Search results

The aim of this paper is to provide insights on Albert J. Mills' and Jean Helms Mills' lifelong methodological journey in the airline culture. The interview offers a retrospective and reflective insight of their research into organizational culture and the airline industry, reasons for this research, their methodological journey, challenges they faced and ways forward.

This article is based on an interview with Albert J. Mills and Jean Helms Mills, which was virtually conducted for a professional development workshop (PDW) at the 2020 Academy of Management Meeting.

Albert J. Mills and Jean Helms Mills provide insights and reflections on their lifelong methodological journey, focusing organizational culture, discriminatory practices, and the impact of this on what constitutes men and women's work.

This paper draws from Albert J. Mills' and Jean Helms Mills' lifelong experience in studying gender, intersectionality and historiography in airline cultures. Scholars will be encouraged by their insights on how to start a long-term study, potential challenges, impacts of current trends and how to deal with them.

This paper aims to explore how historical context influences the content and selection of rhetorical legitimation strategies. Using case study method, this paper will focus on how insurance companies and labor tried to defend their legitimacy in the context of enactment of Medicare in the USA. What factors influenced the strategic (rhetorical) decisions made by insurance companies and labor unions in their institutional work?

The study is empirically grounded in archival research, involving an analysis of over 9,000 pages of congressional hearings on Medicare covering the period 1958–1965.

The authors show that rhetorical legitimation strategies depend significantly on the specific historical circumstances in which those strategies are used. The historical context lent credibility to certain arguments and organizations are forced to decide either to challenge widely held assumptions or take advantage of them. The authors show that organizations face strong incentives to pursue the latter option. Here, both the insurance companies and labor unions tried to show that their positions were consistent with classical liberal ideology, because of high respect of classical liberal principles among different stakeholders (policymakers, voters, etc.).

It is uncertain how much the results of the study could be generalized. More information about the organizations whose use of rhetorics the authors studied could have strengthened our conclusions.

The practical relevancy of the revised paper is that the authors should not expect hegemony challenging rhetorics from organizations, which try to influence legislators (and perhaps the larger public). Perhaps (based on the findings), this kind of rhetorics is not even very effective.

The paper helps to understand better how organizations try to advance their interests and gain acceptance among the stakeholders.

In this paper, the authors show how historical context in practice influence rhetorical arguments organizations select in public debates when their goal is to influence the decision-making of their audience. In particular, the authors show how dominant ideology (or ideologies) limit the options organizations face when they are choosing their strategies and arguments. In terms of the selection of rhetorical justification strategies, the most pressing question is not the “real” broad based support of certain ideologies. Insurance company and labor union representatives clearly believed that they must emphasize liberal values (or liberal ideology) if they wanted to gain legitimacy for their positions. In existing literature, it is often assumed that historical context influence the selection of rhetorical strategies but how this in fact happens is not usually specified. The paper shows how interpretations of historical contexts (including the ideological context) in practice influence the rhetorical strategies organizations choose.

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.

Entrepreneurial support programs, like incubators and accelerators, often offer mentorship to new ventures. However, existing research on mentoring has mainly focused on the entrepreneur's perspective, leaving researchers with limited understanding of why experienced mentors provide support to new ventures. This study aimed to explore mentors' motives in mentor–venture relationships and their impact on the advisory process. It also examined different types of mentors (social and commercial) and their motivations for assisting and supporting new ventures.

The present study utilizes a qualitative research approach to investigate the motivations and mechanisms through which new venture mentors assist founders in their growth and success. In-depth interviews were conducted with 18 mentors supporting both social and commercial ventures. These mentors were selected from ten accelerator and incubator programs situated in Belgium. The interviews aimed to gain insights into the mentors' motivations and their experiences in the role of mentors.

Based on the social exchange theory and the norm of reciprocity, this study identified two main motives of mentors: “gaining back” reflecting mentors’ self-interest in deriving benefits from the relationship and “paying back” representing their altruistic reasons for supporting new ventures. Additionally, the study identified mentor functions that primarily involved providing career-related support to new ventures. Moreover, the research revealed intriguing similarities and differences in the motivations and mentoring functions between mentors of social and commercial ventures.

Future research should explore the evaluation process and criteria used by mentors and new ventures when selecting each other for a productive mentoring relationship. Additionally, further investigation is needed to examine the firm-level impact of various mentoring services on the performance of social and commercial new ventures at different stages of development. Comparing mentor motives and functions across diverse geographical settings would address the limitation of the study and provide a more comprehensive understanding of the topic.

The findings of the study can inform policymakers, accelerator and incubator program managers and new ventures seeking mentors and support initiatives. They can use the insights to design effective mentoring programs that align with the specific needs and motivations of mentors and new ventures. Understanding the different motives and functions of mentors can help in the selection of appropriate mentors who can provide the necessary support and expertise to new ventures.

The study highlights the importance of mentorship in the development of entrepreneurial ecosystems. Accelerator and incubator programs play a crucial role in connecting new ventures with mentors who have the right motivation and expertise, contributing to the growth and success of new ventures and the overall entrepreneurial ecosystem. By identifying both altruistic and self-interest motivations in mentoring relationships, the study emphasizes the dual dimensions that characterize the mentor–venture relationship. This understanding can foster stronger collaborations and reciprocal exchanges between mentors and new ventures, ultimately benefiting both parties.

This research contributes to the entrepreneurship literature by exploring the mentor–new venture relationship from mentors' perspective. It expands the existing research on mentor–protégé relationships, broadening the understanding of mentoring dynamics in different organizational settings. The findings offer insights grounded in social exchange theory and provide directions for future research on mentor–venture relationships, resource exchange and relationship development. The study also holds practical implications for policymakers and program managers involved in fostering mentoring initiatives for new ventures.

This paper presents an historical reconstruction of the radicalisation of Alan Fox, the industrial sociologist and a detailed analysis of his early historical and sociological writing in the classical pluralist phase.

An intellectual history, including detailed discussion of key Fox texts, supported by interviews with Fox and other Biographical sources.

Fox’s radicalisation was incomplete, as he carried over from his industrial relations (IR) pluralist mentors, Allan Flanders and Hugh Clegg, a suspicion of political Marxism, a sense of historical contingency and an awareness of the fragmented nature of industrial conflict.

Recent academic attention has centred on Fox’s later radical pluralism with its “structural” approach to the employment relationship. This paper revisits his early, neglected classical pluralist writing. It also illuminates his transition from institutional IR to a broader sociology of work, influenced by AH Halsey, John Goldthorpe and others and the complex nature of his radicalisation.

The purpose of this paper is to establish a supported and validated reference point for Machiavellianism as an antecedent to the contemporary management philosophy of business process reengineering (BPR).

This paper analyzes BPR and Machiavellianism by using the seminal work of Hammer and Champy (1993) on BPR and the original writings of Machiavelli coupled with the personal correspondence of Machiavelli with his contemporaries.

The findings of this research indicate that the constructs of Machiavellian thought transcend the five centuries since the publication of The Prince, and can be found in the contemporary managerial framework of BPR. This comparison of historical leadership frameworks demonstrates how recent management decisions in companies show the rise of Machiavellian as BPR. In an analysis of these theories, the authors show similarities in five significant tenets of business leadership and argue how these repackaged ideas and prescriptions undermine employee-centric advances.

This comparison reviews the managerial frameworks presented in Machiavelli’s The Prince and Hammer and Champy’s book Reengineering the Corporation through the theoretical tenets of leadership.

Employment of Machiavellianism and BPR results in an expendable utilization of followers and employees. Implications abound for modern managers, as the authors emphasize the elements and outcomes which lead to deleterious organizational outcomes.

In an analysis of these theories, the authors argue how these strategies undermine employee-centric advances within human relations by embracing these repackaged ideas and concepts.

This research leverages historical perspective to provide a qualitative understanding of the follies of recycled versions of Machiavelli’s ideas. The overall study and inquiry of BPR from a leadership perspective is not robust and leaves antecedents and influences critically unevaluated.