Why we needed (and still need) new histories of management and organization

A New History of Management (ANHOM) was underpinned by a theory that management history was far more ‘male, pale, and stale’ than the histories of comparable fields. This contributed to management and organization studies’ relative lack of innovative developments. It caused a stir. ANHOM was criticized, but not because it was exceptional. It was largely because the title of the book was seen as provocative – taken by some as indicating that earlier work was no longer valid. But we chose the ‘A,’ rather than a ‘The’ in the title carefully. We were arguing that conventional histories of management should be added too, not replaced. Just as architecture’s history included different forms, practices and philosophy from different parts of the world and contexts, providing a well-spring of potential influences to draw from, we argued that management should do the same. We reflect on the impact of ANHOM, the progress the field has made in opening our lens on the pasts of our field, and what remains to be done. We argue that we do not need ‘The’ new history of management, but the continued development of many more histories from a broader range of places and perspectives.