It might be argued that this chapter and Chapter 4 are misleading. Currently, this book leads you to understand that there has been a linear development of management thinking from early theorists, such as Taylor and Babbage, to the present day; Tsoukas and Cummings (1997) present an alternative view. They argue that we should abandon the idea that there has been a development of thinking about organization and management that has been underpinned by progression—that we should abandon the idea that we are part of a continuous progress. Rather than seeing the history of management as a ‘stairway to heaven’ going upwards and onwards, it should be viewed as a ‘kaleidoscope’, containing a number of discrete fragments that reveal a pattern, as noted by Foucault (1966). The sequence of patterns from the kaleidoscope obeys no inner logic and conforms to no universal norm of reason; fragments from the past will reappear now and again.

What support do you find for this image of history as a kaleidoscope? Would you agree with Tsoukas and Cummings? What would be the rationale for presenting a non-linear view of management thinking?