CFP: Special Issue: War and Peace in Organizational Memory

26 07 2017

MANAGEMENT AND ORGANIZATIONAL HISTORY

Call for papers

 

 

Theme

Organizations are known for marking their own centennial, bicentennial and other anniversaries. These celebrations are good opportunities for organizations to reflect on their past. The commissioned corporate history that often stems from these events helps the organization to understand its past. This work can then be used externally to form part of its marketing strategy or internally as a way to firm up its identity (Suddaby, Foster and Quinn Trank 2016). The past and longevity also confers legitimacy upon the organization (Roowaan 2009). Other commemorative dates and remembrance ceremonies are of similar importance. While not the traditional focus of business historians, these dates are nevertheless observed by organizations as they participate in the social process of remembering events. This is especially apparent in the experience of war and, as we have seen more recently, terrorist attacks.
A special Issue of Management and Organizational History will be timed to coincide with 11th November 2018 as the 100th year anniversary of Armistice Day. It will be devoted to the examining the impact that war, as a social and political event, had upon organizational identity. How did organizations understand and rationalize their national, regional, religious or racial identity and behavior in times of conflict? What objects, rituals and ceremonies organizations initiate to remember and commemorate the lives lost in war – if at all? To what extent were memorials or commemorations specific to organisations themselves, albeit embedded within wider systems of meaning? How does the end of conflict and peace time change these gestures or attitudes towards other nations or groups? We welcome empirical and theoretical papers that consider case studies or adopt long run historical analysis as well as encouraging the submission of work that utilizes new approaches to concepts of memory. Papers that examine the influence of World War I would be pertinent contributions to the issue but it is not confined to focusing on this war alone. Submissions that consider other wars or conflicts, such as the Hundred Years War, Wars of Independence, Civil Wars, Napoleonic War, World War II, the Cold War, would be relevant and we invite papers from all periods and geographical zones.

Since the ‘historic turn’, a shift has begun to take place in the study of organizational change whereby business historians and historical analysis more generally has taken a greater role. Using history in forming organizational identity often involves sense-making by companies (Ravasi and Schultz, 2006). Recent research has included analysis of ceremonies, rituals and objects. Rituals, as historic events, contain rich levels of symbolism and follow a set of established conventions (Dacin et al., 2010). Objects, such as ornaments, portraits, other paraphernalia and even architecture or museums, exist as a manifestation of a collective memory, a historical record of the organization’s past (Decker 2014; Suddaby, Foster and Quinn Trank 2016, Barnes and Newton, 2017). They serve as ‘talking points’ or a ‘show and tell’ to explain organizational culture, an event or the meaning of an act which has taken place (Ames, 1980; Rafaeli and Pratt, 1993). Textual and oral memory forms can be used as memory cues, which enable those in the present to construct organizational identity that complies with current and future requirements (Schultz and Hernes 2013, 4). While the past can be used and manipulated, it is not always controlled by those with power at the top of the hierarchy (Rowlinson and Hassard 1993; Maclean et al. 2014).

There is a wealth of literature on the memorialization of war at the individual, national, European and international level. Mosse examines the commemoration of soldiers after war, and the role this has in turning war into a sacred event (1990). The role that remembering of war has in creating both national and European identities is considered by Niznik (2013) and its role in influencing post-war European politics is analyzed by Muller (2002). Others consider an international perspective (Sumartojo and Wellings, 2014), whilst the role of museums in remembering war is considered by Williams (2007) and Kjeldbaek (2009). Yet less has been written about how organizations remember war and how such remembering (or forgetting) influences their identify.
This call for papers invites potential contributions from those that employ innovative methodologies to examine individuals, groups or organizations and their experience of war.

Potential topics might include:

– Corporate acts, events, rituals or memorials that remember the war and lives lost
– Decisions not to mark or otherwise commemorate war and/or conflict
– War reparations and other related acts
– The organization’s narrative of its involvement in the war
– The disruptive atmosphere of war and crisis management on staff
– The impact of war or peace on the organization’s national, regional, religious or racial identity
– Approach of multinational firms to this issue and uniformity or difference in subsidiary organisations
– Remembering as a means of connecting with local stakeholders, such as customers and the general public
– Debates about retaining war memorials and the issues with existing stakeholders

 

Process and timeline

Those interested in potentially contributing should contact the two guest editors at the earliest opportunity:

Victoria Barnes: Barnes@rg.mpg.de
Lucy Newton: L.A.Newton@henley.ac.uk

A paper development workshop will be held in Henley Business School, University of Reading in December 2017.

Manuscripts are to be submitted to Management and Organization History in the normal way. Authors should make it clear that the paper is intended to be part of the Special Issue.

The deadline for submission of papers for the Special Issue is February 28th 2018 with an aim to get final versions accepted by September 2018 for publication.

The Special Issue is timed to coincide with Armistice Day and will appear in November 2018 (Vol. 13, No. 4).





does the protestant ethic matter?

24 07 2017

The 500th anniversary of Luther’s nailing of the theses to the church door has prompted some interesting writing about the Weber thesis and the possible connection between Protestantism and the rise of capitalism.

orgtheory.net

Elizabeth Bruenig has a long review in The Nation on three recent book on Martin Luther, talking about, among other things, how Protestantism set the stage for capitalism and modernity.  The piece, weirdly, doesn’t mention Max Weber at all, or the later questions about whether Weber was right about the Protestant Ethic forming capitalism.

For what it’s worth, it’s pretty unclear if Protestantism did form capitalism, particularly through the disciplinary mechanisms Weber describes. Though it does seem fair to say-and Bruenig nods at this-that Protestantism was actually a series of reforms and internal changes to Christian Europe’s understanding of the self and its relationship to larger organizations and institutions. Most historians of the reformation and church history have the dividing line not really at the 95 theses but at earlier changing understandings of confession and homilies, both of which emphasizes the relevance of the individual believer as an actor in…

View original post 695 more words





Exchange on Management Journal Rankings

14 07 2017

AS: Last week, I blogged about some of the systems used for evaluating the quality of management-school journals. Laurent Ortmans, the FT journalist responsible for the rankings, tried to post a comment in response but for unknown technical reasons neither it nor my (lengthy) response showed up in the Comments section. I’m reposting his comments and an abbreviated version of my reply here.

 

 

Hello Andrew,

Your post contains factual errors about the Financial Times.

It is misleading to state that the FT inadvertently revealed my name. It is public information that I am the statistician in charge of the FT business school rankings.

The list of 50 research journals (FT50 list) itself is not a ranking. We do not rank research journals.

We use the articles published in these journals to produce the FT research rank, one of about 20 different criteria that inform our three MBA rankings. See our MBA methodology https://www.ft.com/content/72b3a752-d9be-11e6-944b-e7eb37a6aa8e

The very first list was initially put together by the business schools that took part in our first MBA ranking back in 1999. Since then, the FT has consulted participating schools every time the list was updated, on the basis of one vote per school.

It is correct that some journals contacted me. However, the revised list is based on the schools’ votes only. Incidentally, Liverpool School of Management was consulted and did contribute to our review process.

For your reference, we have published a short methodology https://www.ft.com/content/3405a512-5cbb-11e1-8f1f-00144feabdc0

 

Hi Laurent, Thanks for getting in touch. That takes guts.

I suppose the decision of the FT to publish your name along with the list wasn’t inadvertent.  It’s true they didn’t really say much about the people making the list.

I’m glad to hear that the lobbying by journals and scholarly organizations didn’t cause you to bend the rules outlined in your methodology.

There was a “short” methodology published, as you note. As I and other said online at the time of its publication, it is far too brief. Here is why I think it is far too brief. There are thousands of biz schools in the world and you only contacted 200. That’s fine, but neither the sampling methodology nor the geographical distribution of the schools is mentioned. What percentage are in each country? How is the weighting done?  Moreover, the way in which the “schools” were contacted wasn’t explained and the text of your communication (probably a mass email) wasn’t published, so we can’t examine its wording, which is crucial in opinion polling. The 67% response rate is mentioned, which is great, but the differences in the response rates between management schools in different countries, etc isn’t specified. To be fully transparent, you should list all of the management schools contacted and all of the one’s that didn’t reply. The date of contact should also probably be mentioned too, since this could affect the response rate. Was the response rate for non-US schools different from US schools?  That’s the type of thing people want to know.

How did each school go about forming its opinion? What were your instructions to the school? How was your contact person in each school? That’s something that should be discussed here as well.

I’m not going to compare this survey of management school opinion to the absurd online polls that tabloid papers run to generate statistics that support their editorial positions.  It reminds me of the Literary Digest polls that were used in the 1920s to predict the results of US presidential elections—these were polls of newspaper editors across the country and each editor was asked “how do people in your town plan to vote?” Gallup polling came along later and got steadily more scientific.

I suggest that next time your preregister your study and its methodology and use Open Data to increase the transparency and legitimacy of your findings. There is a cool organization that promotes the pre-registration of social scientific research.

https://cos.io/prereg/

I will say that the FT polling methodology has less room for bias than the some of the other journal lists that I mocked in my post. And the FT50 is useful for people trying to get promoted- useful intel.

 





Canada 150 Research Chair in the History of Britain and the World, 1500-1850

13 07 2017

The Department of History, Faculty of Liberal Arts & Professional Studies, York University, invites applications from individuals interested in nomination for a Canada 150 Research Chair in the History of Britain and the World, 1500-1850, with preferred specialization in Africa and the Atlantic World, to commence July 1, 2018.

The position is a tenure stream appointment at the rank of Assistant or Associate Professor conditional on the successful nomination of the applicant as a Canada 150 Research Chair. To be eligible for this award, nominees must be internationally based at the time of the application (both working and residing outside of Canada), including Canadian expatriates. 

The individual sought will be nominated for a Canada 150 Research Chairs at the $350,000 per year level.  Appointments to Canada 150 Chairs are for 7 years and are accompanied by a full-time tenure-stream faculty position. Further information about the Canada 150 Research Chair program is available at http://www.canada150.chairs-chaires.gc.ca.

The successful candidate will have a record of excellence in scholarly research including publications appropriate to their stage of career, and will demonstrate a commitment to excellence in teaching at all levels. The successful candidate will be prepared to participate actively in the Graduate Program in History and be suitable for prompt appointment to the Faculty of Graduate Studies.

For this nomination, York is particularly interested in candidates with diverse backgrounds and especially encourages candidates in equity, diversity and inclusion categories. York acknowledges the potential impact that career interruptions can have on a candidate’s record of research achievement and encourages applicants to explain in their application the impact that career interruptions may have had on their record of research achievement. York University is an Affirmative Action (AA) employer and strongly values diversity, including gender and sexual diversity, within its community. The AA program, which applies to Aboriginal people, visible minorities, people with disabilities, and women, can be found at www.yorku.ca/acadjobs or by calling the AA office at 416-736-5713. All qualified candidates are encouraged to apply; however, Canadian citizens and permanent residents will be given priority.

Applicants should submit a signed letter of application outlining their professional experience and research interests, an up-to-date curriculum vitae, a sample of their scholarly writing (maximum 50 pp.), and a teaching dossier, and arrange for three confidential letters of recommendation to be sent to: Professor Thabit Abdullah, Chair, Department of History, 2140 Vari Hall. York University, 4700 Keele St., Toronto, Ontario, Canada, M3J 1P3.  Email: chairhis@yorku.ca – (Subject line: “Britain and the World”).

The deadline for applications is July 24, 2017. Salary will be commensurate with qualifications and experience. All York University positions are subject to budgetary approval.





The Archive Advantage

12 07 2017

I am currently co-supervising an excellent PhD student who is doing a case studentship in the archive of a UK-based banking group. (A case studentship is PhD research that is jointly funded by a private-sector partner and a research council, in this case the AHRC). We had a meeting yesterday to talk about the student’s progress towards his PhD (see picture). The student’s research is helping to develop our understanding of how having an archive contributes to the overall performance of the company in a variety of ways. In essence, this case study will document the ways in which a corporate archive can create a competitive advantage for a firm. The result will be knowledge that will be useful to both academics and to managers.

deds6_xxyauzp9i

Although the student’s research is just about one company, I believe that his research findings may be generalizable to other firms. As I observed to the archivists yesterday, corporate archives in the UK are generally well developed relative to other countries. I suspect that this is an important source of competitive advantage for these firms, and for UK plc as a whole.





Academic fields sorted according to their endorsement of genetic causes of human behaviour

12 07 2017

AS: This research is interesting conceptually but not necessarily methodologically. The curious thing is that the authors ignored the main business-school disciplines with the exception of economics. Given the importance of such academic disciplines as strategy and finance in our culture, this omission is most unfortunate. I also note that Law is absent from the list.

The paper is based on a self-selected group of survey respondents. Still, it’s an interesting early finding.

The authors are: Joseph Carroll, John A. Johnson, Catherine Salmon, Jens Kjeldgaard-Christiansen, Mathias Clasen, Emelie Jonsson. Paper title: “A Cross-Disciplinary Survey of Beliefs about Human Nature, Culture, and Science”

 

 

dedac0rxsaiythk

Abstract:

 

How far has the Darwinian revolution come? To what extent have evolutionary ideas penetrated into the social sciences and humanities? Are the “science wars” over? Or do whole blocs of disciplines face off over an unbridgeable epistemic gap? To answer questions like these, contributors to top journals in 22 disciplines were surveyed on their beliefs about human nature, culture, and science. More than 600 respondents completed the survey. Scoring patterns divided into two main sets of disciplines. Genetic influences were emphasized in the evolutionary social sciences, evolutionary humanities, psychology, empirical study of the arts, philosophy, economics, and political science. Environmental influences were emphasized in most of the humanities disciplines and in anthropology, sociology, education, and women’s or gender studies. Confidence in scientific explanation correlated positively with emphasizing genetic influences on behavior, and negatively with emphasizing environmental influences. Knowing the current actual landscape of belief should help scholars avoid sterile debates and ease the way toward fruitful collaborations with neighboring disciplines.

 

 





Between Past and Present: Sub-Plenary at EGOS 2017

12 07 2017

I’m sharing from images of the great EGOS sub-plenary Between Past and Present – History in Organization and Organizing

Organizational History Network

Today’s sub-plenary “Between Past and Present – History in Organization and Organizing” at EGOS 2017 in Copenhagen brought together leading scholars in History and Organization Studies to discuss recent research on time and history.

The three keynote speakers Stephanie Decker, Roy Suddaby and Anders Ravn Sorensen illustrated the plurality in both the conceptualization of organizational time and in how history is researched. The talks triggered a lively debate on how history matters, to whom it matters, and which (often implicit) theories of history shape organizational research.

Chair: Mads Mordhorst

Stephanie Decker – Making sense of the Past: History vs. memory

Roy Suddaby – Institutional Memory as a Dynamic Capability

Anders Ravn Sorensen – Uses of history in action: CBS’ anniversary

IMG_8131IMG_3643IMG_3639IMG_3641IMG_3644

View original post