Author:
Dye Kelly,Mills Albert J.,Weatherbee Terrance
Abstract
PurposeThis paper aims to build on recent work in the field of management and historiography that argues that management theorizing needs to be understood in its historical context.Design/methodology/approachFirst, the paper attempts to show how a steady filtering of management theory and of the selection and work of management theorists lends itself to a narrowly focused, managerialist, and functionalist perspective. Second, the paper attempts to show how not only left‐wing ideas, but also even the rich complexity of mainstream ideas, have been “written out” of management accounts. The paper explores these points through an examination of the treatment of Abraham Maslow in management texts over time.FindingsThe paper's conclusion is a simple one: management theory – whether mainstream or critical – does a disservice to the potential of the field when it oversimplifies to a point where a given theory or theorist is misread because sufficient context, history, and reflection are missing from the presentation/dissemination.Originality/valueThis paper highlights the importance of reading the original texts, rather than second or third person accounts, and the importance of reading management theory in the context in which it was/is derived.
Subject
Management Science and Operations Research,General Business, Management and Accounting
Reference81 articles.
1. Acker, J. and van Houten, D.R. (1974), “Differential recruitment and control: the sex structuring of organizations”, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 9 No. 2, pp. 152‐63.
2. Bardwell, P.L. (2004), “A challenging road toward a rewarding destination”, Frontiers of Health Services Management, Vol. 21 No. 1, p. 27.
3. Bell, E.L. and Nkomo, S. (1992), “Re‐visioning women managers' lives”, in Mills, A.J. and Tancred, P. (Eds), Gendering Organizational Analysis, Sage, Newbury Park, CA, pp. 235‐47.
4. Bennis, W.G. and Schein, E. (1969), New Developments within the Human Side of Enterprise, McGraw‐Hill, Maidenhead.
5. Berens, G. and von Riel, C.B.M. (2004), “Corporate associations in the academic literature: three main streams of thought in the reputation measurement literature”, Corporate Reputation Review, Vol. 7 No. 2, p. 161.
Cited by
41 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献