Introduction to the Handbook of Research on Management and Organizational History: the hotly contested present state of management and organizational history

K. Bruce
{"title":"Introduction to the Handbook of Research on Management and Organizational History: the hotly contested present state of management and organizational history","authors":"K. Bruce","doi":"10.4337/9781788118491.00006","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"If ever there was an apposite time to write about management and organizational history (MOH hereafter) this is certainly it, rendering the contents of this handbook all the more topical. As I was preparing the volume for submission, two very pointed reviews of A New History of Management (NHM hereafter) (Cummings et al., 2017) appeared in the Journal of Management History (JMH hereafter) (Batiz-Lazo, 2019; Muldoon, 2019) of which, in the interests of full disclosure, I am an associate editor. In the interim, the editor-in-chief of JMH also published Work, Wealth, and Postmodernism: The Intellectual Conflict at the Heart of Business Endeavour (WWP hereafter) (Bowden, 2018), ostensibly as a retort to NHM. Throw in some unsavoury social media exchanges about aforesaid JMH reviews, as well as a special issue devoted to history and organization studies in the world’s leading management journal (Godfrey et al., 2016) and an earlier paper on a similar topic in the same journal (Rowlinson et al., 2014), and we have all the makings of an introduction for this handbook. It would not be at all inaccurate or unfair to argue that this current ferment in MOH is the inevitable consequence of Clark and Rowlinson’s (2004) provocative piece a decade and a half ago heralding a ‘historic turn’ in organization studies and advocating a more postmodernist approach to accounts as well as methods of dealing with the past. Similar provocations are discernible, I believe, in the founding of the journal Management and Organizational History in 2006. Among other “prospects” for the journal, the founding editors-in-chief cite the “historic turn in organization theory” and “the relevance for management and organization theory of philosophers of history such as Michel Foucault and Hayden White” (Booth and Rowlinson, 2006, p. 5). I also (autoethnographically?) witnessed this ongoing agitation at an Academy of Management professional development workshop I co-organized in 2014, as well as at a meeting of the Management History Research Group in 2015, where extraordinarily heated debate ensued concerning, respectively, “more critical, cultural, and qualitative historical research” and “method, methodology, and the historic-turn”. So, what’s all the fuss about? In essence, NHM is a “counter-historical approach” encouraging management and organizational historians to follow Foucault’s lead and eschew accounting for history “against a criterion of linear progress” which legitimizes the status quo and forecloses alternatives. Rather, we should seek to understand","PeriodicalId":164968,"journal":{"name":"Handbook of Research on Management and Organizational History","volume":"26 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Handbook of Research on Management and Organizational History","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4337/9781788118491.00006","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

If ever there was an apposite time to write about management and organizational history (MOH hereafter) this is certainly it, rendering the contents of this handbook all the more topical. As I was preparing the volume for submission, two very pointed reviews of A New History of Management (NHM hereafter) (Cummings et al., 2017) appeared in the Journal of Management History (JMH hereafter) (Batiz-Lazo, 2019; Muldoon, 2019) of which, in the interests of full disclosure, I am an associate editor. In the interim, the editor-in-chief of JMH also published Work, Wealth, and Postmodernism: The Intellectual Conflict at the Heart of Business Endeavour (WWP hereafter) (Bowden, 2018), ostensibly as a retort to NHM. Throw in some unsavoury social media exchanges about aforesaid JMH reviews, as well as a special issue devoted to history and organization studies in the world’s leading management journal (Godfrey et al., 2016) and an earlier paper on a similar topic in the same journal (Rowlinson et al., 2014), and we have all the makings of an introduction for this handbook. It would not be at all inaccurate or unfair to argue that this current ferment in MOH is the inevitable consequence of Clark and Rowlinson’s (2004) provocative piece a decade and a half ago heralding a ‘historic turn’ in organization studies and advocating a more postmodernist approach to accounts as well as methods of dealing with the past. Similar provocations are discernible, I believe, in the founding of the journal Management and Organizational History in 2006. Among other “prospects” for the journal, the founding editors-in-chief cite the “historic turn in organization theory” and “the relevance for management and organization theory of philosophers of history such as Michel Foucault and Hayden White” (Booth and Rowlinson, 2006, p. 5). I also (autoethnographically?) witnessed this ongoing agitation at an Academy of Management professional development workshop I co-organized in 2014, as well as at a meeting of the Management History Research Group in 2015, where extraordinarily heated debate ensued concerning, respectively, “more critical, cultural, and qualitative historical research” and “method, methodology, and the historic-turn”. So, what’s all the fuss about? In essence, NHM is a “counter-historical approach” encouraging management and organizational historians to follow Foucault’s lead and eschew accounting for history “against a criterion of linear progress” which legitimizes the status quo and forecloses alternatives. Rather, we should seek to understand
介绍手册的研究管理和组织历史:管理和组织历史的激烈竞争的现状
如果曾经有一个合适的时间来写管理和组织的历史(以下简称MOH),这当然是它,使本手册的内容更具时效性。在我准备提交这本书时,《管理新历史》(NHM) (Cummings等人,2017)的两篇非常尖锐的评论出现在《管理历史杂志》(JMH) (Batiz-Lazo, 2019;Muldoon, 2019),为了充分披露,我是其中的副主编。在此期间,JMH的主编还出版了《工作、财富和后现代主义:商业努力核心的知识冲突》(以下简称《WWP》)(Bowden, 2018),表面上是对NHM的反驳。加上关于上述JMH评论的一些令人讨厌的社交媒体交流,以及世界领先的管理期刊(Godfrey等人,2016年)专门讨论历史和组织研究的特刊,以及同一期刊上关于类似主题的早期论文(Rowlinson等人,2014年),我们有了这本手册的所有介绍材料。如果说目前卫生部的这种骚动是克拉克和罗林森(2004)在15年前发表的一篇煽动性文章的必然结果,这篇文章预示着组织研究的“历史性转折”,并倡导一种更后现代的方法来描述和处理过去的方法,这一点也不不准确或不公平。我相信,在2006年《管理与组织历史》杂志创刊时,也可以看出类似的挑衅。在该杂志的其他“前景”中,创始主编引用了“组织理论的历史性转折”和“米歇尔·福柯和海登·怀特等历史哲学家对管理和组织理论的相关性”(布斯和罗林森,2006年,第5页)。我也(以自己的民族志?)在2014年我参与组织的管理学院专业发展研讨会上目睹了这种持续的骚动。以及在2015年管理历史研究小组的一次会议上,分别围绕“更具批判性的、文化的和定性的历史研究”和“方法、方法论和历史转向”展开了异常激烈的辩论。那么,有什么好大惊小怪的呢?从本质上讲,NHM是一种“反历史方法”,鼓励管理和组织历史学家追随福柯的领导,避免“违反线性进步的标准”来解释历史,这种标准使现状合法化,并排除了其他选择。相反,我们应该寻求理解
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信