Search results

This paper reports the results of a Management History Division survey within the Academy of Management which investigated the current status and future direction of management history teaching in the management curriculum and the role and direction of the Management History Division in general. Comparisons were made to a similar 1989 survey. While management history as a separate course remains elusive, management history continues to be taught in other mainstream management courses. The role of the Management History Division is seen as critical in encouraging others to teach management history. Significant accomplishments have been made in this area since the earlier survey including an expanded Executive Committee, a revised newsletter, new awards for service in the field, and the initiation of the Journal of Management History as an outlet for publication in the field.

This paper aims to problematize the dominant narrative forms of disciplinary histories of management thought. Specifically, the authors explore the narrative mode of emplotment used in Wren’s (and later Wren and Bedeian’s) 50-year encyclical on the history of management thought, namely, The Evolution of Management Thought (EMT).

The authors propose that management histories operate as powerful narratives that shape our understanding of management thought and, consequently, our disciplinary futures. This paper explores the textual narrative of EMT. Additional data are drawn from other scholars’ observations of this text. This paper is positioned in the debates of management history.

While acknowledging the wealth of historical facts in EMT, the authors argue that the umbrella narrative orders events of the past in such a manner that the historical knowledge follows a form of Darwinian evolutionism. Thus, the narrative leads to problematic representations suffering from progressivism, presentism and universalism.

Disciplinary scholars in management and organization studies need to carefully reflect on how we construct our representations of the past and histories. This will allow us to better craft transparent and reflexive histories.

To the best of the authors’ knowledge, this paper is the first to propose a remedy, albeit a partial remedy, which we believe is needed to avoid adverse epistemological consequences associated with the use of problematic narratives in management and organizational histories.

Management history is written for various reasons, such as describing company developments and the growth of the theories of management, and is part of the generic historical approach. There are, however, some specific problems associated with the writing of management history and this paper aims to address both general historiography and the particular application of management history.

The paper adopts the metaphor of crafting, as in the potter at his wheel, to emphasise the need for empathy with material from the past and the skill required for converting that raw data into and analytical and meaningful account. Various factors to be considered in this process are discussed.

The paper finds that, the metaphor can be sustained and is a valuable concept for those embarking on management historiography.

The need for sympathy with the period in question and for the material to hand is suggested as a necessary outlook for the management historian. Their task is not scientific, in that laws are unlikely to emerge in this complex and multi‐faceted field, but painstaking crafting is an art that will lead to the writing of better management histories.

The paper collects general advice from eminent historians and suggests a particular approach for the management historian. The aim is to encourage the writing of management histories that can contribute to our knowledge of the past but also can form the basis for further hypotheses and insights in the field of management.

Despite interest in management’s evolution, the discipline is devoid of systematic frameworks addressing historiography. Hence, Hirst’s (1965) theory of “forms of knowledge” is applied to demonstrate that management history satisfies his four criteria and qualifies as a valuable research domain. Hirst’s first criterion states that there must be certain central concepts that are distinctive to the subject. Management historians fulfill this criterion by investigating not only specific people, events and trends, but also topics such as motives and linguistics. Second, Hirst suggests that the discipline must offer distinctive ways of relating concepts. Management historians follow a unique investigatory process using three steps: investigation, synthesis, and interpretation. Third, there must be characteristic ways of adducing evidence in support of propositions. Historians define and refine by the available facts. The fourth criterion states that there be utilization of characteristic techniques for conducting investigations. Example methodologies include biographies and oral history. A fifth criterion, examining history’s pragmatic utility, is then advanced.

Postmodernist ideas – most particularly those of Foucault but also those of Latour, Derrida and Barthes – have had a much longer presence in accounting research than in other business disciplines. However, in large part, the debates in accounting history and management history, have moved in parallel but separate universes. The purpose of this study is therefore one of exploring not only critical accounting understandings that are significant for management history but also one of highlighting conceptual flaws that are common to the postmodernist literature in both accounting and management history.

Foucault has been seminal to the critical traditions that have emerged in both accounting research and management history. In exploring the usage of Foucault’s ideas, this paper argues that an over-reliance on a set of Foucauldian concepts – governmentality, “disciplinary society,” neo-liberalism – that were never conceived with an eye to the problems of accounting and management has resulted in not only in the drawing of some very longbows from Foucault’s formulations but also misrepresentations of the French philosophers’ ideas.

Many, if not most, of the intellectual positions associated with the “Historic Turn” and ANTi-History – that knowledge is inherently subjective, that management involves exercising power at distance, that history is a social construct that is used to legitimate capitalism and management – were argued in the critical accounting literature long before Clark and Rowlinson’s (2004) oft cited call. Indeed, the “call” for a “New Accounting History” issued by Miller et al. (1991) played a remarkably similar role to that made by Clark and Rowlinson in management and organizational studies more than a decade later.

This is the first study to explore the marked similarities between the critical accounting literature, most particularly that related to the “New Accounting History” and that associated with the “Historic Turn” and ANTi-History in management and organizational studies.

The purpose of this paper is to answer the question of where the course of the collective efforts in historical research on business and organizations has taken this discipline. By raising two key contributions that have sought to reshape the contours of management and organizational history, the authors trace the work of their field since their inception and, in doing so, critique the utility of these typologies as representative of diverse historical knowledge in management and organization studies (MOS).

Drawing on elements of an integrative review that seeks to critically appraise the foundation of knowledge built in a scholarly field, the authors interrogate the historical knowledge that has been (and is being) produced in three leading management and organizational history journals by synthesizing the posture history takes as an object and subject of study in MOS. Over 400 articles were closely examined and categorized using Rowlinson et al.’s (2014) research strategies in organizational history and Maclean et al.’s (2016) four conceptions of history. Then, this research was used to examine the integrity of these two typologies and their practice by management historians.

The bulk of the work our field has produced mirrors an analytically structured history feel – where “doing history” straddles careful divide between data analysis and narrative construction. Narrating as a conception of history used in organization studies research remains the most subscribed representation of the past. It was found that while some work may fit within these typologies, others especially those considered peripheral of mainstream history are difficult to confine to any one strategy or conception. The authors’ examination also found some potential for a creative synthesis between the two typologies.

Because only three management history journals are used in this analysis, bracketed by the choice of the periodization (between 2016 and 2019 inclusive), this study must not be viewed as being wholly representative of all historical research on business and organizations writ-large.

This research attempts to demonstrate the recent direction management and organizational historians have taken in crafting history. The authors embrace the opportunity to allow for this paper to act as a tool to familiarize a much broader audience to understand what has been constituted as historical research in MOS to-date and is especially useful to those who are already contributing to the field (e.g. doctoral students and junior scholars who have demonstrable interest in taking up historically inspired dissertations, articles, chapters and conference activities).

The research conducted in this article contributes to the debates that have sought to define the scholastic character of management and organizational history. The authors build on recent calls to take part in creating dialogue between and among each other, building on the collective efforts that advance history in both theory and practice.

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 purpose of this paper is to examine what qualities contributed to the durability of The Evolution of Management Thought (EMT) as a classic that provided scholars a grand narrative of management history for half a century. Specifically, this paper aspires to reveal how the EMT has overcome the boundedness of time over the past 50 years by being both timeless (signaling continuity/permanence) and historical (signaling change/contingency).

The authors analyze both the metaphorical (i.e. universal) and the historical (i.e. particular) meanings that the EMT authors have communicated over eight editions of the classic.

The authors found that Wren and Bedeian have managed to balance temporality and referentiality in the EMT by writing it as the “practical past” of management. The authors also found that the authors ensured the ongoing renewal of their classic by innovating it as an everlasting contemporary text.

This paper provides an original analysis of the EMT explaining why it is a “classic” of management history. The analysis presented in this paper reveals why this timeless work has been a singular touchstone that exemplifies the history of management discipline.

Currently, only a small number of manuscripts dealing with management history are being submitted to journals, and few of those are being accepted for publication. What is needed to change this situation is more high‐quality research that is more interesting to a wider audience. The purpose of this paper is to offer some suggestions for overcoming current deficiencies.

The perspective of one editor about what is being done and what might be done in terms of publishing management history research is presented.

The unique perspective of an individual who is a past editor of a major management journal and current editor of an online journal each of which has published a variety of management history articles is presented.

The paper stresses that too few management history manuscripts submitted to journals are of high‐enough quality or sufficiently interesting to merit publication and that more good quality research that is interesting to a wider audience is needed. The paper offers suggestions to management history scholars as a means of changing this situation.