Article navigation
Purpose

The aim of this paper is to seek to reveal the familial roots of modern management thought, largely overlooked by a vast majority of management historians.

Design/methodology/approach

Using a hermeneutic approach, the early uses of the word “management” are analyzed, as well as the different literature where it is the most frequently employed.

Findings

“Management” does not mean primarily “business management.” Rather, the first meanings of this word refer to the family realm. As such, the development of early management thought is not a matter of technical or scientific innovation, nor is it a matter of institutional size or profit. For a long time, management practices have concerned things more than people. In the twentieth century, the principle of control comes to supersede the principles of care and self‐government.

Research limitations/implications

The paper's findings call for another history of management thought, as against the too narrow histories of modern business management and the too inclusive histories of management as an ancestral and universal practice.

Practical implications

This research sheds light on two forgotten roots of management thought: the principles of care and of self‐government, which management practitioners could bring up‐to‐date. By presenting the family as the first locus of true “management” thought, it is an invitation to draw from domestic ways of governing.

Originality/value

The historical material here analyzed remains largely unknown to management historians. The method, focusing on text analysis rather than on the study of practices, remains rare in the field of management history.

You do not currently have access to this content.
Don't already have an account? Register

Purchased this content as a guest? Enter your email address to restore access.

Pay-Per-View Access
$39.00
Rental

or Create an Account

Close Modal
Close Modal