行业领袖?价值配置与管理自由裁量权的伙伴效应

IF 0.8 4区 管理学 Q1 HISTORY Management & Organizational History Pub Date : 2019-08-01 DOI:10.1080/17449359.2021.1877558
Segrestin Blanche, A. Hatchuel, K. Starkey
{"title":"行业领袖?价值配置与管理自由裁量权的伙伴效应","authors":"Segrestin Blanche, A. Hatchuel, K. Starkey","doi":"10.1080/17449359.2021.1877558","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Can value allocation be left to managerial discretion and does corporate law provide the basis for a balanced stakeholder management and a fair allocation of results? This question is central in an age of inequality. We argue that it can be reappraised by building upon the case of maritime law. Whereas in corporate law, the board is in charge of allocating the results, maritime law stipulates a clear ex ante rule according to which it allows a captain to sacrifice some goods to save the ship. This historical ‘rule of general averages’ emerged in Antiquity. It compels the interested parties to jointly bear costs. This rule makes visible what we call a ‘partnering effect’ of managerial authority and suggests that corporate law, as it currently stands, lacks a conceptualization of the impacts of managerial discretion and therefore limits the possibility of a fair allocation of results. While management scholars have sought to rethink management theory with a ‘view from law’, we conclude that law could also be discussed with a view from management history.","PeriodicalId":45724,"journal":{"name":"Management & Organizational History","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.8000,"publicationDate":"2019-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/17449359.2021.1877558","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Captains of industry? Value allocation and the partnering effect of managerial discretion\",\"authors\":\"Segrestin Blanche, A. Hatchuel, K. Starkey\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/17449359.2021.1877558\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"ABSTRACT Can value allocation be left to managerial discretion and does corporate law provide the basis for a balanced stakeholder management and a fair allocation of results? This question is central in an age of inequality. We argue that it can be reappraised by building upon the case of maritime law. Whereas in corporate law, the board is in charge of allocating the results, maritime law stipulates a clear ex ante rule according to which it allows a captain to sacrifice some goods to save the ship. This historical ‘rule of general averages’ emerged in Antiquity. It compels the interested parties to jointly bear costs. This rule makes visible what we call a ‘partnering effect’ of managerial authority and suggests that corporate law, as it currently stands, lacks a conceptualization of the impacts of managerial discretion and therefore limits the possibility of a fair allocation of results. While management scholars have sought to rethink management theory with a ‘view from law’, we conclude that law could also be discussed with a view from management history.\",\"PeriodicalId\":45724,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Management & Organizational History\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2019-08-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/17449359.2021.1877558\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Management & Organizational History\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"91\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/17449359.2021.1877558\",\"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/10.1080/17449359.2021.1877558","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: 1

摘要

摘要:价值分配是否可以由管理层自行决定?公司法是否为平衡的利益相关者管理和公平的结果分配提供了基础?这个问题在一个不平等的时代是核心。我们认为,可以在海商法案例的基础上对其进行重新评估。在公司法中,董事会负责分配结果,而海事法则规定了一条明确的事前规则,根据该规则,船长可以牺牲一些货物来拯救船只。这种历史上的“一般平均数规则”出现在《古代》中。它迫使有关各方共同承担费用。这条规则表明了我们所说的管理权力的“伙伴效应”,并表明目前的公司法缺乏对管理自由裁量权影响的概念化,因此限制了公平分配结果的可能性。虽然管理学者试图从“法律视角”重新思考管理理论,但我们得出的结论是,法律也可以从管理史的角度来讨论。
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
Captains of industry? Value allocation and the partnering effect of managerial discretion
ABSTRACT Can value allocation be left to managerial discretion and does corporate law provide the basis for a balanced stakeholder management and a fair allocation of results? This question is central in an age of inequality. We argue that it can be reappraised by building upon the case of maritime law. Whereas in corporate law, the board is in charge of allocating the results, maritime law stipulates a clear ex ante rule according to which it allows a captain to sacrifice some goods to save the ship. This historical ‘rule of general averages’ emerged in Antiquity. It compels the interested parties to jointly bear costs. This rule makes visible what we call a ‘partnering effect’ of managerial authority and suggests that corporate law, as it currently stands, lacks a conceptualization of the impacts of managerial discretion and therefore limits the possibility of a fair allocation of results. While management scholars have sought to rethink management theory with a ‘view from law’, we conclude that law could also be discussed with a view from management history.
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
Budgetary control and beyond budgeting from a historical perspective - insights from re-visiting the 1922 book by James O. McKinsey Organizing Spanish-British mining companies: the case of “La Española”, 1866-1942 A non-conforming technocratic dream: Howard Scott’s technocracy movement Networks throughout an institutional transition: the case of the former Meliá touristic group (1932-1978) Form and media in management and organizational history how different research programs transform the ‘Past’ into ‘History’
×
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