Learning Center
Plans & pricing Sign in
Sign Out



									 Academy of Management Learning & Education, 2011, Vol. 10, No. 1, 77–93.


                  The Relevant Past:
            Why the History of Management
            Should Be Critical for Our Future
                                                                 STEPHEN CUMMINGS
                                                                    TODD BRIDGMAN
                                                            Victoria University of Wellington

            When history is covered in business schools, its simplistic and evolutionary treatment
            goes largely unquestioned by instructors and students. To demonstrate, we show the
            representation of Max Weber in management texts to be dubious, a reflection of a
            peculiar perspective which is driven by a desire to justify the latest management ideas.
            However, by encouraging students to develop an ability to think critically about
            historical representations such as these, not only do we foster the benefits others have
            attributed to a greater historical awareness, we also encourage students to be more
            creative management thinkers for the future.

          Students want to know what works and                                             business practice (Bennis & O’Toole, 2005; Mint-
       what doesn’t . . . they are not interested in                                       zberg, 2004; Rubin & Dierdorff, 2009; Worrell,
      the details of research, the historical evolu-                                       2009).
     tion of our knowledge, or long discourses on                                             We are also concerned with relevance, but take
                                  competing ideas.                                         a different tack. We argue that students would be
                                —Stephen Robbins,                                          more likely to have a positive impact on the future
                                  Managing Today,                                          of management, if they were more engaged with
                                         (1997: xvii).                                     the history and traditions of management—partic-
                                                                                           ularly that of a German sociologist who died
The quotation above, from perhaps the best-                                                nearly 100 years ago.
selling management textbook author of our                                                     While our argument may appear counterintui-
times, is indicative of an antipathy toward his-                                           tive, it is not completely new. Some recent works
tory within management education. Robbins has                                              have linked a neglect of historical awareness to a
claimed that “students’ interest in history is min-                                        number of key skills business students are less
imal” and that “the classical material in man-                                             likely to acquire. They argue that a better under-
agement textbooks has little value to today’s stu-                                         standing of management’s history helps students
dents” (1997: xvii). Students want to know how to                                          learn the lessons of past mistakes (Wren, 1987;
manage, not to trace the history of management                                             Thomson, 2001; Smith, 2007); or to establish a link
research, he argues. This view resonates with                                              with “great minds” (Bedeian, 2004); or connect to a
broader assumptions about the ideal managers                                               “collective memory,” an identity for the profession
for the “new economy,” free-floating identities,                                           or an integrating framework (Wren, 1987; Smith,
trained to constantly embrace change, unat-                                                2007); or that it provides a baseline for evaluating
tached and unencumbered by history (assump-                                                the extent of change in management over time
tions recently critiqued by Sennett, 2006, and                                             (Wren, 1987; Thomson, 2001; Van Fleet & Wren, 2005;
Petriglieri & Petriglieri, 2009, 2010). And it may be                                      Jones & Khanna, 2006; Smith, 2007); or that a better
connected to debates in this journal, and man-                                             understanding of history assists students to think
agement education fora more widely, suggesting                                             about how supposedly “new” management prac-
that our curricula would be more relevant (i.e.,                                           tices really are (Thomson, 2001, Bedeian, 2004; Van
better) if it were cut free from teaching subjects                                         Fleet & Wren, 2005; Smith, 2007).
for tradition’s sake and if it reflected what was                                             We agree with these assessments. However, it is
actually happening currently in the world of                                               not just the lack of teaching history that goes on in
Copyright of the Academy of Management, all rights reserved. Contents may not be copied, emailed, posted to a listserv, or otherwise transmitted without the copyright holder’s
express written permission. Users may print, download or email articles for individual use only.
78                                   Academy of Management Learning & Education                                  March

business schools and who is teaching it that di-            as “the most influential proponent of the bureau-
minishes our field, which has been previously               cratic model” (Zey-Ferrell, 1979: 48), was due to
been identified as the root of the problem (Van             “mistranslation” (Weiss, 1983: 242). We are not set-
Fleet & Wren, 2005). It is also the quality of teach-       ting out to describe the mistranslation or oversim-
ing materials and, in particular, the lack of a crit-       plification of Weber, or anyone or anything else for
ical attitude that prevents history having the pos-         that matter. We are more concerned with under-
itive effect on management’s future that it could.          standing why and how a wrong-headed configura-
Addressing this would, we argue, offer a further            tion of Weber continues, and in some cases inten-
advantage of a historical engagement, which                 sifies, in best-selling textbooks to this day, and
would result not only in better students in the             with examining the process or system that shapes
present but also fundamental improvements for               and maintains such a strawman. We seek to better
the future of our field. We argue that encouraging          understand the purposes that this strawman might
students to think critically about the construction         serve, and thus better understand the interests that
of management history will enable them to think             keep him afloat. And, we examine the effects of not
more creatively about what management could be.             questioning the presentation of historical figures
                                                            like Weber in textbooks, as these are fed to the next
                                                            generation of management thinkers who are in
The Case of Max Weber                                       their formative stages. We highlight Weber to il-
                                                            lustrate why improving the ability of aspiring
     According to Max Weber, bureaucracies are              managers to critically evaluate how history and
        the ideal organizational form. [This] con-          historical figures may be misrepresented and mis-
      trasts with more modern approaches to or-             appropriated (to be critical management thinkers
     ganizational design that claim that different          in this regard as well as management practitio-
        forms of organizational structure may be            ners), can improve their ability to be creative. And,
         more or less appropriate under different           we suggest that such an approach will encourage
                                        situations.         less bounded and more substantial developments
        —Jerald Greenberg and Robert A. Baron,              in management theory and practice for the future.
                       Behavior in Organizations               If management textbooks are our data in this
                                 (8th ed., 2003: 11)        quest, Michel Foucault’s “counterhistorical” ap-
                                                            proaches provide us with the lenses to analyze
In keeping with the antipathy expressed earlier,            them. Foucault is perhaps the most widely re-
many management textbooks do not cover history              garded critical historian of our generation. We
at all. Of those that do, the quotation from Green-         start by outlining his approaches to historical
berg and Baron’s organizational behavior textbook           analysis. Then we begin our analysis by utilizing
is not unusual. Its unwitting inaccuracies with re-         Foucault’s early works first to uncover the flaws in
spect to Max Weber will appear strange to those             the treatment of Weber as a historical figure in
who have studied Weber.                                     management textbooks. This leads us to raise fur-
   We investigate the portrayal of Max Weber in             ther questions. Consequently, we draw upon Fou-
management textbooks using this single case to              cauldian “archaeology” to try and understand how
provide insights into “the possibilities for and            the paradigm that prevailed in the United States in
problems of learning from fragments of history”             the middle of the 20th century reconfigured Weber
(March, Sproull, & Tamuz, 1991: 1). It is an illustra-      in ways that allow statements like that by Green-
tive case, but also one that we hope will inspire           berg and Baron (above) to pass as the truth. Fi-
further research into the uses and abuses of history        nally, we use Foucauldian “genealogy” to interro-
in management (Siggelkow, 2007: 21–22). It is also,         gate the contents of a popular management
we believe, representative of the poor quality and          textbook as it has shifted through nine editions
lack of a critical attitude with regard to teaching         since Weber’s archaeological reconfiguration.1
management history, as well as revelatory in
that a historical figure in management has never            Foucault’s Critical History
been examined in quite this way before (Yin,
2003: 39 – 42).                                             Michel Foucault (1980: 70) wrote histories that
   That Weber has been misrepresented in man-               sought to counter the conventional view which saw
agement studies has been noted on a number of
occasions (Aldrich, 1979; Hill, 1981; Jackson & Mor-        1
                                                             We define the field of management textbooks broadly to in-
gan, 1982; Clegg, 1992). Richard Weiss, for exam-           clude related subject areas such as organizational behavior,
ple, claimed that the misguided portrayal of Weber          operations management, and strategy.
2011                                                Cummings and Bridgman                                          79

the purpose of history to be uncovering the truth of             Foucault’s Early Works:
events and the subsequent presentation of a                      Progressive Histories May Conceal the Truth
“progress of consciousness” that led to (or caused)
                                                                 Foucault’s first works (1965, 1975, 1976b) critiqued
a higher level present. Foucault was critical of the             psychology and psychiatry’s status as sciences
role that conventional history could play in legiti-             and their assumption that “normal” sanity is
mating the establishment. He was more interested                 an objective, pre-existing condition. Foucault
in examining the “history of the emergence of [the               (1976b: 73) countered that “Man became a ‘psy-
establishment’s] truth games” (Florence, 1984:                   chological species’ only when the Age of Reason
314),2 and finally settled on the following definition           made madness a problem to be resolved and,
of his type of history: “Instead of legitimating what            hence, an object of inquiry.” Madness, as such,
is already known [I aim to rethink historical as-                was not always present, waiting to be discov-
sumptions in order to] free thought from what it                 ered by a rigorous enough science; it was
silently thinks, and so enable it to think differ-               brought into being by the very practices that
ently” (Foucault, 1985: 9).                                      made such a science (psychology) possible.
   Consequently, Foucault did not aim for or claim               Thus, against histories that traced the develop-
to have uncovered the “whole truth” in his coun-                 ment of objects and the separate subjects that
terhistories, just enough to raise doubt about what              examine them, Foucault saw subject and object
was promoted as the truth of the evolution of an                 as codetermining one another. He would broaden
object. Nor did he seek to explain whole periods                 out his analysis to argue that Man did not exist
against a criterion of linear progress, rather to                until the practices constituted by the rise of hu-
“define the conditions in which human beings                     manism and the human sciences took hold (Fou-
“problematize” what they are, what they do, and                  cault, 1970). It was the emergence of humanism,
the world in which they live” (1985: 10). He tended              in combination with the transition into moder-
to start with present concerns or particular prob-               nity, which sought to move beyond customs or
lems (e.g., madness), ask questions like “why do                 traditions like the power of the sovereign or his
we treat madness as we do?” and then question                    agents to “do violence” in order to maintain con-
the normal responses (e.g., “because our methods                 trol of society, which had made a problem of how
are the best suited to counter [or normalize]                    control was to be upheld. This problem created
madness”).                                                       the necessity for human sciences to come forth
                                                                 and provide “objective” universal norms that
   We adopt this counterhistorical approach here,
                                                                 should be adhered to.
beginning with the question “why do management
                                                                    Foucault (1965: 142) highlighted the role played
textbooks treat history as they do?” and then ques-
                                                                 by psychology’s history in this creation. It pre-
tioning the normal responses: “Because it is a good
                                                                 sented psychology as at once building on noble
representation of what actually happened” or “be-
                                                                 foundations and advancing to bring forth a new
cause it is the most effective way to educate our                “happy age in which madness was at last recog-
students.”                                                       nized and treated in accordance with a truth to
   Foucault spent decades developing different                   which we had long remained blind.” But Foucault
ways toward his counterhistorical aims. These                    claimed that because this history is written as
ways are generally divided into three main phas-                 anticipation (the past viewed in terms of the
es: his early works, his archaeological phase, and               present’s “heights”), two widely accepted, but il-
genealogy (Burrell, 1988; Flynn, 1994). Each in some             logical, ideas took hold: the idea that madness was
ways is a response to limitations of the phase that              not recognized until it was rigorously grasped by
preceded it. A final phase, termed interpretative                modern science (here historians retrospectively
analytics, is sometimes added. It represents an                  find the origin of psychology) and the idea that the
attempt to fruitfully combine the best aspects of                premodern approach to madness was either sim-
the earlier three, an attempt we also make here.                 plistic or erroneous, despite the fact that psychol-
Foucault’s approaches to historical (or counterhis-              ogy’s history has said that such an object had not
torical) analysis are described below.                           been recognised yet. This, said Foucault, was no
                                                                 foundation for a science.
                                                                    Moreover, Foucault argued that psychology’s
                                                                 attempt to found itself as a science had not over-
                                                                 come a misrecognition. It had, in fact, promoted a
 Florence was later revealed to be Foucault writing about him-   misrecognition of a primordial understanding.
self under a pseudonym.                                          He (1965, 1976b) claimed that the modern discov-
80                                  Academy of Management Learning & Education                             March

ery of madness concealed real madness. Prior to            Genealogy: The Truth Is Shaped and Maintained
modernity (e.g., during the Renaissance), our un-          by the “Family Network”
derstanding was richer and more truthful.
                                                           In hindsight, Foucault (in Dreyfus & Rabinow, 1982:
                                                           104) claimed that “what was missing from my work
                                                           was the problem of ‘discursive regime,’ the effects
Archaeology: Every Strata Promotes Its Own                 of power proper on the enuciative play. I confused
Particular Truths                                          it too much with systematicity . . . or something like
Rather than addressing the history of one new              a paradigm.” To take account of this, Foucault
science, Foucault’s archaeological period sought           drew on Nietzsche’s view that there are no objec-
to determine the basis “common to a whole series           tive essential forms that can be appealed to: only
of scientific ‘representations’” (Foucault, 1970: xi–      chaotic webs of change and chance relations. In
xii). His focus was no longer on “how might a              being afraid of this nonfoundational uncertainty,
particular science not be a science and be keeping         people look to historians to show that the present
us from the truth?”, but “what was it that motivated       actually rests upon grand origins, profound inten-
the human sciences to present themselves as such,          tions, and immutable necessities, and, in a circular
to create histories that promoted this, and the con-       manner, these “origins [become] the site of truth
sequences of this will-to-science?”                        that makes possible a field of knowledge whose
   Recognizing the problem in promoting a premod-          function is to recover it” (Foucault, 1977b). In gene-
ern view of madness as superior, Foucault now pre-         alogy, Foucault thus moves away from the struc-
sented the view that all truths, all conceptions of        turalist tendencies of archaeology. All knowledge
objects, are bound by the “strata” within which they       is historical as before, but all history, and conse-
are situated. He defines this strata as an episteme: “a    quently all development, can now only be “a series
world-view, a slice of history common to all branches      of interpretations” not related to the nature of
of knowledge, which imposes on each one the same           things or the strata in which they are embedded
norms and postulates, a general stage of reason, a         but to particular interests (Foucault 1977b: 151).
certain structure of thought that the men of a partic-        The question then becomes “if there is nothing
ular period cannot escape” (Foucault 1976a: 191). And      positive that knowledge can attach itself to, what
he defined archaeology as: “a history which is not         sustains our belief in the interpretations that we
that of [knowledge’s] growing perfection, but rather       take as knowledge?” Like Nietzsche, Foucault’s an-
that of its conditions of possibility” (1970: xxii). By    swer was power. Not power in an obvious or direct
showing the singular conditions and specific state-        sense necessarily, but a more subtle view of power
ments that different episteme would promote, he            as a “network of relations, constantly in tension, in
sought to critique the current arrangements that we        activity” (Foucault, 1977a: 26), a network that would
might assume to be natural or superior. In the mod-        influence what passed for knowledge in a partic-
ern episteme, for example, human studies must sat-         ular domain. Archaeology examined the truths
isfy the conditions of the so-called “normal” sciences     promoted by various episteme. Genealogy would
to be valid. Foucault claimed this to be a terrible        focus upon these power– knowledge relations
misfit, arguing that we should recognize the specific      within and across periods of time. While Foucault
configuration of all fields. (Foucault’s argument here     (1980: 52, 194) saw such networks as positive, or
is akin to that advanced recently by Khurana, 2007,        “perpetually creating knowledge,” by producing
with respect to how business schools sought to             “domains of objects and rituals of truth,” he also
legitimize themselves in the 20th century by               found that they at once repressed, censored, and
adopting the form of certain unrelated academic            concealed other possibilities.
disciplines.)                                                 Playing an integral part in this producing–
   In many ways, archaeology addresses problems            repressing relationship is the progressive history
with Foucault’s early works. Rather than simply pre-       that a subject constructs out of a multiplicity of
senting recent views as untruthful, archaeology en-        potentially contributing elements. This historical
courages us to identify reasons why different views        aspect produces by shaping the view and bound-
emerge as truthful in different ages. By the same          aries of the subject, thus making knowledge pos-
token, the second phase of our analysis here will          sible. However, it at once begins to shape a net-
seek to offer reasons why Weber, contrary to what he       work that represses other interpretations. It may
actually said, became a passionate advocate of bu-         not be consciously developed, but this network
reaucracy as “the one best way” in the particular          grows as texts and their surrounding discourse
episteme of the United States in the mid-20th century.     educate initiates by reduplicating or reinterpreting
2011                                       Cummings and Bridgman                                            81

events, origins, and assumptions taken to be im-        relations that spreads out from a particular prob-
portant.                                                lem to sustain understanding (Noujain, 1987).
   While conventional history thus aims at forming         Subsequently, the third part of our analysis of
singular events into idealized and evolutionary         Weber’s representation will focus on the problem
chains of continuity (and thus, by association cer-     of why management texts treat history as they do,
tain things that are discontinued), genealogy           and begin by juxtaposing statements about Weber
“transposes the relationship ordinarily estab-          from three editions of the same textbook. This will
lished between the eruption of an event and nec-        lead us into a broader discussion of what aspects
essary continuity . . . records the singularity of      of this Weber have been continuous and which
events outside of any monotonous finality [and]         have been adapted and changed over the 25 years
disturbs what was previously considered immo-           and nine editions of this text. We will then outline
bile” (Foucault, 1977b: 154; Dreyfus & Rabinow,         the networks of power that may, on the one hand,
1983: 120). Genealogy demonstrates how a field’s        sustain the continuity of this version of Weber and
foundations are actually formed in a piecemeal          at once subtly reinterpret this strawman to suit the
fashion but then solidify to produce a sense of the     times in which each edition emerges.
development of knowledge while at the same time
marginalizing other possibilities. Whereas archae-      Analysis: Countering the Construction and
ology showed how things would come out the              Development of Weber as a ‘Strawman’
same within a particular episteme, genealogy al-
lowed for the possibility of movement as interests      Mirroring the above organization of Foucault’s ap-
and power relations changed. In Foucault’s              proaches, our analysis of Weber’s historical pre-
words (1977b: 144), while certain points of histor-     sentation in management textbooks is arranged in
ical “origin [would become] the site of truth”          three parts: applying the thinking of his early
                                                        works to question the truth of this presentation;
some things would be subject to reinterpretation
                                                        that of his archeological period to investigate how
and movement.
                                                        this questionable truth was shaped by a particular
   To begin such a genealogical counterhistory,
                                                        episteme; and that of his genealogical inquiries to
Foucault often began by juxtaposing different quo-
                                                        draw out the power relations that sustained and
tations to highlight discontinuities. In Discipline
                                                        subtly shift this strawman.
and Punish, for example, Foucault (1977) high-
lighted the difference between Western ways of
thinking in the 18th and 19th centuries by contrast-    Early Works: How Progressive Histories of
ing a grandiose description of the brutal public        Management Conceal the Truth About Weber
quartering of the regicide Damiens with a little        Those management textbooks that do cover the
known prison timetable outlining the inmates’           ideas of Max Weber as part of the history of their
mundane routines. While the discontinuities in          field generally present him as belonging to the
these examples where obvious, the networks that         classical school. Here he and other figures (most
sustained them were not too dissimilar. Foucault        commonly Frederick Taylor) appear as an early
could argue that both were indicative of a wider        stepping stone toward the field’s present heights.
social continuation of repression and control of        Like all stepping stones, they exist on the pathway
deviance. And while modern histories of criminol-       to something else, namely, in this instance, the
ogy might present the later as a development or         better views of management that have been devel-
increase in “humanity,” Foucault’s critique sug-        oped since. In this manner, history enables us to
gested that this was a continuity of normalization      see gravitas, through a continuity of great thinkers
and degradation of individuality, but in a more         applying their minds to the problem of manage-
subtle mental form than in a direct physical and        ment; and a cutting edge, through a discontinuity
public sense.                                           in the form of a series of advances beyond classi-
   From these juxtaposed examples related to a          cal views (Cummings, 2002). In their presentations
particular problem (e.g., how best to punish devi-      of history, these textbooks draw upon a number of
ants), Foucault would expand out to explore the         histories of management that emerged in the mid-
diagram of power relationships that would sustain       dle of the 20th century as the subject was attempt-
the present regime, examining how this had              ing to legitimate itself as a worthy field of inquiry.
emerged over time. In other words, rather than          Histories like those written by Mooney (1947),
plotting the past in terms of its linear path to the    George (1968), and Wren (1972), traced, for the first
present, genealogical counterhistories focused on       time, a continuity and progression from great or
how things are constituted by a diagram or web of       noble civilizations and thinkers such as the Egyp-
82                                   Academy of Management Learning & Education                            March

tians, Romans, and Greeks; Plato, Jesus, Benjamin           subsequent advance (i.e., discontinuity) of man-
Franklin, and Thomas Edison, on to great manage-            agement thinking is traced.
ment thinkers of their own times: Drucker, Fielder,            However, a critical appreciation of history can,
Vroom, Locke and March, and Simon.                          without too much effort, show these historical rep-
   In this historical scheme, Weber is cast as an           resentations to be quite false. They conceal rather
inventor and leading supporter of bureaucracy as            than reveal the truth. Weber was a lawyer, a his-
the ideal or one-best way of organization and a             torian, economist, philosopher, political scientist,
whole-hearted supporter of mechanistic efficiency.          and a sociologist, but he was not an organization
He is generally described as a classical organiza-          or management expert. Such fields did not exist in
tion theorist or management expert and a booster            his world. He never actually designed an organi-
of Taylorism. His major contribution to the field is        zation. His effort was to attain a diagnosis not a
often dated at 1947.                                        prognosis of his society. Bureaucracy, while a se-
   Perhaps the world’s two best-selling introduc-           rious concern, was not his main concern— his vi-
tory management texts inform us that Weber “con-            sion was much broader (MacRae, 1974). Further, it
sidered the ideal organization to be a bureau-              is unclear whether Weber was even familiar with
cracy” (Stoner, Freeman, & Gilbert, 1995), or that          Taylor’s work. He did visit America in 1904, but
bureaucracy is “his ideal type” (Robbins & Coulter,         Taylor was only known to a very small circle of
2002: 37). Among other leading texts, Robbins and           supporters in the first decade of the 20th century
Mukerji’s (1990: 42– 43) treatment of Weber in Man-         and did not become widely known until 1911 in the
aging Organizations: New Challenges and Per-                United States and some years later abroad (Cum-
spectives provides a good summary of the prevail-           mings, 2002). In any event, perhaps through a de-
ing view. At the end of a chapter titled “The               sire to promote simple and coherent chunks of lin-
Evolution of Management Thought,” a review                  ear progress, Weber is quite wrongly tarred with
question asks students to “Define Weber’s ideal             the same brush as Taylor, a very different charac-
organization.” They are expected to have learned            ter. Indeed, the criticism that Weber advocated
that Weber’s “ideal organization” exhibits bureau-          efficiency to too great an extent comes despite the
cratic principles. The best-selling management              fact that the modern sense of efficiency as the ratio
book of the past three decades, In Search of Excel-         of inputs over outputs was a term foreign to We-
lence (Peters & Waterman, 1982: 5), confirms that           ber’s German tongue at the time he wrote (Albrow,
Weber “pooh-poohed charismatic leadership and               1970).
doted on bureaucracy; its rule-driven, impersonal              Weber’s use of the term ideal also appears to
form, he said, was the only way to assure long-             confuse management writers. Weber’s “ideal
term survival.”                                             types” were not in any sense good or noble or a
   In works that optimistically portray the progress        best-case scenario. He used the term to indicate a
of management, Weber’s “love of bureaucracy”                model or measure against which societal develop-
leads to complaints that he “went too far in advo-          ment might be compared: ideal, in his language,
cating a machine-like organization” (Dale, 1967:            meant not fully exemplified in reality. Hence, We-
12); that he did not pay “attention to the human            ber conceived of three ideal types of authority:
factor in organizational design” (Schwartz, 1980:           traditional, charismatic, and rational–legal, each
19); or that he paid “repeated homage” to the out-          of which sponsored different or competing forms of
moded “Taylor system” (Gerth & Mills, 1954: 261;            organization. In his political analysis, Weber
Gross, 1964). In pessimistic works (e.g., Ritzer, 1996),    makes it clear that a best-case scenario might be a
Weber appears as a promoter and forerunner to the           charismatic or innovative organization in tandem
evils of dehumanization. Elsewhere, Weber is cast           with a bureaucratic organization. He even exam-
as an “organizational theorist” (DuBrin, 1984; Wren,        ined how traditional monarchies or aristocracies
1994); a “management expert” whose “main con-               could work well. One could claim the modern con-
cern [was] the nature of bureaucracies” (Clutter-           tingency approach to managing organizations ac-
buck & Crainer, 1990: 18); or an “organizational            tually is a continuation of Weber’s thinking.
designer.” Schwartz (1980: 19) describes Weber as              Moreover, Weber was largely pessimistic about
providing “six guidelines for organization design,”         the advance of bureaucracy. History for Weber was
which are Weber’s six elements required for a bu-           “an eternal struggle between bureaucratic ratio-
reaucracy to function effectively. In these ways,           nalization and charismatic invention” (Allen, 2004:
Weber is seen as both a pioneer founder whose               108). He despaired at bureaucracy’s inexorable rise
intellect lends weight to the fledgling field and a         driving the spirit and humanity out of life (MacRae,
problem to be overcome and dismissed as wrong-              1974; Allen, 2004). Weber (1948: 337, 214) was sure
headed, old-fashioned or one-dimensional as the             that bureaucratic organization was “always, from
2011                                            Cummings and Bridgman                                           83

a formal technical point of view, the most rational          Archaeology: Every Strata Promotes Its Own
type,” but it exhibited only a “technical superiority        Particular Truths
over other forms.” This made it an obvious form
                                                             The analysis in the previous section begs the ques-
only because of the particular nature of his times:
                                                             tion as to how the picture of Weber described
the manifestation of a “victorious capitalism” rest-
                                                             above came to pass. A Foucauldian archeological
ing on “mechanical foundations” where the “‘ob-
                                                             approach helps to explain this, with reference to
jective’ discharge of business primarily means a
                                                             the specific set of views and values, or episteme,
discharge of business according to calculable
                                                             that emerged in the United States in the middle of
rules and without regard for persons” (Weber, 1930:
                                                             the 20th century. In doing so, we shall see that 1947
181–182; 1948: 215). Weber yearned for “charismatic
figures” not bureaucrats (Allen, 2004: 108), as this         is in fact an accurate dating of Weber’s entry into
passage makes clear:                                         the annals of management history. Prior to 1947,
                                                             Weber, as management studies knows him, did not
   Rational calculation [and bureaucratic logic]             exist. Indeed, perhaps the first and only manage-
   reduces every worker to a cog in this bureau-             ment teaching textbook to predate 1947, Burleigh B.
   cratic machine . . . It is horrible to think that         Gardner’s (1945) Human Relations in Industry,
   the world could one day be filled with nothing            while focused extensively on organization and ef-
   but those little cogs, little men clinging to             ficiency, makes no mention of Weber. He was still
   little jobs and striving toward bigger ones—a             being created, by a very particular episteme and a
   state of affairs . . . playing an ever increasing         peculiarly effective individual within that epis-
   part in the spirit of our present administrative          teme: Talcott Parsons.
   systems, and especially of its offspring, the                Wirtschaft and Gesellschaft was left unfinished
   students. This passion for bureaucracy is                 on Weber’s death. As it was planned to connect
   enough to drive one to despair . . . the great            elements of Weber’s other schemes one can say
   question is therefore not how we can promote              that his whole corpus was incomplete. So, in Mac-
   and hasten it, but what can we oppose to this             Rae’s (1974: 14) words, to consult Weber is often
   machinery in order to keep a portion of man-              “somewhat like divination, like using a Tarot pack
   kind free from [the] supreme mastery of the               or the I Cheng.” Hence, Marianne Weber’s (1975)
   bureaucratic way of life (Max Weber 1909, in              biography positions Weber as a great humanist
   Mayer, 1943: 127–128).                                    and champion of good causes. Shils (1987) saw
                                                             Weber as a freemarket liberal, prophetic in warn-
   A final notable falsehood is the dating of We-            ing against bureaucracy. Bell (1960) and Lipset
ber’s major contribution to management or organi-            (1969) hailed Weber’s view that the reconciliation
zation theory at 1947. This is most starkly pre-             between opposing forces was the desired end. Ben-
sented in a “timelime of milestones,” complete               dix (1966) claims Weber’s work belongs to the in-
with photographs of the “key contributors,” on the           tellectual heritage of European liberalism (a point
inside front cover of Behavior in Organizations              discussed by most Weberian scholars, with one
(Greenberg & Baron, 1993). This line of portraits            notable exception: Parsons). For Gerth and Mills
begins Taylor: 1911; Mayo: 1927–1932; Weber: 1947;           (1948), Weber’s works were romantic tragedies rep-
Stogdill: 1951 . . . Although no references are pro-         resenting “humanist and cultural liberalism rather
vided, there are similarities between this and C. S.         than economic liberalism.” But, of all of the writers
George’s “Management Continuum” first pub-                   to interpret Weber, Parsons would be the most in-
lished in 1968. A condensed list of George’s key             fluential in the episteme when many of the man-
figures is listed below: 350 BC Plato . . . 20 AD Jesus      agement textbooks that our students still use were
Christ . . . 1525 Machiavelli . . . 1776 Adam Smith . . .    issued in their first editions (Allen, 2004).
1785 Thomas Jefferson . . . 1900 F. W. Taylor . . . 1927        Parsons discovered Weber in the 1920s while
Elton Mayo . . . 1947 Max Weber. . . .                       studying in Germany. He wrote a brilliant doctoral
   That Weber had been dead for 27 years makes               thesis on him, and began an English translation of
1947 seem an unusual choice for a milestone. But             Weber’s essay The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit
when one recognizes that 1947 was the year Par-              of Capitalism (1930). He returned to America and
sons’ American translation of selections of Weber’s          took up a position at Harvard, keen to help estab-
Wirtschaft and Gesellschaft appeared, and one be-            lish and add backbone to the fledgling field of
gins to investigate the episteme within which Par-           sociology in the United States. He was also, quite
sons was operating, reasons behind the creation of           naturally, keen to see the field develop in the way
management textbooks’ version of Weber start to              that he thought best, and to build his own reputa-
be revealed.                                                 tion. Weber was an excellent conduit for all these
84                                    Academy of Management Learning & Education                                 March

aims, but to create the type of sociology that Par-             We like the Romans, are fairly receptive to art
son’s sought required the invention a unifying or-              and taste, and to ideas, tho we do not create
der over and above Weber’s unfinished or dispa-                 them. The unity of our culture is rather that of
rate theses. Indeed, Parson’s quest for a unifying              economic-legal institutions, than the type of
logic that could explain the fundamental essences               basic ‘consensus’ which always seem to be
beneath social and organizational diversity, and                involved in a creative culture . . . [However] . . .
thus explain all things, is completely in keeping               there seems a fair possibility we may help
with what many in the new human sciences such                   create a social framework within which Euro-
as sociology and ecology were seeking and offer-                pean culture can have a fairly long life.
ing in the middle of the 20th century (Lyotard, 1984:
50 –51).                                                     Thus, Parsons saw the United States as an emerg-
   In the late 1930s, Parsons’ mission led him to            ing exemplar of a rational–legal, and increasingly
undertake a translation of Weber’s Wirtschaft and            bureaucratic, society. While such a society would
Gesellschaft (“Work and Society”). But it is impor-          not in itself promote creativity (as Weber had
tant to remember that his translation, titled The            pointed out), Parsons thought that such a society
Theory of Social and Economic Organization, was              was extremely good. It provided the best chance
in fact a translation of only some of Wirtschaft,            for European culture to survive, spread, and be
with particular attention paid to the sections that          refined, much as the Romans had done with Greek
interested him in their relation to building bases           culture. This was an optimism clung to by many
for the fledgling science of sociology, namely,              during a period when many intellectuals were re-
those on bureaucracy and the notion of the ideal             moving themselves from Europe and entering the
type (Mayhew, 1982). Much was left out, including            United States. Parsons believed that the emer-
Weber’s own Introduction to Wirtschaft. Indeed,              gence of America as a center of power, and its
most of Weber’s extensive writing on religion, law,          management of its flourishing economic– bureau-
and politics was not translated for many years               cratic society, would prove Weber’s pessimism
hence.                                                       about bureaucratization wrong (Wearne, 1989).
   In the years following World War II, the Parson-            Parsons also justified making Weber less pessi-
ian interpretation took hold and spread. New soci-           mistic by pointing out that Weber used his “ideal
ologists and intellectuals from many other fields            types” in two ways: as a methodological device, a
were drawn to Parsons’ Weber: a value-free social            useful measuring stick to help him analyze societ-
scientist with a system above political conflicts            ies; and as a means of describing what he had
whose triumphant rational–legal mode of author-              unearthed to be the case about a society. “That
ity and its bureaucratic instrument offered both             Weber called both ideal types without distinguish-
rationale and hope for a more certain world. And             ing them,” Parsons (1929: 33) noted, “leads to seri-
Weber’s adoption by the intelligentsia in this pe-           ous confusion, a confusion which is especially
riod after the war was further aided by Parsons’             marked in his analysis of capitalism.” He then
down-playing of Weber’s pessimism, bleakness,                argued that Weber confused his rational–legal
and emphasis on unequal power relations with                 bureaucratic ideal with something that could hap-
regard to rational–legal authority and bureaucracy           pen. If he had remembered that such an ideal type
(MacRae, 1974; Clegg, 1992; Allen, 2004).                    could never be and realized thus that within the
   Why would Parson’s want to be positive about              reality of a world where the rational–legal view
the power of rational authority and bureaucracy? It          dominated, creativity and spirit would still exist,
may have something to do with how Parsons, both              perhaps even prosper, he would have been more
a patriot and an internationalist, interpreted Amer-         optimistic. And, “if this error is corrected the abso-
ica’s emerging role in the new episteme that would           lute domination of the process of rationalization
mark a shift in power from the old world to the new.         over the whole social process” that Weber had
This view would seem exceedingly prescient and               predicted and which had caused his angst “falls to
hopeful after the Dionysian carnage that the war             the ground” (Parsons, 1929: 49).
had wrought. Parson’s saw the American para-                   Parsons’ translation would correct the “error” of
digm in relation to the Europe as analogous to that          Weber’s pessimism. The most obvious example of
between Greece and Rome. In notes made for a                 how this was done is his translation of Weber’s use
lecture at Harvard in 1933 (1933: 5– 6) he outlined          of herrschaft, which generally means domination.
the similarities:                                            Parsons translated it as leadership.
                                                               Many beyond the mainstream of management
     Culturally, like the Romans, we [Americans]             studies are critical of Parsons’ interpretation. Tribe
     are not creative, our genius is ‘practical’ . . .       (1988: 8) connects this “construction” of Weber to
2011                                            Cummings and Bridgman                                              85

“the ‘agenda setting’ activities of Parsons and his              cause it is insensitive to human needs and
associates.” According to Wearne (1989: 43), “We-                 not suited to a changing environment. Un-
ber became the personification of the mores for                 fortunately, the “ideal” form of an organiza-
Parsons’ social scientific enterprise.” While Mac-                tion, according to Weber, did not take into
Rae (1974: 88), a little more sympathetically, argues                    account the realities of the world in
that Parsons “extracted and elaborated something                                            which it operates.
latent, a systematic sociology of great range and                                      —Greenberg & Baron,
power . . . This system . . . is at once an invention                              Behavior in Organizations,
and a discovery. But it is not, I think, all that there                                         (4th ed., 1993)
is in Weber.” However, when management schol-
ars began to systematically trace the development                     Weber’s universal view of bureaucratic
of management in the episteme that pervaded                         structure contrasts with the more modern
America in the 1950s as part of a campaign to                      approaches to organization design, which
establish management as a serious university-                    claim that different forms of organizational
worthy discipline (Khurana, 2007), they latched on              structure may be more appropriate to differ-
to Parsons’ rediscovered great thinker, who had                  ent situations. Also, because bureaucracies
concerned himself with organization, and looked                   draw sharp lines between the people who
no further (Clegg, 1990). They subsequently dis-                  make decisions (managers) and those who
tilled from Parsons’ interpretation a Weber who                 carry them out (workers), they are not popu-
contributed to the development of the fledgling                lar today. After all, contemporary employees
field of management by defining and championing                   prefer to have more equal opportunities to
bureaucracy (George, 1968; Wren, 1972).                                                    make decisions . . .
   Further refinement of this strawman occurred as                                      —Greenberg & Baron,
the early management textbooks borrowed from                                       Behavior in Organizations,
these interpretations of Parsons. However, this                                                  (9th ed., 2008)
view of Weber is not completely fixed, and it is not
all-encompassed by the episteme we have de-                  While an archaeological critique enabled us to
scribed here. Indeed, if one can find a book that            understand why a peculiar view of Weber may
draws on a range of translations of Weber, and a             have emerged in management textbooks, its main
wider range of Weber’s writings than is generally            weakness is that the “hard and fast” nature of the
the case, from “left-field” as it were, one will find a      episteme does not allow for or explain movement
different, more rounded Weber (e.g., Clegg, Korn-            of this view. As the quotations above demonstrate,
berger, & Pitsis, 2008: 485–527, 654). So, while Weber       while the idiosyncratic interpretation of Weber
is influenced by the episteme described here, he             that we have pointed to in our previous sections
can be otherwise. In the following paragraphs we             continues to thrive, there is also considerable room
undertake a genealogical analysis that traces We-            for reinterpretations.
ber’s malleability. It shows him subtly shaped and              In this section we explain why this happens,
changed in different contexts by management                  through the application of a genealogical ap-
studies as it evolves.                                       proach to analyze of the presentation of Weber in
                                                             nine editions of a popular management textbook
Genealogy: The Truth Is Shaped and Maintained                over a 25-year period. From archaeology we draw
by the “Family Network”                                      upon the notion that the episteme in which man-
                                                             agement textbooks as a genre emerge enables and
        The key question, then, is not “Did bureau-          encourages statements that promote this straw-
       cracy ever catch on?” but rather “Is it as ef-        man version of Weber. Unlike archaeology, how-
        fective as Weber contended?” The answer,             ever, a genealogical approach allows us to high-
             unfortunately, appears to be mixed . . .        light the relationships and interests that sustain
          [While] it is hard to question the positive        these interpretations of Weber in management
       effects of [some bureaucratic] principles . . .       texts and how the dynamic and static nature of this
        bureaucracy also extracts important costs.           network leads to some subtle changes over time.
                                            —Baron,             Through this lens, the construction of the Weber
                          Behavior in Organizations,         strawman can be seen to make the contemporary
                                       (2nd ed., 1986)       study of management both possible and progres-
                                                             sive. It makes it possible by providing a historical
        Weber[’s] . . . classical organization theory        foundation on which subsequent research can be
         has fallen into disfavor in large part be-          layered, a foundation that has hardened through a
86                                  Academy of Management Learning & Education                                        March

series of interpretations that have built upon each        continuity. The key findings with regard to the
other. This sedimentation of knowledge makes the           discontinuities are summarized in Table 1 below.
enterprise of management research appear to both           Having identified what stayed the same and
be based on noble foundations and be continually           what changed, we then offer some explanations
advancing. However, our genealogical analysis              for why this might be.
also reveals that the Weber strawman remains                  The most striking continuity across all nine edi-
contingent and that his theorizing, as well as his         tions of the text is the Parsons-inspired interpreta-
contribution to history, depends on the prevailing         tion of Weber.3 While the entry in the first edition
power– knowledge relations of the day. When                cites Gerth and Mills’ 1948 translation of Essays in
these shift, so too does Weber, in a way that pro-         Sociology, the other editions have the Henderson
motes the progressive or “cutting-edge” nature of          and Parsons translation of Theory of Social and
contemporary thought, as the quotations juxta-             Economic Organization (1947) as their source.4 In
posed at the head of this section reveal. In 1993          this Parsonian interpretation, elements of the nar-
Weber was the naıve organization theorist who              rative remain constant: Weber believed bureau-
failed to recognize that change and human needs            cracy was the one best way to efficiently organize
would count against bureaucracy. By 2008 he has            work, in the same way that Taylor believed that
become a naıve organization theorist who advo-             scientific management was the best way to per-
cated a universal view and an authoritarian style          form a task. There is also continuity in the cri-
of management, thereby failing to foresee that con-        tique of Weber for lacking the complexity of mind
tingency theory was the way forward and that em-           to recognize that contingency approaches are
ployees would demand participation in decision             best. Throughout all editions we are told that
making.                                                    bureaucracies are not as efficient as Weber
   Through a genealogical critique, we can trace           maintained, making them neither an “ideal” nor
these processes of sedimentation and reactivation          perfect organizational form. Finally, there is con-
to demonstrate how the foundations of manage-              tinuity in the ongoing value ascribed to Weber’s
ment knowledge provide a base on which knowl-              contribution. While his supposed ideal bureau-
edge can accumulate, while also being sufficiently         cracy is unrealistic in today’s business environ-
malleable to demonstrate the relevance and supe-           ment, the theory of bureaucracy contains valu-
riority of contemporary thinking on the subject. In        able elements which have subsequently been
this section, we do this through an analysis of a          built upon by other scholars. This has the effect
popular management textbook Behavior in Orga-              of solidifying management’s position as a wor-
nizations: Understanding and Managing the Hu-              thy “new science.”
man Side of Work. We surveyed a range of man-                 Descriptions of Weber as a management thinker
agement textbooks which revealed a similar                 play an important role in the narrative of manage-
treatment of Weber, where he is positioned as “sin-        ment history. For management to constitute a field
cerely believing” in “his model” or “his theory” of        of study, it requires a history, which in turn re-
an ideal organization, views which have subse-             quires early management thinkers. Critical analy-
quently been surpassed by “today’s mangers” who            sis of Behavior in Organizations usefully demon-
believe that it “takes away the employee’s creativ-        strates this writing of history and its gradual
ity” and a contingency approach that takes us be-          sedimentation. In the first edition Weber is a “so-
yond the Weber’s belief in “universally applica-           ciologist” (1983: 510). By edition four (1993), how-
ble” management practices (Robbins, 1997: 548;             ever, he is also a “classical organizational theo-
Robbins & Coulter, 2005: 30 –36; Robbins, Bergman,         rist” (16) and an “organizational scholar” (596).
Stagg, & Coulter 2006: 48 –51). Following our survey       These last two subject positions are productive of
of various textbooks, we chose to use Behavior in          organizational studies (or management) as fields
Organizations as an illustrative case of this              of study, distinct say, from psychology or sociol-
broader phenomenon. This book was particularly             ogy. Classical organizational theorist also has the
well suited to examining how Weber’s depiction,            effect of adding depth to the historical narrative by
something we might assume to be solid, may shift           locating Weber within a group of supposed like-
over time. It has been through nine editions over 27
years, has had the same authorial team, is still           3
being widely prescribed, and has described We-              There is no mention of Weber in the text of the third edition,
                                                           although he continued to feature in the timeline inside the front
ber’s contribution in eight of its nine editions in the    and back covers.
main body of its text (as opposed to appendices            4
                                                            In the fourth edition, this is erroneously cited as a 1921 publi-
or footnotes). In analyzing the editions, we               cation, and this error remains uncorrected in all subsequent
sought to identify elements of continuity and dis-         editions.
2011                                                        Cummings and Bridgman                                                                  87

                                                        TABLE 1
                           Elements of Discontinuity in Descriptions of Weber/Weber’s Views
                                           Characteristics of the Ideal
 Edition      Description of Weber               Bureaucracy                   Weber’s View of Bureaucracy            Critique of Bureaucracy

1st (1983)   Sociologist                Specialization; hierarchy; abstract   Most efficient design should be   Some bureaucracies efficient but not
                                          rules; impersonality                 adopted as widely as               all. Thwarts upward
                                          qualifications; and promotion        possible. Bureaucracy              communication. Rules become
                                          on merit                             consistent with trend in           ends. Stifles personal growth. Not
                                                                               Western civilization toward        the ideal form in all situations.
2nd (1986)   Sociologist                Specialization; hierarchy; rules      Weber appalled by                 Negative association with “red
                                          impersonality; hiring by             inefficiency, waste and            tape.” Useful for large
                                          qualifications; promotion by         corruption. Ideal form which       organizations. Produces rigidities.
                                          merit; written records               all organizations should           Thwarts upward communication.
                                                                               strive for.                        Overreliance on rules. Reduces
                                                                                                                  motivation. Not the ideal form in
                                                                                                                  all situations.
3rd (1990)   Weber not mentioned
4th (1993)   Classical organizational   Formal rules and regulations;         One best way to organize work,    Negative association with “red
               theorist, sociologist,     impersonal treatment; division        just as scientific                tape.” Not all bureaucracies
               organizational             of labor; hierarchical structure;     management provides a one         inefficient and unproductive.
               scholar                    authority structure; lifelong         best way to perform jobs. A       Insensitive to human needs and
                                          career commitment; rationality        universal view of structure.      changing environment. Based on
                                                                                                                  Theory X assumptions.
5th (1995)   Classical organizational   Formal rules and regulations;         One best way to organize work,    Negative association with “red
               theorist, sociologist,     impersonal treatment; division        just as scientific                tape.” Insensitive to human needs
               organizational             of labor; hierarchical structure;     management provides a one         and changing environment. Based
               scholar                    authority structure; lifelong         best way to perform jobs. A       on Theory X assumptions.
                                          career commitment; rationality        universal view of structure.
6th (1997)   Classical organizational   Formal rules and regulations;         One best way to organize work,    Negative association with “red
               theorist, sociologist,     impersonal treatment; division        just as scientific                tape.” Insensitive to human needs
               organizational             of labor; hierarchical structure;     management provides a one         and changing environment. Based
               scholar                    authority structure; lifelong         best way to perform jobs. A       on Theory X assumptions.
                                          career commitment; rationality        universal view of structure.
7th (2000)   Classical organizational   Formal rules and regulations;         One best way to organize work,    Negative association with “red
               theorist, sociologist,     impersonal treatment; division        just as scientific                tape.” Insensitive to human needs
               organizational             of labor; hierarchical structure;     management provides a one         and changing environment. Based
               scholar                    authority structure; lifelong         best way to perform jobs. A       on Theory X assumptions.
                                          career commitment; rationality        universal view of structure.
8th (2003)   Classical organizational   Formal rules and regulations;         Hierarchy of authority where      Bureaucracies unpopular today
               theorist, sociologist,     impersonal treatment; division        higher ranks issue orders         because employees prefer equal
               organizational             of labor; hierarchical structure;     and lower ranks carry them        opportunities. Insensitive to
               scholar                    authority structure; lifelong         out. A universal view of          human needs and changing
                                          career commitment; rationality        structure.                        environment. Based on Theory X
9th (2008)   Classical organizational   Formal rules and regulations;         Hierarchy of authority where      Bureaucracies unpopular today
               theorist, sociologist,     impersonal treatment; division        higher ranks issue orders. A      because employees prefer equal
               organizational             of labor; hierarchical structure;     universal view of structure.      opportunities. Insensitive to
               scholar                    authority structure; lifelong                                           human needs and changing
                                          career commitment; rationality                                          environment. Based on Theory X

minded theorists from which we have subse-                                    though the first edition clearly states that “Weber
quently moved on. By viewing editions of the text                             was quite precise. He felt that in its ideal form,
as layers of interpretations, we can see how Weber                            bureaucracy was characterized by five major fac-
as an organizational theorist becomes the “truth,”                            tors” (1983: 510).5
despite this interpretation being factually errone-                             In addition to a change in the number of charac-
ous, as shown earlier.                                                        teristics, there is a shift in their ordering in the
  Another continuous feature in the presentation                              fourth edition. Whereas the first two editions be-
of Weber across the nine editions is the inclusion                            gan with specialization (which became division of
of the characteristics of Weber’s ideal bureau-                               labor in the fourth edition onward), in the fourth
cracy. However, there are subtle differences in the
presentation of these characteristics in editions 1
and 2 compared with edition 4 onward. In the first                            5
                                                                                In the first edition, rationality was not included as one of the
edition, there are five characteristics, but from the                         five characteristics, although it was listed separately as an
second edition onward there are seven, even                                   underlying theme.
88                                   Academy of Management Learning & Education                              March

and all consequent editions the first feature of the        ployees in contrast to bureaucracies, in which
ideal bureaucracy is formal rules and regulations.          workers are forced to follow orders. This conve-
This characteristic was previously called abstract          niently ignores the fact that most contemporary
rules (first edition) and rules (second edition). As        organizations are bureaucratic, to some degree.
well as the change in label, there are changes in              Again, the changes here are subtle, but they are
the description of this characteristic:                     consistent with a representation of Weber to con-
                                                            struct a binary logic in which the past is positioned
     Edition 1: “All tasks would be carried out in          as inferior to the enlightened or evolved thinking
     accordance with a consistent system of ab-             of the present day, whatever that might be.
     stract rules” (1983: 510).                             Throughout the nine editions of the text studied,
                                                            there is a subtle but significant development of the
     Edition 2: “Activities should be carried out in        historical narrative to reflect contemporary con-
     accordance with rules and standard operat-             cerns. First, it was that Weber did not realize the
     ing procedures” (1986: 439).                           cost of bureaucracy would likely outweigh the
                                                            financial benefits. Then he did not see that peo-
     Edition 4: “Written guidelines are used to con-        ple were much more “theory Y” than “theory X.”
     trol all employees’ behaviors” (1993: 17).             Later, when it was contingency theory that re-
                                                            quired a counterposition, Weber was led into the
It would be a step too far to label this as a misrep-       discussion as the advocate of a universal ap-
resentation of Weber. But by modifying the de-              proach to structure.
scription of the characteristics of the ideal bureau-          By 2005, it may have been the concern for em-
cracy as the subsequent editions emerge, readers            powerment and participatory styles of manage-
of the text are more likely to draw a negative im-          ment that encouraged the construction of Weber as
pression of the value of rules and regulations.             the promoter of an authoritarian style of manage-
What was in the first edition a system for deliver-         ment. It is an example of the “historical present-
ing consistency, which could be interpreted in a            ism” that Foucault (1977b: 148) describes in Lan-
positive light, becomes, by the fourth edition, the         guage, Counter-Memory and Practice: “In placing
more sinister control of all behavior. Elevating it to      present needs at the origin, the metaphysician [or
the first characteristic of bureaucracy suggests            historian, seeks to] convince us of an obscure pur-
that it was bureaucracy’s most important feature.           pose that seeks its realization at the moment it
These could be considered to be minor changes,              arises.”
but they have the effect of reinterpreting Weber in            The overriding feature revealed by this critical
a way that reflects the concerns of the time,               analysis of the nine editions of Behavior in Orga-
namely, the stifling effects of bureaucratic rules          nizations is the way in which Weber’s work is pro-
expressed in the common association of bureau-              gressively reduced and simplified, and its evalua-
cracies with “red tape.”                                    tion becomes increasingly negative. In the first
   Another illustration of the reinterpretation of          edition, Weber’s view of bureaucracy is placed
Weber appears in edition 8 and is repeated in the           within the context of his observation of “a shift
ninth edition, where the references to red tape dis-        toward rationality in all spheres of life (politics,
appear and a new theme gains prominence. “Be-               religion, economics, etc.)” (1983: 510, emphasis in
cause bureaucracies draw sharp lines between                original). In the second edition, it is explained that
the people who make decisions (managers) and                Weber’s writings were a response to organizations
those who carry them out (workers), they are not            that, at the turn of the 20th century, were charac-
particularly popular today. After all, contempo-            terized by “inefficiency, waste and corruption”
rary employees prefer to have more equal oppor-             (1986: 438). In these early editions of the text, there
tunities to make decisions than bureaucracies               is a balanced evaluation of the pros and cons of
permit” (2003: 11).                                         bureaucracy, being well suited to some organiza-
   This passage is of interest for several reasons.         tions but not to others. From the fourth edition
First, is the language used: “workers” in bureau-           onward, the location of Weber within a particular
cracies become “employees” in today’s organiza-             historical context gradually disappears. Students
tions. Second, is the assumption that it is only            are given no indication of the changing nature of
“workers” who receive orders in bureaucracies,              organization that Weber experienced during his
which is odd given that bureaucracies are associ-           lifetime and the benefits that a bureaucratic mode
ated with multiple layers of managers receiving             of thinking had brought, such as promotion being
orders from other managers. Third, is the emphasis          based on merit rather than family connections. It
on “equal opportunities” demanded by today’s em-            may be no random event that this characteristic of
2011                                             Cummings and Bridgman                                            89

bureaucracy (promotion based on merit) appeared               We should begin this conclusion by asking “does
in the first two editions of the text but not from the        any of this really matter?” If we share Robbins’
fourth edition onward, and was replaced by “im-               assessment of history, with which we began this
personal treatment,” which carries a more nega-               article, the answer may be “no.” In his textbook
tive connotation. Throughout subsequent editions              Managing Today, history is relegated to the appen-
of the text, the evaluation of bureaucracy becomes            dix, “where faculty can assign it and students can
increasingly negative. By the ninth edition, the              read it when, or if, they wish” (1997: xvii). By this
best that can be said is that “contemporary OB                reasoning, any representation of Weber matters
owes a great deal to Weber for his many pioneer-              little, so long as students know that flatter, more
ing ideas” (2008: 15).                                        flexible organizations work well and that bureau-
   Having identified both continuities and discon-            cracy does not; that contingency theory is best;
tinuities in the presentation of Weber’s bureau-              deciding that employees should make their own
cracy theory through nine editions of Behavior in             decisions works, but making decisions for them
Organizations, we conclude this section by offer-             does not, and so on.
ing an explanation for why this is the case.                     However, if we believe that management is more
   The construction of the strawman Weber is an               diverse and more complicated than this; or we
ongoing process comprising processes of sedimen-              believe that what we see as “the best way”
tation of prior interpretations and a reactivation            changes over time; or if we believe that it is not the
and reconstruction of Weber based on popular con-             latest theories that run organizations but manag-
cerns of the present, such as the demand for au-              ers making judgments about the relative merits of
tonomy and responsibility. By reconstituting We-              different ideas and how these might be inter-
ber as the stepping stone from which we have                  preted, then a critical appreciation of history
progressed to a more enlightened view of manage-              should be of interest and will be of great use to
ment, management texts are able to lay claim to               students. To illustrate, we can start by outlining
being at the cutting edge of management thought,              four ways in which a student’s self-awareness and
our encounter with the past relevant only in so far           judgment might be improved by thinking critically
as it demonstrates the value and superiority of               about Weber and his depiction in the history of
contemporary ideas. Paradoxically, this rewriting             management.
of the historical narrative surrounding Weber’s                  First, for students to see that a great figure like
work occurs within the context of a reduced inter-            Weber struggled with the upsides and downsides
est on the part of textbook authors in interrogating          of bureaucracy (as others have since) would be a
history, based on an assumption articulated by                better way of initiating them into our field and its
Robbins at the start of this article, that students are       long-standing complexities, than presenting We-
not interested in the historical evolution of man-                                                         ¨
                                                              ber or other historical figures, as naıve, one-
agement knowledge. It is this representation of               dimensional strawmen. This would provide stu-
history which leads us to conclude that history               dents with greater confidence to realize that there
remains important to authors of popular main-                 really is no one best way, not even for great think-
stream management textbooks, if only so far as                ers, and that they, like all good managers, must
constructing the “bad old days” with which to com-            always assess contexts and the strengths and
pare today’s liberated state of affairs. History and          weaknesses of the available options before taking
Weber’s part in it is not a narration of past events.         action.
It is written for the present and we can expect it to            Second, instead of ruling out “Weberian bureau-
be rewritten again for future generations of stu-             cracy” as completely bad or outmoded, recognizing
dents, in such a way that connects to the issues of           this interpretation to be an oversimplification can
the day.                                                      reveal a number of intelligent possibilities. For
                                                              example, recognizing that fashionable flat hierar-
                                                              chies are not a revolutionary discontinuity, that
CONCLUSION                                                    they are, after all, hierarchies, and that the longev-
                                                              ity of this form indicates that it has some strengths,
                                                              should help students to develop ways to make
        The object was to learn to what extent the            bureaucracies more human or egalitarian instead
          effort to think one’s own history can free          of unwittingly dismissing them wholesale. As Ha-
       thought from what it silently thinks, and so           rold Leavitt (whose 85 years gave him an extremely
                        enable it to think differently.       broad point of view) put it, “the intensity with
                                          —Foucault,          which we struggle against hierarchies [ultimately]
                                 The Use of Pleasure          only serves to highlight their durability” (Leavitt &
90                                  Academy of Management Learning & Education                             March

Kaufman, 2003: 98). Indeed, in the context of recent       genealogy, Foucault took one last methodological
scandals it should be recognized that a major              turn. Recognizing that in veering away from ar-
strength of a bureaucracy, when implemented                chaeology’s structuralism toward a view where ev-
well, is that it is more able to act and be seen to act    erything was caught up in power relations which
ethically than other organizational forms (Du Gay,         denuded any critical ability to advocate alterna-
2000). A more rounded appreciation of Weber could          tives, he settled on an approach called Interpretive
encourage a better appreciation that organizations         Analytics. This was, in effect, a combination of his
can contain both bureaucratic and nonbureau-               earlier approaches (Dreyfus & Rabinow, 1982). In
cratic elements based on a clear understanding of          Interpretative Analytics, Foucault’s pregenealogi-
the potential strengths and weaknesses of the              cal methods free us from a belief in our direct
form.                                                      access to the truth of historical events: There are
   Third, on becoming aware of Weber’s broader             only interpretations. But then genealogy probes
views, a student might begin to think critically           the historical and social roles that the belief in the
about why he has been depicted in such a crude             truth of these interpretations, like the changing
and expedient way. It may be human nature to put           presentation of Weber, plays. However, genealogy
people in boxes, to see simple categories and con-         is only able to highlight the power relations and
tinuities and progress and certain one best ways,          “games of truth” played in the formation and main-
when in actual fact the world of organizations is          tenance of historical interpretations if it can step
more complex and nuanced, but the case of Weber            back again to archaeology and see a number of
should alert students to the complexities involved         strata. Pasts, in which, for example, Weber could
in making good managerial judgments while                  have been different.
working against such predilections to oversimplic-            Consequently, we argue, following Foucault,
ity. Hence, a critical historical perspective can help     that the primary purpose of embracing manage-
breed greater self-awareness with regard to where          ment history should be to work against being re-
students might place themselves on a spectrum of           stricted by what others have regarded as historical
views about bureaucracy, or under what condi-              conventions, and thereby to enable “thinking dif-
tions might they see a bureaucracy as a good ap-           ferently” about management for the future. A crit-
proach. Such self-awareness can work against a             ical Foucauldian approach can show students that
herd mentality that can drive unwitting phenom-            their history is both questionable and malleable,
ena such as blindly employing “best practice” in           and help them to recognize that the future of their
strategy development, to the global financial crisis       subject need not be bound by unquestioned histor-
(Nattermann, 2000; Fox, 2008). With such aware-            ical foundations and conventions. In other words,
ness, a manager who makes the excuse that they             they are freer than what they may have thought to
were only following what others told them to do or         “think management differently.” While such uncer-
were doing becomes clearly disingenuous.                   tainty might increase anxiety (one reason why
   Finally, thinking critically about the way man-         management gurus sell simple solutions), we be-
agement history is related to the present should           lieve that the benefits of what we propose should
help students to see history’s worth as a highly           prevail over the weight of responsibility it imposes
relevant repository of useful events and ideas with        upon aspiring managers. Concluding that the con-
which to approach present issues, rather than a            struction of Weber’s role in the history of manage-
long gone irrelevancy best skipped over to so as to        ment is very much an ongoing and dynamic pro-
narrow their gaze on our present heights. Organi-          cess, and, therefore, one that we can actively
zational design can be greatly aided by looking            change and shape rather than being a hard and
seriously at what clever minds attempted in the            fast milestone that must be respected as founda-
past. Viewed short-sightedly, General Motors may           tional, enables us to promote an ability among
seem like an abject failure from which little inspi-       students to think more ably about the particular
ration may be drawn, and defeating of national             complexities that they will be faced with and more
morale . . . until one goes back and reads of the          creatively about how to move beyond these.
managerial innovations of Alfred Sloan and how                Armed with a less “black and white” under-
these changed the world (Bilton & Cummings,                standing of history, students and academics alike
2010). The GFC seems less daunting, and less of a          might also be able to engage in more generative
cause for hyperbole, when seen in the light of a           discussions about new organizational forms with a
hundred years of crises and comebacks.                     better understanding of substantial continuity and
   But a critical understanding of the historical pre-     divergence over time (Palmer, Benveniste, & Dun-
sentation of Weber is not only helpful in the              ford, 2007). For example, we may be more moti-
present; it is helpful for the future too. Beyond          vated to see what could be beyond contingency
2011                                                  Cummings and Bridgman                                                        91

theory, were we to recognize that Weber had                         actively engaging in the creation of the interesting
already arrived at that conclusion 100 years ago.                   alternatives that may lie beyond them, and toward
Or to see what interesting organizational blends                    thinking differently about what we consider to be
could be built from bureaucratic and nonbureau-                     the “relevance” of management education (Bridg-
cratic elements, or that information technology                     man, 2007). Historical interpretations like these
may have advanced to a point where the                              should not set hard and fast, and recognizing this
strengths that Weber attributed to bureaucracy                      can be liberating: It can inspire us to be more
might be achieved while incurring the weak-                         “retro-active” in order to recreate what we see as
nesses to lessening degrees. Or, that there may                     historically important, and thus, think differently
be forms that predate bureaucracy, which retro-                     in the present and for the future.
active forces could discover and reinvent. Or,                         Ironically, it could be that the historical figure we
that forms exist beyond the binary logic of bu-                     could learn most from in this mission is Max We-
reaucratic–nonbureaucratic.                                         ber—not the one described in most management
  While the creative possibilities that we have                     textbooks but the Weber who believed that contem-
outlined here relate directly to the case of Weber,                 porary institutions and their management could only
we have used Weber only as an example of what                       be understood by knowing how they had developed
we believe to be a much broader phenomenon in                       in peculiar ways, over time.6 Rakesh Khurana (2007:
the presentation of the progress of history in man-                 15) claims that the apparent originality of his thesis
agement texts. Other similarly simplistic binary                    in From Higher Aims to Hired Hands is largely due to
interpretations of progression in management                        a lack of awareness in management circles of an
studies include centralization (old and bad) and                    approach whereby one recognizes the relationship
decentralization (new and good); management (old                    between economic institutions and social norms—an
and bad) and leadership (new and good); stability                   approach that he traces back to Weber. A critical
(old and bad) and change (new and good); and                        awareness of Weber, and other historical founda-
planning (old and bad) and emergent strategies                      tions, could inspire many young students toward
(new and good). Many textbooks in the 1990s were                    projects like Khurana’s—projects that reinvestigate
sure that decentralization was “the way of the fu-                  the past to spark radical questioning in the present,
ture” and that centralization was dead (Cum-                        to change our field in positive ways for the future. If
mings, 1995). Later on, “Leaders” become those                      we believe that making positive contributions and
confident of their ability, willing to take risks, and              improving our field is important, it may be that en-
the people that make things happen, while “Man-                     couraging our students to think about long dead his-
agers” were those threatened by change, bothered                    torical figures and their representation is just as im-
by uncertainty, and the people who prefer the sta-                  portant as reflecting what managers might be doing
tus quo (Campling, Poole, Wiesner, & Schermer-                      now.
horn, 2006). This simplistic thinking complements
dominant assumptions within the mainstream
about organizational change: that (paradoxically)                   REFERENCES
change is the only constant, that change is inher-                  Albrow, M. 1970. Bureaucracy. London: Pall Mall.
ently good and stability inherently dangerous, that                 Aldrich, H. 1979. Organizations and environments. Englewood
change must be embraced by all and will lead to                         Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
success. And, at the same time, some works have                     Allen, K. 2004. Max Weber: A critical introduction. London: Pluto
set up planning as “old-hat,” dull and outmoded in                      Press.
contrast to a more advanced approach to strategy                    Baron, R. A., & Greenberg, J. 1990. Behavior in organizations:
oriented toward emergence and the vagaries of                           Understanding and managing the human side of work (3rd
culture.                                                                ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
  We would suggest that students should be en-                      Baron, R. A. 1983. Behavior in organizations: Understanding and
couraged to think critically about the construction                     managing the human side of work. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
of these simplistic notions of development, toward                  Baron, R. A. 1986. Behavior in organizations: Understanding and
                                                                        managing the human side of work (2nd ed.). Boston: Allyn &
  We are conscious of not falling into the trap of creating our     Bedeian, A. G. 2004. The gift of professional maturity. Academy
own strawman by treating “management textbooks” as a ho-               of Management Learning & Education, 3: 92–98.
mogenous entity. It is pleasing to see the growth of other “crit-
                                                                    Bell, D. 1960. The end of ideology: On the exhaustion of political
ical” textbooks that add a new selection of offerings to the
                                                                         ideas in the fifties. New York: Free Press.
existing mainstream textbook menu (e.g., Clegg et al., 2008;
Jackson & Carter, 2000; Knights & Willmott, 2007; Linstead, Fu-     Bendix, R. 1966. Max Weber: An intellectual portrait. London:
lop, & Lilley, 2004; Thomspon & McHugh 2001).                          Methuen.
92                                          Academy of Management Learning & Education                                            March

Bennis, W. G., & O’Toole. 2005. How business schools lost their       Foucault, M. 1985. The history of sexuality: Volume two - The use
   way. Harvard Business Review, 96 –104.                                of pleasure. New York: Pantheon.
Bilton, C., & Cummings, S. 2010. Creative strategy: Reconnecting      Fox, M. 2008. Herd mentality rules in financial crisis. San Diego
     business and innovation. Oxford: Wiley.                              Union Tribune, September 30.
Bridgman, T. 2007. Reconstituting relevance: Exploring possibil-      Gardner, B. B. 1945. Human relations in industry. Chicago: Irwin.
    ities for management educators’ critical engagement with
    the public. Management Learning, 38: 425– 439.                    George, C. S. 1968. The history of management thought. Engle-
                                                                         wood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Burrell, G. 1988. Modernism, postmodernism and organizational
    analysis 2: The contribution of Michel Foucault. Organiza-        Gerth, H. H., & Mills, C. W. 1948. Max Weber: Essays in sociology.
    tion Studies, 9(2): 221–235.                                          London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.

Campling, J., Poole, D., Wiesner, R., & Schermerhorn, J. R. 2006.     Gerth, H., & Mills, C. W. 1954. Character and social structure, the
   Management (2nd Asia-Pacific Edition). Australia: John                 psychology of social institutions. London: Routledge &
   Wiley & Sons.                                                          Kegan Paul.

Clegg, S. R. 1990. Modern organizations: Organization studies in      Greenberg, J., & Baron, R. A. 1993. Behavior in organizations:
    a postmodern world. London: Sage.                                    Understanding and managing the human side of work (4th
                                                                         ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Clegg, S. R. 1992. Postmodernism and postmodernity in organi-
    zational analysis. Journal of Organizational Change Man-          Greenberg, J., & Baron, R. A. 1995. Behavior in organizations:
    agement, 5: 8 –25.                                                   Understanding and managing the human side of work (5th
                                                                         ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Clegg, S. R., Kornberger, M., & Pitsis, T. 2008. Managing &
    organizations: An introduction to theory and practice. Lon-       Greenberg, J., & Baron, R. A. 1997. Behavior in organizations:
    don: Sage.                                                           Understanding and managing the human side of work (6th
                                                                         ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Clutterbuck, D., & Crainer, S. 1990. Makers of management.
    London: Macmillan.                                                Greenberg, J., & Baron, R. A. 2000. Behavior in organizations:
                                                                         Understanding and managing the human side of work (7th
Cummings, S. 1995. Centralization and decentralization: The
                                                                         ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
   never-ending story of separation and betrayal. Scandina-
   vian Journal of Management, 11: 103–117.                           Greenberg, J., & Baron, R. A. 2003. Behavior in organizations:
Cummings, S. 2002. Recreating strategy. London: Sage.                    Understanding and managing the human side of work (8th
                                                                         ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Dale, E. 1967. Organization. New York: American Management
    Association.                                                      Greenberg, J., & Baron, R. A. 2008. Behavior in organizations:
                                                                         Understanding and managing the human side of work (9th
Dreyfus, H. L., & Rabinow, P. 1982. Michel Foucault: Beyond              ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice-Hall.
    structuralism and hermeneutics. Chicago: University of
    Chicago Press.                                                    Gross, B. M. 1964. The managing of organizations: The adminis-
                                                                         trative struggle. New York: Macmillan.
DuBrin, A. J. 1984. Foundations of organizational behavior - An
   applied perspective. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.          Hill, S. 1981. Competition and control at work. Cambridge, MA:
                                                                           MIT Press.
Du Gay, P. 2000. In praise of bureaucracy. London: Sage.
                                                                      Jackson, J., & Morgan, C. 1982. Organization theory (2nd ed.).
Florence, M. 1984. Foucault, Michel, 1926 -. In G. Gutting (Ed.),
                                                                          Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
    The Cambridge companion to Foucault: 314 –319. Cam-
    bridge: Cambridge University Press.                               Jones, G., & Khanna, T. 2006. Bringing history (back) into inter-
                                                                          national business. Journal of International Business Stud-
Flynn, T. 1994. Foucault’s mapping of history. In G. Gutting (Ed.),
                                                                          ies, 37: 453– 468.
    The Cambridge companion to Foucault: 28 – 46. Cambridge:
    Cambridge University Press.                                       Khurana, R. 2007. From higher aims to hired hands. The social
                                                                         transformation of American business schools and the unful-
Foucault, M. 1965. Madness and civilization - A history of insan-
                                                                         filled promise of management as a profession. Princeton, NJ:
   ity in the age of reason. Translated by R. Howard. New York:
                                                                         Princeton University Press.
   Random House.
Foucault, M. 1970. The order of things: An archaeology of the         Knights, D., & Willmott, H. 2007. Introducing organizational be-
   human sciences. London: Tavistock.                                     haviour and management. London: Thomson Learning.

Foucault, M. 1975. The birth of the clinic. New York: Vintage.        Leavitt, H., & Kaufman, R. 2003. Why hierarchies thrive. Harvard
                                                                         Business Review, 81(3): 96 –102.
Foucault, M. 1976a. The archaeology of knowledge. New York:
   Harper Colophon.                                                   Linstead, S., Fulop, L., & Lilley, S. 2004. Management and orga-
                                                                          nization: A critical text. Basingstoke: Palgrave.
Foucault, M. 1976b. Mental illness and psychology. New York:
   Vintage.                                                           Lipset, S. M. 1969. The end of ideology. In C. Waxman (Ed.), The
                                                                          end of ideology debate. New York, Simon and Schuster.
Foucault, M. 1977a. Discipline and punish: The birth of the
   prison. London: Allen Lane.                                        Lyotard, J. F. 1984. The postmodern condition: A report on knowl-
                                                                          edge. Manchester: Manchester University Press.
Foucault, M. 1977b. Language, counter-memory, practice.
   Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.                              MacRae, D. G. 1974. Weber. London: Fontana.
Foucault, M. 1980. Power/knowledge. Selected interviews and           March, J. G., Sproull, L. S., & Tamuz, T. 1991. Learning from
   other writings 1972–77. Brighton: Harvester Press.                    samples of one or fewer. Organization Science, 2: 1–13.
2011                                                   Cummings and Bridgman                                                         93

Mayer, J. P. 1943. Max Weber and German politics. London:            Sennett, R. 2006. The culture of the new capitalism. New Haven,
   Faber & Faber.                                                       CT: Yale University Press.
Mayhew, L. H. (Ed.). 1982. Talcott Parsons: On institutions and      Shils, E. 1987. Max Weber and the world since 1920. In W.
   social evolution. University of Chicago Press.                        Mommsen & J. Oesterhammel (Eds.), Max Weber and his
                                                                         contemporaries. London: Allen and Unwin.
Mintzberg, H. 2004. Managers not MBAs. London: Pearson
                                                                     Siggelkow, N. 2007. Persuasion with case studies. Academy of
Mooney, J. D. 1947. Onward industry: The principles of organi-
                                                                         Management Journal, 50: 20 –24.
   zation. New York: Harper & Row.
                                                                     Smith, G. E. 2007. Management history and historical context:
Nattermann, P. 2000. Best practice does not equal best strategy.
                                                                         Potential benefits of its inclusion in the management cur-
    McKinsey Quarterly, 2: 22–31.
                                                                         riculum. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 6:
Noujain, E. G. 1987. History as genealogy: An exploration of             522–533.
   Foucault’s approach to history. In A. P. Griffiths (Ed.), Con-
                                                                     Stoner, J. A. F., Freeman, R. E., & Gilbert, D. R. 1995. Management
   temporary French philosophy. Cambridge: Cambridge Uni-
                                                                         (6 ed.). London: Prentice-Hall.
   versity Press.
                                                                     Thompson, P., & McHugh, D. 2001. Work organisations (3rd ed.).
Palmer, I., Benveniste, J., & Dunford, R. 2007. New organizational
                                                                        London: Palgrave.
    forms: Towards a generative dialogue. Organization Stud-
    ies, 28(12): 1829 –1847.                                         Thomson, A. 2001. The case for management history. Account-
                                                                        ing, Business & Financial History, 11(2): 99 –115.
Parsons, T. 1929. ‘Capitalism’ in recent German Literature: Som-
    bart and Max Weber II. Journal of Political Economy, 37(1):      Tribe, K. 1988. Translator’s introduction. In W. Hennis, Max We-
    31–51.                                                               ber, essays in reconstruction. London: Allen & Unwin.
Parsons, T. 1933. Lecture Outline. 3 May 1933. 7 pages (typed        Van Fleet, D. D., & Wren, D. A. 2005. Teaching history in business
    notes). Course material: lecture notes, outlines, reading           schools: 1982-2003. Academy of Management Learning &
    lists, etc. 1930s–1960s (HUG (FP) – 15.65 Box 1).                   Education, 4: 44 –56.
Peters, T. J., & Waterman, R. H. 1982. In search of excellence:      Wearne, B. C. 1989. The theory and scholarship of Talcott Par-
    Lessons from America’s best-run companies. New York:                sons to 1951: A critical commentary. Cambridge: Cambridge
    Harper & Row.                                                       University Press.

Petriglieri, G., & Petriglieri, J. 2009. Business schools need a     Weber, M. 1975. Max Weber: A biography. New York: John Wiley.
    broader mandate. BusinessWeek, Viewpoint, June 1.                Weber, M. 1930. The Protestant ethic and the spirit of capitalism.
Petriglieri, G., & Petriglieri, J. 2010. Identity workspaces: The       London: Allen-Unwin.
    case of business schools. Academy of Management Learn-           Weber, M. 1947. The theory of social and economic organiza-
    ing & Education, 9: 41– 60.                                         tions. Translated by A. M. Henderson and T. Parsons. New
Ritzer, G. 1996. The McDonaldization of society: An investigation       York: Free Press.
    into the changing character of contemporary social life.         Weber, M. 1948. From Max Weber: Essays in sociology. Trans-
    Thousand Oaks, CA: Pine Forge Press.                                lated by H. Gerth and C.W. Mills. London: Routledge.
Robbins, S. P. 1997. Managing today. Upper Saddle River, NJ:         Weiss, R. M. 1983. Weber on bureaucracy: Management consul-
   Prentice Hall.                                                       tant or political theorist? Academy of Management Review,
Robbins, S. P., & Coulter, M. K. 2002. Management (7th ed.).            8(2): 242–248.
   Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.                            Worrell, D. L. 2009. Assessing business scholarship: The diffi-
Robbins, S. P., & Coulter, M. K. 2005. Management (8th ed.).            culties in moving beyond the rigor-relevance trap. Acad-
   Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.                               emy of Management Learning & Education, 8: 127–130.

Robbins, S. P., Bergman, R., Stagg, I., & Coulter, M. 2006. Man-     Wren, D. A. 1972. The evolution of management thought. New
   agement (4th ed.). Sydney: Pearson Education Australia.              York: Wiley.

Robbins, S. P., & Mukerji, D. 1990. Managing organizations: New      Wren, D. A. 1987. Management history: Issues and ideas for teach-
   challenges and perspectives. New York: Prentice-Hall.                ing and research. Journal of Management, 13(2): 339 –350.

Rubin, R. S., & Dierdorff, E. C. 2009. How relevant is the MBA?      Wren, D. A. 1994. The evolution of management thought (4th ed.).
   Assessing the alignment of required curricula and required           New York: Wiley.
   managerial competencies. Academy of Management                    Yin, R. K. 2003. Case study research: Design and methods. Thou-
   Learning & Education, 8: 208 –224.                                    sand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Schwartz, D. 1980. Introduction to management: Principles, prac-     Zey-Ferrell, M. 1979. Dimensions of organizations. Glenview, IL:
   tices, and processes. New York: Harcourt Brace.                       Scott, Foresman.

                    Stephen Cummings (PhD, University of Warwick, is professor
                    of strategy at Victoria University of Wellington, New Zealand. His current research interests
                    include the history of the formation of management and of business schools, and alternative
                    approaches to strategy formulation and communication.

                    Todd Bridgman (PhD, University of Cambridge, is a senior lecturer
                    at the Victoria Management School, Victoria University of Wellington, New Zealand. His
                    current research interests include critical perspectives on management education and organi-
                    sational change.

To top