory

Diego M. Coraiola – Universidade Positivo, Brazil (dcoraiola@gmail.com)

Roy Suddaby – University of Victoria, Canada (rsuddaby@uvic.ca)

Maria Jose Murcia – University of British Columbia, Canada and IAE Universidad Austral, Argentina (majosemurcia@gmail.com)

Mar Pérezts – EMLYON Business School, France (perezts@em-lyon.com)

Bill Cooke – York University, UK (bill.cooke@york.ac.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.

References

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

Steph

I’m very pleased that one of my joint-authored article has been published. Thanks again to the great group at EGOS who discussed a much earlier version of our paper in 2014!

Clio in the business school: Historical approaches in strategy, international business and entrepreneurship

Andrew Perchard ORCID Icon, Niall G. MacKenzie, Stephanie Decker ORCID Icon & Giovanni Favero

Abstract

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.

Keywords: History, strategy, international business, entrepreneurship, methodology

New article on MOH

Steph

History Research in Management and Organization Studies

Editors’ Picks: History Research in Management and Organization Studies

Edited by Gabrielle Durepos and Albert J Mills

Introduction

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.