Search results

The purpose of this paper is to revisit the potential of the New Deal as a research context in management and organization studies and, in doing so, forward the role one of its chief architects, Harry Hopkins, played in managing the economic crisis. The exploration takes us to multiple layers that work together to form context around Hopkins including the Great Depression, the Roosevelt Administration, and ultimately, the New Deal. By raising Harry Hopkins as an exemplar of historical-narrative exclusion, the authors can advance the understanding of his role in the New Deal and how his actions produced early insights about management (e.g. modern crisis management).

The paper experiments with the methodological assemblage of ANTi-History and microhistorical analysis that the authors call “ANTi-Microhistory” to examine the life narrative of Harry Hopkins, his early association with President Franklin D. Roosevelt and later, the New Deal. To accomplish this, the authors undertake a programme of archival research (e.g. the digital repository of The Franklin D. Roosevelt Presidential Library and Museum) and assess various materials (e.g. speeches, biographies and memoirs) from across multiple spaces.

The findings suggest Harry Hopkins to be a much more powerful actor in mobilizing New Deal policies and their effect on early management thought than what was previously accepted. In the process, the authors found that because of durable associations with Roosevelt, key policy architects of the same ilk as Harry Hopkins (e.g. Frances Perkins, Henry Wallace, Lewis Douglas, and others) and their contributions have been marginalized. This finding illustrates the significant potential of little-known historical figures and how they might shed new insight on the development of the field and management practice.

The aim is to demonstrate the potential of engaging historical research in management with the individual – Harry Hopkins – as a unit of analysis. By engaging historical research on the individual – be it well-known or obscure figures of the past – the authors are considering how they contribute to the understanding of phenomena (e.g. New Deal, Progressivism or Keynesian economics). The authors build on research that brings to focus forgotten people, communities and ideas in management studies but go further in advocating for space in the research to consider the scholarly potential of the individual.

The paper provides a detailed historical account of Douglass C. North's early intellectual contributions and analytical developments in pursuing a Grand Theory for why some countries are rich and others poor.

The author approaches the discussion using a theoretical and historical reconstruction based on published and unpublished materials.

The systematic, continuous and profound attempt to answer the Smithian social coordination problem shaped North's journey from being a young serious Marxist to becoming one of the founders of New Institutional Economics. In the process, he was converted in the early 1950s into a rigid neoclassical economist, being one of the leaders in promoting New Economic History. The success of the cliometric revolution exposed the frailties of the movement itself, namely, the limitations of neoclassical economic theory to explain economic growth and social change. Incorporating transaction costs, the institutional framework in which property rights and contracts are measured, defined and enforced assumes a prominent role in explaining economic performance.

In the early 1970s, North adopted a naive theory of institutions and property rights still grounded in neoclassical assumptions. Institutional and organizational analysis is modeled as a social maximizing efficient equilibrium outcome. However, the increasing tension between the neoclassical theoretical apparatus and its failure to account for contrasting political and institutional structures, diverging economic paths and social change propelled the modification of its assumptions and progressive conceptual innovation. In the later 1970s and early 1980s, North abandoned the efficiency view and gradually became more critical of the objective rationality postulate. In this intellectual movement, North's avant-garde research program contributed significantly to the creation of New Institutional Economics.

The author aims to walk beside the singular privileged class of White women’s suffrage feminist origin story to (re)construct plausible feminist fragmented threads as antenarratives in the context of business management education. To accomplish this (re)assembling of threads, the author examined two North American business trade publications created and used within two business schools, Harvard University’s Harvard Business Review (HBR), established in 1922, and Western University’s The Quarterly Review of Commerce (The Quarterly), established in 1933.

The author carefully reviewed almost 4,000 articles from HBR and The Quarterly, focusing on 308 articles that addressed the experiences of complex women. With this subset of collected articles, the author highlighted overlooked details, accidents and errors, generating interest and curiosity about the emergence of these fragmented and paradoxical origins that align with Foucault's histories of errors. By grouping these narrative fragments into themes and conducting a critical discourse analysis that incorporated influences from the external environment, the author reconstructed plural feminist origins antenarratives.

The themes discovered, including women as consumers, explicit working women concerns, women as authors/coauthors, diversity and social justice initiatives, and women in higher education/training, are not merely descriptive observations. They are the building blocks for identifying and analyzing the power relations circulating among feminist origins antenarratives within management education circles. These antenarratives include shedding light on women working in capitalist contexts, the educational needs of business women, and men and naming (but not breaking) the “mythologies” of women at work. These findings are transformative to the understanding of plural feminist origins.

The uniqueness of this work lies in its threefold contributions: moving away from the notion of a singular feminist origin story and instead embracing the complexity of multiple, paradoxical and incomplete origins; shedding light on the spectrum of power relations – ranging from productive to oppressive – that shaped the experiences of women in two management educational circles during the first half of the 20th century; and introducing the concept of inflection points, which underscores the fluidity of knowledge.