Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-hfldf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-06T12:08:02.775Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

History, a Useful “Science” for Management? From Polemics to Controversies1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 February 2015

Eric Godelier
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The aim of this essay is to analyze the way management sciences and practices use history or at least the kind of research which they define as history. This reflection will lead to discussing the possibility and the opportunity that an historical approach might have in creating management knowledge, especially “workable” know-how. A quick look at present-day exchanges between the two communities could lead us to the conclusion that there were tensions in the past that have not entirely evaporated. Might they explain the relative modesty of the dialogue, at least in France?

Type
Forum
Information
Enterprise & Society , Volume 10 , Issue 4 , December 2009 , pp. 791 - 807
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s) 2009. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of the Business History Conference. All rights reserved.

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

1.

A scientific controversy opposes individuals who speak the same language and share the same system of norms, whereas a polemic opposes individuals whose criteria of judgment belong to separate universes. See NoirielG., Sur la “crise” de l’histoire (Paris: Belin, coll “Socio-histoire,” 1997), 43. An earlier version of this article was published in CohenY., “History, a Useful “Science” for Management? From Polemics to Controversies1,” Cahiers du Centre de recherches historiques, Paris EHESS, no. 25, October 2000, 135–48.

References

2. Doublet, J.-M. and Fridenson, P., dir., no. 70, October–Novembre 1998.Google Scholar

3. I define “management historians” as academics who are educated in management, but also use the field of history.

4. I regard “Professional Historians” as those educated and trained in the field of History.

5. Especially marketing or inance but also positivist researchers from other fields (human resources management and strategic management, for example).

6. This can be evaluated through the growing number of unsolicited papers that are received by the editors of the French business history review Entreprises et Histoire.

7. Gille, B., “La fondation de la Societe genrale,” Histoire des entreprises, no. 8, November 1961, SEVPEN, 1962;Google Scholar Bouvier, J., Le Credit Lyonnais de 1863 a 1882, 2 vol., SEVPEN, Paris, 1961 or, idem.Google Scholar Un siecle de banque francaise (Paris: Hachette, 1973).

8. Fohlen, C., Une affaire de famille au XIXe siecle: Mequillet-Noblot, These Paris 1, 1955.Google Scholar

9. To find more details, please see: Beltran, A., Daviet, J.-P., Ruffat, M., “L’histoire d’entreprise en France. Essai bibliographique,” Les Cahiers de l’IHTP, no. 30, June 1995.Google Scholar

10. Marmonnier, L. et Thietart, R.-A., “L’histoire, un outil pour la gestion?” Revue française de gestion, no. 70, Septembre-Octobre 1988, 162–71, 167.Google Scholar

11. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1977.

12. Vilar, P., “Histoire economique,” Encyclopedie Universalis (CD Rom, Paris, 1998).Google Scholar

13. Bourde, G. and Martin, H., Les ecoles historiques (Paris: Éditions du Seuil, Coll. “Points,” 1983), 171–226.Google Scholar

14. Heffer, J., “Nouvelle histoire economique,” Encyclopedie Universalis (CD Rom, Paris, 1998).Google Scholar

15. Vital Roux en 1800, De l’influence du gouvernement sur la prosperite du commerce; J.-B. Say en 1828, Cours complet d’economie politique applique ou J.-G. Courcelle-Seneuil de 1854, le Manuel des affaires.

16. A special university for Commerce and Industry of Paris. In 2008, it will become the third-ranked Business School in France, the ESCP-EAP near the Place de la Republique in the center of Paris. Today’s top French business school, HEC, was created in 1881. In the late eighteenth century, only two schools existed: one was launched by Koechlin and Thierry in the city of Mulhouse in 1781. At the same time, the other was the farm-school of Duc de La Rochefoucauld-Liancourt. I thank Andre Grelon for this information. One may read more about the French Business schools in the special issue: Entreprises et histoire, no. 14–15, June 1997.

17. In Great Britain, one of the irst teachers in management was Andrew Ure with his course in Principles of Manufacturing at the University of Edinburgh starting in 1804. He probably influenced another French Teacher, Charles Dupin, Wren, D., The Evolution of Management Thought, 4th ed. (New York: John Wiley, 1994), 63.Google Scholar

18. Pollard, S., The Genesis of Modern Management. A Study of the Industrial Revolution in Great Britain, 2nd ed. (Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1968), 42ff.Google Scholar

19. Bouilloud, J.-P. and Lecuyer, B.-P. (dir.), L’invention de la gestion. Histoire et pratiques (Paris: L’Harmattan, 1994).Google Scholar

20. Guigeno, V., L’eclipse de l’atelier. Les missions francaises de productivite aux Etats-Unis dans les annees 1950, Memoire de DEA, ENSPC-Universite Marne-la-Vallee, 1994, 92 Google Scholar or, more generally, Barjot, D. (ed.), Catching up with America. Productivity Missions and the Diffusion of American Economic and Technogical Influence after the Second World War (Paris: Presses de l’Univerite deParis-Sorbonne, 2002);Google Scholar Locke, R., Management and Higher Education since 1940. The Influence of America and Japan on West Germany, Great Britain and France (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1989).Google Scholar

21. Chessel, M.-E. and Pavis, F., Le technocrate, le patron et le professeur. Une histoire de l’enseignement superieur de gestion (Paris: Belin, Coll. “His-toire de l’education,” 2001), 11.Google Scholar The first IAE (Institut d’Administration des En–treprises/Institute for Enterprise Administration) was launched in Aix-en-Provence in 1955. Others followed; most were part of the Univerities’Law or Economics Departments.

22. Hatchuel, A., “Quel horizon pour les sciences de gestion? Vers une theorie de l’action collective,” in David, A., Hatchuel, A. et Laufer, R. (dir.), Les nouvelles fondations des sciences de gestion. Elements d’epistemologie de la recherche en management (Paris, Vuibert, Coll. “FNEGE,” 2001), 11.Google Scholar

23. Fridenson, P., “Les organisations, un nouvel objet,” Annales ESC, November-December 1989, 1461–77.Google Scholar

24. Franck, R. (dir.), Ecrire l’histoire du temps present (Paris: CNRS Histoire, 1993).Google Scholar

25. Ibid. 86.

26. Girin, J., “L’analyse empirique des situations de gestion: elements de theorie et de methode,” in Martinet, A.-C. (dir.), Epistemologie et sciences de gestion (Paris: Economica, 1990), 141–82.Google Scholar

27. Doublet, J.-M. et Fridenson, P., “L’histoire et la gestion: un pari,” Revue française de gestion, no. 70, September-October 1988, 1–3.Google Scholar

28. Martin, R., “Strategie industrielle: l’eternel retour?” Entreprises et histoire, no. 1, April 1992.Google Scholar

29. For a complete overview of James March’s work in French, please see: Godelier, E., dir., James March, Penser l’organisation (Paris, Hermes, 2003)Google Scholar or Weil, T., Initiation a la lecture de James March (Paris: Presses de l’EMP, 2000).Google Scholar

30. It is for instance clear with some supporters of “agency theories” or of “transaction cost theories,” which are the core of management sciences nowadays. See in French, Gabrie, H. and Jacquier, J.-L., La theorie moderne de la firme (Paris: Economica, 1994).Google Scholar

31. D. Wren, op. cit., 10ff.

32. Sociology has already started this historical work on the birth of the discipline through the controversies that opposed Durkheim to historians like Fustel de Coulange. See Berthelot, J.-M., “La sociologie: histoire d’une discipline,” in La sociologie, Van Meter, K., dir. (Paris: Larousse, coll. “les textes essentiels,” 2000), 11–26.Google Scholar

33. See for instance Veyne, Paul, Comment on ecrit l’histoire (Paris: Éditions du Seuil, 1979) (reed.);Google Scholar ou more recently Noiriel, G., Sur la “crise” de l’histoire (Paris, Belin, 1997);Google Scholar and Bedarrida, F., dir., L’histoire et le metier d’historien en france (1945–1995) (Paris: Editions de la MSH, 1997).Google Scholar

34. Braudel, F., Ecrits sur l’histoire (Paris: Flammarion, 1984), 23.Google Scholar

35. G. Noiriel, op. cit., 41.

36. Godelier, E., “Le discours politique: source vivante ou source figee?” in Beregovoy, P.. Une volonte dereforme au service de l’economie (1984–1993) (Paris: CHEFF, 1998).Google Scholar

37. P. Veyne, op. cit., 147.

38. Lorino, P., L’economiste et le manager (Paris, La decouverte, 1991) (reed.).Google Scholar

39. Louart, P. et Desreumeaux, A. (dir.), “Constructivisme(s) et sciences de gestion,” Actes du colloque de Lille du 23 octobre 1997, Lille, IAE, 1997, 2 vols.Google Scholar

40. Riveline, C., “Un point de vue d’ingenieur sur la gestion,” Annales des Mines-Gerer et comprendre, no. 25, December 1991, 50–62.Google Scholar

41. For instance, Mintzberg, H., Grandeur et decadence de la planification strategique (Paris: Dunod, 1994), 24.Google Scholar

42. Roche, D., “Les historiens aujourd’hui. Remarques pour un debat,” Vingtième siecle, no. 12, 1986, 3–20, especially 19.Google Scholar

43. Ronan, C., Histoire mondiale des sciences (Paris: Seuil, coll. “Points,” 1988).Google Scholar I am thinking, as an example, of the way French management sciences present bibliographies and footnotes, giving better visibility to recent authors instead of older ones, or favoring quantity over quality with a long list of references that are not always integrated by the researcher thanks to a critical appropriation of their core themes and concepts.

44. Midler, C., “Logique de la mode manageriale,” Annales des Mines-Gerer et comprendre, June 1986, 74–85.Google Scholar

45. Livian, Y.-F. and Louart, P., “Le voyage de la culture et de la motivation des sciences sociales a la GRH,” in Repenser la gestion des ressources humaines, Brabet, J., dir. (Paris: Economica, 1993), 39–67.Google Scholar

46. One may read the works of Y. Lemarchand or N. Berland on the history of amortization or budget control. On management models, our colleague J.-L. Peaucelle has visited the Fayols’ family archives.

47. Argyris, C., Savoir pour agir. Surmonter les obstacles a l’apprentissage organisationnel (Paris: InterEditions, 1995).Google Scholar

48. Cohen, E., “Epistemologie de la gestion,” in Encyclopedie de Gestion, Simon, Y. and Joffre, P., dir. (Paris: Economica, 1997),Google Scholar T1., 1158–78, especially 1164 and 1170.