剪掉理论家的翅膀:来自车间的对管理思想的未被承认的贡献

IF 0.8 4区 管理学 Q1 HISTORY Management & Organizational History Pub Date : 2023-04-03 DOI:10.1080/17449359.2023.2234344
J. Muldoon, Anthony M. Gould, Jean‐Etienne Joullié
{"title":"剪掉理论家的翅膀:来自车间的对管理思想的未被承认的贡献","authors":"J. Muldoon, Anthony M. Gould, Jean‐Etienne Joullié","doi":"10.1080/17449359.2023.2234344","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Mainstream as well as critical management history literature typically establishes theorists as the most consequential protagonists in the process that created the default blueprint for employee superintendence. Accordingly, in the wake of the Industrial Revolution, the new capitalists and their agents (the emerging management class), were theoretically ill-equipped to oversee large scale productive transformation. Hence, they turned to experts, mostly scholars who straddled the worlds of academia and the nascent enterprise of industrial consulting. In this version of events, employees are represented in strawman terms, as either passive or predictable; in either case, as hostile but unsophisticated actors. This article presents and defends an alternative portrayal. It argues that management thought was not born of purely theoretical perspectives but, rather, is the product of a contest between theory and what employees, acting as intellectual equals, revealed to employers and pundits when theories were being applied.","PeriodicalId":45724,"journal":{"name":"Management & Organizational History","volume":"18 1","pages":"173 - 198"},"PeriodicalIF":0.8000,"publicationDate":"2023-04-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Clipping the wings of theorists: the unacknowledged contribution to management thought from the shopfloor\",\"authors\":\"J. Muldoon, Anthony M. Gould, Jean‐Etienne Joullié\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/17449359.2023.2234344\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"ABSTRACT Mainstream as well as critical management history literature typically establishes theorists as the most consequential protagonists in the process that created the default blueprint for employee superintendence. Accordingly, in the wake of the Industrial Revolution, the new capitalists and their agents (the emerging management class), were theoretically ill-equipped to oversee large scale productive transformation. Hence, they turned to experts, mostly scholars who straddled the worlds of academia and the nascent enterprise of industrial consulting. In this version of events, employees are represented in strawman terms, as either passive or predictable; in either case, as hostile but unsophisticated actors. This article presents and defends an alternative portrayal. It argues that management thought was not born of purely theoretical perspectives but, rather, is the product of a contest between theory and what employees, acting as intellectual equals, revealed to employers and pundits when theories were being applied.\",\"PeriodicalId\":45724,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Management & Organizational History\",\"volume\":\"18 1\",\"pages\":\"173 - 198\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-04-03\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Management & Organizational History\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"91\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/17449359.2023.2234344\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"管理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"HISTORY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Management & Organizational History","FirstCategoryId":"91","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/17449359.2023.2234344","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"HISTORY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

摘要主流和批判性管理历史文献通常将理论家确立为创建员工监督默认蓝图的过程中最重要的主角。因此,在工业革命之后,新资本家及其代理人(新兴管理阶层)理论上没有能力监督大规模的生产转型。因此,他们求助于专家,大多是跨越学术界和新兴工业咨询企业的学者。在这个版本的事件中,员工用斯特劳曼的术语表示,要么是被动的,要么是可预测的;在任何一种情况下,作为敌对但不成熟的演员。这篇文章提出并捍卫了另一种描述。它认为,管理思想不是纯粹从理论角度产生的,而是理论与员工在应用理论时向雇主和专家揭示的知识之间竞争的产物。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Clipping the wings of theorists: the unacknowledged contribution to management thought from the shopfloor
ABSTRACT Mainstream as well as critical management history literature typically establishes theorists as the most consequential protagonists in the process that created the default blueprint for employee superintendence. Accordingly, in the wake of the Industrial Revolution, the new capitalists and their agents (the emerging management class), were theoretically ill-equipped to oversee large scale productive transformation. Hence, they turned to experts, mostly scholars who straddled the worlds of academia and the nascent enterprise of industrial consulting. In this version of events, employees are represented in strawman terms, as either passive or predictable; in either case, as hostile but unsophisticated actors. This article presents and defends an alternative portrayal. It argues that management thought was not born of purely theoretical perspectives but, rather, is the product of a contest between theory and what employees, acting as intellectual equals, revealed to employers and pundits when theories were being applied.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.10
自引率
16.70%
发文量
8
期刊介绍: Management & Organizational History (M&OH) is a quarterly, peer-reviewed journal that aims to publish high quality, original, academic research concerning historical approaches to the study of management, organizations and organizing. The journal addresses issues from all areas of management, organization studies, and related fields. The unifying theme of M&OH is its historical orientation. The journal is both empirical and theoretical. It seeks to advance innovative historical methods. It facilitates interdisciplinary dialogue, especially between business and management history and organization theory. The ethos of M&OH is reflective, ethical, imaginative, critical, inter-disciplinary, and international, as well as historical in orientation.
期刊最新文献
The history of entrepreneurship education in the United Kingdom: 1860-2020 Family entrepreneurs and their next generations, 1809–1945: educational pathways of business elite in Finland Who watches the watchdogs? Central bank board members and banking supervisors in Switzerland (1907–2008) Informing the ontologies of organizational histories: the critical conceptualization of events and actualization in organizing Who determined the rules of the game in the Spanish financial reforms, 1970-1990?
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1