Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-g7gxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-15T07:30:38.318Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Technology, Political Economy, and Professionalization: Central Themes of the Organizational Synthesis

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 June 2012

Louis Galambos
Louis Galambos
Affiliation:
Louis Galambos is professor of history at theJohns Hopkins University.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In this suggestive essay, Professor Galambos surveys the large number of books and articles, published since 1970, that together point toward a new “organizational synthesis” in American history. Expanding upon an earlier, more tentative essay on the same subject published in the Autumn 1970 issue of the Business History Review, he contrasts the widely disparate postures adopted in recent years by historians studying organizational behavior. His survey reveals a rich diversity of opinion, less reliant than was previous scholarship upon abstractions drawn from the social sciences. This diversity of opinion, Galambos concludes, provides the organizational synthesis with much of its continued vitality, and makes possible “the kind of moral judgments that have always characterized the best historical scholarship.”

Type
Research Article
Information
Business History Review , Volume 57 , Issue 4 , Winter 1983 , pp. 471 - 493
Copyright
Copyright © The President and Fellows of Harvard College 1983

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Galambos, Louis, “The Emerging Organizational Synthesis in Modern American History,” Business History Review, 44 (Autumn 1970), 279–90CrossRefGoogle Scholar: reprinted in Perkins, Edwin J., ed., Men and Organizations: The American Economy in the Twentieth Century (New York, 1977), 1–5.Google Scholar

2 See the following: Cuff, Robert D., “American Historians and the ‘Organizational Factor,’” Canadian Review of American Studies, 4 (Spring 1973), 19–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Hall, Tom G., “Agricultural History and the ‘Organizational Synthesis’; A Review Essay,” Agricultural History, 48 (April 1974), 313–25Google Scholar; Berkhofer, Robert F. Jr, “The Organizational Interpretation of American History: A New Synthesis,” Prospects, 4 (1979), 611–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

3 Wiebe, Robert, The Search for Order, 1877–1920 (New York, 1967)Google Scholar; Wiebe, Robert, The Segmented Society: An Introduction to the Meaning of America (New York, 1975).Google Scholar In the latter book, Wiebe offered a gloomier appraisal of organizational change than he had in 1967, and he tinkered with his chronology a bit; but for the most part, he left intact a synthesis stressing the manner in which modern bureaucratic organizations satisfied the need most Americans had for a new, legitimate order. Questions of power and wealth were still left subordinate to questions of value orientation and ideology.

4 Berkhofer, “The Organizational Interpretation,” 611–29. One other general treatment is my own — see Galambos, Louis, America at Middle Age: A New History of the United States in the Twentieth Century (New York, 1982)Google Scholar — and I make use of that synthesis in the conclusion to this article.

5 Some of this work was done by authors who explicitly placed their studies in an organizational context. But many of the historians — especially those dealing with political history and the history of technology — attached their work to other conceptual frameworks. I have lumped together these disparate analyses when they have, in my judgment, made important contributions to our understanding of the development of America's modern large-scale institutions.

6 Chandler, Alfred D. Jr, Strategy and Structure: Chapters in the History of the Industrial Enterprise (Cambridge, 1962).Google Scholar For a few examples of the work related to this book see Didricksen, Jon, “The Development of Diversified and Conglomerate Firms in the United States, 1920–1970,” Business History Review, 46 (Summer 1972), 202–19CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Channon, Derek F., The Strategy and Structure of British Enterprise (Boston, 1974)Google Scholar; Rumelt, Richard P., Strategy, Structure, and Economic Performance (Boston, 1974)Google Scholar; Williamson, Harold F., ed., Evolution of International Management Structures (Newark, 1975).Google Scholar

7 Chandler, Alfred D. Jr, The Visible Hand: The Managerial Revolution in American Business (Cambridge, 1977).Google Scholar

8 See, for instance, Hounshell, David A., “Commentary/On the Discipline of the History of American Technology,” Journal of American History, 67 (March 1981), 854–65CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and the same author's From the American System to Mass Production: The Development of Manufacturing Technohgy in the United States, 1800–1932 (forthcoming, Johns Hopkins University Press).

9 See Du Boff, Richard B., “Business Demand and the Development of the Telegraph in the United States, 1844–1860,” Business History Review, 54 (Winter 1980), esp. 478–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

10 See Caves, Richard E., “Industrial Organization, Corporate Strategy and Structure,” Journal of Economic Literature, 18 (March 1980), 64–92Google Scholar; and Williamson, Oliver E., “The Modern Corporation: Origins, Evolution, Attributes,” Journal of Economic Literature, 19 (December 1981), 1537–68Google Scholar, for recent discussions of the literature and issues.

11 Chandler, The Visible Hand, p. 11.

12 Ibid., pp. 474, 476, 483.

13 Hughes, Thomas Park, Elmer Sperry: Inventor and Engineer (Baltimore, 1971).Google Scholar

14 Jenkins, Reese V., Images and Enterprise: Technology and the American Photographic Industry, 1839 to 1925 (Baltimore, 1975).Google Scholar Both Hughes and Jenkins worked with Chandler, but they did not thereby come to a single overriding conclusion about technology as a causal factor. Jenkins gives more emphasis than Chandler does (in The Visible Hand) to the drive to stifle competition. Hughes looks more than Chandler does to the social and political environments as sources of change; see note 22 below.

15 See, for example, Burns, Arthur R., The Decline of Competition: A Study of the Evolution of American Industry (New York, 1936)Google Scholar; Eichner, Alfred S., The Emergence of Oligopoly: Sugar Refining as a Case Study (Baltimore, 1969)Google Scholar; and the literature discussed in Ellis W. Hawley, “Antitrust,” in Glenn Porter, ed., Encyclopedia of American Economic History, vol. 2, 772–87.

16 Galambos, Louis, American Business History (Washington, 1967).Google Scholar

17 See, for example, Porter, Glenn and Livesay, Harold C., Merchants and Manufacturers: Studies in the Changing Structure of 19th Century Marketing (Baltimore, 1971)Google Scholar; Marx, Thomas G., “Technological Change and the Theory of the Firm: The American Locomotive Industry, 1920–1955,” Business History Review, 50 (Spring 1976), 1–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Massouh, Michael, “Technological and Managerial Innovation: The Johnson Company, 1883–1898,” Business History Review, 50 (Spring 1976), 46–68CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Abernathy, William J., The Productivity Dilemma: Roadblock to Innovation in the Automobile Industry (Baltimore, 1978)Google Scholar; Cheape, Charles W., Moving the Masses: Urban Public Transit in New York, Boston and Philadelphia (Cambridge, 1980).Google Scholar See also the literature cited in Hughes, Thomas P., “Emerging Themes in the History of Technology,” Technology and Culture, 20 (October 1979), 697–711.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

18 See William N. Parker's discussion of this point in “American Capitalism: The Differentiation from European Origins” (Sapporo Cool Seminar on American Studies, Hokkaido University, 1981), esp. 22–24. An International Conference on Business History (the Fuji Conference) has been meeting since 1976 and regularly publishing comparative studies. See also Williamson, Evolution of International Management Structures; Thomas, Rosamund, The British Philosophy of Administration: A Comparison of British and American Ideas, 1900–1939 (New York, 1978).Google Scholar Many of the studies in Continental and British institutions have had a built-in comparative concept because they have followed the major analyses of the U.S. experience. See Channon, The Strategy and Structure of British Enterprise; Hannah, Leslie, The Rise of the Corporate Economy: The British Experience (Baltimore, 1976)Google Scholar; Prais, S. J., The Evolution of Giant Firms in Britain (Cambridge, 1976)Google Scholar; Zysman, John, Political Strategies for Industrial Order. State, Market, and Industry in France (Berkeley, 1977).Google Scholar

19 Chandler, Alfred D. Jr, and Daems, Herman, eds., Managerial Hierarchies: Comparative Perspectives on the Rise of Modern Industrial Enterprise (Cambridge, 1980).Google Scholar

20 Herman Daems, “The Rise of the Modern Industrial Enterprise: A New Perspective,” in Managerial Hierarchies, 203–23, provides the volume's comparative conclusion. He stresses the role of efficiency-producing technology as a common source of a common organizational form. For an earlier and slightly different interpretation see Daems's review of Channon's, Derek F. book on British enterprise, Business History Review, 49 (Summer 1975), 280–81.Google Scholar

21 I dealt with this problem at greater length in my review of this book, Science, 208 (May 30, 1980), 1023–24.

22 Hughes, Thomas Parke, Networks of Power: Electrification in Western Society, 1880–1930 (Baltimore, 1983).Google Scholar See, as well, the following selections by Hughes: “Conservative and Radical Technologies,” in Lundstedt, Sven B. and Colglazier, E. William Jr, eds., Managing Innovation: The Social Dimensions of Creativity, Invention and Technology (New York, 1982), 31–44Google Scholar; “The Order of the Technological World,” in Hall, A. Rupert and Smith, Norman, eds., History of Technology (London, 1980), 1–16.Google Scholar

23 Vernon, Raymond, Sovereignty at Bay: The Multinational Spread of U.S. Enterprises (New York, 1971)Google Scholar, and the same author's Storm Over the Multinationals: The Real Issues (Cambridge, 1977); Wilkins, Mira, The Maturing of Multinational Enterprise: American Business Abroad from 1914 to 1970 (Cambridge, 1974).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

24 Boorstin, Daniel, The Americans: The Democratic Experience (New York, 1973).Google Scholar

25 Morison, Elting G., From Know-How to Nowhere: The Development of American Technology (New York, 1974).Google Scholar

26 Pratt, Joseph A., “Growth or a Clean Environment? Responses to Petroleum-related Pollution in the Gulf Coast Refining Region,” Business History Review, 52 (Spring 1978), 1–29CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and the same author's “Letting the Grandchildren do it: Environmental Planning During the Ascent of Oil as a Major Energy Source,” The Public Historian, 2 (Summer 1980), 28–61; Petulla, Joseph, American Environmental History (San Francisco, 1977)Google Scholar; Hays, Samuel P., “The Limits-to-Growth Issue: An Historical Perspective,” in Cooper, Chester L., ed., Growth in America (Westport, 1976), 115–42.Google Scholar

27 Heilbroner, Robert L., Business Civilization in Decline (New York, 1976).Google Scholar

28 Montgomery, David, Workers' Control in America. Studies in the History of Work, Technology, and Labor Struggles (Cambridge, 1979)Google Scholar; Edwards, Richard, Contested Terrain: The Transformation of the Work-place in the Twentieth Century (New York, 1979).Google Scholar

29 Recent studies that presented relatively balanced accounts of these two major aspects of corporate development include Porter, Glenn, The Rise of Big Business, 1860–1910 (Arlington Heights, Illinois, 1973)Google Scholar, and the books by Raymond Vernon, cited in note 23, above.

30 Hamby, Alonzo L., Beyond the New Deal: Harry S. Truman and American Liberalism (New York, 1973).Google Scholar

31 Patterson, James T., America in the Twentieth Century: A History (New York, 1976)Google Scholar fits this mold, as does Himmelberg, Robert F., The Origins of the National Recovery Administration: Business, Government and the Trade Association Issue, 1921–1933 (New York, 1976)Google Scholar; see also Karl's, Barry D. optimistic article on “Philanthropy, Policy Planning, and the Bureaucratization of the Democratic Ideal,” Daedalus (Fall 1976), 129–49.Google Scholar

32 Martin, Albro, Enterprise Denied: Origins of the Decline of American Railroads, 1897–1917 (New York, 1971), 359–60.Google Scholar

33 Hughes, Jonathan R.T., The Governmental Habit. Economic Controls from Colonial Times to the Present (New York, 1977).Google Scholar

34 Hughes, Jonathan R.T., “The Great Strike at Nushagak Station, 1951: Institutional Gridlock,” Journal of Economic History, 42 (March 1982), 1–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

35 McClelland, Peter D. and Magdovitz, Alan L., Crisis in the Making: The Political Economy of New York State since 1945 (Cambridge, 1981).Google Scholar

36 Weaver, Carolyn L., Crisis in Social Security: Economic and Political Origins (Durham, 1983).Google Scholar

37 Hawley, Ellis W., “The Discovery and Study of a ‘Corporate Liberalism,’” Business History Review, 52 (Autumn 1978), 319.CrossRefGoogle Scholar All of the articles in this issue of the Review dealt with this theme. See also Lustig, R. Jeffrey, Corporate Liberalism: The Origins of Modern American Political Theory, 1890–1920 (Berkeley, 1982).Google Scholar

38 See, for instance, Skowronek, Stephen, Building a New American State: The Expansion of National Administrative Capacity, 1877–1920 (Cambridge, 1982)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; see also Hewes, James E. Jr, From Root to McNamara: Army Departmental Organization and Administration, 1900–1963 (Washington, D.C., 1975).Google Scholar

39 Tyack, David B., “City Schools: Centralization of Control at the Turn of the Century,” in Israel, Jerry, ed., Building the Organizational Society: Essays on Associations Activities in Modern America (New York, 1972)Google Scholar; Hays, Samuel P., “The Politics of Reform in Municipal Government in the Progressive Era,” Pacific Northwest Quarterly, 55 (October 1964), 157–69.Google Scholar

40 Samuel P. Hays, “The New Organizational Society,” in Jerry Israel, ed., Building the Organizational Society, 5–9.

41 Kolko, Gabriel, Main Currents in Modern American History (New York, 1976), 398Google Scholar, described the United States as “a society dangerously adrift and now locked into an enduring, permanent crisis at home and in the world. This increasingly violent experience, this absence of a hope of a better future, was the main heritage that American capitalism had at the end of its first hundred years bequeathed to its people and the international community….”

42 See, for example, Carle P. Parrini and Martin J. Sklar, “Periodization and History: The Corporate Reconstruction of American Society, 1896–1914” (a paper delivered at the Organization of American Historians, 1981). Kaufman, Burton I., “United States Trade and Latin America: The Wilson Years,” Journal of American History, 57 (September 1971), 342–63CrossRefGoogle Scholar; the same author's “The Organizational Dimension of United States Foreign Economic Policy, 1900–1920,” Business History Review, 46 (Spring 1972), 17–44; and his Efficiency and Expansion: Foreign Trade Organization in the Wilson Administration, 1913–1921 (Westport, 1974). Carlisle, Rodney, “The ‘American Century’ Implemented: Stettinius and the Liberian Flag of Convenience,” Business History Review, 54 (Summer 1980), 175–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

43 Smith, Robert Freeman, The United States and Revolutionary Nationalism in Mexico, 1916–1932 (Chicago, 1972)Google Scholar; Benjamin, Jules Robert, The United States and Cuba: Hegemony and Dependent Development, 1880–1934 (Pittsburgh, 1977)Google Scholar; see also Block, Fred L., The Origins of International Economic Disorder: A Study of United States International Monetary Policy from World War II to the Present (Berkeley, 1977).Google Scholar

44 McQuaid, Kim, “Corporate Liberalism in the American Business Community, 1920–1940,” Business History Review, 52 (Autumn 1978), 342–68CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and in the same issue, Robert M. Collins, “Positive Business Responses to the New Deal: The Roots of the Committee for Economic Development, 1933–1942,” 369–91; see also McQuaid's, Big Business and Presidential Power. From FDR to Reagan (New York, 1981)Google Scholar; and Parrish, Michael E., Securities Regulation and the New Deal (New Haven, 1970).Google Scholar

45 Pursell, Carroll W. Jr, ed., The Military-Industrial Complex (New York, 1972)Google Scholar; and Koistinen, Paul A. C., The Military-Industrial Complex: A Historical Perspective (New York, 1980).Google Scholar Gabriel Kolko, Main Currents, 337–47; see also Barnet, Richard, Roots of War (New York, 1972), 137–238Google Scholar, on “The Political Economy of Expansionism.”

46 McCraw, Thomas K., TVA and the Power Fight, 1933–1939 (Philadelphia, 1971)Google Scholar; and, also by McCraw, , “Regulation in America: A Review Article,” Business History Review, 49 (Summer 1975), 159–83CrossRefGoogle Scholar, and “Rethinking the Trust Question,” in McCraw, Thomas K., ed., Regulation in Perspective: Historical Essays (Cambridge, 1981), 1–55Google Scholar; Doezema, William R., “Railroad Management and the Interplay of Federal and State Regulation, 1885–1916,” Business History Review, 50 (Summer 1976), 153–78CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Ritchie, Donald A., James M. Landis: Dean of the Regulators (Cambridge, 1980)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Graebner, William, “Great Expectations: The Search for Order in Bituminous Coal, 1890–1917,” Business History Review, 48 (Spring 1974), 49–72CrossRefGoogle Scholar, and Coal-Mining Safety in the Progressive Period: The Political Economy of Reform (Lexington, 1976); also see Johnson, James P., The Politics of Soft Coal: The Bituminous Industry from World War I through the New Deal (Urbana, 1979).Google Scholar

47 Thomas K. McCraw, “Regulation in America,” 160–71, makes this point very effectively.

48 “The Politics of Regulation,” in Wilson, James Q., ed., The Politics of Regulation (New York, 1980), 372–82Google Scholar; see also Samuel P. Hays's penetrating essay on “Political Choice in Regulatory Administration,” in Thomas K. McCraw, ed., Regulation in Perspective, 124–54.

49 McCraw, Thomas K., “With Consent of the Governed: SEC's Formative Years,” Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 1, no. 3 (1982), 346–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar See also McCraw, ed., Regulation in Perspective.

50 Blackford, Mansel G., The Politics of Business in California, 1890–1920 (Columbus, 1977), 171Google Scholar; also see Lurie, Jonathan, The Chicago Board of Trade, 1859–1905: The Dynamics of Self-Reguhtion (Urbana, 1979).Google Scholar

51 For Hawley's ideas see the following: “Herbert Hoover, The Commerce Secretariat, and the Vision of an Associative State,” Journal of American History, 61 (June 1974), 116–40; “Secretary Hoover and the Changing Framework of New Era Historiography,” and “Herbert Hoover and Economic Stabilization, 1921–22,” both in Hawley, Ellis W., ed., Herbert Hoover as Secretary of Commerce: Studies in New Era Thought and Practice (Iowa City, 1981), 1–16, 43–79Google Scholar; “Three Facets of Hooverian Associationalism: Lumber, Aviation, and Movies, 1921–1930,” in Thomas K. McCraw, ed., Regulation in Perspective, 95–123; see also Alchon, Guy, “Technocratic Social Science and the Rise of Managed Capitalism, 1910–1933” (Ph.D. dissertation, University of Iowa, 1982).Google Scholar

52 Cuff, Robert D., “An Organizational Perspective on the Military-Industrial Complex,” Business History Review, 52 (Summer 1978), 250–67CrossRefGoogle Scholar; see also Cuff's, The War Industries Board: Business-Government Relations During World War I (Baltimore, 1973)Google Scholar; and “Antitrust Adjourned: Mobilizations and the Rise of the National Security State,” in National Competition Policy: Historians' Perspective on Antitrust and Government-Business Relations in the United States (Washington, D.C., 1981), 208–59; also see Mrozek, Donald J., “The Truman Administration and the Enlistment of the Aviation Industry in Postwar Defense,” Business History Review, 48 (Spring 1974), 72–94CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Cooling, Benjamin Franklin, ed., War, Business, and American Society: Historical Perspectives on the Military-Industrial Complex (Port Washington, 1977).Google Scholar

53 Collins, Robert M., The Business Response to Keynes, 1929–1964 (New York, 1981), 204–5.Google Scholar

54 Griffith, Robert, “Dwight D. Eisenhower and the Corporate Commonwealth,” American Historical Review, 87 (February 1982), 87–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar Allen J. Matusow, “The Unravelling of America: A History of Liberalism in the 1960s” (forthcoming, Harper & Row), ch. 2.

55 Little, Douglas J., “Twenty Years of Turmoil: ITT, the State Department, and Spain, 1924–1944,” Business History Review, 52 (Winter 1979), 449–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

56 Becker, William H., The Dynamics of Business-Government Relations: Industry and Exports, 1893–1921 (Chicago, 1982).Google Scholar

57 Hogan, Michael J., Informal Entente: The Private Struture of Cooperation in Anglo-American Economic Diplomacy (New York, 1977).Google Scholar

58 The expression is Hogan's. See also Wilson, Joan Hoff, American Business and Foreign Policy, 1920–1933 (Lexington, 1971)Google Scholar; Werking, Richard Hume, The Master Architects: Building the United States Foreign Service, 1890–1913 (Lexington, 1977)Google Scholar; Anderson, Irvine H., The Standard-Vacuum Oil Company and United States East Asian Policy, 1933–1941 (Princeton, 1975)Google Scholar; Adams, Frederick C., Economic Diplomacy: The Export-Import Bank and American Foreign Policy, 1934–1939 (New York, 1976).Google Scholar

59 See Bailyn, Bernard, “The Challenge of Modern Historiography,” American Historical Review, 87 (February 1982), 9–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

60 See, for example, Brubacker, John S. and Rudy, Willis, Higher Education in Transition: A History of American Colleges and Universities, 1636–1976 (New York, 1976), 256–60, 378, 380–82, 400–4, 415–16Google Scholar; Ben-David, Joseph, American Higher Education (New York, 1972), 1–2, 42–47, 87–109Google Scholar; Dupré, J. Stefan and Lakoff, Stanford A., Science and the Nation (Englewood Cliffs, N. J., 1962), 9–19Google Scholar; National Science Foundation, “Report 62–37,” in Nelson, William R., ed., The Politics of Science (London, 1968), 55–69.Google Scholar

61 Oleson, Alexandra and Voss, John, eds., The Organization of Knowledge in Modern America, 1860–1920 (Baltimore, 1976)Google Scholar; see also Rosenberg, Charles E., “Science in American Society: A Generation of Historical Debate” (Unpublished lecture, 1982).Google Scholar

62 The editors explained that the diverse institutional structure created by 1920 “would provide the United States with the ability to achieve, within the next generation, a position of eminence in the intellectual world.” Ibid., vii. On page xix, they note that “American institutions of learning, like industrial corporations, also have been seen as part of a trend toward nationally oriented, impersonal, hierarchical organizations.” See the review essay by Haskell, Thomas L., “Are Professors Professional?” in Journal of Social History, 14 (Spring 1981), 485–93CrossRefGoogle Scholar; see also Sinclair, Bruce, A Centennial History of the American Society of Mechanical Engineers, 1880–1980 (Toronto, 1980).Google Scholar

63 Haskell, Thomas L., The Emergence of Professional Social Science: The American Social Science Association and the Nineteenth-Century Crisis of Authority (Urbana, 1977).Google Scholar

64 Haskell, Thomas L., “Professionalization as Cultural Reform,” Humanities in Society, 1 (Spring 1978), 103–14.Google Scholar John W. Servos has reminded us that specialization has not always been successful: “A Disciplinary Program That Failed: Wilder D. Bancraft and the Journal of Physical Chemistry, 1896–1933,” Isis, 73 (267), 207–32.

65 The Culture of Professionalism: The Middle Class and the Development of Higher Education in America (New York, 1976), 334.

66 Furner, Mary O., Advocacy and Objectivity: A Crisis in the Professionalization of American Social Science, 1868–1905 (Lexington, Mass., 1975), 323–24.Google Scholar

67 Unequal Justice: Lawyers and Social Change in Modern America (London, 1976); see also Botein's, Stephen review essay, “Professional History Reconsidered,” American Journal of Legal History, 21 (January 1977), 60–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar The essays in Thomas L. Haskell, ed., The Authority of Experts: Historical and Theoretical Essays (ms.) are for the most part highly critical of their subjects. Haskell sees in the 1970s a “crisis of the professions.”

68 Burrow, James Gordon, Organized Medicine in the Progressive Era: The Move Toward Monopoly (Baltimore, 1977)Google Scholar; Gevitz, Norman, The D.O.'s: Osteopathic Medicine in America (Baltimore, 1982).Google Scholar

69 America by Design: Science, Technohgy, and the Rise of Corporate Capitalism (Oxford, 1977), 321.

70 Brown, E. Richard, Rockefeller Medicine Men: Medicine and Capitalism in America (Berkeley, 1979).Google Scholar For a more moderate approach see Kohler, Robert E., “The Management of Science; The Experience of Warren Weaver and the Rockefeller Foundation Programme in Molecular Biology,” Minerva, 14 (Autumn 1976), 279–306CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and “A Policy for the Advancement of Science: The Rockefeller Foundation, 1924–29,” Minerva, 16 (Winter 1978), 480–515.

71 Layton, Edwin T. Jr, The Revolt of the Engineers: Social Responsibility and the American Engineering Profession (Cleveland, 1971)Google Scholar; Reich, Leonard S., “Research, Patents, and the Struggle to Control Radio: A Study of Big Business and the Uses of Industrial Research,” Business History Review 51 (Summer 1977), 208–35CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and the same author's “Industrial Research and the Pursuit of Corporate Security; The Early Years of Bell Labs,” Business History Review, 54 (Winter 1980), 504–29; and “Irving Langmuir and the Pursuit of Science and Technology in the Corporate Environment,” Technology and Culture, 24 (April 1983), 199–221; also see Servos, John W., “The Industrial Relations of Science; Chemical Engineering at MIT, 1900–1939,” Isis, 71 (no. 259), 531–49.Google Scholar

72 Leslie, Stuart W., “Charles F. Kettering and the Copper-cooled Engine,” Technology and Culture, 20 (October 1979), 752–76CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Leslie, Stuart W., “Thomas Midgley and the Politics of Industrial Research,” Business History Review, 54 (Winter 1980), 480–503CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Stuart W. Leslie, Boss kettering (New York, 1983).

73 Johnson, H. Thomas, “Management Accounting in an Early Multidivisional Organization: General Motors in the 1920s,” Business History Review, 52 (Winter 1978), 490–517.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

74 Zeff, Stephen A., Forging Accounting Principles in Five Countries: A History and an Analysis of Trends (Champaign, 1972).Google Scholar

75 Aitken, Hugh G. J., Syntony and Spark—The Origins of Radio (New York, 1976).Google Scholar

76 Kohler, Robert E., From Medical Chemistry to Biochemistry: The Making of a Biochemical Discipline (Cambridge, 1982)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; see also Kohler's “Medical Reform and Biomedical Science: Biochemistry — a Case Study,” in Vogel, Morris J. and Rosenberg, Charles E., eds., The Therapeutic Revolution (Philadelphia, 1979), 27–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

77 These two themes provide an opportunity for organizational historians to draw upon some recent developments in personality theory, a subdiscipline which has to date produced few concepts that historians have been comfortable using. See Hogan, Robert, “A Socioanalytic Theory of Personality,” in Nebraska Symposium on Motivation, 1982 (Lincoln, 1983), 55–89.Google Scholar

78 I have developed these ideas more fully in America at Middle Age.

79 See ibid.; Livesay, Harold C., “Entrepreneurial Persistence Through the Bureaucratic Age,” Business History Review, 51 (Winter 1977), 415–43CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Hugh G. J. Aitken, Syntony and Spark, esp. 327–36.

80 Wright, Gordan, “History as a Moral Science,” American Historical Review, 81 (February 1976), 1–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar