Kathryn Harrigan, Management History, and Michael Peng

Citation

Carraher, S. (2014), "Kathryn Harrigan, Management History, and Michael Peng", Journal of Management History, Vol. 20 No. 3. https://doi.org/10.1108/JMH-01-2014-0013

Kathryn Harrigan, Management History, and Michael Peng

Article Type: Editorial From: Journal of Management History, Volume 20, Issue 3

Welcome to Issue 3 Volume 20 of the Journal of Management History (JMH). The next issue shall be celebrating our 20th anniversary as a journal. As I begin this editorial, a quick look at Publish or Perish shows that works from the journal have been cited 2,949 times which is an increase of 239 since the last issue. With the first issue of this volume, we were at an acceptance rate of 17.1 per cent, while with the last issue, we went down to an 11.39-per cent acceptance rate, and I had estimated that we’d make it down <10 per cent by the end of the volume. As I had mentioned with the last issue, it was recommended that we be reclassified as an A on the Australian Business Dean Council’s list. It is now official that we are an A on that list and we are now trying to move up two points in the list used in the UK. We did see a large increase in submissions, and in the last 12 months, we have had a 7 per cent acceptance rate based on competitive papers submitted and a 9.9 per cent acceptance rate based on manuscripts with final decisions – which includes editorials which I personally don’t think they should count but that is how the newest version of ScholarOne calculates it. Our h index has moved from 22 up to 23 and our g index has moved from 36 to 38. We have two papers which have been cited 23 times – Novicevic et al. (2006) and Rutgers (1999). Our most cited paper remains Roehling (1997), and the most cited paper per year is Murphy et al. (2006) at 13.63 citations per year. Surprisingly, the manuscript receiving the most citations from 2013 was one of my editorials (Carraher, 2013) at a whopping three citations. We also have an age weighted citation rate of 331.6 up from 291, so we are getting cited more and more over time. I hope that with our next issue that our total citations shall have broken 3,000.

On the personal front, I just came back from a conference in Thailand, where I got to talk with junior faculty about suggestions for publishing in the JMH and what my goals are for the JMH for the next several years. In terms of the suggestions for publishing in the JMH, I told them that while it might be a good idea to cite works from leading researchers like Daniel Wren, Art Bedeian, Milorad Novicevic, John Humphreys, Michael Hitt, Greg Dess and Mike Peng, but this really isn’t necessary just like citing work from me isn’t necessary. It is a good idea to not include more than about 20 per cent of the citations to papers from the JMH, to not only do historical studies of management concepts but also genealogies of major theories, to have someone else read through the paper before submitting it and to see if you can do empirically oriented management history research which I have tried to encourage for over a decade since I was Program Chair for the Management History Division with the Academy of Management. It is also best to submit work on Management History as opposed to Business History.

In terms of goals, I’d like to keep us at about a 10 per cent acceptance rate and see us build a closer relationship with the AOM Fellows group as well as continue our close relationship with the MH Division of the AOM. I have wanted to be involved in “capturing” the history of the AOM Fellows since I had Daniel Wren as a professor way back in 1990. I tell him that it seems amazing, that it seems like he hasn’t aged since then, while I feel like I have aged dramatically. I am also having a male-bonding weekend with my sons, as my wife is on a retreat with her Internal Auditing books. She is in a Master’s of Professional Accounting program and finished reading her texts before the first day of class, so now she has checked out other books that she is sneaking in to the retreat to read. I just finished my first semester at the University of Texas at Dallas and seemed to do pretty well. I had 14 papers accepted for presentation at the Cambridge Business & Economics Conference, coauthored with my students, 13 papers accepted for another conference, at which my dean also received the John Fernandes Distinguished Leadership Award, and then 4 papers at the conference in Thailand. My average GPA was 2.805 out of 4 which apparently was the lowest GPA in my group but the student ratings were 4.395 out of 5 for the quality of the class and 4.51 out of 5 for the quality of me as an instructor. I also took them from the 50th to the 98th percentile for their potential to deal with individuals from different cultural backgrounds from the beginning of the semester to the end and was asked to do a TED talk about the time that I should be doing the next editorial. The GPA’s would have been higher but 14.8 per cent failed due to the lack of completing work. I have taught since 1988 and one of the most unusual comments I have ever received I received this last semester. A student wrote “his guidance will be the difference between you making $30,000 a year out of college and $130,000 a year out of college. While some of the concepts incorporated in this course can help guide people to that kind of success, it’s not for everyone. Just teach us the standard material”. She did well in the class [she told me who she was] but so many people – whether faculty, students or administrators – seem to fear success. This issue is filled with individuals who do not fear success – and hopefully the JMH shall continue to be successful in the future and become even more successful. Please continue to cite papers from the JMH and submit your best work.

We begin this issue with “MBA at the Cross Road: Integrating Western Management with Eastern Philosophy” by Professor Richard Li-Hua of Sunderland Business School, Sunderland University, UK, and his wife Dr Lucy Lu also from the UK. They perform critical analyses and challenge the assumptions and pedagogical approach underpinning current design of MBA programs that were originally molded with Western management history and development in the era of globalization. There is currently consensus that the MBA was designed to train business managers. However MBA’s have been widely adopted by Business schools as well as corporate organizations as an important vehicle to nurture and develop global business leaders or full-fledged global competitors. In the context of turbulent global business environment, there is no doubt that an MBA designing strategy with a global vision is crucial for developing global responsible and sustainable business leaders in the 21st century. They argue that the MBA program will fail without a reflection on the true global vision that addresses important questions such as: where are the business opportunities and job market by 2020 and how our new MBA design strategy may reflect the global economic trends and prepare business managers to become sustainable global citizens who are not only responsive but also responsible to cope and deal with future challenges.

The second paper is “Capitalism in Question: Hill, Addams and Follett as Early Social Entrepreneurship Advocates” by Leon Christopher Prieto of Clayton State University and Simone Trixie Allison Phipps of Middle Georgia State College. They seek to facilitate a better understanding of the practical and theoretical contributions of Octavia Hill, Jane Addams and Mary Parker Follett to the field of social entrepreneurship. The work and philosophies of these women, who impacted management, in general, and social entrepreneurship, in particular, are examined, as they are three of history’s noteworthy, yet often forgotten, social entrepreneurs and social entrepreneurship advocates. They illustrate how Hill, Addams and Follett made valuable contributions to social entrepreneurship and questioned the rectitude of unadulterated capitalism. They conclude that Hill, Addams and Follett refuted the viewpoint that self-interest and single-minded self-survival were the best way to live and to conduct business. Through their words and actions, the women showed that they did, indeed, bring “capitalism in question” by recognizing the importance of seeking others’ interests, and that they valued social entrepreneurship as a means to address societal ills and to aid the disenfranchised.

The third article is “Rebuilding Lisbon in the Aftermath of the 1,755 Earthquake: Max Weber Revisited” by Miguel Pereira Lopes from the Technical University of Lisbon. He analyzes the authority structure that successfully rebuilt the city of Lisbon after the major 1755 earthquake, using Max Weber’s (1947) tripartite authority theory. The role of authority in social and organizational transformation is at the core of a tradition in literature in management and organization studies, particularly based on the work of Max Weber. The fourth article “In-Extremis leadership of Sartrean authenticity: Examples from Xenophon’s Anabasis” by Mario Hayek of Texas A&M University – Commerce, Wallace A. Williams also of Texas A&M University – Commerce; Russell W. Clayton of Saint Leo University, Milorad M. Novicevic of the University of Mississippi and John H. Humphreys of Texas A&M University – Commerce – seeks to extend the body of knowledge of authentic leadership in extreme contexts by advancing a framework grounded in the Sartrean existentialist perspective of authenticity. They apply Sartre’s existential view of authenticity to develop a framework of authentic leadership in extreme contexts and then use this framework to examine Xenophon’s recount of the retreat of the 10,000 in the classic work, Anabasis. For this analysis, they iterate between the ideas of the past and the concepts of the present to understand how this classic informs the current body of knowledge about “in-extremis” leadership.

The fifth paper “Changing management history, gender moderating pay to job satisfaction for IS users” by Bassem E. MAAMARI of the Lebanese American University, Beirut, Lebanon, aims to investigate the impact of pay on job satisfaction. Moreover, it studies the changes in the structure of the work force as well as in the way work is done, on the pay to job–satisfaction relationship. He uses a confirmatory factor analysis and suggests that gender is a variable affecting the relationship of pay to employees’ job satisfaction. It highlights the roles of education and training in user participation and system usage. Finally, we have “The life and times of a senior scholar: an interview with Kathryn Harrigan” by Karl Moore of McGill University and Oxford University. Professor Harrigan, teaches courses in strategic management and international business strategy, is a specialist in corporate strategy, industry and competitor analysis, diversification strategy, joint ventures, mergers and acquisitions, turnarounds, industry restructurings and competitive problems of mature- and declining-demand businesses. She serves on the boards of three publicly traded firms and is the author of several prize-winning books on strategy. She has been the Henry R. Kravis Professor of Business Leadership at the Columbia University Graduate School of Business since 1993. She has served as a Professor in the Management of Organizations Division at the Columbia University Graduate School of Business since 1981. She served as a Director of Columbia Business School’s Jerome A Chazen Institute for International Business and was elected as a Fellow of the Academy of Management in 1989. Dr Harrigan holds a BA in Theatre Management and English from Macalester College, an MBA in Environmental Analysis from the University of Texas at Austin and a DBA in Strategic Management from Harvard Business School. According to Publish or Perish, her works have been cited 7,459 in the last 36 years and has an h index of 32 and a g index of 86 as well as an AWCR of 378.06.

I trust that you’ll enjoy these articles and interview as much as I have and that they’ll provide you with ideas for future research which you can submit to the JMH. The next issue shall largely be a review of the last 20 years of the journal – and then look forward to the future.

Shawn Carraher

School of Business, University of Texas at Dallas, Richardson, Texas, USA

References

Carraher, S.M. (2013), “ISI, social entrepreneurship, and research”, Journal of Management History, Vol. 19 No. 1.

Rutgers, M.R. (1999), “Be rational! But what does it mean?: a history of the idea of rationality and its relation to management thought”, Journal of Management History (Archive), Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. 17-35.

Roehling, M.V. (1997), “The origins and early development of the psychological contract construct”, Journal of Management History, Vol. 3 No. 2, pp. 204-217.

Novicevic, M., Sloan, H., Duke, A., Holmes, E. and Breland, J. (2006), “Customer relationship management: Barnard’s foundations”, Journal of Management History, Vol. 12 No. 3, pp. 306-318.

Murphy, P.J., Liao, J. and Welsch, H.P. (2006), “A conceptual history of entrepreneurial thought”, Journal of Management History, Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 12-35.