Great point there Jakob. It is almost frightening to think of the almost non-existing amount of female management theorists, who have been given a seat around the big management-guru-table…
What hits me when reading your post, is how small the list of “big theorists” really is.
Machiavelli,
Fayol,
Taylor,
Weber,
Follett,
Maslow,
Drucker,
Hofstede,
Mintzberg
and Senge
After some weeks of intese search for ideas to the movie and to the individual assignments, it can be established that the guys above have given us a huge part of the ideas used today. Why is that? How come these people are so famous? Are they so much better than the other 99 % of the management theorists, and most of all: have they all come up with their ideas alone? How big is the cooperation between them? Did Maslow contact McGregor in oder to get feedback on his motivation theory and vice versa? And did Herzberg call McGregor and ask for advice before he launched his two-factor theory? I am very interested in these relations between guys, who obviously are doing the same thing, but with small variations.
Thanks David, by the way, for letting us write another couple of days. Will publish my first text today. Over and out
3 comments
Comments feed for this article
October 25, 2008 at 1:10 pm
davas
I would say that academic work is a collective practice, and ideas are rarely something which grows out of one wo/man. To some extent, these thinkers might have been especially good at packaging and communicating ideas which might even already have been quite established within an academic community – be it some other academic discipline than the management field. But not too present in the public realm by and large. But it is mainly we, the recipients, who make these thinkers into the autonomous and fascinating stars they have become.
Moreover, the ideas we ascribe to them might subsequently have been inflated out of proportion, so to speak, not due to the originality of the idea. But due to the fact that it might feel somewhat comforting and legitimizing for insecure academics – anxious to becoe respected within their academic community – to refer to the widely ‘known’ and accepted ideas that these authorities have become spokespersons for, in a way. This doesn’t necessarily mean that they are the best, or even most original. They have just, somewhat by chance perhaps, come to stand out as history writes itself through me, you and everybody else.
Well, I suppose it’s all a bit more complex than this. But ideas are social stuff. And people often say that if you should happen to come up with one original idea – one idea that is perceived as original in the context you’re working in – within your lifetime, it’s enough to build an entire career around it. Reformulate and repeat it, over and over.
October 25, 2008 at 1:47 pm
tnyl
I totally get your point that the academic world in one way means refering to as many well known thinkers as possible. In some cases this squeezing is even rewarded (my experience: teachers and professors have difficulties in giving high grades when no “heavy” source is used to support an argument). This fact has up- and downsides. Speaking for myself, I get satisfied when my thoughts are confirmed from any well known theorist. You feel safe. However, I can imagine that this satisfaction is not even close to the joy in a imaginary scenario, where you find out something totally new. A theory no thinker has even thought of before. At the same time, the disappointment when no one even listens to you, since your argument has no theoretical fundament, must be even bigger. Meaning: If you find an original idea and want to build your career around it, you must first and foremost spend a couple of years “name-dropping” and “name-squeezing” in your work. This is the academic world of today, right? Or is there a way of jumping direct into the recipients’ hearts and make them use your theory. Does anyone know of any theorist who came from “nowhere” with an unique idea, which hit the recipents totally?
October 30, 2008 at 4:09 pm
davas
I believe that the academic world is very much about creating – well, I wouldn’t say illusions about your intellect and how well-read you are. But about convincing others that you have interesting things to say in relation to all that has been said and done within a certain field, or throughout the history of thought. This probably involves some namedropping. I mean, this is pretty much how you distinguish and position your own ideas from others’. How one chooses to do this – if you mostly build upon widely accepted ‘knowledge’ within your field; if you are set on provoking by always going against authorities; or if you are finding some kind of middle way – probably depends on where you’re coming from, who is backing you up, and how well you can answer for yourself. What you can, and want to become. There are many ways, I suppose. But seeking a bit of beef is probably a productive strategy both within the academic field and within hiphop culture.