Scientific knowledge changes over time. Perspectives and traditions succeed one another, and likewise, so do administrative theories. Traditional histories of management thought explain these developments on the basis of cognitive progress. Whether by solving more adequately old challenges encountered in the management of organizations or by facing totally new problems in the economic, political, and social dimensions of the business environment, each new theory is depicted as increasing the knowledge base of the discipline, thus contributing to effectiveness and efficiency. 1 This is an idyllic case for rational scientific progress. In contrast, researchers working within a Marxist theoretical framework (e.g., Edwards, 1979) concluded that the search for efficiency could not account for the development of administrative practices and theories. Rather, as also recognized by non-Marxist theorists of organization like Hannan and Freeman (1989), these analyses served to show that organizations were not rationally managed. For Marxist scholars, the capitalists’ main concern was not efficiency, but control. Hence, the relevance of studying the coercive, rational, and normative rhetorics of control in the evolution of managerial ideologies. Acknowledging the value of this approach, I adopt a different position. Since the legitimating function is what defines an ideology, I will analyze in this chapter how the different ideologies legitimated organized capitalism.