Toward understanding management in first century Palestine
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose The purpose of this paper is to describe the role of management in first century Palestine, and point to implications this has for subsequent management scholarship, especially Weber's widely accepted argument that contemporary management theory and practice is grounded in a Judeo‐Christian ethic. Design/methodology/approach The literature on the role and activities of managers in first century Palestine is reviewed and used to evaluate management scholarship that draws on biblical writings from this era. Findings Managers played an increasingly important role in all aspects of social life in first century Palestine, and functioned as go‐betweens amongst households that were embedded in a web of patron‐client relationships. Based on analysis the paper contends that it seems unlikely that the core features of the Protestant Ethic would have been a prominent part of the Judeo‐Christian ethic in first century Palestine. The paper's contention is consistent with the observation that in first century Palestine, the hallmarks of the Protestant Ethic – such as “calling,” “rationalization” and “spiritual (vs political) salvation” – would have been welcomed by the social elite but would have been perceived as a threat by the poor, whereas the historical record indicates that first century exemplars of the Judeo‐Christian ethic were instead welcomed by the poor and perceived as a threat by the elite. Research limitations/implications The paper questions whether the hallmarks of the Protestant Ethic as described by Weber represent a plausible interpretation of the biblical record. The paper also provides a basis for challenging common assumptions in the literature that contemporary management theory is based on a biblical Judeo‐Christian ethic. Practical implications This paper may facilitate a more accurate interpretation of historical texts as they relate to management, and inform the study and development of alternative ways of managing. Originality/value The research described here provides a foundation for examining aspects of Weber's widely accepted thesis, as well as the writings of modern scholars.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".