Drawing on recent theoretical developments in postcolonial research, we examine the effect of the colonial encounter on the canonization of management and organization studies (MOS) as well as the field’s epistemological boundaries. In contrast to Orientalism, which is founded on a neat, binary, division between West and East, we offer (following Latour) a hybrid epistemology, which recognizes that the history of management and organizations should include the fusion between the colonizer and the colonized and their mutual effects on each other. Thus, while we discern the Orientalist assumptions embedded in the writing of management scholars, we also show that certain texts and practices that emerged during the colonial, as well as neo-colonial, encounter were excluded from the field, resulting in a ‘purified canon’. We conclude by arguing that hybridization between the metropole and colonies, and between western and non-western organizational entities, needs to be acknowledged by students of cultural diversity, and of critical management.

No abstract

Drawing on postcolonial studies, this article seeks to add a layer to the literature concerning the Americanization of productivity models and management in general. Based on a genealogical analysis of Israel's productivity models, we juxtapose two processes by which productivity models were disseminated: first, by the British colonial authorities, and then as part of American technical assistance to Israel. Thus, we draw attention to the close ties between Americanization and colonialism. Our objective is to show empirically how earlier colonial practices preceded and set the stage for later processes of Americanization, and to stress the similar logic that both processes tend to follow.The Americanization of productivity models across national boundaries is a topic that has recently attracted increasing scholarly attention (see, for example

No abstract

This study examines the rise of discourse on uncertainty in organization theory during the period 1879-1932. It offers qualitative analyses that are based on primary data collected from the American Machinist and the Engineering Magazine, central sources of documentation of management during this period. Introducing a social-constructivist approach to the empirical study of organizations, we argue that discourse on `uncertainty' has its roots in the technical sphere of industrial America. With time, elements of the concept were `translated' (metaphors, analogies, and paradigms) from the technical field to the management of organizations, thereby creating homologies between previously unrelated entities. Furthermore, claims to organizational reality depend, not only on metaphors and analogies borrowed from the technical realm, but also on the presence of an enabling social context. In this study, the context consists of (a) a network of mechanical engineers which diffused the concept, (b) the cultural spirit of the Progressive Era, and (c) the politics of labor unrest. We argue that the concept of uncertainty may be regarded as socially constructed knowledge that was created in a unique historical context and enacted by organizational actors and management theorists. The implications of this approach for contemporary organization theory are discussed.