Search

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.

There is an increasing interest in historical approaches to management and organization scholarship. The Historic Turn can be traced to the mid 1990s when Kieser and Zald urged scholars to take his...

In the first issue of Management & Organizational History (MOH) the founding editor, Charles Booth, and myself co-authored an article considering the prospects for the journal (Booth and Rowlinson ...

The purpose of this panel symposium is to show why and how context matters, and to draw attention to the benefits of integrating causal mechanisms and context to explain complex organizational phenomena. Our goal is to initiate a new dialogue among various constituents of the Academy of Management by bringing forward new questions and perspectives that highlight the salience of “contexts”. We believe this panel will generate fresh new debates particularly among Business Policy and Strategy (BPS), International Management (IM), and Organization and Management Theory (OMT) division members; and also will be of interest to members of the Entrepreneurship, Organization Behavior and Research Methods Divisions.

The debates about the significance of the corporation in contemporary societies have often taken place without sufficient reference to historical and comparative studies of the emergence and development of the corporation. In part, this is a result of the view that the modern corporation is merely a contemporary manifestation of bureaucratic tendencies. Weber (1991, p. 204) saw the ‘large modern capitalist enterprise’ as simply a purer form of the bureaucratic ideal type found at various times and places in history since ancient Egypt. Galbraith (1987, p. 42) has portrayed organisations such as the British East India Company, which lasted from 1600 to 1874, as antecedents of the modern multinational corporation. Business historians, notably Chandler and Daems, have dismissed much of the literature on the modern corporation, typified by Galbraith’s The New Industrial State, as ‘factless theorizing’ (1980). Chandler (1962, 1977, 1990), along with other business historians such as his colleague, Lazonick (1992), have produced detailed histories dealing with the rise of the modern corporation. Their studies draw upon both survey and case study research based on internal company documents.

There are longstanding debates in both sociology and economics about the significance of the modern corporation. Many social scientists contend that since the economy has become increasingly dominated by large corporations there has been a fundamental transformation of society. These commentators believe that contemporary society bears very little resemblance to the models of capitalism developed by classical, neoclassical and Marxist economics. This is because those models emerged during the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, before the ascendancy of the modern corporation had become apparent. According to this view, established economic theories need to be modified or rejected, not so much because they are internally inconsistent, but because they have been rendered redundant by changing circumstances.

Organisational economics has been developed by economists who realise that for the most part economics has ‘neglected to develop theories of organizations’, thus leaving the study of organisations to psychology and sociology (Olson, 1971, p. 1, nt. 1). It may seem strange that economists have ignored issues of organisation, given that microeconomic analysis in neoclassical economics is virtually synonymous with the theory of the firm. It turns out that most economic theories of the firm are not theories of organisation at all. They are models that purport to explain the relationship between demand, costs and output. Economic theories of organisation have developed from two directions. First, the economists’ realisation that they could apply economic modelling techniques to the general problem of organisation, and second, their awareness that the orthodox theory of the firm is inadequate as a theory of organisation. The mathematical modelling technique that is most commonly applied to issues of organisation is game theory, which is more than just a theory of the firm: it is an attempt to provide a universal theory of human groups and organisations. As for the critique of the neoclassical theory of the firm, two major theoretical challenges, the managerial and behavioural theories of the firm, can be considered as precursors of organisational economics.

According to Maxine Berg, author of The Age of Manufactures (1994), a major reconsideration of the Industrial Revolution in Britain, it is largely due to the influence of Marglin and Braverman that, ‘economists and economic and social historians can no longer write of industry and labour without consideration of the labour process’ (1984, p. 165). However, their influence has been felt in the debates concerning two fairly separate historical transformations in work organisation. Marglin’s account of the origins of capitalist hierarchy refers to the emergence of the ‘factory system’ during the period in British history from 1760 to 1830 commonly known as the ‘Industrial Revolution’ (Ashton, 1968). This is the period analysed by Marx (1976), following Engels’ classic study, The Condition of the Working Class in England (1969a).

Economists have increasingly become interested in some of the same issues as organisation theorists. Since economic theories of organisation have not been integrated into organisation theory, it is convenient to distinguish between organisation theory, which is informed by sociology, and organisational economics. Probably the single most important influence on organisational economics is Ronald Coase’s seminal article, ‘The Nature of the Firm’ (1990 [1937]). Coase asks ‘Why is there any organisation?’ This is the first of series of rhetorical questions that have structured discussion in organisational economics. Other such questions are: ‘Does organisation matter?’ (Milgrom and Roberts, 1992, ch. 1); ‘What is a firm?’ (Chandler, 1992); ‘Why not organise everything in one large firm?’ (Williamson, 1985, p. 131); and ‘Why are there bosses?’ (Hess, 1983, ch. 7). These questions are concerned with the legitimacy of capitalist corporations. By and large, organisational economists are keen to endorse that legitimacy, but posing these rhetorical questions opens up the possibilities for wider debate. There is potential for dialogue concerning the legitimacy of the capitalist corporation, not only between mainstream organisational economics and organisation theory, but also radical organisation theory and Marxian political economy, all of which are given serious attention in this book.

There has been a revival of interest in the organisation of work across the social sciences. This has come about more or less independently within organisational economics, radical and Marxian political economy, industrial sociology, and economic history, so the potential for interdisciplinary debate has yet to be realised. If it is remembered that work organisation was central to the classical political economy of Adam Smith, and Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, then a contemporary discussion of divisions of labour and hierarchy in work organisations needs to start with an explanation for the demise of earlier interest.

Organisation theorists tend to see the division between economic and sociological approaches to organisation as a manifestation of wider differences between economics and sociology. Sociologists have attempted to set out the differences between the two disciplines (Hirsch et al., 1990; Swedberg, 1991). Economics is dominated by neoclassical economics, so much so that ‘economics’ is virtually synonymous with neoclassical economics (Bartlett, 1989, p. 18). Sociologists have concentrated on developing a critique of a narrowly defined version of neoclassical microeconomic theory (Swedberg et al., 1990, p. 59), especially the ‘unrealistic and bizarre policy recommendations’ it comes up with (Hirsch et al., 1990, p. 42). Neoclassical economics is a refinement of the classical tradition of economics that developed in Britain during the nineteenth century based on the ideas of Adam Smith, Thomas Robert Malthus and David Ricardo (Galbraith, 1987). The major difference between classical political economy and neoclassical economics is the abandonment of any theory of value and the development of marginalism.

Organisation theorists and organisational economists tend to see each other as belonging to more unified camps than they really do. To be blunt, some organisation theorists try to lump all organisational economists together so that they can all be dismissed out of hand. On the other hand, organisational economists will often take one or two leading organisation theorists as representative, so that they can say they have taken organisation theory into account. Oliver Williamson (1990, p. 5) is a good example of a prominent organisational economist who tends to see organisation theory as more unified than it is. He seems to believe that organisation theory is derived from a few classic texts starting with Chester Barnard’s The Functions of the Executive (1964 [1938]), followed by Herbert Simon’s Administrative Behavior (1976 [1945]) and Philip Selznick’s Leadership in Administration (1957). This clearly reflects an American bias. More importantly, it obscures the diversity within organisation theory.

Le tournant culturel en histoire des entreprisesLes historiens des entreprises s’interessent de plus en plus a la notion de culture. Certains, dont P. Fridenson par exemple, ont demontre la valeur d’une ouverture accrue de la profession vers d’autres champs d’etudes tels que l’histoire culturelle et les etudes memorielles qui en sont issues. L’histoire des entreprises n’a eu que peu de difficultes a s’approprier les analyses portant sur les industries de la culture et sur la culture de la consommation. Elle reconnait desormais aussi la richesse des representations culturelles du monde de l’entreprise et des affaires en art et en litterature. Cependant, et c’est la notre argument, la culture du consensus qui regne au sein de la profession continue de limiter la prise en compte des enjeux des « guerres culturelles » qui occupent bon nombre de chercheurs en culture organisationnelle dans les ecoles de commerce ainsi que les historiens specialistes de theorie culturelle. Les etudes critiques portant sur la culture dans les organisations se mefient des recits centres sur les fondateurs que tous les historiens d’entreprise, a quelques exceptions pres, reproduisent volontiers de toutes pieces afin d’expliciter la culture qui regne au sein de l’entreprise qu’ils etudient. Plus largement, la theorie culturelle conteste la logique de l’objectivite qui prevaut en histoire des entreprises en soulevant la possibilite de l’existence d’une inquietante « fragilite epistemologique ». Et dans la mesure ou les historiens des entreprises se seraient effectivement eloignes de la performance economique pour s’interesser aux questions de genre, de race et de sexe, ils ne peuvent echapper aux « guerres culturelles » associees au « multiculturalisme » qui s’impose dans toute analyse des relations qui lient historiquement le monde de l’entreprise et des affaires a l’esclavage, au racisme ou aux inegalites. En terminant notre article sur l’utilisation par Alan McKinlay des caricatures dessinees par un employe en marge des registres de la Bank of Scotland, dans son analyse de l’emergence de la notion de carriere moderne chez les banquiers ecossais du debut du XXe siecle, nous souhaitons illustrer la maniere dont une etude alimentee par la theorie culturelle peut diverger de l’histoire des entreprises conventionnelle tout en continuant de se fonder sur les memes sources documentaires.

Pollert's latest contribution to the flexibility debate has been to denounce the concept as an appropriate framework for research and to state that it should be replaced by one that takes into account the complexities and relations of the real world (Pollert 1991, p. 31). Similarly, Wood has argued that the problem with the flexibility debate is that the organisational model of the flexible firm has over‐emphasised management's pursuit of flexibility as though it were an end in itself. Flexibility should be seen as only one of management's aims and ought to remain attached to other goals and interests of management (Wood 1989).

(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.