Search

The historic turn in organization studies has led to greater appreciation of the potential contribution from historical research. However, there is increasing emphasis on integrating history into organization studies, rather than on recognizing how accommodating history might require a reorientation. As a result, key conceptual and methodological insights from historiography have been overlooked or at times misrepresented. We identify four modes of enquiry that highlight distinctions from history about ‘how to conceptualize’ and ‘how to research’ the past. First, historical organization studies research the past primarily through reference to archival sources. Second, retrospective organizational history reconstructs the past principally from retrospective accounts, such as those generated in oral history. Third, retrospective organizational memory uses ethnography and interviews to explore the role of memory in the present. Fourth, historical organizational memory traces the institutionalization of organizational memory through archival research. From the analysis, we argue that historical organization studies are increasingly established, and interest in ‘uses of the past’ has contributed to the rise of retrospective organizational memory. However, historiographical reflexivity – a new concept for organization studies – focuses attention on engaging with both history and collective memory, and on the distinct methodological choices between archival and retrospective methods.

Coronatine and related bacterial phytotoxins are mimics of the hormone jasmonyl-L-isoleucine (JA-Ile), which mediates physiologically important plant signalling pathways1-4. Coronatine-like phytotoxins disrupt these essential pathways and have potential in the development of safer, more selective herbicides. Although the biosynthesis of coronatine has been investigated previously, the nature of the enzyme that catalyses the crucial coupling of coronafacic acid to amino acids remains unknown1,2. Here we characterize a family of enzymes, coronafacic acid ligases (CfaLs), and resolve their structures. We found that CfaL can also produce JA-Ile, despite low similarity with the Jar1 enzyme that is responsible for ligation of JA and L-Ile in plants5. This suggests that Jar1 and CfaL evolved independently to catalyse similar reactions-Jar1 producing a compound essential for plant development4,5, and the bacterial ligases producing analogues toxic to plants. We further demonstrate how CfaL enzymes can be used to synthesize a diverse array of amides, obviating the need for protecting groups. Highly selective kinetic resolutions of racemic donor or acceptor substrates were achieved, affording homochiral products. We also used structure-guided mutagenesis to engineer improved CfaL variants. Together, these results show that CfaLs can deliver a wide range of amides for agrochemical, pharmaceutical and other applications.

This article examines the history of British house magazines from 1945 to 2015. It discusses their content, audience and function within companies. From tools of internal public relations, house ma...

Both business historians and organisation studies scholars study institutional change to understand the interactions between business and society. However, research approaches differ fundamentally, with organisational research focusing on theory-driven explanations, whereas historical research is rather theory-informed. The consequence of such disciplinary orientation is that interdisciplinary conversations rarely occur. For this special issue, we invited submissions that address how historical research can contribute to our understanding of institutional change while demonstrating ‘dual integrity’ in terms of being significant pieces of historical research that provide us with new insights into historiography and at the same time addressing important theoretical concerns.

The historic turn in organization studies has given rise to increasing interest in historical methods. In parallel, the cultural turn in business history is associated with concerns beyond narratives of corporate success or failure. But as yet there has been limited historical research on identities in organizations. This chapter sets out historical methods appropriate for examining identities, focusing on exemplars of ethnographic historical research. Whereas corporate history prizes historical sources such as company board minutes, and organizational identity can be researched from corporate communications such as company magazines, it is more difficult to compile a checklist of historical sources for examining identities in organizations. Historical research on clerks and entrepreneurs illustrates the range of sources that could be considered. However, the focus on such literate groups in society also highlights the problem of survivor bias in sources, which historians describe as the silence of the archives.

As a synthesis of organization theory and historiography, the field of organizational history is mature enough to contribute to wider theoretical and historiographical debates and is sufficiently developed for a theoretical consideration of its subject matter. In this introduction to the Special Topic Forum on History and Organization Studies, we take up the question, “What is organizational history?” and consider three distinct arguments that we believe frame the next phase of development for historical work within organization studies. First, we argue that following the “historic turn,” organizational history has developed as a subfield of organization studies that takes seriously the matter of history, promoting historical research as a way to enrich the broad endeavor of organization. Second, if “history matters,” then organization theory needs a theoretical account of the past that goes beyond the mere use of history as a context to test or as an example to illustrate theory. Third, the focus on “history that matters” in the present leads to two important considerations: how organizations can use “rhetorical history” as a strategic resource and the need to engage with historiographically significant subjects that connect organization theory to larger humanistic concerns, such as slavery and racism.

The question of whether and how research quality should be measured, and the consequences of research audits such as the UK's Research Excellence Framework (REF) – formerly the RAE – are considered in relation to the role of journal ratings such as the Association of Business Schools Academic Journal Quality Guide (the ABS Guide). Criticism of the ABS Guide has distracted attention from the results of successive RAEs, where the panel for Business and Management has been one of the most selective in its allocation of the highest grades, especially when compared with the neighbouring field of Economics. If the ABS Guide had been used to grade outputs submitted for Business and Management in the RAE 2008 then many more outputs would have received the highest grades, especially in accounting where outputs from journals such as Critical Perspectives on Accounting, which are highly rated in the ABS Guide, appear to have been downgraded by the RAE panel. The alleged bias against accounting in the ABS Guide rests on a particular interpretation of citation impact factors for journals, and a narrow definition of subject fields. Critics of the ABS Guide would be better advised to direct their attention to scrutinizing the results of the REF and considering whether it provides an adequate research ranking for UK business schools. 15% of all full time students in the UK study business and management, including accounting and finance, but only 6.7% of the full time equivalent research active staff submitted in the RAE 2008 were in business and management, or accounting and finance. Research audits are therefore forcing the separation of teaching from research in UK business schools. With an estimated ratio of 71 full time students per research active faculty member in UK business schools, it may be time to consider a more appropriate, inclusive, and economical form of ranking for research in business and management.

Existing narratives about how we should organize are built upon, and reinforce, a concept of 'good management' derived from what is assumed to be a fundamental need to increase efficiency. But this assumption is based on a presentist, monocultural, and generally limited view of management's past. A New History of Management disputes these foundations. By reassessing conventional perspectives on past management theories and providing a new critical outline of present-day management, it highlights alternative conceptions of 'good management' focused on ethical aims, sustainability, and alternative views of good practice. From this new historical perspective, existing assumptions can be countered and simplistic views disputed, offering a platform from which graduate students, researchers, and reflective practitioners can develop alternative approaches for managing and organizing in the twenty-first century.

If history matters for organization theory, then we need greater reflexivity regarding the epistemological problem of representing the past; otherwise, history might be seen as merely a repository of ready-made data. To facilitate this reflexivity, we set out three epistemological dualisms derived from historical theory to explain the relationship between history and organization theory: (1) in the dualism of explanation, historians are preoccupied with narrative construction, whereas organization theorists subordinate narrative to analysis; (2) in the dualism of evidence, historians use verifiable documentary sources, whereas organization theorists prefer constructed data; and (3) in the dualism of temporality, historians construct their own periodization, whereas organization theorists treat time as constant for chronology. These three dualisms underpin our explication of four alternative research strategies for organizational history: corporate history, consisting of a holistic, objectivist narrative of a corporate entity; analytically structured history, narrating theoretically conceptualized structures and events; serial history, using replicable techniques to analyze repeatable facts; and ethnographic history, reading documentary sources "against the grain." Ultimately, we argue that our epistemological dualisms will enable organization theorists to justify their theoretical stance in relation to a range of strategies in organizational history, including narratives constructed from documentary sources found in organizational archives. Copyright of the Academy of Management, all rights reserved.

The authors argue in favor of a retrospective model of theory development while commenting on the article "Dialogue�More Than Just Novelty: Conceptual Blending and Causality," by J. Cornelissen and R. Durand, published elsewhere in the same issue. Topics include organization and management theory, paradigms, and post-structuralism.

This Rejoinder responds to criticisms made by Simon Hussain (2011) about the construction and operation of the Association of Business Schools' (ABS) Academic Journal Quality Guide. In this paper the broad purposes of journal lists and guides are outlined before an account is given of the long history and multiple forms of these lists, particularly in the field of Accounting. Having described the main features of different types of journal list, the advantages and benefits of the approach adopted in the compilation of the ABS Journal Quality Guide is outlined. The paper then ends by noting that one of the copy-editing mistakes identified by Dr Hussain has been rectified, but the remaining concerns about the rating of accounting education and accounting history journals reflect the absence of these titles from journal citation reports and international journal lists. Furthermore, the lower rating of Accounting & Finance research in the RAE2008 in comparison with Business & Management Studies research in th...

Organizational Memory Studies (OMS) is limited by its managerialist, presentist preoccupation with the utility of memory for knowledge management. The dominant model of memory in OMS is that of a storage bin. But this model has been rejected by psychologists because it overlooks the distinctly human subjective experience of remembering, i.e. episodic memory. OMS also fails to take account of the specific social and historical contexts of organizational memory. The methodological individualism that is prevalent in OMS makes it difficult to engage with the rapidly expanding sociological and historical literature in social memory studies, where a more social constructionist approach to ‘collective memory’ is generally favoured. However, for its part social memory studies derived from Maurice Halbwachs neglects organizations, focusing primarily on the nation as a mnemonic community. From a critical perspective organizations can be seen as appropriating society’s memory through corporate sites of memory such as historical visitor attractions and corporate museums. There is scope for a sociological and historical reorientation within OMS, drawing on social memory studies and focusing on corporate sites of memory, such as The Henry Ford museum complex, as well as the mnemonic role of founders and beginnings in organizations. Taking a social constructionist, collectivist approach to social remembering in organizations allows connections to be made between memory and other research programmes, such as organizational culture studies.

Organizations are increasingly being called to account for their history. In particular, German and non-German companies have been called to account for their relations with the Nazi regime between 1933 and 1945. Organizations are not only accountable for past activity, but also for previous, often misleading, historical accounts of their behaviour. Thus we are interested in how an organization deals with historical accounts of its past, and how this reflects its culture. Therefore we draw upon concepts from organizational culture studies, and specifically Martin's three perspectives of culture as integration, differentiation, and fragmentation. We take the illustrative case of Bertelsmann, the German publishing company. Revelations of its record under the Nazis, when it published anti-semitic literature, were brought to light by Hersch Fischler in 1998, when Bertelsmann was in the process of taking over Random House. These revelations jarred with the company's image of corporate social responsibility and undermined the company legend, which alleged that it had an impeccable record, and had even been closed down for opposing the Nazis. The Bertelsmann case highlights the dilemmas involved in organizations invoking their past. Debate over the Holocaust has highlighted the dilemmas of truth and relativism in representations of history. The Bertelsmann case highlights similar dilemmas for organizational culture perspectives.

Debates about the role of capitalist corporations depend ultimately on their response to the enduring question of ‘who controls the large modern corporation’. This article aims to identify various competing schools of thought that can be classified as ‘managerialist’ and ‘anti-managerialist’, ‘mainstream’ and ‘radical’, which have emerged over the course of the last 70 years, moving on to consider how each has impacted on the discipline of business history. The paper utilizes a two-by-two matrix that divides theories along two dimensions to set out four alternative perspectives. Along the horizontal dimension, anti-managerialism is opposed to managerialism; along the vertical dimension, mainstream and radical perspectives are opposed. The article then assesses the extent to which these conflicting perspectives have influenced the work of business historians, from Chandler's earliest work through to more recent thinking on the links between corporate governance, accountability and broader market forces. Em...

The debate over ownership and control of corporations is one of the most enduring in social science. It is a debate that continues to influence, and is informed by accounting and accountability research as well as labor process theory, and it is a debate that is vital for understanding the relation between accounting and the labor process. This paper offers a roadmap for locating alternative perspectives concerning ownership and control. First, ‘mainstream anti-managerialism’ maintains that corporations remain answerable to their owners. Second, ‘mainstream managerialism’ argues that corporations are one form of organization and that organizations in general are shaped by inter-organizational factors. Third, ‘radical managerialism’ views corporations as self-perpetuating bureaucracies. Finally ‘Marxist anti-managerialism’ views corporations as constrained by the interests of an identifiable capitalist class.

The public availability of detailed data from the 2001 Research Assessment Exercise in the UK allows an analysis of the publications cited in submissions to the Business and Management panel. Eighty per cent of the 9,942 publications submitted were journal articles. Submissions to the RAE can be scored in terms of the number of citations they make to journals that appear on various lists, such as the Financial Times list. The concentration of articles in a minority of journals, with 50% of all citations to just 126 journals, means that a core list of business and management journals can be compiled. The core list presented contains 562 journals out of the 1582 journal titles that were cited in Business and Management submissions. It includes all journals with more than two citations overall at least one citation in a 5*, 5 or 4 rated submission. It also includes all journals cited in the RAE from Starbuck’s ranked lists of journals and the Financial Times list.

Critical management studies scholars occupy a tenuous pos/tlOn in business schools. Their location and intellectual trajectory needs to be understood in the political context of the historical defeat of the Left since its highpoint in 1968. One of the tributaries of critical management studies is labor process theory, which derives from Braverman’s (1974) classic critique of the degradation of labor in capitalist work organization. Whereas Braverman attempted to restore confidence in the potential of the working class to fulfill its Marxist destiny to lead a revolutionary transformation of society, any such confidence in the second coming of communism has long since evaporated from critical management studies. Instead of adhering to Marx’s or Braverman’s historical visions critical management studies scholars have increasingly turned to Foucault or critical theorists such as Adorno or Marcuse, who provide the basis for a deconstruction of Marxian eschatology. This is presented as an intellectual p...

(2000). Marxist Political Economy, Revolutionary Politics, and Labor Process Theory. International Studies of Management & Organization: Vol. 30, The Labor Process Debate, pp. 85-111.

The Oxford handbook of business history, edited by Geoffrey Jones and Jonathan Zeitlin, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2007, xvii + 717 pp., 5 figures, 15 tables, £130.00 (hardback), ISBN 978-0-1...

The concept of culture promised to make organization studies more historical and to provide theoretical relevance for business history. This promise has not been fulfilled. The conventions at various levels of organizational culture studies prevent them from becoming more historical, and the conventions of business history make it difficult to engage with the concept of culture. Corporate culturism imposes a narrative structure that privileges the role of founders in history. Similarly, corporate sponsorship reinforces the tendency for business historians to endorse the unity and continuity of corporate cultures. The influence of economics in business history reduces culture to a residual variable and subordinates narrative to economic models. Organizational symbolists are suspicious of narrative, which they associate with founder-centred corporate culturism. Instead, ethnographies emphasize verisimilitude and the subjective experience of the author at the expense of verifiable historical narratives. Business historians adopt an objective stance that allows them to write definitive company histories, but makes it difficult to engage with the subjectivism and relativism of organizational symbolism or the scepticism of post-modernism. Unlike organizational culture studies, post-modernism in history is identified with a return to narrative. A serious engagement with organizational culture studies might engender the much-needed critical reflex in business history. We use the rare examples of historical deconstruction in organizational culture studies (Boje 1995) and of deconstruction in business history (Church 1996) to highlight the differences between the two discourses. We argue that a more historical approach in organizational culture studies and a more reflexive engagement with the concept of culture in business history would facilitate the deconstruction of founder-centred narratives of corporate culture.

The disputes between sociologically informed organization theory and organizational economics revolve around the relative importance of efficiency and power. The concepts of efficiency and power are clarified in this paper, with distinctions being made between subjectivist and essentialist versions of efficiency, and between institutional and processual perspectives on power. Economists have largely ignored sociologists' discussions of power. It is argued that if path dependency is allowed for then organizational economics may well be compatible with an institutional view of power. The main theme of the paper is that efficiency is no less of an ‘essentially contested concept’ than power.

In focusing on the relationship between labour process theory and Marxist economics the authors highlight as problematic labour process theorists' abandonment of the labour theory of value and acceptance of managerialism in a way which conflates labour process theory with organisation theory. The similarity in the political rhetoric of the deskilling thesis and the law of the tendency of the rate of profit to fall is brought out, and it is argued neither provides an adequate theoretical basis for revolutionary politics. The challenge for labour process theory is to show the connection between the subordination of labour and capitalist property rights and how those property rights can be dismantled.

The relationships between computer integrated manufacturing (CIM), corporate strategy and organization are assessed, and various periodizations for analysing the process of innovation are considered. The periodization selected consists of concept, translation, commissioning and operation, and this is then used to structure a case study, based on in-depth interviews, of the introduction of CIM in a medium sized UK manufacturer of electrical components for the automotive industry.

SUMMARY This paper discusses the use of performance related pay (PRP) as a means of control over the relationship between effort and reward. Taking a critical perspective, it describes how the implementation of PRP in a UK-based electronics company has been used as a device to remove trade union influence in wage-setting arrangements and to effect changes in employee behaviour. The opinions of supervisors, line managers, personnel managers and shop-floor staff are discussed and the implications for management control are assessed. The paper concludes that from management's perspective the PRP system appears to have been a success, for it has in some cases ‘commercialized’ the relationship between effort and reward, and has pre-empted expressions of employee resistance.

New evidence from a British electronics plant on the experience of a harmonisation programme is presented and questions the generally accepted favourable image of moves towards single status working. The presentation is novel in that instead of offering a traditional literature review followed by the empirical data, the article develops two forms of case description. The first case is a fictional “Composite” account derived from previously published materials in which we have assembled the key themes into a single narrative to convey an image of harmonisation as it is presented in the literature. This can then be compared with the more contradictory experience of harmonisation found during ethnographic research at the Collaborating Company, where management was more constrained and the process was not conflict free. The two cases can be read as a contrast between image and reality which then needs to be explained.

(1988). The Early Application of Scientific Management by Cadbury. Business History: Vol. 30, No. 4, pp. 377-395.

Las empresas suelen anunciar públicamente su longevidad. Para ellas, el pasado tiene un significado claro. Sin embargo, las teorías de la organización que consideran la pervivencia y el papel representado por los fundadores, sobre todo las de tipo ecológico y cultural, no explican los significados colectivos que van unidos al pasado. Tampoco lo hace la literatura sobre la memoria de las organizaciones, que la concibe como una serie de compartimentos estancos. La Historia empresarial se preocupa más por la reconstrucción del pasado desde el momento presente que por los significados implícitos en el pasado. Con el fin de comprender las prácticas sociales (mnemónicas) por las que el pasado es recordado y por las que cobra sentido, nosotros recurrimos al cada vez más importante campo de la memoria social. Para examinar el modo en el que las interpretaciones oficiales están presentes en el pasado de las organizaciones, nos servimos de documentos públicamente disponibles, como memorias de las compañías, informes de prensa, artículos o historias hechas por encargo. Partiendo de los puntos de vista de la memoria social, nos centramos en analizar los centenarios y la creación de lugares de memoria, así como en el tradicional debate sobre la condición histórica de memorias que vertebran la identidad. En el texto, proporcionamos breves ejemplos sobre la celebración del centenario de la Ford, la denominación del centro de formación de directivos de la General Electric como John F. Welch Learning Center, así como de la desacreditadora leyenda de la Bertelsmann, concerniente a su comportamiento durante el dominio nazi en Alemania. Concluimos que el punto de vista de la memoria social puede constituir una base idónea para investigar el significado del pasado en las organizaciones.