Understanding management gurus and historical narratives: The benefits of a historic turn in management and organization studies

Abstract

A historic turn in organization studies requires a basic theoretical understanding of ‘doing history’ and an appreciation of the centrality of narrative in history. Following the cultural turn in history, narrativist historians and philosophers of history such as Hayden White, Frank Ankersmit and Paul Ricoeur have made the case that narrative is an essential and unavoidable component in history. We demonstrate the persuasive capacity of narrative through a narrativist critique of three best-selling ‘management gurus’. This analysis illustrates the following: (1) the narrative features of popular organizational theories; (2) the basis of the success of guru literature; and (3) why gurus and organizational scientists themselves do not understand the narratological mechanisms behind their success. Finally, we maintain that historical narrativism offers the possibility for positioning organizational history as a highly relevant field for management academics, gurus and even managers, providing support for a historic turn.

‘Cyber Gurus’: A rhetorical analysis of the language of cybersecurity specialists and the implications for security policy and critical infrastructure protection

“…Berglund and Werr (2000) support Hood and Jackson's (1991) typology, adding that management gurus rely on the use of contradictory business myths or ideas to adapt their arguments to suit any need or audience. Furthermore, Keulen and Kroeze (2012) bring attention to the way management gurus frame their arguments using historical narratives or anecdotes to express the soundness of their ideas. The use of anecdotes is also a persuasive method to position management gurus as the purveyors of practical knowledge in contrast to the theoretical knowledge offered by academics.…”

The Burden of History in the Family Business Organization

“…Some have referred to this as indicating a 'historic turn' (Clark & Rowlinson, 2004;Keulen & Kroeze, 2012) that includes humanities and social sciences more broadly (Gallagher and Greenblatt, 2000;McDonald, 1996;Sahlins, 2004). Indeed, several recent theoretical advances -such as resource dependence theory, new institutionalism, and governmentality studies -are also more historically oriented in their conceptualization of organizational problems.…”

Do particular para o geral: memória, história oral e estudos organizacionais

“…Pouca discussão é feita sobre o cruzamento entre o individual e o coletivo. Esse argumento é feito pelos autores em outro artigo que, ao invés de utilizar a História Oral, analisa os best-sellers de gurus empresariais, vinculando-os ao espírito de época, e mostrando o entrelaçamento do organizacional com processos sociais mais amplos (Keulen & Kroeze, 2012b Os dois últimos poderiam ser exemplos de artigos de História Empresarial que utilizam uma memória coletada, no sentido de partirem de entrevistas de indivíduos para se chegar a uma memória coletiva. É possível que, além de uma preferência pela pesquisa arquivística, os pesquisadores dos estudos organizacionais históricos tenham internalizado a desqualificação da memória coletada conforme o argumento de Rowlinson et al (2010), ao equalizar a memória coletada aos EMO.…”