31601906

8/12/2019 31601906

1/19

30 KARIN HOLMBLAD BRUNSSON (SWEDEN)

Int. Studies of Mgt. & Org., vol. 38, no. 1, Spring 2008, pp. 3047. 2008 M.E. Sharpe, Inc. All rights reserved.ISSN 00208825 / 2008 $9.50 + 0.00.DOI 10.2753/IMO0020-8825380102

K ARIN H OLMBLAD B RUNSSON

Some Effects of Fayolism

Abstract: In the early twentieth century, the French industrialist and writer HenriFayol argued that management consists of a set of activities that are common toall organizations. This has proved a durable idea. All over the world, universitiesand business schools, management consultants, and management gurus teach rec-ommendations for good management. Disregarding the complexity and confusionof managerial practice, they recommend order. Recommendations that are foundlacking provide arguments for new recommendations and new types of order. Inthis paper, it is argued that management fashions are a consequence of HenriFayols notion of general management and the general acceptance of this notion.

It is suggested that a contingent notion of managementas the one proposed bythe U.S. engineer and consultant Frederick Taylordescribes managerial practicemore accurately.

Most people agree that organizations are there to do different things, in one respector another. This is true of such diverse undertakings as hospitals, banks, and indus-trial corporations, even pizzerias. There is no point in setting up identical pizzeriasin adjacent buildings. Pizzerias should specialize. They may bake different typesof pizzas, charge different prices, serve their customers in different ways, havedifferent types of interior decoration, add different types of desserts, or be locateddifferently. Only if they purport to be unique will organizations have a fair chanceof success; this is the general supposition.

The idea of management contradicts this notion of organizations as units, whichconcentrate each on its own specialty. To the contrary, management is based onthe presumption that organizations resemble one another. This presumption isfar-reaching, for it expects organizations to be so much alike that a particular

8/12/2019 31601906

2/19

SOME EFFECTS OF FAYOLISM 31

professionthat of managers is called for. Management and managers may bedened in different ways, however, depending on whether you take a contingent,bottom-up view on organizations, as did the U.S. engineer and consultant FrederickWinslow Taylor (1911/1998), or view organizations from a top-down perspective,as did the French industrialist and writer Henri Fayol (1916/1984; 1916/1999). Ifyou accept Henri Fayols top-down perspective you see organizations as so muchalike that you nd that the actual work of managers ought to have many propertiesin common. Henri Fayols notion of general management also means that it makessense to set up professional training for managers, as Fayol proposed.

In this paper, I discuss the two perspectives on management with reference to

the concept of management fashions. I ask what this concept implies, why it hasemerged, and what the effects of a continual discussion of management fashionsmay be.

A management-fashion concept means that there are also management recom-mendations that are not seen to belong to management fashions. I try to describesome such recommendations and to demonstrate their conformity with the notionof general management.

I take management recommendations to mean suggestions for how managersshould act or behave in order for their organizations to become efcient, effec-

tive, and prosperous, whether in monetary or other terms, and nd that suchrecommendations may refer to other management recommendations, ratherthan managerial practice. When management evolves as a normative discipline,managerial practice may be seen to be irrelevant, and management recommenda-tions become all the more important. I suggest that the concept of managementfashions is one outcome of such a development and that this concept distractsacademics and others, thereby at the same time solidifying the notion of generalmanagement.

I conclude with some speculation: how would management have fared had Henri

Fayol been less inuential and Frederick Taylor appreciated in his place?

Management fashions are ephemeral managementrecommendations

In the past eighteen months, we have heard that prot is more important than revenue,quality is more important than prot, that people are more important than prot, thatcustomers are more important than our people, that big customers are more importantthan our small customers, and that growth is the key to our success.

Pascale 1990, 1819

8/12/2019 31601906

3/19


tions appear to have a shorter life span than those of previous decades (Carson etal. 1999).

These new management recommendations are often severely criticized. Criticsclaim that they are vague enough to allow for different interpretations and alterationsand that they include contradictory propositions and misleading metaphorsanodd mixture of management jargon and homespun folk wisdom (Wooldridge andKennedy 1996, 55; see also Larsen and Hversj 2001; Nrreklit 2003). They areused as new labels for old habits, it is argued, to help organizations make theirmanagement procedures legitimate (Meyer 1996), or else they simply state theobvious in a complicated way (Ferguson 1997).

Specic management recommendations are criticized for being unrealistic andtoo exotic. Human resource management, for example, has been called a utopiancul-de-sac (Purcell 1999, 38). Total quality management is accused of adopting anormative thrust and an evangelical line that excludes consideration of evidencethat might challenge or qualify its assumptions and recommendations (Wilkinsonand Willmott 1995, 15). And the arguments for the balanced scorecard are seento be repeatedly untenable and open to interpretation . . . full of postulates . . .untenable by appeals to authority, argumentation ad populum, argumentation adignoratio elenchi (Nrreklit 2003, 609).

Management recommendations that claim to be empirically based, as for instancemanagement by wandering around (Peters and Waterman 1982) or benchmark-ing (Womack et al. 1990), have been challenged. As it turned out, the excellentmanagement recommendations did not lead to excellent nancial performance,but rather the contrary (see e.g., Clayman 1987), and benchmarking was deemeda waste of time (Womack and Jones 1996).

In addition, there are often diverging versions of whether new recommendationshave made an impact on managerial practice or whether they are essentially texts inmuch-discussed management books (e.g., Jackson 2001 on business process reen-

gineering; Olve, Roy, and Wetter 1997/1999; Lindvall 2001 on the balanced score-card; and Easton and Jarrell 2000 and Nielsen 2004 on total quality management).Even though surveys show that companies tend to take on more recommendationsover time, there is scant evidence as to how these recommendations are employed(Micklethwait and Wooldridge 1996). Their impact may be mainly rhetorical, inwhich case they do not affect practice as their proponents avowed.

The frequency of new management recommendations, contradictory evidenceas to their usefulness, and difculties of nding out whether they are actually ofuse to managers in different types of organizations have led academics to questionthe tenacity of new management recommendations. They have coined the phrasemanagement fashions to refer to management recommendations that they see as

8/12/2019 31601906

4/19


and that they are just transitory collective beliefs (Abrahamson 1996, 257; Parker andRitson 2005; Strang and Macy 2001). By alluding to fashions in clothing, the manage-ment-fashion concept suggests nonfunctionality, because such fashions rarely implyimprovement, but rather take an interest in change as such (Sellerberg 1987).

A discussion of management recommendations in terms of fashions implies,rst, a dissatisfaction with the existing recommendations; second, an ambition toimprove these recommendations; and third, a sentiment that efforts at improve-ment, at least some of them, fail. It implies, further, that there are managementrecommendations that should not be seen to belong to any management fashion.If this were not the case, management fashions would include all management

recommendations, and the concept would not add to our understanding of differentmanagement recommendations.Which recommendations, more specically, should be classied as lasting and

nontransitory may certainly be contested. Here I use management textbooks toprovide an overall idea of which management recommendations are not generallyseen to be part of any management fashion.

Students of management learn to plan, organize, coordinate,control, and command

If you ask a manager what he does, he will most likely tell you that he plans,organizes, co-ordinates, and controls.

Mintzberg 1975, 49

The management textbook Principles of Management (which rst appeared in 1955,was called Management in its tenth edition in 1993, and has been translated intosixteen languages) denes management in terms of order: From its instigation, thetextbooks implicit warning is of the anarchy and chaos that ensues wherever thereis no management (Harding 2003, 27). The functions of managers are described inthe same way over the many editions of the book: managers are to plan, organize,staff, direct, and control, and these functions are stated as absolute truths, to whichthere can be no objection (Harding 2003, 36).

A typical management education is similarly ordered. What the Best MBAs Know (Navarro 2005) claims to provide insights into the topics that comprise the mostprestigious MBA curricula. Here different areas of study are divided into topicsthat are further subdivided into schemata, steps or processes. The processesmay include a number of separate models. Management is seen to be a question ofdening and classifying in order to improve organizational decision making.

8/12/2019 31601906

5/19

8/12/2019 31601906

6/19


tion and power games (Heclo and Wildavsky 1974; Jnsson 1982; Wildavsky 1975).They are performed perfunctory, without anybody taking much notice (Larsen andDragsdahl 2000), creatively to avoid too much paperwork (Walgenbach 2001),or just to keep people busy (Feldman 1989).

Procedures may even be used as window-dressing devices, to help organiza-tions present themselves in an orderly manner to the outside world (Czarniawskaand Jacobsson 1989; Hgheim, Monsen, and Olson 1989; Jacobsson 1984; Olsen1970), sometimes to allow for contradictory presentations (Brunsson 1995) oractions that contradict these presentations (Brunsson 2003). Many procedures areintertwined and affect performance in a multifarious way (Feldman 2003). Rather

than enabling organizations, procedures may preclude their swift adaptation tochanges in the environment (Wallander 1999; Weick 1987).To sum up, academics nd managerial practice to be a confusing set of rela-

tionships, improvisations, counterproductive activities, and inadvertent eventsthat do not at all correspond to the order management recommendations describe.Nevertheless, for many years they asked for an empirically based managementtheory. They envisaged the establishment of stable relationships among relevantvariables, which would make management into a science.

Management theories tend to dissolve

Some asked for partial theories, such as a modied theory of organizational choice,a theory of organizational attention, and a theory of learning under conditions oforganizational ambiguity (March and Olsen 1975, 156). They wanted a normativetheory of acting before you think, which should help explain management insituations when managers or their organizations do not know what they are doing(March 1976, 79).

Others asked for a comprehensive management theory. They imagined that, with

time, such a theory would emerge. Henri Fayol saw the absence of a managementtheory as an important reason why management ( administration in French) wasneglected by the higher educational institutions in France. He saw the classicationsand recommendations in his major book Administration Industrielle et Gnrale(General and Industrial Management; 1916/1984, 1999) as a rst rudimentarytheory, to be discussed and rened with time.

In the mid-1950s, management guru Peter Drucker found grounds for thehope that, twenty years from now, we shall be able to spell out basic principles,proven policies and tested techniques for the management of worker and work(1954, 288).

Ten years later, in the mid-1960s, the future Nobel laureate Herbert A. Simon

8/12/2019 31601906

7/19


crude to provide clear guidelines to managers, Rhenman maintained and asked fora management theory that does not prescribe but describes. Such a theory shouldbring insights as to what goes on in organizations, clarify the relationships betweendifferent phenomena, and predict the effects of alternative undertakings.

In the mid-1980s, however, this optimism somehow evaporated. Managementwas declared a soft science that must rely on a multitude of theories: Unfortunately,in the soft sciences we have no reason to expect that a single set of theories willever be able to explain or predict phenomena (Gray 1984, 2).

In the mid-1990s, after some forty years of management studies, Peter Druckerfound the question what to do to be the central challenge facing managers (1994,

3). Once more, management was regarded as an immature discipline, one hundredyears or so behind economics: The discipline still awaits its John Maynard Keynes,Friedrich Hayek, or Milton Friedman. It lacks rules of debate, so the disciplineremains open to anybody with an axe to grind (Micklethwait and Wooldridge1996, 18).

In the early twenty-rst century, academics found a dramatic expansion andrapid ow of management knowledge across continents and social sectors, but atthe same time they acknowledged that they had no clear answer to the question ofwhat management knowledge is (Sahlin-Andersson and Engwall 2002, 5). Their

confusion testies to the difculties of constructing management recommendationsbased on empirical ndings: The theories tend to dissolve when put into testableform (March and Simon 1958, 32).

To conclude, not only is the concept of management fashions a token of dissat-isfaction, but this appears to be true of all management recommendations, becausethey do not capture the essentials of managerial practice. When this is not the case,management recommendations take on an importance in their own right.

Management recommendations describe the essence of

management

Universities and business schools tend to disregard the work of managers, asdescribed by empirical studies of management, and rely instead on managementrecommendations. The rationale provided for this stance is not, however, that ithas proved unfeasible to construct one management theory out of a confusing anddisorderly managerial practice, but rather that a theory based on practice wouldprove conservative. Such a theory would depend on existing activities and wouldnot set out to change them, it is argued (Drury and Dugdale 1992). Many popularbooks on management see turbulent change as an important characteristic of currentorganizational environments. In their view, an urgent task of managers is to adapt

8/12/2019 31601906

8/19


istics, and base their recommendations on normative notions of good management.Recommendations, by denition, refer to the future; thus, they are less restrainedby human commitments and limitations than any theory derived from practice.There are many possible futures and no denite criteria for assessing them. Theauthors of management recommendations therefore have considerable freedomand may provide accessible denitions of management by describing order andrationality.

Consequently, new management recommendations are presented as improve-ments in their own right, with only vague references to any problems to be solved.They may refer in a general manner to experience, or to the inadequacies of the

old model or traditional methods (e.g., Cole 2000; Greatbatch and Clark 2002,2005; Kaplan and Norton 1992; Lindvall 2001); base their recommendations onscarce, sometimes anecdotal empirical evidence (for a critique, see Mintzberg1994); and couple their own recommendations loosely to existing managementrecommendations. When the new recommendationsthe solutionsare goodnews, it does not appear necessary to connect them to particular problems to besolved (Brunsson 1995).

Such new recommendations (which may in fact be fairly old) include new waysof calculation (e.g., activity-based costing) and of combining accounting and plan-

ning (e.g., the balanced scorecard), new ways of control (e.g., total quality manage-ment), as well as new principles of organization (e.g., process organization, skunkorganization). A new type of management may also be recommended, suggestingthat new or different activities should be included in the management concept (thisis true, e.g., of human resource management, management by objectives, culturemanagement, management by wandering around, and one-minute management).

Management recommendations have become so fundamental to discussionsabout management that even studies of managerial practice are set against a back-ground of general and orderly management. Only in comparison with management

recommendations does managerial practice appear disorderly, incoherent, and con-fusing; without such a comparison, explicit or implicit, practice might not appearat all disorderly, chaotic, or confusing (Brunsson and Sjblom 2001). This meansthat orderly management, as constituted by management recommendations, is ap-prehended to provide a truer description of management than one constructed fromempirical studies of managerial practice. How management ought to be performedhas become more important than how it is actually performed, even to those whostudy managerial practice.

Management has evolved as a normative discipline. The abundance of newmanagement recommendations, further underscored by the management-fashionconcept, testies to the importance attributed to management recommendations. Al-

8/12/2019 31601906

9/19


The notion of general management is the common ground

Like Henri Fayol, Frederick Winslow Taylor believed that all kinds of organiza-tions, irrespective of their production, size, or location, need management andmanagers. But Taylors principles of scientic management are based on the taskidea (1911/1998, 17)on specialization and standardizationand regulate therelationship between managers and their subordinates. Like the workers, man-agers must specialize, Taylor insisted. Different managers will plan the work,make inspections, adjust the machines, and instruct the workers. The managers ofscientic management shall work in close cooperation with the workers, instruct

them, and take an interest in their improvement. This means that managers mustbe persuaded to take on new duties and responsibilities. Scientic managementimplies a more equal division of the responsibility between the management andthe workmen (ibid., 10).

Taylors management principles are general principles in the sense that Taylorexpected work in all kinds of organizations to be managed by managers. But incontrast to Fayol, Taylor expected the particular activities that managers wereto perform to vary depending on the production and situation of the individualorganization.

Henri Fayols notion of general management, on the other hand, denes theactivities that managers are to perform. The managers Fayol described weredistant from the employees who did the work, and Fayol expected an increasingseparation between management and the actual work of the organization. Thisexplains why managers need elaborate planning procedures and an independentcontrol function. Obviously, distant managers do not have as many opportunitiesto see for themselves what ought to be done and what has been accomplished asthose who are directly involved in monitoring the work. Distant managers have torely on reports. They need plans to avoid unconnected, nonlogical activities and

unwarranted changes of direction and inspectors to provide impartial informationabout the efciency of the work.

With the notion of general management come managers who may be employedby any organization. Where Frederick Taylor saw managers as technical expertswho should know the work to be performed better than those who performed itand whose competence was unique, Fayol envisaged organizational experts. Alltypes of organizations should ask for their expertise. With the notion of generalmanagement, managers became interchangeable, much like the workers of scienticmanagement. From such a perspective, it makes sense to see managers as a coherentgroup of professionals and to instigate a general management education. Accord-ing to Fayol, all types of organizations, families as well as business corporations

8/12/2019 31601906

10/19


word administration had been translated into management. Although he foundthis to be both an accurate and convenient translation, Urwick pointed out thatmanagement may take on a number of meaningseven, according to the ConciseOxford Dictionary, that of trickery, deceitful contrivance. A close association tothese ideas, said Urwick, is unlikely to enhance the dignity either of the subjector of those who practice the activity (1949, xiii).

Urwick was wrong about this last statement, of course. Fayols ideas have provedimmensely successful. Universities and business schools all over the world nowteach management as a subject in its own right, independent of engineering or anyother discipline. Although curricula vary depending on national contexts, they

tend to converge over time, and homogeneity is expected to increase (Engwall andZamagni 1998). Management is a true token of globalization: it is treated as such auniform set of activities that it requires the same type of knowledge in all kinds oforganizations all over the world (Kotter 1988). General management recommen-dations seem to belong to the type of abstract information that is rapidly diffused,irrespective of its practical usefulness (Strang and Meyer 1993).

At the beginning of the twenty-rst century, more than a hundred thousandstudents graduate every year from MBA programs in different parts of the world.This is more than three times the number of law degrees and more than seven times

the number of medical degrees (Navarro 2005). In Sweden, more than 10 percentof the university graduates specialize in management. The number of managementgraduates has increased by almost 500 percent over the past twenty-ve years(Alvesson 2006).

An MBA education is seen to provide business executives from all walks oflife and in every layer of management with the most powerful arsenal of analyticalweapons ever assembled to ght the corporate wars (Navarro 2005, 3).

Although an obvious objective of management education is to prepare studentsfor a professional career in business, its very general character is also praised. Says

the admissions director of one MBA program: Whats so wonderful about the MBAis that it provides fundamental skills that you can use whenever and wherever youneed them (Gilbert et al. 2004, 17).

The notion of general management provides the raison dtre for this education,for making managers into professionals and for an abundant management literature.At the same time, it may be argued that precisely this notion causes managementtheories to fail, management recommendations to appear inadequate, and discus-sions on management fashions to appear. Moreover, in view of the commonsensesentiment that successful organizations are, indeed must be, fundamentally different,the notion of general management appears counterintuitive and even puzzling.

But such skepticism is again counterbalanced by the heavy investments already

8/12/2019 31601906

11/19


New management recommendations provide alternatives

Managers may employ new management recommendations because they expectthe new recommendations to facilitate their work, or because they have adoptedinstitutionalized ideas about the importance of appearing rational and progressive,thus wanting to modernize their organizations and make them legitimate in the eyesof their stakeholders (Abrahamson 1996; Huczynski 1993; Meyer 1996). They mayalso use new recommendations as an argument for anything they happen to covet(Stewart and Davis 1993). By introducing the same management recommendationsas everyone else, organizations reduce their responsibility for their own manage-

ment (Czarniawska and Joerges 1996; Huczynski 1993).Managers may participate in the debate on new management recommendations.They may even discuss whether some of the recommendations that they employare or will be looked on as management fashions. In practice, they may followparticular recommendations or ignore them. They may ignore them in practiceand keep them as a rhetorical device or abandon them all together. Whichever thecase, new management recommendations provide them with alternative ways ofdiscussing and perhaps even handling their practice.

New management recommendations are equally functional to universities and

business schools. In an academic setting, little should be taken for granted, and newknowledge should be developed and criticized. Thus, academics, like consultantsand management gurus, criticize the management recommendations taught atuniversities and business schools. They develop new management recommenda-tions, and criticize these recommendations in turn. They discuss to what extent andhow particular recommendations have been implemented.

New management recommendations also provide academics with additionalresearch agendas. Academics study the recommendations of management con-sultants (e.g., Czarniawska-Joerges 1988), popular management literature (e.g.,

Furusten 1999), or management gurus (e.g., Clark and Salaman 1996; Jackson2001) and make the study of management fashions a particular research topic (e.g.,Abrahamson 1996; Borgert 1992; Kieser 1997; Rvik 1996).

In this manner, new management recommendations and the very critical conceptof management fashions divert academics from confronting the underlying impli-cation that the relevant way of apprehending management is through the notion ofgeneral management. Their criticism of new management recommendationsandtheir preoccupation with the tenacity of certain recommendationsimplies thatthere are other, better ways of managing, whether already existing or to be devel-oped. Thereby, by means of their very criticism, they unquestioningly help solidifythe notion of general management.

8/12/2019 31601906

12/19


ommendations help detract attention from the underlying premise of generalmanagement, and so does the concept of management fashions. Instead, thenotion of general management becomes so obvious that it does not merit anyspecial attention.

When many are Fayolists, they do not register as such

Although widely recognized and often mentioned in reference books and manage-ment textbooks, Henri Fayol has received little recognition compared to Freder-ick Taylor. The principles of scientic management have been much discussed,

much derided, and are often publicly disclaimed. In particular, they are seen tolead to reductionism, to make organizations inexible by breaking down workprocesses into isolated parts (Freedman 1992). To what extent employees havebeen given autonomy, or whether or not Taylorism (i.e., a mechanistic viewon work in organizations) dominates the workplaces, is still a much-discussedtopic. People who favor certain management recommendations may be accusedof being neo-Taylorists. And those who argue that, in many cases, technicaland organizational changes only serve to increase the fragmentation of work andthe supervision of workers may be seen to support a neo-Taylorist interpretation

(Lomba 2005, 72).Any correspondent criticism of Fayols notion of general management isstrangely absent from the organizational and managerial discourse. Fayols ideasare often mistakenly classied as a European version of scientic management,and Fayol has been consigned to the rubbish bin of management history (Parkerand Ritson 2005, 1351).

As seen from a Google search, where Taylorism and Taylorist yield 212,000and 80,600 hits, respectively, there is hardly any Fayolism (only 539 hits) andeven fewer Fayolists (only 29 hits as of January 20, 2007). And, in fact, to

declare oneself a Fayolist or neo-Fayolist would be meaningless. BecauseFayols notion of general management is accepted to the point of being taken forgranted, these epithets would not help clarify which type of management they ad-dress; there are too many Fayolists to make this concept interesting. How couldit be otherwise? The next section discusses a reevaluation of Frederick Taylorsmanagement principles.

What if Henri Fayol was wrong?

To summarize, Henri Fayols concerns of some ninety years ago have made such animpact that it is no longer important whether or not management recommendations

8/12/2019 31601906

13/19


than what it actually is. Management recommendations are seen to be so importantthat it is even interesting to discuss which recommendations are only temporarilyattractive and may thus be classied as management fashions.

Meanwhile, empirical studies of what managers actually do continue to showa mish-mash of far from orderly activities. After many years of management stud-ies, a Swedish professor concluded that this mish-mash might actually be whatmanagement is all about: One cannot help wondering if, perhaps, all these intel-ligent, successful managers indulge in managerial work characterized by brevity,variety and fragmentation because it is an efcient way of running a company!(Jnsson 1996, 146).

Perhaps Henri Fayol was wrong. Perhaps the notion of general management (orgeneral administration) is mistaken, and there exist in practice only a vast numberof different types of management, all depending on the situation of a particularorganization and on the position and personality of the individual manager. If thisis true, the notion of general management may have to be reconsidered.

The effects of a denunciation of the notion of general management wouldprobably be considerable. As a rst and modest step, I propose some speculationon this topic.

Had Henri Fayols ideas not been dismissed as just another version of Frederick

Taylors but scrutinized in their own right, the very notion of general managementmight have been disputed and Fayolism renounced. A scientic, engineering-typeof management concept might have prevailed instead.

Management recommendations would then be more tightly coupled to manage-rial practice. They would describe the specialization and standardization of workfrom a bottom-up perspective of the type Taylor endorsed. Which specializationand standardization to undertake would be contingent on where managementshould be performed. This does not mean that division of labor must be carriedout to its extreme; a bottom-up perspective on management may well combine

with moderate specialization and standardization. To which extent organizationsshould engage in planning, organizing, and other general managerial activities,and how, would likewise depend on organization-specic criteria, such as theproduction in which the organization is engaged, its size, and the qualicationsof its personnel.

If academics, managers, or others interested in management had questionedHenri Fayols notion of general management, the idea of top-down managementwould have been equally disparaged. There would be fewer general managementrecommendations and fewer contested management fashions. Rather than constitut-ing full-time curricula, management education, if it still existed, would serve as acomplement to other types of training. Fayolism and neo-Fayolism would be

8/12/2019 31601906

14/19


References

Abrahamson, Eric. 1996. Management Fashion. Academy of Management Review 21(1): 254285.

Alvesson, Mats. 2006. Tomhetens triumf [The Triumph of Emptiness]. Stockholm: Atlas.Bennis, Warren G., and Burt Nanus. 1985/1997. Leaders: Strategies for Taking Charge.

New York: Harper Business.Borgert, Leif. 1992. Organisation som mode: Kontrasterande bilder av svensk hlso-

och sjukvrd [Organizing as Fashion: Contrasting Pictures of Swedish Health Care] .Stockholm: Stockholms universitet, Fretagsekonomiska institutionen.

Brunsson, Karin. 1995. Dubbla budskap: Hur riksdagen och regeringen presenterar sittbudgetarbete [Contradictions: How the Swedish Riksdag and Government Accountfor Their Budget Work]. Stockholm: Stockholms universitet, Fretagsekonomiskainstitutionen.

Brunsson, Karin, and Arne Sjblom. 2001. What We Learn and What We TeachAndWhy. Paper presented at the 24th annual congress of the European Accounting As-sociation, Athens, April 1820.

Brunsson, Nils. 2003. Organized Hypocrisy. In The Northern LightsOrganizationTheory in Scandinavia , ed. Barbara Czarniawska and Guje Sevn, 201222. Malm:Liber.

Burgoyne, John, Wendy Hirsch, and Sadie Williams. 2004. The Development of Manage-ment and Leadership Capability and Its Contribution to Performance: The Evidence,the Prospects and the Research Need. Lancaster, UK : Lancaster University, Depart-ment for Education and Skills, Research Report RR560.

Carlson, Sune. 1951/1991. Executive Behavior. (Reprinted with contributions by HenryMintzberg and Rosemary Stewart.) Uppsala: Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis.

Carson, Paula P., Patricia A. Lanier, Kerry David Carson, and Betty J. Birkenmeier. 1999.A Historical Perspective on Fad Adoption and Abandonment. Journal of Manage-ment History 5 (6): 320333.

Carson, Paula P., Patricia A. Lanier, Kerry David Carson, and Brandi N. Guidry. 2000.Clearing a Path Through the Management Fashion Jungle: Some Preliminary Trail-blazing. Academy of Management Journal 43 (6): 11431158.

Clayman, Michelle. 1987. In Search of Excellence: The Investors Viewpoint. Finan-cial Analysts Journal 43 (MayJune): 5463.

Clark, Timothy, and Graeme Salaman. 1996. The Management Guru as OrganizationalWitchdoctor. Organization 3 (1): 85107.

Cole, Robert E. 2000. Market Pressures and Institutional Forces. The Early Years of theQuality Movement. In The Quality Movement and Organization Theory , ed. RobertE. Cole and W. Richard Scott, 6788. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Czarniawska, Barbara, and Bernward Joerges. 1996. Travels of Ideas. In TranslatingOrganizational Change , ed. Barbara Czarniawska and Guje Sevn, 1348. Berlin:Walter de Gruyter.

Czarniawska-Joerges, Barbara. 1988. To Coin a Phrase . Stockholm: Study of Power andDemocracy in Sweden.

8/12/2019 31601906

15/19


Drury, Colin, and David Dugdale. 1992. Surveys of Management Accounting Practice.In Management Accounting Handbook , ed. Colin Drury, 327347. Oxford: Butter-worth Heinemann.

Easton, George S., and Sherry L. Jarrell. 2000. The Effects of Total Quality Man-agement on Corporate Performance. An Empirical Investigation. In The Quality

Movement and Organization Theory , ed. Robert Cole and W. Richard Scott, 237270.Thousand Oaks: Sage.

Engwall, Lars, and Vera Zamagni. 1998. Introduction. In Management Education in Historical Perspective , ed. Lars Engwall and Vera Zamagni, 118. Manchester: Man-chester University Press.

Fayol, Henri. 1916/1984. General and Industrial Management. New York: IEEEPress.

. 1916/1999. Administration industrielle et gnrale. Paris: DUNOD.Feldman, Martha S. 1989. Order Without Design. Information Production and Policy

Making. Stanford: Stanford University Press.. 2003. A Performative Perspective on Stability and Change in Organizational

Routines. Industrial and Corporate Change 12 (4): 727752.. 2004. Resources in Emerging Structure and Processes of Change. Organiza-

tion Science 15 (3): 295309.Feldman, Martha S., and James G. March. 1981. Information in Organizations as Signal

and Symbol. Administrative Science Quarterly 26 (2): 171186.Fells, Michael J. 2000. Fayol Stands the Test of Time. Journal of Management History

6 (8): 345360.Ferguson, Andrew. 1997. Now They Want Your Kids. Time (September 29): 6465.Freedman, David H. 1992. Is Management Still a Science? Harvard Business Review

70 (6): 2638.Furusten, Staffan. 1999. Popular Management Books: How They Are Made and What

They Mean for Organisations. New York: Routledge.Gilbert, Nedda, and the Staff of the Princeton Review. 2004. The Best 143 Business

Schools . New York: Random House.Gray, Irwin. 1984. Introduction to General and Industrial Management , by Henri

Fayol, 17. New York: IEEE Press.Greatbatch, David, and Timothy Clark. 2002. Laughing with the Gurus. Business Strat-

egy Review 13 (3): 1018.. 2005. Management Speak. Why We Listen to What Management Gurus Tell Us.

London: Routledge.Harding, Nancy. 2003. The Social Construction of Management. Texts and Identities.

London: Routledge.Heclo, Hugh, and Aaron Wildavsky. 1974. The Private Government of Public Money.

Community and Policy Inside British Politics. London: Macmillan.Hgheim, Sverre, Norvald Monsen, and Olov Olson. 1989. The Two Worlds of Manage-

ment Control. Financial Accountability & Management 5 (3): 163178.Holmblad Brunsson, Karin. 2002. Organisationer [Organizations]. Lund: Studentlittera-

tur.

8/12/2019 31601906

16/19


mentens styrning av mbetsverken [Ministerial Control over Government AgenciesMyth and Reality]. Lund: Studentlitteratur.

Jnsson, Sten. 1982. Budgetary Behaviour in Local GovernmentA Case Study over 3Years. Accounting, Organizations and Society 7 (3): 287304.

. 1996. Accounting for Improvement. Oxford: Pergamon Press.Kaplan, Robert S., and David P. Norton. 1992. The Balanced ScorecardMeasures That

Drive Performance. Harvard Business Review 70 (1): 7179.Kieser, Alfred. 1997. Rhetoric and Myth in Management Fashion. Organization 4 (1):

4974.Kotter, John P. 1988. The Leadership Factor. New York: Free Press.Larsen, Bje, and Annette Dragsdahl. 2000. Standarder som ledelsevrktj, Blindgyder

eller kilder til inspiration? [Standards as Management ToolsObstacles or Sources ofInspiration?]. Copenhagen: Dansk Industri.

Larsen, Bje, and Tord Hversj. 2001. Management by StandardsReal Benets fromFashion. Scandinavian Journal of Management 17 (4): 457480.

Lindvall, Jan. 2001. Verksamhetsstyrning, Frn traditionell ekonomistyrning till modernverksamhetsstyrning [Management by Activities: From Traditional to Modern Mana-gement]. Lund: Studentlitteratur.

Locke, Robert R. 1998. Mistaking a Historical Phenomenon for a Functional One: Post-war Management Education Reconsidered. In Management Education in HistoricalPerspective , ed. Lars Engwall and Vera Zamagni, 145156. Manchester: ManchesterUniversity Press.

Lomba, Cdric. 2005. Beyond the Debate over Post vs. Neo-Taylorism. Interna-tional Sociology 20 (1): 7191.

Mangham, Iain L. 1990. Managing as a Performing Art. British Journal of Manage-ment 1 (2): 105115.

March, James G. 1976. The Technology of Foolishness. In Ambiguity and Choice inOrganizations , ed. James G. March and Johan P. Olsen, 6981. Bergen: Universitets-forlaget.

March, James G., and Johan P. Olsen. 1975. The Uncertainty of the Past: OrganizationalLearning Under Ambiguity. European Journal of Political Research 3 (2): 147171.

. 1976. Ambiguity and Choice in Organizations. Bergen: Universitetsforlaget.March, James G., and Herbert A. Simon. 1958. Organizations. New York: Wiley & Sons.McCormack, Mark H. 1984. What They Dont Teach You at Harvard Business School.

Toronto: Bantam Books.Meyer, John W. 1996. Otherhood: The Promulgation and Transmission of Ideas in the

Modern Organizational Environmnent. In Translating Organizational Change , ed.Barbara Czarniawska and Guje Sevn, 241252. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.

Micklethwait, John, and Adrian Woodridge. 1996. The Witch Doctors. Making Sense ofthe Management Gurus. New York: Random House.

Mintzberg, Henry. 1973/1980. The Nature of Managerial Work . Englewood Cliffs, NJ:Prentice Hall.

. 1975. The Managers Job: Folklore and Fact. Harvard Business Review 53 (4):4961.

8/12/2019 31601906

17/19


Quality with a Focus on Models and Expenses]. konomistyring & informatik 4 (19):479488.

Nrreklit, Hanne. 2003. The Balanced Scorecard: What Is the Score? A RhetoricalAnalysis of the Balanced Scorecard. Accounting, Organizations and Society 28 (6):591619.

Olsen, Johan P. 1970. Local Budgeting, Decision-Making or a Ritual Act? Scandina-vian Political Studies 5 (3): 85118.

Olve, Nils-Gran, Jan Roy, and Magnus Wetter. 1997/1999. Balanced Scorecard i svensk praktik [The Balanced Scorecard in Swedish Practice]. Malm: Liber Ekonomi.

Parker, Lee D., and Philip Ritson. 2005. Fads, Stereotypes and Management Gurus:Fayol and Follett Today. Management Decision 43 (10): 13351357.

Pascale, Richard Tanner. 1990. Managing on the Edge. How the Smartest Companies UseConict to Stay Ahead. New York: Simon and Schuster.

Peters, Tom J., and Robert H. Waterman, Jr. 1982. In Search of Excellence. Lessons from Americas Best-Run Companies. New York: Harper & Row.

Purcell, John. 1999. Best Practice and Best Fit: Chimera or Cul-de-sac? Human Re-source Management Journal 9 (3): 2641.

Rhenman, Eric. 1965. Traditionell organisationslra och nyare organisationsteori [Tra-ditional and Modern Organization Theory]. Introduction to Henri Fayol, Industrielloch allmn administration [General and Industrial Management], 926. Stockholm:PA Norstedt & Sners Frlag.

Rvik, Kjell-Arne. 1996. Deinstitutionalization and the Logic of Fashion. In TranslatingOrganizational Change , ed. Barbara Czarniawska and Guje Sevn, 139172. Berlin:Walter de Gruyter.

Sahlin-Andersson, Kerstin, and Lars Engwall. 2002. Carriers, Flows, and Sources ofManagement Knowledge. In The Expansion of Management Knowledge: Carriers,Flows, and Sources, ed. Kerstin Sahlin-Andersson and Lars Engwall, 332. Stanford:Stanford University Press.

Sellerberg, Ann-Mari. 1987. Avstnd och attraktion [Distance and Attraction]. Stock-holm: Carlsson Bokfrlag.

Simon, Herbert A. 1973. Applying Information Technology to Organization Design.Public Administration Review 33 (3): 268278.

Smith, Ian, and Trevor Boyns. 2005. British Management Theory and Practice: TheImpact of Fayol. Management Decision 43 (10): 13171334.

Stewart, Rosemary. 1967. Managers and Their Jobs: A Study of the Similarities and Dif- ferences in the Ways Managers Spend Their Time. London: Macmillan.

Stewart, Thomas A., and Joyce E. Davis. 1993. Reengineering: The Hot New Manage-ment Tool. Fortune (August 23):16.

Strang, David, and Michael W. Macy. 2001. In Search of Excellence: Fads, Suc-cess Stories, and Adaptive Emulation. American Journal of Sociology 107 (1):147182.

Strang, David, and John W. Meyer. 1993. Institutional Conditions for Diffusion. Theoryand Society 22 (4): 487511.

Taylor, Frederick Winslow. 1911/1998. The Principles of Scientic Management. Mine-

8/12/2019 31601906

18/19

8/12/2019 31601906

19/19

31601906

Documents