What Is (Business) Management? Laying the Ground for a Philosophy of Management

Abstract

In this article, we philosophically reflect on the nature of business management. We move beyond the political paradigm of the conceptualization of management in order to lay the ground for a philosophy of business management. First, we open-up the self-evident conceptualization of business management in contemporary management practices by comparing ancient and contemporary definitions of management. Second, we develop a framework with six dimensions of the nature of business management that can guide future philosophical and empirical work on the nature of business management: management control, people management, asset management and entrepreneurial action, management as participation, management as responsive action and management as constituting meaning.

Twenty Years of Philosophy of Management. How has it Shaped the Field?

“…Two are from the first two volumes (Laurie & Cherry, 2001;Dearey, 2002). Another two are from the middle years (Platts & Harris, 2011;Dibben & Sheard, 2012) and one is from the last volume we consider here (Blok, 2020).…”

Time to Say ‘Good Buy’ to the Passive Consumer? A Conceptual Review of the Consumer in the Bioeconomy

“…Vivien et al, 2019). Indeed, if one adheres to a technoeconomic innovation paradigm (Blok, 2020) that focuses solely on the necessary technological advances that facilitate the transformation towards a bioeconomy, then the consumers' scope of action may-at most-be viewed as the collective "voting" for more or less "responsible" technological innovations. However, as argued above in our "Why the bioeconomy is more than a supply-side endeavor" section, the transition towards a sustainable bioeconomy goes way beyond market acceptance and diffusion of novel and "more efficient" biotechnological innovations.…”

“…In other words, the bioeconomy can be an important driver of the required transformation that aligns the multiple innovative efforts of various actors in many areas to the ethical goals of a sustainable society (Vogt, 2018(Vogt, , 2020, see also Urmetzer, 2020). Yet, if we consider the bioeconomy to rely on (sustainable and responsible) innovations, we should be careful not to over-emphasize the role of the "supply side" and technologies as the main driver of economic change as promoted by the dominant "techno-economic paradigm" (Blok, 2020). To be clear, new technological solutions developed by firms and other "producers" are undoubtedly important.…”

“…To be clear, new technological solutions developed by firms and other "producers" are undoubtedly important. However, focusing solely on the production of new technologies may run the danger of neglecting, for example, the path dependence and resistance to change of technological regimes and socio-technical systems (e.g., Dosi, 1982;Geels, 2002) as well as the necessary non-technological (e.g., social and transformative) innovations and an adequate societal implementation (see also Blok, 2020;Loorbach et al, 2020). Indeed, without due consideration of the demand side impact of novelties beyond market uptake, technological advancements may even be voided or actually corrupted by unsustainable consumption habits (see also Daniel & Reisch, 2014, on a related note)-a ramification that has been dubbed rebound effect (e.g., Greening et al, 2000;Herring & Roy, 2007).…”

COVID and the Common Good

“…While the lessons for leaders during COVID are yet to be fully appreciated, scholars have already identified the importance of what is being termed ‘identity leadership’, that is, leaders need to represent us, and in a crisis, ‘us’ becomes more inclusive, that leaders need to craft and embed a sense of ‘us’, and that this creates a platform for citizenship (Haslam 2020 ; Letten et al 2020 ). To that extent, it seems effective political leadership in the face of COVID has involved more than taking responsive action to the crisis but includes the ability to constitute meaning for their citizens during this crisis (Blok 2020 ).…”