CFP 2020 AoM Management History (MH) Division

12 12 2019

The Management History (MH) Division invites PDW, symposium, and paper submissions for the 80th Annual Meeting of the Academy of Management to be held in Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada from 7 – 11 August 2020. You may send us your submissions through the AOM Submission Center until it closes on Tuesday, 14 January 2020 at 5:00 PM ET (NY Time). The Submission Center opens in early December 2019.

 

Conference Theme: This year’s conference theme is “20/20: Broadening our Sight” and encourages us to widen our view when examining our domain, practice and organizational phenomena. We encourage you to make connections to the theme wherever possible in preparing your submission.

 

Our Domain: The Management History (MH) Division is a wide-ranging network of scholars interested in the antecedents of modern business practice and thought. We invite submissions of empirical and conceptual papers, as well as proposals for symposia (including panel discussions, debates, and roundtables), for consideration for inclusion in the division’s scholarly program. We encourage submissions from all members of the academy interested in devoting or sharing their work in management history broadly defined.

 

As there is an element of history within every division in the Academy, the division is open to a variety of methodological approaches and themes ranging from historical events in management practice (empirical focus) to studies that engage with historiography, philosophies of history, and the history of ideas and management thought (theoretical orientation). In this spirit, the MH Division welcomes scholarly contributions that generate meaningful and original contributions in history from across all AOM divisions’ interest groups. Submissions for sessions sponsored jointly with other Academy divisions are regarded as particularly attractive, and highly encouraged. The MH Division encourages submissions from doctoral students. Papers with a PhD student as the first or sole author should be clearly identified when submitted to allow identification of possible winners of the Best Graduate Student Paper.

 

See our call for PDWs: http://aom.org/annualmeeting/submission/call/mh/pdw/

 

And our call for the scholarly program: http://aom.org/annualmeeting/submission/call/mh/

 

We’re looking forward to seeing you in Vancouver,

 

Roy Suddaby, Program Chair (rsuddaby@uvic.ca) and Trish McLaren, PDW Chair (pmclaren@wlu.ca)

 





Using Versus Excusing: The Hudson’s Bay Company’s Long-Term Engagement with Its (Problematic) Past

2 11 2019
1024px-hudson27s_bay_company2c_lower_fort_garry2c_manitoba2c_canada2c_delivering_fur2c_1913

By Unknown /Valentine & Sons Ltd., Montreal + Toronto. Printed in London. – Ebay „scview“, Public Domain, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=74666997

Many companies use their histories. For some companies, especially firms that aren’t trying to compete on price, being able to tell a compelling story about their long history is a major source of competitive advantage. Canada’s Hudson’s Bay Company is an extreme example of that. For over a century, the HBC’s ability to use history has helped the firm to overcome many challenges, such as the invasion by US retail chains such as Sears and more recently the internet-driven Retail Apocalypse. But what happens if a group of activists starting saying that the company’s history is something to be ashamed of rather than proud of? What should the managers of the company do then?

The paper I co-authored paper with Wim Van Lent of Montpellier Business School looks at how the HBC has responded to Indigenous social activists who have charged that the firm’s great wealth came from exploiting Indigenous peoples and involvement in a wider project of what is now called cultural genocide (for examples of such claims, see this 2016 article in Maclean’s magazine). The paper was published today in Journal of Business Ethics, a journal on the Financial Times 50 list of top journals for management research.

In addition to being of interest to management academics and business practitioners in Canada and other New World countries (e.g., Australia) who think about relations between Indigenous peoples and business, this paper speaks to broader debates about how firms use history and respond to accusations of historical misdeeds.

You can read the paper here.





PDW CfP: Uses of the Past- Perspectives, Forms and Concepts in Business History

29 10 2019

Uses of the Past- Perspectives, Forms and Concepts in Business History

 

CBS Paper Development Workshop

Business History Conference, Charlotte, NC, March 12, 2020

In the past years, uses of the past has become a prominent research theme for business historians and organization scholars alike. Studies on the usefulness and appropriation of the past have appeared across diverse fields such as business history, organization studies, marketing, learning & education, and CSR. Uses of history is fashionable. But where will the field go in the future?

In the CBS PDW we seek to focus on questions that have yet to asked, and we would like to explore the theories and methods that might take the field forward.

The workshop offers an opportunity to get feedback and generate ideas of how to develop concrete paper drafts that deal, one way or the other, with uses of the past. In addition, the PDW will serve as a forum where we can discuss future directions and opportunities (and potential dead ends) going forward with a ‘uses-of-the-past’ agenda. What are the questions and research that are yet to be explored, and what are the role for business historians in shaping a ‘uses-of the past’ research agenda?

Themes to be explored in the papers could include, amongst others:

  • Uses of the past for branding, strategy and identity purposes
  • Corporate and public museums
  • The use (and abuse?) of organizational anniversaries
  • Uses of history in action
  • The role and practices of historical consultancies (e.g. Winthrop Group, The History Factory and others)
  • Historical CSR
  • Theoretical and methodological perspectives connected to uses of the past.
  • Critical perspectives on uses of the past

Submitted texts could take form as extended abstracts or full paper drafts. The important thing is that readers can identify the key arguments, theories and empirical material, for them to provide useful feedback, suggestions and comments.

Depending on the submitted abstracts and full papers, the participants and organizers could potentially explore the opportunity of a subsequent special issue on uses of the past in a relevant academic publication, such as, for example Business History.

Participants are expected to read all circulated papers. Please submit a paper draft or extended abstract before January 10, 2020 to the workshop organizers.

Anders Ravn Sørensen, ars.mpp@cbs.dk

Morten Tinning, mti.mpp@cbs.dk





Collusion and combines in Canada, 1880–1890

24 10 2019

I’m very happy to promote a new paper by Vincent Geloso on the history of competition policy in Canada. Given that anti-trust is a sexy topic right now, thanks to the efforts of scholars such as Tim Wu and other “hipster anti-trust” types, the publication of this article is timely.

 

It is a little-known fact that Canada adopted its own antitrust law one year before the landmark Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890. The Anti-Combines Act of 1889 (‘the Act’) was adopted after a decade in which ‘combines’ (the Canadian equivalent of ‘trusts’) had grown more numerous. From the combines’ numbers, Canadian historians, legal scholars, and economists have inferred that consumer welfare was hindered. However, price and output evidence has never been marshalled to provide even a first step towards assessing the veracity of this inference. This paper undertakes that task. I highlight the fact that the output from industries accused of collusion increased faster than national output in the decade before the passage of the Act and that their prices accordingly fell faster than the national price index. I argue that these findings militate for the position that the origins of Canada’s Anti-Combines Act were partially rooted in rent-seeking processes similar to those that American scholars have found driving the Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890.

 





A Business Historian’s Thoughts on Reparations for Slavery

18 09 2019

Reparations for slavery are very much in the news, both in the US, where the Democratic presidential primary has included debates about this issue, and here in the UK, where the University of Glasgow has agreed to pay slavery reparations in the form of a joint venture with the University of the West Indies to be called the Glasgow-Caribbean Centre for Development Research. The descendants of African slaves, particularly those who live in developing countries such as Jamaica, deserve compensation, although I’m not convinced that the University of Glasgow reparation scheme would really stand up to much scrutiny when viewed with an effective altruism lens. (An unconditional cash transfer to the poorest individuals in Jamaica would likely be a more cost-effective form of reparations).  Rather ironically, I think that many development experts (e.g., Chris Blattman) would probably doubt the cost-effectiveness of the Glasgow-Caribbean Centre for Development Research as mechanism for reparations.

The present-day issue of reparations for slavery and similar historic human right abuses is a very complex one and I have a relatively open mind about how reparations should be structured.  However, there are some principles that I think should guide our discussions.  My own view is that it is legitimate to ask corporations such as the University of Glasgow to pay reparations but that it wouldn’t be legitimate to track down and demand payment from the descendants of the natural persons who owned slaves. The same principle applies to German companies involved in the Holocaust, an event that is still within living memory.

That being said, it is really unfortunate when the politics of reparations distorts economic-historical research aimed at measuring the role of slavery in promoting economic growth. I’m thinking here of  the much discussed research of the highly controversial historian Ed Baptist. Rhetorical history used by social activists and peer-reviewed academic history should not be confused as it does a disservice to both. Baptist is a clearly a citizen who cares greatly about injustices in the present. He’s right to do so. However, his claims that the wealth the US enjoys today is largely or substantially the result of slavery has been demolished by respected researchers, as are many of the supporting arguments he has marshalled to try to support this argument. I also find the “ghost acres/sugar calories from slaves” argument that has been advanced to explain why England not China had the Industrial Revolution to be implausible as a way of accounting for the Great Divergence.

I think that it is really important for us as researchers to distinguish between political activism and advocacy for legitimate causes and academic research. To blend the two risks distorting scholarly research and, crucially, distorting the allocation of scarce resources to philanthropic ventures that have high administrative overheads and a low altruistic rate of return.

I would also suggest that the narrow focus in the slavery reparations debate on getting institutions in Western countries to pay reparations risks diverting attention from the issue of Modern Slavery.  Near slavery conditions can be found in the oil rich countries in the Arabian peninsula that use the “kafala system” — in fact, given that African chattel slavery was only abolished some of these countries a few years before the kafala system was implemented in the wake of the post-1973 boom of these countries, one can argue that the linkages between historical slavery and present-day injustice are much stronger in this part of the world than in the West. Slavery was abolished in what is now the UAE in 1963 and only after sustained pressure from Britain.

 





British Academy of Management, Management and Business History Track

5 09 2019

bam201920new20logo

I’m sharing the details of the Management and Business History track at this year’s British Academy of Management conference, which concludes today.  Some interesting historical research was presented at BAM this year, including a great little paper by my PhD student Ian Jones.

Management and Business History
Track Chairs: Kevin Tennent and Roy Edwards
TUES 15.30 – 17.00 | MB549, Main Building
WORKSHOP
Session Chair: Roy Edwards and Kevin Tennent
Archives and ‘history as a method’ in Business School Teaching (789) Edwards, Roy;
Tennent, Kevin
This proposal seeks to explore the use of history as a method to understand business decision making in a historical context. The workshop will draw upon the experience of the conveners in delivering undergraduate education in both dissertation supervision and teaching modules on management and business history. In addition how the evidence and approach might be embedded in other more mainstream disciplines will be explored. The value to the wider BAM community will be in thinking about how history as an approach might be used alongside archival evidence to develop an innovative approach to business education.
WED 09.00 – 10.30 | Susan Cadbury Lecture Theatre, Aston Business School
SYMPOSIUM
Session Chair: Kevin Tennent
Frederick W Taylor: Progressive? Or Not? A Debate (187) Wilson, James M; Quail, John
Frederick W. Taylor remains a controversial figure in management. Although the
conventional view is that Taylor and his system of Scientific Management was designed and used to exploit workers, revisionists argue against that received wisdom.
The symposium explores those issues: first considering the prevailing perspective and
understanding of Taylor and his system: what is it and how is it used. That would be
followed by alternative considerations of it as a progressive development, more “liberal” in design and intent than recognized by its contemporary critics or later discussions now seen most often. The format will be presented as a debate: with the first third of the session devoted to initially eliciting the current, popular perception of Taylor, then the second third providing a contrasting view; followed in the last part of the session with an open debate wherein the presenters and audience can interact critiquing the alternative views put forward.

WED 13.30 – 15.00 | MB708A, Main Building
FULL PAPERS
Session Chair: Shane Hamilton

Authentic Organisational Change: The Role Of Rhetorical History In The Creation Of Barclays Bank’s Company Values (917) Jones, Ian Geoffrey

The Narrative of the 1930s City of London and the Manufacturing North of England (896)
Weir, David Thomas

The City of London: Genealogy of a Contemporary Mercantilist Heterotopia (1179)
Cornelius, Nelarine; Pezet, Eric

WED 15.30 – 17.00 | MB404A, Main Building
FULL PAPERS
Session Chair: Roy Edwards
Governing as Minding the Institutional Gap (495) Jimenez, Gonzalo; Pyper, Neil

Enron and the California Energy Crisis: The Emergence of a Corrupt Collective (419) Nix,
Adam; Decker, Stephanie; Wolf, Carola

Building and Sustaining London Transport’s Corporate Strategy in a Time of Uncertainty 1963 – 87 (135) Fowler, James

THURS 09.00 – 10.00 | MB559, Main Building
DEVELOPMENTAL PAPERS
Session Chair: James Fowler

Segmenting public and private: British Municipal Trading c. 1889-1975 (827) Tennent, KevinD; Gilett, Alex G; Fowler, James; Turner, David A

A Cluster’s Response To Dealing With Crisis And Uncertainty: Lessons From History (232)
Lane, Joe

THURS 13.00 – 14.30 | MB504, Main Building
FULL PAPERS
Session Chair: Roy Edwards

Flexibility Is Just Another Word For Nothing Left to Lose (137) Hamilton, Shane

Mary P. Follett and Chester I. Barnard’s Management Guide to Inclusivity (602) Mawer, Susan

Late Nineteenth Century Strikes and the Origins of the Law-and-Order Leagues in the United States (340) Pearson, Chad Eric

THURS 15.00 – 16.30 | Room 140, Aston Business School
DEVELOPMENTAL PAPERS
Session Chair: Stephanie Decker

The Cartagena Railroad: A failed Hegemonic Experiences and a Laboratory of Social
Movements in the Caribbean (338) Correa, Juan-Santiago

The Historical-Structural Foundations of Peru’s Dependent Development in the Twenty-First Century (302) Silverwood, James; Pyper, Neil

British Contribution to Development of Management Education in Developing Countries:
the Role of Management Group in TETOC in 1960s (979) Masrani, Swapnesh; McKiernan,
Petet





Zero Historical Perspective in Press Coverage of the Business Roundtable Statement

20 08 2019

The Business Roundtable, which represents the chief executive officers of the major U.S. corporations, has issued a statement that explicitly denounces the doctrine of shareholder primacy, the view that executives should run companies with the sole goal of maximizing shareholder value (see here, here, and here). This view as famously articulated by the Michigan Supreme Court in the case of Dodge Brothers vs Ford (1919) and much later by Milton Friedman. The Business Roundtable’s statement calls for a new understanding of the “purpose of a corporation” for managers to balance the interests of shareholders with stakeholders who have competing claims on the firm’s resources, e.g., the workers and perhaps the nation-state.  The Business Roundtable seems to want to turn the clock back to the immediate postwar period, when U.S. business culture was such that many U.S. managers explicitly rejected the notion that their job was simply to maximize profits for shareholders.

If the ideas in the Business Roundtable’s statement are implemented in all or many of the member organizations (that’s a big if), the implications for U.S. business, society, and investors would be massive. Not surprisingly, the Business Roundtable’s announcement has received extensive press coverage. I’ve done research on the history of the doctrine of shareholder primacy in US business. My research, and that of other scholars such as Brian Cheffins, has shown how the pendulum swung from shareholder primacy to the “managerialist” philosophy that dominated U.S. business-decision in the middle of the twentieth century and then back again to shareholder primacy in the 1980s and 1990s. I’m therefore struck by how little awareness of this complex history is demonstrated in much of the press coverage of the Business Roundtable’s statement. There is basically zero historical perspective in the media discussion of the Business Roundtable statement.

Consider the otherwise fine report about the  Business Roundtable event on CNBC by journalist Maggie Fitzgerald. Her story referred to the “age-old” doctrine of shareholder primacy, which implies that ever since the advent of the joint-stock company, firms everywhere and always have been run according to the dictates of shareholder value ideology. That’s not remotely true in Germany or even in other common-law jurisdictions such as the UK and Canada, where the law requires manages firms in the interest of an imagined “enlightened” and socially conscious shareholder (for information on the Englightened Shareholder Value principle in the Commonwealth countries, see here, here, and here). Moreover, historical research by the late Lynn Stout, Rakesh Khurana, Roger Martin, and other academic has demonstrated that shareholder value ideology was explicitly rejected by US managers from the 1930s to the late 1970s. This literature is discussed on page 536 of a paper I wrote with Jason Russell and Kevin Tennent. Ms. Fitzgerald, like most US journalists, appears to be unaware of how recently shareholder value doctrine came to dominate the thinking and action of top US CEOs.