From Binarism Back to Hybridity: A Postcolonial Reading of Management and Organization Studies

Abstract

Drawing on recent theoretical developments in postcolonial research, we examine the effect of the colonial encounter on the canonization of management and organization studies (MOS) as well as the field’s epistemological boundaries. In contrast to Orientalism, which is founded on a neat, binary, division between West and East, we offer (following Latour) a hybrid epistemology, which recognizes that the history of management and organizations should include the fusion between the colonizer and the colonized and their mutual effects on each other. Thus, while we discern the Orientalist assumptions embedded in the writing of management scholars, we also show that certain texts and practices that emerged during the colonial, as well as neo-colonial, encounter were excluded from the field, resulting in a ‘purified canon’. We conclude by arguing that hybridization between the metropole and colonies, and between western and non-western organizational entities, needs to be acknowledged by students of cultural diversity, and of critical management.

Institutional legacies and HRM: similarities and differences in HRM practices in Portugal and Mozambique

“…We acknowledge that the process of transferring knowledge across national borders is itself imbued with colonialism (Frenkel & Shenhav, 2006), but we try to set our analysis within the political-economic framework of colonialism and its aftermath (Jack et al, 2011). Whilst engaging with post-colonial debates, we use comparative survey evidence to shed new light on the nature of long-term continuities in workplace practice, formative institutional legacies and institutional design.…”

A postcolonial and anti-colonial reading of ‘African’ leadership and management in organization studies: tensions, contradictions and possibilities

“…It has been used to reveal the colonial and neo-colonial assumptions that underline management and international management (e.g. Fougére and Moulettes, 2009;Frenkel and Shenhav, 2006;Jack and Westwood, 2009;Özkazanç-Pan, 2008;Westwood, 2006); cross-cultural and comparative management (e.g. Kwek, 2003;Moulettes, 2007;Westwood, 2001); globalization (Banerjee et al, 2009); workplace diversity (Prasad, 2006);); organization control (Mir et al, 2003); workplace resistance (e.g.…”

Empresas e direitos humanos: premissas, tensões e possibilidades

“…Isso coloca dificuldades, seja do ponto de vista mais tradicional da gestão e da busca da eficácia (em geral econômica), seja de posturas mais críticas e céticas que tendem a ver as empresas como veículo de exploração e dominação. Além disso, como se sabe, a administração não é um saber neutro, é construído como reflexo de lutas políticas, e também como uma arma nessas lutas (FRENKEL;SHENHAV, 2006;GRANT;MILLS, 2006). Uma das tensões possíveis de emergir é que crescentemente as organizações não governamentais dependem de recursos doados por empresas (ARAGÃO, 2012).…”