The fallacy of success summary

Summary Statements: write the summary Thompson (2-3 pages) (pdf attach below). In the paper, I expect you to outline the author’s main points. You must give me the essence of the readings. You must use your own words. These projects will help you prepare for two of the discussion sections. the paper should be in your own words first read the pdf and just write the summary. identify the thesis. do not give you opinion about the document.

Business History ISSN: 0007-6791 (Print) 1743-7938 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/fbsh20 How business historians can save the world – from the fallacy of self-made success Pamela Walker Laird To cite this article: Pamela Walker Laird (2016): How business historians can save the world – from the fallacy of self-made success, Business History, DOI: 10.1080/00076791.2016.1251904 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00076791.2016.1251904 Published online: 09 Nov 2016. Submit your article to this journal Article views: 16 View related articles View Crossmark data Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=fbsh20 Download by: [174.29.49.215] Date: 13 November 2016, At: 19:33 Business History, 2016 http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00076791.2016.1251904 How business historians can save the world – from the fallacy of self-made success Pamela Walker Laird Department of History, University of Colorado Denver, Denver, USA ABSTRACT Narratives about ‘self-made’ success form a pillar of Anglo-American lore, but the concept’s meanings and applications no longer reflect either its origins or how people actually succeed. Ideological competition has reshaped the Calvinists’ admiration for communityserving self-improvement into a Social Darwinian glorification of individual ambition and wealth. American and British business and political leaders now invoke this newer narrative to assail progressive policies and to advocate the funnelling of resources and authority toward the wealthy – purportedly worthy – few. Because business historians understand the contexts and mechanisms behind business success, they are well situated to balance competing stories about prosperity’s sources and obligations. KEYWORDS Self-made success; failure; individualism; community obligation; American Dream; narrative Introduction In the heat of the 2012 US presidential campaign, Republican candidate Mitt Romney declared, ‘To say that Steve Jobs didn’t build Apple, that Henry Ford didn’t build Ford Motors, that Papa John [Schnatter] didn’t build Papa John Pizza. … To say something like that, it’s not just foolishness. It’s insulting to every entrepreneur, every innovator in America.’ Romney was responding to his rival, Democratic incumbent Barack Obama, who had asserted that ‘wealthy, successful Americans’ required infrastructure and education to achieve their goals. ‘Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have,’ Obama claimed, ‘that allowed you [business people] to thrive.’1 In Romney’s telling of these American success stories, Jobs, Ford, and Schnatter deserve esteem as self-made men, as triumphant individuals. In Obama’s telling, individual success and national prosperity require community support as well as individual effort. These competing symbolic narratives support opposing perspectives on what individuals owe their communities and should expect from them. Scholars who study business and economics are well situated to strike a useful balance between the poles of these duelling stories about prosperity’s sources and obligations. For instance, business historians know that Romney’s exemplars of success benefited from massive public spending that built high-tech industries, school systems, and roads. Economists know about externalities – costs that do not show up on firms’ profit and loss statements CONTACT Pamela Walker Laird Pamela.Laird@ucdenver.edu © 2016 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group 2  P. W. LAIRD but generally fall on their communities. Scholars of management and organisation know, too, that every business leader must work with others to build a firm; business leaders must invest in and draw on their social capital. Scholars of business also know that individuals’ leadership, innovation, and enterprise are necessary, but not sufficient, conditions for success. Business scholars have the evidence and understandings to engage in a debate about who builds prosperity that has grown increasingly intense in Anglo-American culture and politics in the last half century. Should they engage that debate? Does that debate matter? What more than a recitation of contextual factors and business mechanisms can business scholars contribute? And why should they? The long and convoluted history of ‘self-made success’