Developing critical organizational history: Context, practice and implications

Abstract

Historical research now has a relatively high profile in organization studies, and organization theories are better represented in business history, thanks to increased interdisciplinary dialogue over the last decade. It might therefore be that the ‘historic turn’ has materialized in organization studies, and that business history has become significantly more conceptual in nature. We argue, however, that in terms of the original definition of the historic turn, as a rejection of scientism, acceptance of more heterogeneous forms of history, and reflexive accounts of the social construction of historicized narratives, there has been little progress. We revisit the idea of the turn in depth here, to examine the ways of doing history that might encourage a more substantial turn towards theory and towards history as a means of developing it. In particular, we suggest that an approach we term ‘critical organizational history’ remains underdeveloped, as a theoretically informed historicized approach to understanding how and why we come to be where we are in contemporary organized societies. Our aim is to take stock of the historic turn’s progress, reminding critically oriented organizational scholars and practitioners of organizational history of the importance of completing the turn with the underlying purpose of critique. To do this, we surface seven aspects of practice and three implications of them that demonstrate the underside of theorizing historically that we suggest are central to critical analysis. Understood and practised collectively, these could provoke considerable more critical organizational history to the benefit of all.

Passado, Presente E Futuro De História (Crítica) Das Organizações No Brasil

“…If, on the one hand, the consolidation of the historical turn proposed by the Anglo-Saxon world legitimized the subfield historical organization studies (Maclean, Harvey, Clegg, & Stewart, 2016), increasing the chances of publication abroad, the presence of authors and themes from other geographical locations remains limited . The recent proposal of creating an even more specific subfield, critical organizational history (Durepos, Shaffner, & Taylor, 2019), opens new possibilities, as it demands more critical and reflexive views about the historical turn. As is clear from the call for this forum, there is a need to "explore the implications of the historic turn in management and organization studies based on multiple theoretical, epistemological, cultural, and geographical locations" (Barros, Coraiola, Maclean, & Foster, 2019, p. 1).…”

Organizational Memory Studies

“…A critical approach to OMS thus emphasizes the use of memory by organizations and organizational actors – usually corporations and their managers – to assert dominance and control over other actors, such as employees or activists, both inside and outside the organization (Mena et al, 2016). Scholars who embrace this view are particularly interested in questions that pertain to the politics of memory and the underlying struggles that exist because of the imposition of a hegemonic memory, as well as the contingent suppression of alternative memories (Mena & Rintamäki, 2020; see also Durepos et al, 2020).…”

“…Others have highlighted the role of diverse stakeholders, such as employees, customers and investors/donors, in shaping organizational memories (Bell & Taylor, 2016; Foroughi, 2020; Ybema, 2014). While still others have explored the politics of memory and the underlying struggles and contestations over mnemonic representations (Durepos, Shaffner, & Taylor, 2020; Foroughi & Al-Amoudi, 2020; Mena & Rintamäki, 2020). The growing interest in organizational memory has been fuelled by the development of two predominant streams of thought in OMS: functional and constructionist approaches to memory (Rowlinson et al, 2010).…”

Analysing power and control in work organizations: Assimilating a critical socio-psychodynamic perspective

“…Long waves of economic development are typically described in terms of a succession of the so-called first and second industrial revolutions, the post-industrial transition towards the current system of advanced neoliberal capitalism, and its present biopolitical hegemony (Westra 2019). Historical phases differ about predominant types of institutions, key industries and technologies, and management models (Barley and Kunda, 1992;Bodrožić and Adler, 2018;Clegg, 2009;Durepos, Shaffner and Taylor, 2019). Economic power and formal control (e.g., dispossession, coercive contracting) were established during the early periods of the capitalist production system, commonly referred to as the "first industrial revolution" (e.g., 1760-1840).…”