Introduction: History in Organisation Studies

Click to increase image sizeClick to decrease image size

Notes

This special issue is based on a selection from the papers presented at the sub-theme entitled ‘Re-discovering History in Studying Organisations’ that we convened at the 17th EGOS (European Group for Organizational Studies) Colloquium held in Lyon, France, 3–5 July 2001. We wish to express our gratitude to the following colleagues who have helped us as reviewers in the preparation of this special issue: Rolv Petter Amdam (Norwegian School of Management, Norway), Finn Borum (Copenhagen Business School, Denmark), Haldor Byrkjeflot (Stein Rokkan Center of Social Studies, Norway), the late Roland Calori (EM Lyon, France), Paula Carson (University of Louisiana, USA), Mark Casson (University of Reading, UK), Bob Hinings (University of Alberta, Canada), Paul Hirsch (Northwestern University, USA), Matthias Kipping (Universitat Pompeu Fabra, Spain), Jean-Claude Thoenig (GAPP-CNRS, France), Richard Whittington (University of Oxford, UK), Daniel Wren (University of Oklahoma, USA). We also wish to record our sadness at the untimely and unexpected death of our good friend Roland Calori while this project was under way and whilst he was reviewing for us. He organised the EGOS Colloquium at which we convened our sub-theme, about which he was very enthusiastic throughout. To him we dedicate this special issue.

See M.N. Zald, ‘History, Sociology, and Theories of Organization’, in J.E. Jackson (ed.), Institutions in American Society (Ann Arbor, MI, 1990), pp.81–108, and A. Kieser, ‘Why Organization Theory Needs Historical Analyses – And How This Should be Performed’, Organization Science, Vol.5 (1994), pp.608–20 as notable examples.

Examples of these kinds of work are J.N. Baron, F.R. Dobbin and P.D. Jennings, ‘War and Peace: The Evolution of Modern Personnel Administration in U.S. Industry’, American Journal of Sociology, Vol.92 (1986), pp.350–83; A. Kieser, ‘Organizational, Institutional and Societal Evolution: Medieval Craft Guilds and the Genesis of Formal Organizations’, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol.34 (1989), pp.540–64; R. Calori, M. Lubatkin, P. Very and J.F. Veiga, ‘Modeling the Origins of Nationally-Bound Administrative Heritages: A Historical-Institutional Analysis of French and British Firms’, Organization Science, Vol.8 (1997), pp.681–96; and A. Kieser, ‘From Freemasons to Industrious Patriots: Organizing and Disciplining in 18th Century Germany’, Organization Studies, Vol.19 (1998), pp.47–71.

For a review of developments in organisational theorising see B. Üsdiken and H. Leblebici, ‘Organization Theory’, in N. Anderson, D.S. Ones, H.K. Sinangil and C. Viswesvaran (eds.), Handbook of Industrial, Work and Organizational Psychology (London, 2001), Vol.2, pp.377–97. For similar observations on the ahistorical character of organisation studies, see Zald, ‘History, Sociology and Theories of Organization’, p.82; Kieser, ‘Why Organization Theory Needs Historical Analyses’, p.609; P. Goldman, ‘Searching for History in Organizational Theory: Comment on Kieser’, Organization Science, Vol.5 (1994), p.621; M.N. Zald, ‘More Fragmentation: Unfinished Business in Linking the Social Sciences and the Humanities’, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol.41 (1996), p.256; and M. Rowlinson and S. Procter, ‘Organization Culture and Business History’, Organization Studies, Vol.20 (1999), p.369. Perhaps the only exception has been the sub-field concerned with the history of management thought: see, for example, D.A. Wren, The Evolution of Management Thought (New York, 4th edn. 1994); M.F. Guillén, Models of Management (Chicago, 1994), and, more recently, the comparative literature on forms of management education – for example L. Engwall and V. Zamagni (eds.), Management Education in a Historical Perspective (Manchester, 1998).

Kieser, ‘Why Organization Theory Needs Historical Analyses’, p.609. See also Leblebici and Shah's article in this issue.

Kieser, ‘Why Organization Theory Needs Historical Analyses’, p.609. See also Üsdiken and Leblebici, ‘Organization Theory’, pp.377–8.

Zald, ‘More Fragmentation’, p.257.

For example, S. Clegg, C. Hardy and W.D. Nord (eds.), A Handbook of Organization Studies, published in London in 1996, had only one item in its index that was related to history – and only in the context of ‘action research’. J.A.C. Baum's edited Companion to Organizations, on the other hand, published in 2002 in Oxford, has a history section in its subject index, with references to items like historical contingency, historical origins, historical relativism, historicism, historiographic research and organisational histories.

See, for example, W.R. Scott, Institutions and Organizations (Thousand Oaks, CA, 2nd edn. 2001), pp.207–8, and H. Aldrich, Organizations Evolving (London, 1999), pp.201–2.

Kieser, ‘Why Organization Theory Needs Historical Analyses’, p.612. See also Clark and Rowlinson's article in this issue.

Rowlinson and Procter, ‘Organization Culture’, pp.370–80; C. Carter, A. McKinlay and M. Rowlinson, ‘Introduction: Foucault, Management and History’, Organization, Vol.9 (2002), pp.516–18.

Alongside these three different positions emanating from scholarly concerns, there have been sporadic explorations into and arguments as to how attending to history may serve as a ‘resource’ for practical ends such as the development of managers (e.g., A.D. Chandler, T.K. McCraw, A.L. McDonald, R.S. Tedlow and R.H.K. Vietor, ‘Why History Matters to Managers’, Harvard Business Review (Jan.–Feb. 1986), pp.81–8, and S. Down, ‘The Use of History in Business and Management and Some Implications for Management Learning’, Management Learning, Vol.32 (2001), pp.406–7) or the design and the management of organisations (e.g. F.J. Barrett and S. Srivastava, ‘History as a Mode of Inquiry in Organizational Life: A Role for Human Cosmogony’, Human Relations, Vol.44 (1991), pp.231–54).

See, for example, B.S. Lawrence, ‘Historical Perspective: Using the Past to Study the Present’, Academy of Management Review, Vol.9 (1984), p.311

See, for example, R.S. Goodman and E.J. Kruger, ‘Data Dredging or Legitimate Research Method: Historiography and its Potential for Management Research’, Academy of Management Review, Vol.13 (1988), p.323.

Zald refers to this as the ‘testing ground’ approach in his ‘History, Sociology and Theories of Organization’, p.103.

Goldman, ‘Searching for History’, p.623.

Zald, ‘History, Sociology and Theories of Organization’, p.103.

Kieser, ‘Why Organization Theory Needs Historical Analyses’, p.617.

D.C. North and R.P. Thomas, The Rise of the Western World: A New Economic History (Cambridge, 1973).

O.E. Williamson, The Economic Institutions of Capitalism (New York, 1985).

Lawrence, ‘Historical Perspective’, pp.308–9, 311.

Goodman and Kruger, ‘Data Dredging’, p.323. Their consideration of historiography is similar in many ways to the treatment of qualitative research in the quantitatively orientated literature in organisation studies.

Kieser, ‘Why Organization Theory Needs Historical Analyses’, p.612.

Kieser, ‘Medieval Craft Guilds’, pp.540–64.

Zald, ‘More Fragmentation’, p.257.

Zald, ‘History, Sociology and Theories of Organization’, p.87.

M.N. Zald, ‘Organization Studies as a Scientific and Humanistic Enterprise: Toward a Reconceptualisation of the Foundations of the Field’, Organization Science, Vol.4 (1993), p.514 (emphasis added).

Zald, ‘More Fragmentation’, p.258.

Zald, ‘Organization Studies’, p.516 (emphasis original).

Kieser, ‘Why Organization Theory Needs Historical Analyses’, p.619.

Scott, Institutions and Organizations, p.95 (emphasis added).

Kieser, ‘Why Organization Theory Needs Historical Analyses’, pp.609–10.

See, for example, N. Biggart and M.F. Guillén, ‘Developing Difference: Social Organization and the Rise of the Auto Industries of South Korea, Taiwan, Spain and Argentina’, American Sociological Review, Vol.64 (1999), pp.722–47, as an example of a study where this is done.

Kieser, ‘Why Organization Theory Needs Historical Analyses’, p.61. See also Zald, ‘History, Sociology and Theories of Organization’, pp.93–6.

M.J. Piore and C.F. Sabel, The Second Industrial Divide: Possibilities for Prosperity (New York, 1984).

Kieser, ‘Why Organization Theory Needs Historical Analyses’, pp.610–11.

Kieser, ‘Medieval Craft Guilds’, pp.540–64.

B.L. Davis and M. MacGregor, Badges and Insignia of the Third Reich, 1933–45 (Poole, 1983); V. Klemperer, The Language of the Third Reich: LTI, Lingua Tertii Imperii; A Philologist's Notebook (London 2003).

E.H. Schein, Organizational Culture and Leadership: A Dynamic View (San Francisco, 2nd edn. 1997).

Zald, ‘History, Sociology, and Theories of Organization’, pp.103–4.

A.L. Stinchcombe, ‘Social Structure and Organizations’, in J.G. March (ed.), Handbook of Organizations (Chicago, 1965), pp.142–93. See W.P. Boeker, ‘Organizational Origins: Entrepreneurial and Environmental Imprinting at the Time of Founding’, in G.R. Carroll (ed.), Ecological Models of Organizations (Cambridge, MA, 1988), pp.33–51, as an example of an empirical study based on Stinchcombe's thesis.

Kieser, ‘Why Organization Theory Needs Historical Analyses’, p.618.

Ibid., pp.617–18.

Carter et al., ‘Foucault, Management and History’, p.518.

Ibid.

For example, Zald, ‘History, Sociology and Theories of Organization’, pp.102–3; idem, ‘More Fragmentation’, p.256.

See also Clark and Rowlinson's article in this issue.

Carter et al., ‘Foucault, Management and History’, pp.518–20. See also M. Rowlinson and C. Carter, ‘Foucault and History in Organization Studies’, Organization, Vol.9 (2002), pp.527–47. Down, ‘Use of History’, pp.394–6, provides a more favourably disposed review.

B. Üsdiken and Y. Pasadeos, ‘Organizational Analysis in North America and Europe: A Comparison of Co-citation Networks’, Organization Studies, Vol.16 (1995), pp.518–19. See also Üsdiken and Leblebici, ‘Organization Theory’, p.389–90.

R. Jacques, Manufacturing the Employee (London, 1996).

Emphasis added.

See, for example, Scott, Institutions and Organizations, pp.92–5.

Üsdiken and Pasadeos, ‘Organizational Analysis’, pp.519–20.

See R.R. Locke, Management and Higher Education since 1940 (Cambridge, 1989), pp.91–2.

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Behlül Üsdiken

This special issue is based on a selection from the papers presented at the sub-theme entitled ‘Re-discovering History in Studying Organisations’ that we convened at the 17th EGOS (European Group for Organizational Studies) Colloquium held in Lyon, France, 3–5 July 2001. We wish to express our gratitude to the following colleagues who have helped us as reviewers in the preparation of this special issue: Rolv Petter Amdam (Norwegian School of Management, Norway), Finn Borum (Copenhagen Business School, Denmark), Haldor Byrkjeflot (Stein Rokkan Center of Social Studies, Norway), the late Roland Calori (EM Lyon, France), Paula Carson (University of Louisiana, USA), Mark Casson (University of Reading, UK), Bob Hinings (University of Alberta, Canada), Paul Hirsch (Northwestern University, USA), Matthias Kipping (Universitat Pompeu Fabra, Spain), Jean-Claude Thoenig (GAPP-CNRS, France), Richard Whittington (University of Oxford, UK), Daniel Wren (University of Oklahoma, USA). We also wish to record our sadness at the untimely and unexpected death of our good friend Roland Calori while this project was under way and whilst he was reviewing for us. He organised the EGOS Colloquium at which we convened our sub-theme, about which he was very enthusiastic throughout. To him we dedicate this special issue.