Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2plfb Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T22:26:17.288Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Debating the Ambiguous Enterprise of Management

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 September 2015

Cynthia Hardy  and
Gill Palmer
Cynthia Hardy
Affiliation:
Department of Management, University of Melbourne, Victoria 3010, Tel: 61 3 9344 5344, Fax: 61 3 9349 4292, Email: [email protected]
Gill Palmer
Affiliation:
Faculty of Commerce, University of Wollongong, NSW 2500, Tel: 61 2 4221 3665, Fax: 61 2 4221 4157 Email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

There are significant ambiguities surrounding the academic discipline of management, which can be analysed in terms of three major debates. First the professional status of management brings with it questions about restriction or access to management education, the control of curricular and the relative importance of basic, applied and consultancy-driven research. Second, there are debates about the changing nature of management research, which require the accomodation of increasing diversity within management theory. Finally, the ambiguities associated with these debates can be seen to have impacted on the development of management education, its accessibility and diversity. The ambiguities associated with these debates must be carefully managed if the discipline is to prosper. New organisational forms are needed to embed management teaching and research within the complex collaborative relationships of the many stakeholders involved.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Management & Organization , Volume 5 , Issue 2 , March 1999 , pp. 1 - 16
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press and Australian and New Zealand Academy of Management 1999

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.)

References

Abrahamson, E (1996) ‘Management Fashion’ Academy of Management Review Vol 21, No 1 pp 254–285Google Scholar
Alvesson, M and Deetz, S (1996) ‘Critical Theory and Post-modern Approaches to Organizational Studies’ in Clegg, SHardy, C and Nord, W (eds) Handbook of Organization Studies, London: Sage pp 191–219Google Scholar
Atkinson, M (1971) Orthodox Consensus and Radical Alternative: A Study in Sociological Theory London: HeinemannGoogle Scholar
Australian Research Council (1997) Management Research in Australia Canberra: National Board of Employment, Education and TrainingGoogle Scholar
Barley, SMeyer, G and Gash, D (1988) ‘Cultures of Culture: Academics practitioners and the pragmatics of normative control’ Administrative Science Quarterly Vol 33 pp 24–61Google Scholar
Baida, P (1984–1985) ‘MBA’, The American Scholar Vol 54 No1 pp 29–30Google Scholar
Bok, D (1986) Professional Schook in Higher Learning Boston: Harvard University PressGoogle Scholar
Burrell, G (1996) ‘Normal Science, Paradigms, Metaphors, Discourses and Genealogies of Analysis’ in Clegg, SRHardy, C and Nord, WR (eds) Handbook of Organization Studies London: Sage pp 642–658Google Scholar
Burrell, G and Morgan, G (1979) Sociological Paradigms and Organizational Analysis London: HeinemannGoogle Scholar
Calás, MB and Smircich, L (1996) ‘From “The Woman's” Point of View: Feminist Approaches to Organization Studies’ in Clegg, SRHardy, C and Nord, WR (eds) Handbook of Organization Studies London: Sage pp 218–258Google Scholar
Clegg, SR and Hardy, C (1996) ‘Organizations, Organization and Organizing’ in Clegg, SRHardy, C and Nord, WR (eds) Handbook of Organization Studies London: Sage PublicationsGoogle Scholar
Clemens, J and Mayer, D (1987) The Classic Touch: Lessons in Leadership from Homer to Hemingway Homewood IL: Dow Jones-IrwinGoogle Scholar
Cochran, T (1977) ‘The Sloan Report: American Culture and Business Management’, The American Quarterly Vol 29 No 5 p 486Google Scholar
Cyert Report of the Committee of Inquiry (1970) Post-Graduate Education for Management Canberra: Australian Universities CommissionGoogle Scholar
Dawson, P and Palmer, G (1995) Quality Management: The Theory and Practice of Implementing Change Melbourne: Longman-CheshireGoogle Scholar
Drucker, PF (1987) ‘Management: the Problems of Success’, The Academy of Management Executive Vol 1 No 1 p 13–19Google Scholar
Drucker, PF (1999a) ‘Managing Oneself’ Harvard Business Review 03/April pp 65–74Google Scholar
Drucker, PF (1999b) Management Challenges for the Twenty First Century Oxford: Butterworth-HeinemannGoogle Scholar
Gardner, M and Palmer, G (1997) Employment Relations: Industrial Relations and Human Resource Management in Australia Melbourne: MacmillanGoogle Scholar
Gharajedaghi, J and Ackoff, RL (1985) ‘Toward Systematic Education of Systems Scientists’ Systems Research Vol 2 No 1 pp 21–27Google Scholar
Gibbons, M, Limoges, C, Nowotny, H, Schwartzman, S, Scott, P, Trow, M (1994) The New Production of Knowledge: The Dynamics of Science and Research in Contemporary Societies London: SageGoogle Scholar
Gilbert, D. (1997) ‘A Critique and a Retrieval of Management and the Humanities’, Journal of Business Ethics Vol 16 No 1 pp 23–35Google Scholar
Gleeson, R (1997) ‘Stalemate at Stanford, 1945-1958: The Long Prelude to the New Look at Stanford Business School’ Selections Vol 13 No 3 pp 6–23Google Scholar
Gordon, RA and Howell, JE (1959) Higher Education for Business, New York: Columbia University PressGoogle Scholar
Harding, S (1996) ‘Alternative Production Regimes: The Challenge to Karpin’, Journal of the Australian and New Zealand Academy of Management Vol 2 No 2 pp 11–29Google Scholar
Hardy, C (1990) Managing Strategy in Academic Institutions: Learning from Brazil Berlin: DeGruyterGoogle Scholar
Hardy, C and Clegg, SR (1997) ‘Relativity Without Relativism: Reflexivity in Post-Paradigm Organization Studies', British Journal of Management Vol 8 pp S5–S17Google Scholar
Hardy, CLangley, AMintzberg, H and Rose, J (1983) ‘Strategy Formation in the University Setting’ Review of Higher Education Vol 6 No 4 pp 407–433Google Scholar
Hardy, C and Phillips, N (1998) ‘Strategies of Engagement: Lessons from the Critical Examination of Collaboration and Conflict in an Interorganizational Domain’ Organization Science Vol 9 No 2 pp 217–230Google Scholar
Hassard, J (1988) ‘Overcoming Hermeticism in Organization Theory: An Alternative to Paradigm Incommensurability’ Human Relations Vol 41 No 3 pp 247–259Google Scholar
Hassard, J (1991) ‘Multiple Paradigms and Organizational Analysis: A Case Study” Organization Studies Vol 12 No 2 pp 275–299Google Scholar
Higher Education Council (1996) Quality and Standards of Management Education Canberra: National Board of Employment, Education and TrainingGoogle Scholar
Hoff, A (1999) Keynote address to the British Academy of Management, 08 1999Google Scholar
Huczynski, A (1993) Management Gurus: What Makes Them and How to Become One? London: RoutledgeGoogle Scholar
Jackson, N and Carter, P (1993) ‘Paradigm Wars: A Response to Hugh Willmott’, Organization Studies Vol 14 No 5 pp 721–5Google Scholar
James, D (1993) ‘Economics out Humanity in at Business Schools’, Business Review Weekly 04 pp 64–66Google Scholar
Karpin, D (1995) Enterprising Nation: Renewing Australia's Managers to Meet the Challenges of the Asia-Pacific Century The Report of the Committee of Inquiry Canberra: AGPSGoogle Scholar
Kavanagh, J (1992) ‘Are Schools Selling Business Short?’ Business Review Weekly 11 pp 64–67Google Scholar
Lamond, D (1996) ‘Karpin on Management: Is That all Managers Should be Doing’, Journal of the Australian and New Zealand Academy of Management Vol 2 No 1 pp 21–35Google Scholar
Marsden, R and Townley, B (1996) ‘The Owl of Minerva: Reflections on Theory in Practice’ in Clegg, SHardy, C and Nord, W (eds) Handbook of Organization Studies, London: Sage pp 659–675Google Scholar
Micklethwait, J and Wooldridge, A (1996) The Witch Doctors: What the Management Gurus are Saying, Why it Matters and How to Make Sense of it London: HeinemannGoogle Scholar
Mitroff, II and Churchman, CW (1992) ‘MBA: Is the Traditional Model Doomed?’ Harvard Business School Vol 70 No 6 p 134Google Scholar
Nettle, D (1996) ‘The Karpin Enquiry and the Role of Management Education in Australia: History Revisited?’ Labour and Industry Vol 7 No 2 pp 103–121Google Scholar
Nodoushani, O and Nodoushani, P (1996) ‘Rethinking the Future of Management Education’, Human Systems Management, Vol 15 No 3 pp 173–181Google Scholar
Nyland, C (1995) ‘Higgins, Scientific Management and the 44-hour Week’ in Hince, K and Williams, A (eds), Contemporary Industrial Relations in Australia and New Zealand, Literature Reviews, Proceedings of AIRAANZ, Vol 2, Victoria University, New ZealandGoogle Scholar
Palmer, G (1988) “Human Resource Management and Organisational Analysis” in Palmer, G (ed) Australian Personnel Management A Reader Melbourne: Macmillan pp 148–163Google Scholar
Palmer, I and Hardy, C (2000) Thinking About Management. Organizational Debates in Practice London: Sage (forthcoming)Google Scholar
Patmore, G (1988) ‘Systematic Management and Bureaucracy: the NSW Railways Prior to 1932’, Labour and Industry vol 1 No 2 pp 306–321Google Scholar
Pfeffer, J (1993) ‘Barriers to the Advance of Organizational Science: Paradigm Development as a Dependent Variable’ Academy of Management Review Vol 18 No 4 pp 599–620Google Scholar
Pierson, EC (1956) The Education of American Businessmen New York: McGraw HillGoogle Scholar
Porter, L and McKibbin, L (1988) Management Education and Development: Drift or Thrust into the Twenty First Century? McGraw Hill: New YorkGoogle Scholar
Porter, LW (1997) ‘A Decade of Change in the Business School: From Complacency to Tomorrow’ Selections Vol 13 No 2 pp 1–8Google Scholar
Puffer, S. 1991, Managerial Insights from Literature, Boston: PWS-KentGoogle Scholar
Ralph Committee of Inquiry into Management Education, (1982) Parl Paper 200/1982 Canberra.Google Scholar
Reed, M. (1989) The Sociohgy of Management Hemel Hempstead: Harvester WheatsheafGoogle Scholar
Skousen, FK and Pertelsen, DP (1994) ‘A Look at Change in Management Education’, S.A.M. Advanced Management Journal Vol 59 No 1 pp 13–20Google Scholar
Turpin, T (1997) ‘CRCs and Transdisciplinary Research: What are the Implications for Science?’ Prometheus Vol 15 No 4 pp 253–64Google Scholar
Willmott, H. (1993a) Breaking the Paradigm Mentality. Organization Studies Vol 14 No 5 pp 681–719Google Scholar
Willmott, H (1993b) Paradigm Gridlock: A Reply. Organization Studies Vol 14 No 5 pp 727–730Google Scholar
Weick, K (1976) ‘Educational Organizations as Loosely Coupled Systems’ Administrative Science Quarterly Vol 21 pp 1–19Google Scholar