This document discusses the use of history in management and organizational studies. It outlines four paradigms for studying organizational history: the factual approach, narrative approach, archaeo-genealogical approach, and ANTi-History approach. Each approach has a different view on what constitutes history and how it should be studied. The document also discusses reasons for using history, such as understanding contemporary institutions, reducing biases, and interpreting past decisions and structures. A number of exemplars are provided to illustrate each paradigm.

1. The Past, History, and Historiography in
Management and Organizational Studies
Albert J. Mills
Sobey School of Business
Saint Mary’s University

2. Five Trends in Canadian Research
 Tracking (Mintzberg & Rose, 2003; see also Arnold &
Brown 1986; Austin & Mintzberg 1996)
 Longitudinal study (Delios & Ensign, 2000),
 Evolutionary analysis (Baum, Rowley, & Shipilov,
2004; see also Korkie & Turtle 1998).
 Junctures (Mills & Helms Mills, 2006).
 Historical analysis (McQuarrie, 2005; Sexty, 2000;
2008; see also Arnold & Brown 1986; Austin 1998;
Jones 1992; and Sharma & Steier 1990).

3. Some elementary definitions
 The `past’ is generally viewed as that which has gone before
(e.g., the work of Frederick Taylor).
 history (small `h’) is often viewed as study of the past (e.g.,
discussion of contribution of Taylor to management theory).
 History (large `H’) is generally viewed as the discipline which
studies history (e.g., a detailed and coherent study of the life and
times of Taylor that conforms to recognizable rules of the
discipline).
 Historiography: the method of historical study (e.g., what are the
methodological issues and challenges of studying the past

4. Why History? (Keiser)
 Kieser (1994) argues that despite the earlier
importance of history to organization studies it
has now “become extremely rare” for
organizational researchers to draw on
historical analysis (p.609).

5. Why History? (Keiser)
 1. In order to understand contemporary
institutions it important to know something
of their historical development (p.609)
 see Hofstede (1980, 1991) who found that `cultural
differences between organizational structures reflect
difference in value systems’ rooted in historical
development
 See Khurana, 2007 on `the modern manager’ and the
development of the business school)

6. Why History? (Keiser)
 2. Through historical analysis we can
reduce the ideological biases that are
embedded in “current `fashionable’ trends
in organization theory and practice” (p.610)
 see Keiser (1997) or mgmt fads and fashion
 See Mills et al, 2002 on leadership studies –
Lewin Lippett, White 1939 Vs. Lippett & White,
1950s).

7. Why History? (Keiser)
 3. Through historical analyses we can
“interpret existing organizational
structures not as determined by [objective]
laws but as the result of decisions in past
choice opportunities,” whether intentional
or implicit (p.611)
 see Arndt and Bigelow (2005) on hospital
administration: Mintzberg et al (1986) on strategy).

8. Why History? (Keiser)
 4. “By confronting theories of
organizational changes with historical
development, these theories can be
subjected to a more radical test than they
have to pass when merely being
confronted with data on short-run
changes” (p.612).
 See Mintzberg and Rose (2003) on the strategy as
realized rather than idealized.

9. Why History? Booth & Rowlinson
 “the approach to problems in business school
social science is `universalist and presentist’”
(2006,p.6). The former refers to the view that
“contemporary organization theory applies to
organizational phenomena in all societies at all
times,” while the latter refers to research that is
reported as if “it occurred in a decontextualized
extended present” (Ibid.):

10. Why History? Kelley et al, 2006
Scientism -- `an excessive belief in the power of
scientific knowledge and techniques’ (Oxford
American dictionary)
Marginalization of alternative perspectives of non-
managerial/corporate actors (incl. historical,
qualitative, culturally sensitive, and socially radical
accounts” (p.605) – see also Burrell & Morgan,
1979; Acker & van Houten, 1972; Runte & Mills,
2006

11. The problem with history and the
past.
 Ontological
 Epistemological
 Methodological
 Paradigmatic differences

12. Ontological
 Failure to examine/consider realist nature of
the past/history.
 Thus, History often perceived as “myopic fact-
collecting without a method” (Keiser,1994,
p.612)

13. Epistemological
 The past and history are often conflated (with
one as the reflection of the other – what is
past is history)
 The past treated as a given not a problematic
(at best a “contextual variable” - Booth &
Rowlinson, 2006, p.8) and thus separable
from History.

14. Methodological
 The past is often studied apart from History
 Much of what counts as historical analyses in business studies –
whether by non-historians or historians (including business
historians) – does not require the accompaniment of methodological
justification: at its best “the copious notes detailing the location of
sources in the archives are usually seen as sufficient methodological
justification in their own right” (Booth & Rowlinson, 2006, p.9).
 History often perceived as “myopic fact-collecting without a method”
(Keiser,1994, p.612)

15. Four Paradigms of Organizational
History
The factual approach --aligned with positivism in the
argument that “if organization studies were to take
account of the facts revealed by history then a number of
erroneous assumptions would be undermined” (p.8).
From this framework history is viewed as “a repository of
facts which, so long as historians properly interpret
them, can conveniently confirm or refute preferred or
non-preferred theoretical positions in organization
studies” (Rowlinson, 2004, p.10).

16. Exemplar: Delios and Ensign (2000)
 Examine “longitudinal aspects of Japanese foreign direct
investment in Canada” (p.38).
 Develop “a descriptive analysis of entry and exit rates and an
econometric analysis of the determinants of subsidiary survival
and exit’ (p.38)
 Analyze “observations derived from the 1986 and 1994 editions of
Japanese Investments Overseas, a Japanese language
publication” (p.41) consisting of data from annual surveys of
“general managers of all Japanese subsidiaries of which the
parent (10% equity interest minimum) is listed on the Tokyo,
Osaka, or Nagoya stock exchanges or is a major unlisted firm.”

17. Four Paradigms of Organizational
History
 The narrative approach -- focuses on the role
of narrative in the social construction of
historical accounts. Here the argument is that
History is not so much the skillfully crafted
recounting of real, or factual, events from the
past so much as a well crafted story about the
past that is constructed by the historian
through the careful use of narrative.

18. Exemplar: Hayden White
 1) the past consists of innumerable, disparate elements that, by
definition, cannot be brought back or reproduced;
 2) the historian make choices about which of many stories
(histories) to tell by selecting some elements of the past and
ignoring others (e.g., the Austin story)
 3) interpretation is compounded by the fact that he or she is faced
with `traces’ (documents, memories, etc) that are themselves
selected interpretations of the past;
 4) in constructing a history, much like the novelist, the historian is
constrained by a limited number of writing genres for telling a story

19. White’s Narrative Genres
 Emplotment –
 Romance (e.g., heroic individual)
 Tragedy (e.g., influence of fate on events)
 Comedy (e.g., individuals as part of organic whole)
 Satire (e.g., a focus on chaos)
 Tropes
 metaphor (e.g., Machiavellian)
 metonymy (e.g.,a word for an attribute - `suits’)
 synecdoche (e.g., noun represents whole – hired hands)
 Irony (e.g.,reference to a meaning’s opposite)

20. Four Paradigms of Organizational
History
 The archaeo-genealogical approach – explores through “language
the sedimented evidence of the assumptions; the values; the
common sense through which a phenomenon (e.g., madness)
could have one set of meanings in one era and a contradictory set
of meanings in another” (Jacques, 2010: 305); examination of
“the conditions under which the different ways of interpreting and
evaluating ourselves have come to exist” (Poutanen &
Kovalainen, 2010: 263).
 The purpose of the genealogical method is to analyze and
excavate the taken-for-granted” assumptions that define the
present.

21. Exemplar: Mills (2006)
Juncture: “a concurrence of events in time in
which a series of images, impressions, and
experiences come together, giving the
appearance of a coherent whole that influences
how an organization is understood” (Mills, 2010:
509).
[Related to Foucauldian notion of episteme and Annales
School’s mentalities.]

22. British Airways, Culture and Gender
 #1. The development of an all male organization (1919-24);
 #2. The introduction and growth of female employment within BA (1924-39);
 #3. The war years and the rapid expansion of female employment (1940-45);
 #4 The consolidation and `normalization’ of female employment (1946-1960);
 #5 The eroticization of female labour (1960-74);
 #6 The organization as the site of equity struggles (1974-81);
 #7 The development and consolidation of professionalized female labour
(1981-91);
 #8 The emergence of a new juncture focused on female management and
leadership (1991-). (Mills, 1994b).

23. Conclusion
 The historic turn in management and organization
theory raises questions:
 1. “about methods and appropriate styles of writing for
more historically oriented research.”
 2. “more critical and ethical reflections” and
 3. a “thoroughgoing critique of existing theories of
organization for their ahistorical orientation.” (Booth &
Rowlinson, 2006, p.7)

24. Four Paradigms of Organizational
History
 ANTi-History – builds on SoK, Poststructuralist History, ANT
(Durpos & Mills, 2010)
 1. Focuses on the constitution of the past as an outcome of the
socio-politics of actor networks.
 2. Does not begin by assuming what it is that the researcher
wishes to explain or imposing a plot
 3.Maps the socio-past by following a series of socio-politics of
actor-networks, to understand how they construct their past.
 4. Privileges the voice of the actors over that of the historian and
privileges the empirical over the theoretical when (re)assembling
the traces of the socio-past.

25. Four Paradigms of Organizational
History
 5. Views actor-networks as materially heterogeneous
 6. History is viewed as an effect of the interest driven socio-politics of
actor-networks
 7. Sees ‘history’ as a punctuated actor or a black box
 8. Explores the conditions for the favourable dispersion of a `punctuated
history
 9. Acknowledges/exposes the potential instrumentality of historical
accounts
 10. Makes transparent the socio-political conditions of the creation of
history.
 (Based on Durepos, 2009; see also Mills & Durepos, 2010 & Bryman et
al, 2011)

26. Further Reading
 Acker, J., & van Houten, D. R. 1974. Differential recruitment and control: the sex structuring of organizations.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 9(2): 152-163.
 Arndt, M., & Bigelow, B. 2005. Professionalizing and Masculinizing a Female Occupation: The Reconceptualization of
Hospital Administration in the Early 1900s. Administative Science Quarterly, 50(2): 233-261.
 Arnold, W. L., & Brown, J. L. 1986. Tracking Strategy in the Airlines: PWA 1945-84. Canadian Journal of
Administrative Sciences, 3(2): 171-203.
 Austin, B. 1994. ASAC: The Early Years of the Association.1957-1972. Proceedings of the 1994
Administrative Sciences Association of Canada, Business History Interest Group, Halifax, 25-28 June,
15(14): 1-11.
 Austin, B. 1995. ASAC And The Crisis In Management Education, 1973-1985. Proceedings of the 1995
Administrative Sciences Association of Canada, Business History Interest Division, Windsor 3-6 June,
16(15).
 Austin, B. 1998. The Role of the Administrative Sciences Association in Institutionalizing Management
Education in Canada. Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences, 15(3): 255-266.
 Austin, B. (Ed.). 2000a. Capitalizing Knowledge. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
 Austin, B. 2000b. The Administrative Sciences Association of Canada, 1957-1999. In B. Austin (Ed.),
Capitalizing Knowledge: 266-294. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

27. Further Reading
 Austin, B., & Mintzberg, H. 1996. Mirroring Canadian Industrial Policy. Strategy Formation at Dominion Textile from 1873
to 1990. Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences, 13(1): 46-64.
 Baum, J. A. C., Rowley, T. J., & Shipilov, A. J. 2004. The Small World of Canadian Capital Markets: Statistical Mechanics
of Investment Bank Syndicate Networks, 1952-1989. Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences, 21(4): 307-325.
 Baum, J. A. C., & Singh, J. V. 1994. Evolutionary dynamics of organizations. New York: Oxford University Press.
 Booth, C., & Rowlinson, M. 2006. Management and organizational history: Prospects. Management & Organizational
History, 1(1): 5-30.
 Burrell, G., & Morgan, G. 1979. Sociological Paradigms and Organizational Analysis. London: Heinemann.
 Bryman, A., Bell, E., Mills, A.J., and Yue, A.R. (2011) Business Research Methods. 1st Canadian Ed. Toronto: Oxford
University Press, Chapter 21
 Cooke, B. 1999. Writing the Left out of Management Theory: The Historiography of the Management of Change.
Organization, 6(1): 81-105.
 Cooke, B., Mills, A. J., & Kelley, E. S. 2005. Situating Maslow in Cold War America: A Recontextualization of
Management Theory. Group and Organization Management, 30(2): 129-152.
 Cullen, D. 1997. Maslow, Monkeys and Motivation Theory. Organization, 4(3): 355-373.
 Czarniawska-Joerges, B. 2004. Narratives in social science research. London ; Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage
Publications.

28. Further Reading
 Delios, A., & Ensign, P. C. 2000. A Subnational Analysis of Japanese Direct Investment in Canada. Canadian
Journal of Administrative Sciences, 17(1): 38-51.
 Durepos, G., Helms Mills, J., & Mills, A. J. 2008a. Flights of fancy: myth, monopoly and the making of Pan American
Airways. Journal of Management History, 14(2): 116 - 127.
 Durepos, G. 2009. ANTi-History: Towards an historiographical approach to (re)assembling knowledge of the past.
PhD Thesis, Department of Management, Sobey School of Business, Saint Mary's University, October 19.
 Dye, K. E., Mills, A. J., & Weatherbee, T. G. 2005. Maslow: Man Interrupted -- Reading Management Theory in
Context. Management Decision, 43(10): 1375-1395.
 Foucault, M. 1965. Madness and civilization; a history of insanity in the age of reason. New York,: Pantheon
Books.
 Foucault, M. 1972. The archaeology of knowledge. London: Routledge.
 Foucault, M. 1973. The order of things; an archaeology of the human sciences. New York,: Vintage Books.
 Foucault, M. 1979. Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison. New York: Vintage Books.
 Foucault, M. 1980a. Power/Knowledge. New York: Pantheon.
 Foucault, M. 1980b. The History of Sexuality. Vol. 1. New York: Vintage Books.
 Frost, P. J. 1994. Introduction to Alfred Kieser's `Crossroads - Why Organization Theory Needs Historical Analyses'.
Organzation Science, 5(4): 608.
 Goldman, P. 1994. Searching for History in Organizational Theory: Comment on Kieser. Organzation Science, 5(4):
621-623.

29. Further Reading
 Jacques, R. 1996. Manufacturing the Employee: Management Knowledge from the 19th to 21st Centuries.
London: Sage.
 Jacques, R. S. 2006. History, historiography and organization studies: The challenge and the potential.
Management & Organizational History, 1(1): 31-49.
 Jones, V., & Lane, G. S. 2000. Development by Design: A History of the Faculty of Management at the University
of Calgary, 1967-1991. In B. Austin (Ed.), Capitalizing Knowledge: 209-238. Toronto: University of Toronto
Press.
 Kieser, A. 1987. From Asceticism to Administration of Wealth. Medieval Monastries and the Pitfalls of Rationalisation.
Organization Studies, 8(2): 103-123.
 Kieser, A. 1989. Organizational, Institutional, and Societal Evolution: Medieval Craft Guilds and the Genesis of Formal
Organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 34: 540-564.
 Kieser, A. 1994. Crossroads - Why Organization Theory Needs Historical Analyses - and How This Should Be Performed.
Organization Science, 5(4): 608-620.
 Kieser, A. 1997. Rhetoric and Myth in Management Fashion. Organization, 4(1): 49-74.
 Kelley, E. S., Mills, A. J., & Cooke, B. 2006. Management as a Cold War phenomenon? Human Relations, 59(5): 603-610.
 Khurana, R. 2007. From Higher Aims To Hired Hands. The Social Transformation of American Business Schools and the
Unfulfilled Promise of Management as a Profession. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

30. Further Reading
 Latour, B. 2005. Reassembling the Social. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
 Leblebici, H., & Sherer, P. D. 2008. Symposium: Bringing History into Organizational Research. Presentation
at the annual meeting of the Academy of Management conference, Anaheim, CA, August 8-11.
 McQuarrie, F. A. E. 2005. How the past is present(ed): A comparison of information on the Hawthorne studies in
Canadian management and organizational behaviour textbooks. Canadian Journal of Administrative
Sciences, 22(3): 230-242.
 Mills, A. J. 2006. Sex, Strategy and the Stratosphere: Airlines and the gendering of organizational
culture. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
 Mills, A. J. 2010. Juncture. In A. J. Mills, G. Durepos, & E. Weibe (Eds.), Sage Encylopedia of Case Study
Research: 509-511. Thousands Oaks, CA: Sage.
 Mills, A. J., & Durepos, G. 2010. ANTi-history. In A. J. Mills, G. Durepos, & E. Wiebe (Eds.), Sage
Encyclopedia of Case Study Research, Vol. 1: 26-29. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
 Mills, A. J., & Helms Mills, J. 2006. Masculinity and the making of Trans-Canada Air Lines, 1937-1940: a
feminist poststructuralist account. Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences, 23(1): 34-44.
 Mills, A. J., Kelley, E. S., & Cooke, B. 2002. Management theory in context: Exploring the influence of the Cold War. In
G. Spraakman (Ed.), Proceedings of the Business History Division of the Administrative Sciences Association of
Canada, Vol. 23: 11-20. Winnipeg.

31. Further Reading
 Mintzberg, H., Brunet, J. P., & Waters, J. A. 1986. Does Planning Impede Strategic Thinking? Tracking the Strategies of
Air Canada From 1937 to 1976. In R. Lamb, & P. Shrivastava (Eds.), Advances in Strategic Management, Vol. 4: 3-41.
Greenwich, CT.: JAI Press.
 Mintzberg, H., & Rose, J. 2003. Strategic management upside down: Tracking strategies at McGill University from 1829
to 1980. Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences, 20(4): 270-290.
 Ogden, H., & Driscoll, C. 2000. Business Studies at Saint Mary's University: Progress with a Human Touch. In
B. Austin (Ed.), Capitalizing Knowledge: 239-251. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
 Sexty, R. W. 2000. Stamping Our History: The Story of Canadian Business as Portrayed by Postage Stamps.
Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences, 17(4): 332-341.
 Sharma, B., & Steier, L. 1990. Management Education and Development in Canada: Past, Present and Future.
Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences, 7(1): 1-10.
 Üsdiken, B., & Kieser, A. 2004. Introduction: History in Organization Studies. Business History, 46: 321-330.
Rowlinson, M. 2004b. Historical Perspectives in Organization Studies: Factual, Narrative, and Archeo-
Genealogical. In D. E. Hodgson, & C. Carter (Eds.), Management Knowledge and The New Employee: 8-20.
Burlington, VT: Ashgate Publishing Company.
 Novicevic, M. M., Harvey, M. G., Buckley, M. R., & Adams, G. L. 2008. Historicism in narrative reviews of
strategic management research. Journal of Management History, 14(4): 334-347.

32. Further Reading
 White, H. 1973. Metahistory. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
 White, H. 1985. Tropics of Discourse. Essays in Cultural Criticism. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University
Press.
 Wren, D. A. 1994. The evolution of management thought (4th rev. ed.). New York: Wiley.