[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"doc-seo-626733-105":3,"detail-sidebar-cat-0-en-105":81,"doc-detail-626733-en":130},{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":6},0,"ok",{"site_id":7,"language":8,"slug":9,"title":10,"keywords":11,"description":12,"schema_data":13,"social_meta":74,"head_meta":76,"extra_data":78,"updated_unix":80},105,"en","james-g-march-and-management-history-the-case-of-government-reorganizations-read-online-free","James G. March and management history: the case of government reorganizations - read online free","","The paper examines James G. March and Johan Olsen’s 1983 study of American federal government reorganization efforts from 1904 to 1980, linking it to three debates in management history scholarship. It asks how historical inquiry can generate new interpretations of present and future organizational activity, and how multiple perspectives help explain complex reality. The analysis also addresses scholars’ responses to power differences among historical actors and the lack of documented positions of underrepresented groups.",{"@graph":14,"@context":73},[15,34,56],{"@type":16,"itemListElement":17},"BreadcrumbList",[18,23,27,31],{"item":19,"name":20,"@type":21,"position":22},"https://docshare.wps.com","Home","ListItem",1,{"item":24,"name":25,"@type":21,"position":26},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/","Document",2,{"item":28,"name":29,"@type":21,"position":30},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/research-report/","Research & Report",3,{"item":32,"name":10,"@type":21,"position":33},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/james-g-march-and-management-history-the-case-of-government-reorganizations-read-online-free/626733/",4,{"url":32,"name":10,"@type":35,"image":36,"author":41,"headline":10,"publisher":44,"fileFormat":47,"inLanguage":8,"description":12,"dateModified":48,"datePublished":49,"encodingFormat":47,"isAccessibleForFree":50,"interactionStatistic":51},"DigitalDocument",{"url":37,"@type":38,"width":39,"height":40},"https://docshare.wps.com/thumbnails/james-g-march-and-management-history-the-case-of-government-reorganizations-read-online-free/626733.png","ImageObject",300,407,{"name":42,"@type":43},"Mary Man","Person",{"url":19,"name":45,"@type":46},"DocShare","Organization","application/pdf","2026-10-30","2026-10-20",true,{"@type":52,"interactionType":53,"userInteractionCount":55},"InteractionCounter",{"@type":54},"ViewAction",5,{"@type":57,"mainEntity":58},"FAQPage",[59,65,69],{"name":60,"@type":61,"acceptedAnswer":62},"What is the paper’s main purpose?","Question",{"text":63,"@type":64},"To examine March and Olsen’s 1983 study of American government reorganization attempts (1904–1980) in relation to debates in management history scholarship.","Answer",{"name":66,"@type":61,"acceptedAnswer":67},"Which research approach does the paper use?",{"text":68,"@type":64},"It analyzes March and Olsen’s historical study alongside twentieth-century political science and public administration scholarship to show the work’s focus and conclusions and then relates these to three management questions.",{"name":70,"@type":61,"acceptedAnswer":71},"What limitations does the analysis identify in March and Olsen’s 1983 work?",{"text":72,"@type":64},"It concludes that, despite recognizing the importance of anti-establishment scholarship, the 1983 work did not explore power differentials or the voices of oppressed groups in government reorganizations.","https://schema.org",{"og:url":32,"og:type":75,"og:title":10,"og:site_name":45,"og:description":12},"article",{"robots":77,"canonical":32},"index,follow",{"doc_id":79,"site_id":7},626733,1792978964,{"code":4,"msg":82,"data":83},"success",[84,88,92,96,100,105,110,114,119,122,126],{"id":22,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":85,"show_sort_weight":86,"slug":87},"Story & Novel",90,"story-novel",{"id":26,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":89,"show_sort_weight":90,"slug":91},"Literature",80,"literature",{"id":33,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":93,"show_sort_weight":94,"slug":95},"Exam",70,"exam",{"id":55,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":97,"show_sort_weight":98,"slug":99},"Comic",60,"comic",{"id":101,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":102,"show_sort_weight":103,"slug":104},6,"Technology",50,"technology",{"id":106,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":107,"show_sort_weight":108,"slug":109},7,"Healthcare",40,"healthcare",{"id":111,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":29,"show_sort_weight":112,"slug":113},8,30,"research-report",{"id":115,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":116,"show_sort_weight":117,"slug":118},9,"Religion & Spirituality",20,"religion-spirituality",{"id":117,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":120,"show_sort_weight":117,"slug":121},"World Cup","world-cup",{"id":123,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":124,"show_sort_weight":123,"slug":125},10,"Lifestyle","lifestyle",{"id":127,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":128,"show_sort_weight":55,"slug":129},19,"General","general",{"code":4,"msg":82,"data":131},{"doc_id":79,"user_id":132,"nickname":42,"user_avatar":133,"doc_module":4,"category_id":111,"category_name":29,"doc_title":10,"doc_description":12,"doc_content":134,"file_id":135,"file_url":136,"file_type":137,"file_size":138,"view_count":55,"is_deleted":4,"is_public":22,"is_downloadable":22,"audit_status":22,"page_count":139,"language":140,"language_code":8,"site_id":7,"html_lang":8,"table_of_contents":141,"faqs":142,"seo_title":143,"seo_description":12,"update_tm":144,"read_time":145},7421720224475,"https://ap-avatar.wpscdn.com/davatar_276721f389ce27ea32af1340a28f341c","The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:  \n[https://www.emerald.com/insight/1751-1348.htm](https://www.emerald.com/insight/1751-1348.htm)  \nJMH  \n28,1  \n10  \nReceived 2 October 2020 Revised 26 November 2020 17 December2020  \n18 December2020 Accepted 18 December2020  \nJournal of Management History Vol. 28 No. 1, 2022  \npp. 10-24  \n© EmeraldPublishingLimited 1751-1348  \nDOI 10.1108/JMH-10-2020-0064  \nJames G. Marchand management history: the case of government reorganizations  \nHindy Lauer Schachter  \nNew Jersey Institute of Technology, Newark, New Jersey, USA  \nAbstract  \nPurpose – The purpose of this paper is to examine March and Olsen’s 1983 study of American Government reorganization attempts between 1904 and 1980 in relation to three debates in management history scholarship. Can explorations of the past yield innovative interpretations of the present and future organizational activities? What is the role of multiple perspectives in understanding complex reality? How should management historians react to the differences in power held by various actors in historical scenariosand to the absence of documented evidence of the stances of many traditionally underrepresented groups? Design/methodology/approach – The paper analyzes March and Olsen’s 1983 historical study on federal government reorganizations in relation to twentieth-century political science/public administration scholarship from 1919 to the present showing the unique focus and conclusion of March and Olsen’s work. The paper relates this focus and conclusions to three management questions.  \nFindings – This analysis shows that March and Olsen’s interpretation of American reorganization has hada significant impact on the work of political scientists studying programs that did not exist in 1983; this impact suggests how historical scholarship can invigorate understanding of current programs. The analysis also gives evidence to support March and Olsen’s focus on the importance of considering multiple perspectives to interpret complex realities. The analysis concludes that despite March’s acknowledging the importance of anti-establishment scholarship, March and Olsen’s 1983 work did not explore the role of power differentials or the voices ofthe oppressed in government reorganizations.  \nOriginality/value – The value of this paper is that it seeks to relate March and Olsen’s work to a scholarship domain where it has not often been considered. Management historians lament that their work and concerns have often been considered peripheral by the greater management field. By showing how a major management theorist such as March used historical analysis to further understanding of contemporary organizations the paper heightens the visibility and importance of management history work.  \nKeywords James G. March, Government reorganizations, Management history, Critical theory, Constructivism  \nPaper type Conceptual paper  \nIntroduction  \nJames Gardner March was one of the key mid twentieth-century organization scholars. His most heavily cited works undergird the way business and public management writers understand individual behavior in organizations, decision-making processes and organizational learning (March and Simon, 1958; Cyert and March, 1963; Cohen et al., 1972; March, 1991). Few people, however, have raised his name in discussing management history scholarship especially not in relation to contemporary debates on that field’s purpose and methods.  \nIn 1983, March and Johan Olsen published an American Political Science Review paper with a historical analysis of 12 comprehensive twentieth-century administrative restructuring efforts in the USA. The earliest attempt they studied was the Keep Commission of 1904–1909; the latest was the President’s Reorganization Project of  \n1977–1980. From the Progressive era (1895–1918) onwards political scientists had analyzed these federal attempts at reorganizations. For public admini","cbCaia30fPeWylac","https://ap.wps.com/l/cbCaia30fPeWylac","pdf",206052,15,"English","# Abstract\n# Purpose\n# Design/methodology/approach\n# Findings\n# Originality/value\n# Introduction","[{\"question\":\"What is the paper’s main purpose?\",\"answer\":\"To examine March and Olsen’s 1983 study of American government reorganization attempts (1904–1980) in relation to debates in management history scholarship.\"},{\"question\":\"Which research approach does the paper use?\",\"answer\":\"It analyzes March and Olsen’s historical study alongside twentieth-century political science and public administration scholarship to show the work’s focus and conclusions and then relates these to three management questions.\"},{\"question\":\"What limitations does the analysis identify in March and Olsen’s 1983 work?\",\"answer\":\"It concludes that, despite recognizing the importance of anti-establishment scholarship, the 1983 work did not explore power differentials or the voices of oppressed groups in government reorganizations.\"}]","James G. March and management history: the case of government reorganizations - read online free | PDF",1792539984,38]