History, a Useful “Science” for Management? From Polemics to Controversies

Abstract

The aim of this essay is to analyze the way management sciences and practices use history or at least the kind of research which they define as history. This reflection will lead to discussing the possibility and the opportunity that an historical approach might have in creating management knowledge, especially “workable” know-how. A quick look at present-day exchanges between the two communities could lead us to the conclusion that there were tensions in the past that have not entirely evaporated. Might they explain the relative modesty of the dialogue, at least in France?

The silence of the archives: business history, post-colonialism and archival ethnography

“…Hence business history as a field is looking for new intellectual avenues to make contributions in this new institutional setting that go beyond providing data and continue the integrity of a historical research agenda (Jones & Khanna, 2006). This is now discussed frequently in the major business history journals, see for example Eric Godelier's challenge in Enterprise & Society and the responses from other business historians (Godelier, 2009a(Godelier, , 2009bKobrak, 2009;Popp, 2009;Tiffany, 2009), work on the impact and citation of business history papers (Eloranta, Ojala, & Valtonen, 2008;Eloranta, Valtonen, & Ojala, 2010), and by organizational studies scholars with an interest in business history such as Mick Rowlinson (Clark & Rowlinson, 2004;Michael Rowlinson & Delahaye, 2009).…”

Dynamic capabilities in a sixth-generation family firm: Entrepreneurship and the Bibby Line

“…First, rather than adopting a conventional business history approach, the concept of DCs has informed the interviews with members of the business and the authors' interpretation of the data (Godelier, 2009). Second, although the company has existed since 1807 the focus of this paper has been on Bibby's diversification over the last 50 years.…”

Introduction: The era of management: a historical perspective on twentieth-century management

“…They have been written with the aim to show that management has older roots than the emphasis on the Taylorian 'revolution' suggests (for a good early example, see Pollard 1965). However, by taking this perspective, some have oversimplified the specific development of management in the last century (George 1968;Witzel 2009) or lumped together important 'management' scholars as diverse as Machiavelli and Adam Smith (Wren and Greenwood 1998;Crowley and Sobel 2010). Of course, longitudinal studies of management can provide great insight into management and globalization (Moore and Lewis 2000;Karsten 2013;Karsten 2014, this issue), but some seem to deliver a more or less random history of management because the criteria for the selection of historical figures are arbitrary or unclear (Thuderoz 2006).…”