Conceptual History Exploring New Fields: How Conceptual History Might Contribute to A

‘ Conceptual history exploring new fields: How conceptual history might contribute to a narrative of 20th century management and organizational ideas’

Paper to be delivered at the conference on ‘Transcending Concepts’, Odense, 24th & 25th of April By PhD scholar Christian Olaf Christiansen Department of History of Ideas University of Aarhus Denmark [email protected] Phone (Dept.): +45 89422191

CONFERENCEPAPER: PLEASE DO NOT QUOTE WITHOUT AUTHORS PERMISSION

of 6 1. Introduction This paper argues that the concept of management is a key concept in the social and political vocabulary of modern western countries. Relying on Koselleck’s criteria for selection of key social and political concepts that he originally put forth in the introduction to Geschichtliche Grundbegriffe (GG1:p.XIV), it is argued that the concept of management fulfils four out of Kosellecks six criteria. Now, on the premise that management is indeed a key social and political concept, the paper briefly outlines some of the possible methodological strengths of conceptual history applied to the field of the history of management. In particular, I argue that a history of the management concept could provide new insights concerning: (1) first, the ability of the concept of management to connect or ‘couple’ with other forms of knowledge, understanding and practice, and the ability of the concept of management to ‘travel’ into other spheres of society than the original business or industrial setting; (2) and, second, a history of the management concept could provide new insights concerning the temporality of management. Furthermore, it is suggested that the history of the concept of management could have corrective purposes towards current history of management thought and history of management rhetoric. These are all good reasons for studying the history of the management concept. However, at the end of the paper I shall briefly mention some of my reservations towards conceptual history as a research strategy in this field. Since the purpose of the paper is mainly explorative, some of its arguments are rather sketchy.

2. ‘Management’ is a key social and political concept in modern western societies In Koselleck’s introduction to GG, he informs us of six criteria – or categories – for the selection of social and political concepts to the lexicon (GG1:p.XIV). Among these are: (1) ‘keywords of the political, economical and societal organization’; (2) their corresponding sciences; (3) notions of dominant working groups (‘Berufsgruppen’) and social stratification; (4) key theoretical concepts and ideologies that structure and construe the sphere of action and the world of work (‘die den Handlungsraum und die Arbeitswelt gliedern und auslegen’). Today, not least in the Anglo-Saxon part of the world, but also in several other countries, including Denmark, it seems highly reasonable to claim that the concept of management indeed is a key concept of our social and political vocabulary. In the following I shall briefly show how management satisfies the four mentioned criteria.

of 6 a) Concerning ‘keywords of the political, economical and societal organization’ ‘Management’ is indeed a keyword when it comes to the organization of society’s organizations. Not least within the realm of economic organizations, management concepts, theories, knowledge and practice is essential. And as the notion of ‘New Public Management’ suggests, management ideas also play a crucial role in the administration of public affairs. b) Concerning ‘their corresponding sciences’ Secondly, management theory and science plays an important role in society, not least through the educational programmes at universities and business schools that form former and future elites. Management and organization research exploded in the post war era, leading to what some authors referred to as the ‘managerial revolution’ (Chandler 1995, Burnham 1941), which, however, only forms a preliminary stage to the present state of affairs, wherein every chief executive officer or manager with respect for themselves has an ‘MBA’ or a similar management education. c) Concerning ‘notions of dominant working groups (‘Berufsgruppen’) and social stratification’ Thirdly, managers and leaders have been an influential part of societies’ top strata ever since the professionalization of managers gained speed from around the middle of the 20th century and onwards. As capital, labour, and management became divided and domestic or family run capitalism gave way to ‘managerial capitalism’ with professionally hired managers, the influence of this new group in society who were responsible for its great corporations became significant (cf. Chandler’s The managerial revolution) d) Concerning ‘key theoretical concepts and ideologies that structure and construe the sphere of action and the world of work’ Finally, management texts are highly influential when it comes to ideological statements and the structuring and interpreting of action and the world of work. It is exactly one of the functions of management texts to provide guidelines for successful and legitimate actions. This includes satisfying the need for a meaning of work through different ideologies and concepts about work, ranging from, for example, work interpreted as personal self-actualization to work construed as contribution to the community.

of 6 The satisfaction of these four criteria implies that management is an important concept in today’s societies – a concept that we really could not do without. Although more specific reasons and evidence would be desirable here, I must now move on to outline what I believe to be possible methodological strengths of studying the history of the concept of management using conceptual history as analytical strategy.

3. Conceptual history could reveal the ability of the concept of management to couple and ‘travel’ A history of the concept of management could show that management is both a relatively stable concept, typically stressing efficient allocation of scarce resources within an organizational setting, but at the same time a concept that has been able to couple with very different realms of reality, other disciplines, and understandings of the world, society and man, at times stressing the need for a more cultural, humanistic or social perspective of the world, rather than a purely economic one. Indeed, sometimes ‘management’ is presented as a (morally neutral) ‘technique’; the manager being a technician who knows his management ‘science’ and acts accordingly. At other times ‘management’ is presented as an ‘art’ that requires sound judgment and broad awareness of social and cultural issues, whereby the concept often gives way to the kindred concept of ‘leadership’, stressing something less technical. However, management not only gets coupled with other forms of knowledge and understanding (or paradigms), but also ‘travels’ into other spheres of the real and society than its original and most typical setting, the modern business enterprise (as current critiques of management and ‘management language’ often suggest). We then talk about for instance ‘New Public Management’, ‘time management’ or ‘self management’. Management thus both ‘couples’ with other spheres of society and ways of understanding and perceiving reality, but also seem to ‘travel’ into them. Since the historiography of a concept by no means should be limited to certain spheres, disciplines or types of sources, but far more – at least in ambition – should trace the concept in various sources and contexts, conceptual history seems able to transgress the simple boundaries within the real we often operate by, enabling a richer understanding of how management ideas influence society.

4. Conceptual history highlights the temporality of management As was already remarked in the article on ‘Organization’ in Geshichtliche Grundbegriffe by Ernest- Wolfgang Böckenförde, the concept of organization – in many and complex ways a related concept to management (but much older) – changes profoundly during the course of modernity: at the

of 6 beginning of the 19th century it thus becomes highly influential in discussions about the intentional change of the existing society and the social order (GG4:p.612ff.). In other words, ‘Organization’ becomes a concept of movement (‘Bewegungsbegriff’), stressing the possibilities of changing the world through deliberate interventions. This is very similar to the concept of management. Indeed, according to one of the leading 20th century theorists of management, Peter F. Drucker, ‘management’ stresses mans ability to change his world and his life conditions through rational and efficient allocation of resources. A property that led Drucker to suggest that management… ‘therefore reflects the basic spirit of the modern age’ (Drucker 1954:p.4). In relation to this it can be said that management often suggests a certain temporality: since management has to do with allocation of resources within the institution of competition, management is very much concerned with the future, trying to install an eternal alertness and competitiveness. This influences experiences of members of modern societies, and conceptual history could provide interesting perspectives on how the experience of time changes under the influence of a market and management culture.

5. Conceptual history could correct current historiographies of management Several highly influential historiographies of management thought and management rhetoric simply do not reflect upon the historicity of management concepts and rhetoric (for a seminal article on the history of management rhetoric, cf. the journal article Design and Devotion: Surges of Rational and Normative Ideologies of Control in Managerial Discourse (Administrative Science Quarterly, 1992); the most thorough work on the history of management thought is Daniel A. Wren: The History of Management Thought). Conceptual history could counter this tendency.

6. Summing up – and scepticism In this paper I have argued that management is a key concept in our social and political vocabulary. Furthermore, I have briefly shown how conceptual history might contribute to the understanding of how management ideas influence society, since this analytical strategy seems highly able to trace the ability of the management concept to couple with other disciplines, institutions and traditions of thought, and to travel into other spheres of society, as well as to highlight how this might change the experience of historical time. Furthermore, this could correct current historiographies of management.

of 6 These are all, I believe, good reasons. However, at this very end of the paper I will very briefly mention some reservations towards conceptual history as analytical strategy in this field. Management is, historically, an interesting concept – but so is the manager, the leader, the company, the employee and the ways the relationship between these figures and society have been communicated, as well as how these relations have been justified rhetorically. These however are issues that perhaps transcend the boundaries of the history of concepts, and instead could be seen as a history of discourse that includes some key concepts. In this case, the choice of primary research objects would be, for example, communication, text or discourse, instead of concepts. This, however, is another story.

References  Barley, Stephen & Kunda, Gideon. “Design and Devotion: Surges of Rational and Normative Ideologies of Control in Managerial Discourse” in: Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 37, No.3 (Sep. 1992), pp. 363-399.  Böckenförde, Ernst-Wolfgang: ’Der Organisationsbegriff im Rahmen und neben der Organismusdiskussion; Organisation der Arbeit und Organisation als Willensverband’, in: Geschichtliche Grundbegriffe. Historisches Lexikon zur politisch-sozialen Sprache in Deutschland, eds. Otto Brunner, Werner Conze, Reinhart Koselleck, Bd.4, Stuttgart 1978: Klett-Cotta, p. 610-622.  Burnham, James (1941). The Managerial Revolution. What is happening in the world?, New York: The John Day Company, Inc.  Chandler, Alfred D. Jr. (1995/ [1977]). The Visible Hand. The Managerial Revolution in American Business, Cambridge, Massachusetts: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.  Drucker, Peter F. (1954). The Practice of Management, New York: Harper and Brothers Publishers.  Koselleck, Reinhart (1972), ‘Einleitung’, in: Geschichtliche Grundbegriffe. Historisches Lexikon zur politisch-sozialen Sprache in Deutschland, eds. Otto Brunner, Werner Conze, Reinhart Koselleck, Bd.1, Stuttgart 1972: Klett-Cotta, p. XIII-XXVIII, here p. XIV.  Wren, Daniel A. (2005). The History of Management Thought (Fifth Edition), USA: John Wiley & Sons.