[go: up one dir, main page]
IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/hal/journl/hal-01957329.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

The Separation Of Directors And Managers: A Historical Examination Of The Status Of Managers

Author

Listed:
  • Blanche Segrestin

    (CGS i3 - Centre de Gestion Scientifique i3 - Mines Paris - PSL (École nationale supérieure des mines de Paris) - PSL - Université Paris Sciences et Lettres - I3 - Institut interdisciplinaire de l’innovation - CNRS - Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique)

  • Andrew Johnston

    (University of Sheffield [Sheffield])

  • Armand Hatchuel

    (CGS i3 - Centre de Gestion Scientifique i3 - Mines Paris - PSL (École nationale supérieure des mines de Paris) - PSL - Université Paris Sciences et Lettres - I3 - Institut interdisciplinaire de l’innovation - CNRS - Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique)

Abstract
The aim of the article is to contrast the historical rise of the managerial function and its reception in law. It thus contributes to the debates on the separation of ownership and control, by showing that managers were never recognized in law. As a result, the managerial function was not protected in law. Design/methodology/approach We bring together management history and the history of UK company law to study the emergence of management in the early twentieth century and the law's response. We bring new historical evidence to bear on the company law reforms of the second half of the twentieth century, and in particular, on the changes brought about by the Cohen Committee report of 1945. Findings Scientific progress and innovation were important rationales for the emergence of managerial authority. They implied new economic models, new competencies and wider social responsibilities. Our analysis shows that these rationales have been overlooked by company law. The lack of conceptualization of the management in law allowed reforms after 1945 that gave shareholders greater influence over corporate strategy, reducing managerial discretion and the scope for innovation. Research limitations Our study focuses on the UK. Further research is needed to confirm whether other countries followed a similar path, both in terms of the emergence of management, and in terms of the law's approach. Originality/value This article is the first, to our knowledge, to examine the law's historical approach to management. It calls for a reappraisal of the status of managers and the way corporate governance organizes the separation of ownership and control.

Suggested Citation

  • Blanche Segrestin & Andrew Johnston & Armand Hatchuel, 2019. "The Separation Of Directors And Managers: A Historical Examination Of The Status Of Managers," Post-Print hal-01957329, HAL.
    • Handle: RePEc:hal:journl:hal-01957329
    Note: View the original document on HAL open archive server: https://minesparis-psl.hal.science/hal-01957329v1
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://minesparis-psl.hal.science/hal-01957329v1/document
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Blanche Segrestin, 2017. "When innovation implied corporate reform: A historical perspective through the writings of Walther Rathenau," Post-Print halshs-01736509, HAL.
    2. Guinnane, Timothy & Harris, Ron & Lamoreaux, Naomi R. & Rosenthal, Jean-Laurent, 2007. "Putting the Corporation in its Place," Enterprise & Society, Cambridge University Press, vol. 8(3), pages 687-729, September.
    3. King, Mervyn A. & Fullerton, Don, 2010. "The Taxation of Income from Capital," National Bureau of Economic Research Books, University of Chicago Press, number 9780226436319, September.
    4. Julian Franks & Colin Mayer & Stefano Rossi, 2005. "Spending Less Time with the Family: The Decline of Family Ownership in the United Kingdom," NBER Chapters, in: A History of Corporate Governance around the World: Family Business Groups to Professional Managers, pages 581-612, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    5. Michael C. Jensen, 2010. "Value Maximization, Stakeholder Theory, and the Corporate Objective Function," Journal of Applied Corporate Finance, Morgan Stanley, vol. 22(1), pages 32-42, January.
    6. Lex Donaldson & James H. Davis, 1991. "Stewardship Theory or Agency Theory: CEO Governance and Shareholder Returns," Australian Journal of Management, Australian School of Business, vol. 16(1), pages 49-64, June.
    7. Raghuram G. Rajan & Luigi Zingales, 1998. "Power in a Theory of the Firm," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 113(2), pages 387-432.
    8. Blanche Segrestin & Armand Hatchuel, 2011. "Beyond Agency Theory, a Post-crisis View of Corporate Law," Post-Print hal-00637286, HAL.
    9. Lise Arena & Rani Jeanne Dang, 2011. "A propos du développement de deux business schools d'élite au Royaume-Uni : Une comparaison entre Oxford et Cambridge (1900-2000)," Post-Print halshs-00721611, HAL.
    10. Rakesh Khurana, 2007. "Introduction to From Higher Aims to Hired Hands The Social Transformation of American Business Schools and the Unfulfilled Promise of Management as a Profession," Introductory Chapters, in: From Higher Aims to Hired Hands The Social Transformation of American Business Schools and the Unfulfilled Promise of Management as a Profession, Princeton University Press.
    11. Leslie Hannah, 2007. "Pioneering Modern Corporate Governance: a View from London in 1900," CIRJE F-Series CIRJE-F-487, CIRJE, Faculty of Economics, University of Tokyo.
    12. James Foreman-Peck & Leslie Hannah, 2015. "The diffusion and impact of the corporation in 1910," Economic History Review, Economic History Society, vol. 68(3), pages 962-984, August.
    13. Cosh, A. D. & Hughes, A. & Lee, K. & Singh, A., 1989. "Institutional investment, mergers and the market for corporate control," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 7(1), pages 73-100, March.
    14. Marion Fourcade & Rakesh Khurana, 2013. "From social control to financial economics," Post-Print hal-03473899, HAL.
    15. Lembke B., 1918. "√ a. p," Journal of Economics and Statistics (Jahrbuecher fuer Nationaloekonomie und Statistik), De Gruyter, vol. 111(1), pages 709-712, February.
    16. Hannah, Leslie, 2007. "Pioneering Modern Corporate Governance: A View from London in 1900," Enterprise & Society, Cambridge University Press, vol. 8(3), pages 642-686, September.
    17. Guinnane, Timothy W. & Harris, Ron & Lamoreaux, Naomi R., 2017. "Contractual Freedom and Corporate Governance in Britain in the Late Nineteenth and Early Twentieth Centuries," Business History Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 91(2), pages 227-277, July.
    18. Taylor, Frederick Winslow, 1911. "The Principles of Scientific Management," History of Economic Thought Books, McMaster University Archive for the History of Economic Thought, number taylor1911.
    19. repec:hal:spmain:info:hdl:2441/5oi5d12qn3983q921gleelod94 is not listed on IDEAS
    20. Foreman-Peck, James & Hannah, Leslie, 2011. "Extreme Divorce: the Managerial Revolution in UK Companies before 1914," Cardiff Economics Working Papers E2011/21, Cardiff University, Cardiff Business School, Economics Section.
    21. B. Cheffins, 2001. "History and the Global Corporate Governance Revolution: The UK Perspective," Business History, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 43(4), pages 87-118.
    22. Kathleen R. Conner & C. K. Prahalad, 1996. "A Resource-Based Theory of the Firm: Knowledge Versus Opportunism," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 7(5), pages 477-501, October.
    23. Paddy Ireland, 2010. "Limited liability, shareholder rights and the problem of corporate irresponsibility," Cambridge Journal of Economics, Cambridge Political Economy Society, vol. 34(5), pages 837-856.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Veldman, Jeroen, 2019. "Inequality, Inc," CRITICAL PERSPECTIVES ON ACCOUNTING, Elsevier, vol. 63(C).
    2. Veldman, Jeroen, 2018. "Inequality, Inc," MPRA Paper 86644, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    3. Blanche Segrestin & Armand Hatchuel & Kevin Levillain, 2021. "When the Law Distinguishes Between the Enterprise and the Corporation: The Case of the New French Law on Corporate Purpose," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 171(1), pages 1-13, June.
    4. Blanche Segrestin & Armand Hatchuel & Kevin Levillain, 2021. "When the Law Distinguishes Between the Enterprise and the Corporation: The Case of the New French Law on Corporate Purpose," Post-Print hal-02465609, HAL.
    5. Wassila Bensahel, 2010. "Une Creation Substantielle De La Valeur Adaptee Aux Entreprises Intensives En Immateriel," Post-Print hal-00479541, HAL.
    6. Allen Kaufman & Ernie Englander, 2011. "Behavioral Economics, Federalism, and the Triumph of Stakeholder Theory," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 102(3), pages 421-438, September.
    7. Hannah, Leslie, 2017. "The London Stock Exchange 1869-1929: new bloody statistics for old?," Economic History Working Papers 82404, London School of Economics and Political Science, Department of Economic History.
    8. Kevin Levillain & Blanche Segrestin, 2019. "From primacy to purpose commitment: How emerging profit-with-purpose corporations open new corporate governance avenues," Post-Print hal-02290622, HAL.
    9. Michael Pirson & Shann Turnbull, 2011. "Toward a More Humanistic Governance Model: Network Governance Structures," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 99(1), pages 101-114, March.
    10. James Foreman-Peck & Leslie Hannah, 2012. "Some Consequences of the Early Twentieth Century Divorce of Ownership from Control," CIRJE F-Series CIRJE-F-864, CIRJE, Faculty of Economics, University of Tokyo.
    11. Blanche Segrestin & Armand Hatchuel & Ken Starkey, 2019. "Captains Of Industry? Value Allocation And The Partnering Effect Of Managerial Discretion," Post-Print hal-02281514, HAL.
    12. ATM Adnan & Hilda Tandigalla, 2017. "The Dramatic Shift In Emphasis From A Shareholder-Dominated Approach To A Stakeholder-Oriented Corporate Governance Model," European Journal of Business and Economics, Central Bohemia University, vol. 12(2), pages 11151:12-11, January.
    13. Blanche Segrestin & Armand Hatchuel & Kevin Levillain, 2020. "When the law distinguishes between the enterprise and the corporation: the case of the new French law on corporate purpose," Post-Print hal-02441287, HAL.
    14. Rachelle Belinga & Blanche Segrestin, 2019. "A conceptual mapping of the logics of institutional investors' corporate governance responsibilities: The case for "custodian" investor stewardship," Post-Print hal-02167819, HAL.
    15. Levillain, Kevin & Segrestin, Blanche, 2019. "From primacy to purpose commitment: How emerging profit-with-purpose corporations open new corporate governance avenues," European Management Journal, Elsevier, vol. 37(5), pages 637-647.
    16. Fracarolli Nunes, Mauro & Lee Park, Camila & Shin, Hyunju, 2021. "Corporate social and environmental irresponsibilities in supply chains, contamination, and damage of intangible resources: A behavioural approach," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 241(C).
    17. Danny Zhao‐Xiang Huang, 2022. "An integrated theory of the firm approach to environmental, social and governance performance," Accounting and Finance, Accounting and Finance Association of Australia and New Zealand, vol. 62(S1), pages 1567-1598, April.
    18. Ghulam Abid & Binish Khan & Zeeshan Rafiq & Alia Ahmed, 2014. "Theoretical Perspectives of Corporate Governance," Bulletin of Business and Economics (BBE), Research Foundation for Humanity (RFH), vol. 3(4), pages 166-175, December.
    19. Gérard Charreaux, 2002. "Variation sur le thème:"À la recherche de nouvelles fondations pour la finance et la gouvernance d'entreprise"," Revue Finance Contrôle Stratégie, revues.org, vol. 5(3), pages 5-68, September.
    20. Leslie Hannah, 2007. "The 'Divorce' of ownership from control from 1900 onwards: Re-calibrating imagined global trends," Business History, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 49(4), pages 404-438.

    More about this item

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:hal:journl:hal-01957329. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: CCSD (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.