Analysis Of Business History To Organizational History

Analysis of business history to organizational history

Over time we can realize how specializations in different knowledge disciplines have appeared leading to a certain interdisciplinary interaction in some disciplines.

The administration is no stranger to this since it is affirmed that its interaction with other disciplines is part of its theoretical foundation and disciplinary this due to the complexity of its objective that are organizations, this can be seen in two parts: the first one has apragmatic and utilitarian cut;This is used to make the organization more effective and efficient this is built with disciplines such as marketing, finance, engineering, among many others which help direct the organization better. The second is responsible for generating knowledge in order to understand human configuration which is complex and multifaceted, perhaps this does not have a concrete pragmatic utility but this in order to understand the socio-organizational phenomena, this has to do with theDisciplines of Psychology, Sociology, History, among others.

Business history is a discipline that studies the past of business actions, that is, it studies the evolution of companies and businessmen focusing on topics such as power, entrepreneurs as a member of the business elite and among others. The essential actors of this discipline are two which are: the entrepreneur (economic actor and promoter of business realities) and the company (result of business acting in their economic role).

It responds to the laws of the system and is outlined to clearly corroborate the nature of the system, corresponds to an apologetic nature destined to amostrar the entrepreneur in the economic environment with a utilitarian approach, pragmatic, away from the truth;This lacks scientific rigor, is commonly identified with methodological inconsistencies that away from it.

In our country, business history is characterized by lacking a structured theoretical and methodological structure, these inconsistencies revolve around first;The failure in the research process, the little careful study of the archives, among others. Second;Regarding people who make business history and training that they have in the midst that very few start reflecting on the methodology of business history. Third;Related to the hidden intentions of the studies indicated, since it is a product of the strategic action of the entrepreneur that helps with processes of mercantilist, capitalist, competitive and economic logic. Fourth;It has to do with the utilitarian and pragmatic purpose that is given to the business history study.

We also have the comparative history which is responsible for dealing with the realities of individual study objects and then making a comparison with parallels and thus get the most common elements trying to establish generalizations, it does not stop into individualities. This type of configuration is based on a group of managers who perform the basic function of managing and this in order to start the company. Organizational life responds more to administration and managers than to market forces themselves. The Chandleriana perspective legitimizes the role of administration as a promoter of change in the same company and in the economy. It is a type of history that generates knowledge of the realities of the company and administrative practices, taking into account that this is specified in the functioning of the same.

There is talk of how business history in our environment has several inconsistencies in its methodology, which leads to the veracity of history, there was also comparative history which exceeds the inconsistencies of the previous one but still has its own problem whichis that it moves away from the ideal interactions that approach history to the administration. Based on this, a business history model is proposed that includes interaction under scientific stories and solid stories, thus pointing to the knowledge of organizational and administrative realities and nature. The historical-organizational of business history becomes somewhat cyclical since it is an organizational state which has a history and administration which in turn has a duration and within this space its environmental strength puts in function (political, social, social, economic, cultural, etc.) and when a change is generated, and so it is always and in most companies. The administration is generating changes, the story is the struggle to apprehend the changes that occur by registration in the past, to the changes generated by the administration itself we know them as “evolution” that this is known in turn as progress. The search for a story that covers a lot of history;past and part of the company present, and thus the organization would be registered in the three dimensions that are: time, space and society.

It is concluded that the fact that today there are countless specialties or ramifications of knowledge This is not a guarantee of the generation of knowledge to constitute a good advance for humanity. It is transcendental to rebuild the parameters of a discipline such as business history, since there is the interaction between history and administration and on the other hand the treatment of organizational and administrative variables from a historical point of view, legitimized of the essence of the essence of theown knowledge of the administration, organization and the same as part of the organization