Search results

The purpose of this article is twofold. Its first objective is to bring to the fore the unexplored and neglected origins of social exchange theory (SET) to critique this body of conjecture. This unearthing is illustrated through focusing on the way the theory was developed and how this development was mischaracterised in literature. Its second objective is to invoke the methodological assemblage of ANTi-History and the “close reading” notion using multiple archival sources to demonstrate their usefulness within the critical qualitative method debate.

The historic character of management and organization studies is exemplified through utilizing a combination of textual sources to examine how SET emerged from within the human relations school of thought throughout much of the twentieth century. Specifically, an array of sources (including archival data) is deployed and closely examined to trace how SET formed and became prevalent in organizational studies over the last decades.

SET is not only indebted to the human relations movement in general and to Elton Mayo’s work in particular (as is well-known), but also to logical positivism and behavioralist-school psychology. As such, Homans’ work marked the beginning of a new era in organizational behavior research.

The article highlights the role of historical analyses in interpreting mainstream constructs in organizational behavior. In doing so, it reveals how critical qualitative research leads to understanding some shortcomings of a theory and indicates potential remedies.

This paper aims to study the origin story of Harvard Business School’s involvement with the Indian Institute of Management Ahmedabad to study the reasons for the spread of American management education. It introduces both the explicit influence of Cold War politics and Indian development imaginaries to the export of American management thought in the early 1960s.

This paper relies on archival research for its primary source material, drawing upon rich archives of documents found at the Baker Library of Harvard Business School.

Harvard’s role in Ahmedabad was explicitly influenced by the Cold War anti-communist foreign policy of the USA, but did so opportunistically and contrary to the Ford Foundation’s (FF) original plans. Vikram Sarabhai, who was a key player in the Indian national imaginary of development, invited Harvard on his own initiative and forced the foundation to follow his interests rather than being a mere “subaltern.”

This paper could additionally add to the historical debate about the scope and periodization of the Cold War and the role of non-state actors.

This paper covers new ground in exploring the early connection between the Indian development imaginary and business education. It concludes that the export of hegemonic US management education was not successful during Cold War, and the FF was not as dominant as it was made out to be.

This study investigates the origins and elaboration of the managerial “unitary” frame of reference associated with Alan Fox, focusing on unionised firms: the industrial relations context, intellectual roots, elaboration, adaptation by other writers, and international applicability.

Tracing the above requirements through contemporaneous sources.

Fox’s designation of the unitary frame needs to be understood in its 1960s’ context, particularly the promotion of “productivity bargaining”, and its furthering through management training and education. Fox’s specific contribution is identified. Subsequent UK writers have underplayed the importance of the legal dimension of managerial authority, especially relevant in the US context, while other extra-economic factors bolster the managerial unitary frame in authoritarian societies such as China.

The use of Fox's neglected 1960s’ writings; tracking how Fox developed the unitary frame concept and how it was funnelled into the narrow parameters of non-unionism by subsequent writers; identifying its applicability beyond the UK (with the USA as a historical example and China as a contemporary one).