重置和恢复。管理理论的保守转向:Foss等人的延伸。

IF 2 4区 管理学 Q3 MANAGEMENT
Steffen Roth
{"title":"重置和恢复。管理理论的保守转向:Foss等人的延伸。","authors":"Steffen Roth","doi":"10.1016/j.scaman.2023.101278","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>This article is a reply to Foss et al.’s (2022) contribution to the special issue of the Scandinavian Journal of Management on <em>The Great Reset of management and organization theory</em>. In their article, the authors make a strong case that “reset thinking” geared towards a more “sustainable” redesign of the global economy promotes extensive state interventionism and cronyism capitalism, and therefore reject the idea of a need for “a fundamental rethink of existing management theory”. Whereas I do agree with the authors on most points, I am less convinced that “existing management theory” will suffice to address the problem of “reset thinking”. In this article, I demonstrate that the economy-bias of existing theories is a gateway for “reset thinking” geared towards an allegedly necessary re-/socialisation of management and organisation. A research agenda on cronyism must therefore be complemented by one on privilege and hierarchy not only as undesirable side-effects of cronyism, but also as desired outcomes of advocacy for specific minorities or missions. As self-identifications with group interests or calls for missions have become popular in management theory, I conclude that this new appetite for privilege might undermine not only the higher ideals of many management theorists, but also the foundations of <em>modern</em> society.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":47759,"journal":{"name":"Scandinavian Journal of Management","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Reset and restoration. The looming conservative turn of management theory: An extension of Foss et al.\",\"authors\":\"Steffen Roth\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.scaman.2023.101278\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><p>This article is a reply to Foss et al.’s (2022) contribution to the special issue of the Scandinavian Journal of Management on <em>The Great Reset of management and organization theory</em>. In their article, the authors make a strong case that “reset thinking” geared towards a more “sustainable” redesign of the global economy promotes extensive state interventionism and cronyism capitalism, and therefore reject the idea of a need for “a fundamental rethink of existing management theory”. Whereas I do agree with the authors on most points, I am less convinced that “existing management theory” will suffice to address the problem of “reset thinking”. In this article, I demonstrate that the economy-bias of existing theories is a gateway for “reset thinking” geared towards an allegedly necessary re-/socialisation of management and organisation. A research agenda on cronyism must therefore be complemented by one on privilege and hierarchy not only as undesirable side-effects of cronyism, but also as desired outcomes of advocacy for specific minorities or missions. As self-identifications with group interests or calls for missions have become popular in management theory, I conclude that this new appetite for privilege might undermine not only the higher ideals of many management theorists, but also the foundations of <em>modern</em> society.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":47759,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Scandinavian Journal of Management\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-09-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Scandinavian Journal of Management\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"91\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0956522123000192\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"管理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"MANAGEMENT\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Scandinavian Journal of Management","FirstCategoryId":"91","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0956522123000192","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"MANAGEMENT","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

本文是对Foss等人(2022)对《斯堪的纳维亚管理杂志》特刊《管理与组织理论的大重置》的贡献的回复。在他们的文章中,作者提出了一个强有力的理由,即旨在对全球经济进行更“可持续”的重新设计的“重置思维”促进了广泛的国家干预主义和任人唯亲资本主义,因此拒绝了需要“从根本上重新思考现有管理理论”的想法。尽管我在大多数方面都同意作者的观点,但我不太相信“现有管理理论”足以解决“重置思维”的问题。在这篇文章中,我证明了现有理论的经济偏见是“重置思维”的门户,旨在实现管理和组织的必要重组/社会化。因此,关于任人唯亲的研究议程必须辅之以特权和等级制度的研究议程,这不仅是任人唯贤的不良副作用,也是为特定少数群体或使命进行宣传的理想结果。随着对群体利益的自我认同或对使命的呼吁在管理理论中流行起来,我得出结论,这种对特权的新欲望不仅可能破坏许多管理理论家的崇高理想,而且可能破坏现代社会的基础。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Reset and restoration. The looming conservative turn of management theory: An extension of Foss et al.

This article is a reply to Foss et al.’s (2022) contribution to the special issue of the Scandinavian Journal of Management on The Great Reset of management and organization theory. In their article, the authors make a strong case that “reset thinking” geared towards a more “sustainable” redesign of the global economy promotes extensive state interventionism and cronyism capitalism, and therefore reject the idea of a need for “a fundamental rethink of existing management theory”. Whereas I do agree with the authors on most points, I am less convinced that “existing management theory” will suffice to address the problem of “reset thinking”. In this article, I demonstrate that the economy-bias of existing theories is a gateway for “reset thinking” geared towards an allegedly necessary re-/socialisation of management and organisation. A research agenda on cronyism must therefore be complemented by one on privilege and hierarchy not only as undesirable side-effects of cronyism, but also as desired outcomes of advocacy for specific minorities or missions. As self-identifications with group interests or calls for missions have become popular in management theory, I conclude that this new appetite for privilege might undermine not only the higher ideals of many management theorists, but also the foundations of modern society.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.00
自引率
10.00%
发文量
36
审稿时长
71 days
期刊介绍: The Scandinavian Journal of Management (SJM) provides an international forum for innovative and carefully crafted research on different aspects of management. We promote dialogue and new thinking around theory and practice, based on conceptual creativity, reasoned reflexivity and contextual awareness. We have a passion for empirical inquiry. We promote constructive dialogue among researchers as well as between researchers and practitioners. We encourage new approaches to the study of management and we aim to foster new thinking around management theory and practice. We publish original empirical and theoretical material, which contributes to understanding management in private and public organizations. Full-length articles and book reviews form the core of the journal, but focused discussion-type texts (around 3.000-5.000 words), empirically or theoretically oriented, can also be considered for publication. The Scandinavian Journal of Management is open to different research approaches in terms of methodology and epistemology. We are open to different fields of management application, but narrow technical discussions relevant only to specific sub-fields will not be given priority.
×
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